Reconsider borrowing
Those who have been watching or reading about Westbrook city councilors as they wrangled over the approval of a $1.4 million bond recently have gotten quite a show.
First, on a night full of distractions – Wal-Mart and paper streets – councilors approved the bond only after adding three things to it in quick succession. Councilor Brendan Rielly added $50,000 for the Westbrook Food Pantry, Councilor John O’Hara added $100,000 for playground improvements and Councilor Gary Groves added $100,000 to build a new skateboard park.
Groves then paradoxically voted against the entire bond, along with Council President Jim Violette. Groves later explained that he had added the $100,000 to the bond just to make a point, which “kind of backfired” when councilors approved it, along with the other two additions.
As Groves would probably now agree, it’s best to make a point by speaking up rather than adding $100,000 to a bond. (Councilors voted to remove that $100,000 last week.) His stunt did, however, draw attention to the last-minute additions councilors were making to the bond.
We agree with Groves that this is not the way to craft bonds. We urge councilors to reconsider including the $150,000 in additions they left in the bond last week. It’s disappointing that when Groves made a motion to cut the entire $250,000 from the bond at a meeting last week, he couldn’t even get a second to his motion, which would have at least opened that option up to discussion.
It’s not that the money wouldn’t go toward worthy causes or that councilors aren’t genuine in their desires to assist these causes. It’s just that this isn’t the way to pay for them.
Rielly, whose mother, Jeanne, has devoted countless hours to keeping the food pantry running, has been a strong advocate for it on the council. When the food pantry was looking for a home a couple years ago, he helped call attention to it by bringing it before the City Council’s Committee of the Whole.
Despite the local publicity of the pantry’s plight, for a long time, no organization or business stepped forward to help this place that performs a valuable service for this city’s residents who are in need of a little help. Had developer Tim Flannery not offered some space in one of his buildings, it’s unclear where the food pantry would be now. Rielly has said he believes the city should borrow the $50,000 as an “insurance policy,” in case the pantry cannot find a home again.
While his intentions are admirable, the city shouldn’t be borrowing money as insurance. It should borrow money only if people agree it should be spent. As City Administrator Jerre Bryant has pointed out, the city must spend that money within two years or face penalties from the Internal Revenue Service, designed to keep communities from borrowing money they don’t need.
In much the same way that Rielly has worked on behalf of the food pantry, Councilor John O’Hara has been a strong advocate for repairing the city’s playgrounds. He has long called for improving playgrounds at schools and parks in the city.
The city did, however, find $100,000 in various city accounts a couple years ago to improve and repair the playgrounds at the city’s four elementary schools and Riverbank Park. Much of that money has already been spent. We’re wondering how much more the city needs to spend to bring the playgrounds up to acceptable standards.
Rielly defended the borrowing at a meeting last week. “These are issues that we have been working on for years,” he said. “This isn’t something that has come about on a lark or on a whim. We don’t play with the public trust.”
We don’t doubt that. But that doesn’t explain why councilors voted to borrow an additional $250,000 a few weeks ago. Then, with little public debate, decided that just $150,000 would cut it. That suggests to us that all this spending could use a bit more public scrutiny.
Gorham’s dispatching vote
Gorham voters will get to decide on Sept. 12 a debate that has been hanging over the town’s firefighters, paramedics, police and emergency dispatchers for months now.
On that day, Gorham residents will get an opportunity to vote on whether or not to overturn the Town Council’s decision to merge the town’s dispatching with Cumberland County’s.
In editorial board meetings in recent weeks, people on both sides of the debate have made their case to us. They both have good arguments. Those in support of the move believe it will save the town money and won’t jeopardize service to residents. Those against believe it would jeopardize service to residents and argue the savings would be less than town administrators have indicated.
We continue to support the merger because we believe in the principle behind it. Consolidating government services makes for more efficient government in most cases.
We do acknowledge the savings are not as simple as subtracting the cost of the county contract form Gorham’s dispatching budget. At the same time the town saved money on the consolidation, it spent more money on a couple of new positions, reducing the figure by about $107,000.
Regardless of whether people agree with our opinion, we urge everyone to get out and vote next Monday. (See our front-page story for poll times and locations.)
Brendan Moran, editor
Send questions/comments to the editors.
