For many of the capital projects under consideration, it is not a matter of doing it or not doing it, but rather of planning it out and spreading the long-term cost by bonding, versus paying cash for work done on an emergency or ASAP basis. Such are the complications that arise from waiting too long to “save money.” Far better to plan ahead to determine the needs but also the priorities, and tackle capital needs and its costs to taxpayers on a well thought out schedule.
For those reasons, members of Granby’s elected boards periodically come together through the Capital Program Priority Advisory Committee to consider and prioritize capital needs, the estimated costs and financial implications of targeted capital improvements. The boards of selectmen, education and finance all have a responsibility and a role in this process. CPPAC’s recommendations then move to public discussion and voter decisions by approving or rejecting the boards’ recommended capital items.
Granby, like any town, household or business, has a fundamental obligation to give due consideration to infrastructure needs for the present and for tomorrow. While there is a significant allotment each year within the annual budget for maintenance and upkeep, there also is a cyclical need to consider, and act upon, longer term planning for the capital infrastructure needs of our community. A balanced cadence in the periodic consideration of and action on capital has a crucial role in maintaining cost stability for taxpayers without creating a backlog that produces real spikes in the property tax rate.
The capital projects that survived the winnowing process will be publicly aired over the next couple of months, leading up to a town meeting on Dec. 1, and a machine vote a week later. The boards of selectmen and education will provide specifics of the individual project questions, while the financial parameters fall more in the domain of the Board of Finance. BOF’s intent has been to address the greatest priorities, while structuring the fiscal implications of the projects’ bonded debt service such that, on a net basis, the cost to the taxpayers remains at the current level through FY33. At that point there is an increase of roughly half of one percent in mill rate attributable to the new capital. Prior to that, money from the capital reserve set aside will buffer any difference between the current $1.836M capital level and the new debt service level.
The net effect of this strategy to the taxpayer is the town maintains a flat commitment to capital—with new debt service replacing expiring—until FY33 when we encounter a net increase in the mill rate of about half a percent. After that, the expense of then-existing debt service continues declining year to year.
The capital projects under consideration, and to be decided by the voters on Dec. 8, are but a part of the town’s long-term capital needs. Buildings and infrastructure age and much of what was new or renovated 20 and 30 years ago needs attention. Lest we make the mistake of waiting too long such that the needs—and costs—spiral, we are best to follow the steady cadence of tackling capital on a periodic basis with ample forethought. This practice reduces the likelihood of spikes in the mill rates,
This we believe we have done and we trust you will concur.