News

Council to present 14% increase budget
Committal to warrant is May 4
By Elizabeth Prata

Gray-After considerable public input at last week's public hearing on the municipal budget asking the Council to reduce the 13.9% municipal budget increase, the council ultimately decided at their workshop Monday night to keep the increase the same.

Councilor Lynn Olson said "We might not have taken all their comments into 100% consideration, but we do listen."

Councilor Matt Sturgis said that he was uncomfortable with the addition of three new positions into the budget and strongly advocated the Deputy Code Enforcement Officer's position be removed. His attitude was not shared by the remaining councilors, Jack Goosetrey, Richard F. Barter, and Olson. Chair Pam Wilkinson was absent.

Also, the Council had heard citizens speak against the vagueness of the upcoming warrant item asking for $200,000 for a "Town Office Center." The citizens said that they would probably vote for a warrant item specifying exactly how much and what for, but since no site had been chosen for any town office expansion, nor was there a work plan, a long range plan, or cost assessments, they said they would not vote for it.

At Monday's meeting, Councilors decided to remove the "Town Office Center" question from consideration. Instead, there will be a warrant item asking citizens to approve $200,000 to reduce the expenditure approved last year for a Sand and Salt shed at the Public Works station on Seagull Drive. The total expense for that project will be $364,396. The application of the $200,000 against the debt, if approved, would save the Town $13,500 in interest.

Vice-Chair Barter said that "we have received comments from citizens at the last meeting, but we've certainly had other comments and other types of input." Subsequent to the meeting, Barter was asked to be more specific about the nature of the comments he said he had received, so that The Monument could provide a full picture of community feel for the budget.

He declined, saying, "Thank you for your interest in how citizens feel about the Town Budget. However your request provides a problem for me, as I have no confidence in your presenting the full and fair picture of community feeling on the Budget." His correspondence went on to complain about a previous letter to the editor The Monument had declined to publish, and further said that he will soon be writing a statement when the budget preparation process is completed. "I will be happy to provide a copy to The Monument. You may again decide whether or not to print it. You will not be allowed to change it or to interpret or filter what others have said to me."

Sturgis described two comments that he had received concerning the budget. One was complimentary of the Council's work and was sent via e-mail to the entire Council. The second was a personal phone call to Sturgis "from a long time community leader who spoke in support of the work of the Council, and indicated that we should show fiscal restraint and not have any increase in the Town's share of the property tax rate."

Manager Mitchell A. Berkowitz noted that the $300,000 proposed expenditure for bridge repair came from a change in the Department of Transportation's policy in bridge maintenance. Shorter bridges will now be the town's responsibility to maintain, and Gray has two that will now be under the Town's care instead of the State's.

Since the Council removed the Town Office Center from warrant item consideration, it gives them more time to generate the specifics requested by the citizens at last Tuesday's meeting, they said. They want to know how much it would cost to move into the old Post Office building, a building that will be fully paid off if citizens approve the expenditure at Town Meeting on June 5. The Council directed the manager to gather information on how much it would cost and to get back to them at a future meeting.

 

This chart shows a progression of tax increases in Gray from 1986 to 2004. the short bar illustrats the transition year when Gray went from a calendar year budget to a fiscal year budget. The missing bar relfects missing data in that year's town report.

The last bar, proposed 2004-2005 budget includes hatch marks that show the added cost if the additional warrants pass at Town Meeting.

Source: Town Reports