Well you’re perfect to us ;) On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 4:52 PM Scott Clary <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know people in this committee as well and I like them. But if they're > completely transparent, then why is this committee one of the only ones in > town that does not openly open all their meetings to the public or record > them? Their own accounting records displayed here completely contradict > what you're saying; Unless they're unaware of these blatant mistatements. > These are very smart people. I would be so happy to see a truthful > explanation as to how these numbers came about and were mistakes. We all > make mistakes. But we need to own them. But until then, this is clear. > > I am an honest person with integrity so I'm not worried about my > credibility. I speak the truth with facts. Yes I am far from perfect and > much less smarter than many of you but I'm paying attention. I really wish > The Messengers would stop getting shamed. You want to question my > credibility, Feel free. I'll still sleep well tonight. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Clary > 617-968-5769 > > > Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, 3:42 PM Paul Shorb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I know people on FinCom. They are not deceitful people. >> >> I also believe that collectively, they try as hard as they can to be >> transparent. >> >> Of course, you are free to style your public advocacy however you want. >> But for me, your extreme assumptions & statements about bad motives of >> people who I know personally hurts your credibility on the rest of your >> arguments. >> >> - Paul Shorb >> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 3:16 PM Scott Clary <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> This is incredibly eye-opening but not surprising. Our volunteering Town >>> leadership and paid Administration clearly are in cahoots and are very >>> aware of these facts. This is egregious and deceitful and just incredible. >>> Non transparent with our tax money. What could be worse? Thank you so much >>> for revealing these indisputable facts. Look forward to seeing someone from >>> fincom spinning this one. >>> >>> Like so many have responded to why people are leaving town - taxes. This >>> town needs a revamp of town leadership from the top down. I'll exempt the >>> town clerk and assistant Town Administrator and the straightforward people >>> on our committees from this list. >>> >>> Fellow citizens - we should all be outraged. >>> >>> As inconvenient a midweek 6:30 town meeting is as kids are getting out >>> of school and everyone's leaving for 4th of July week and summer vacation, >>> please show up and vote. Hopefully no on the first two articles and >>> absolutely a yes vote on how fincom members are selected. Clearly, that >>> needs to change. It's all done from the inside with no public process or >>> transparency. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Scott Clary >>> 617-968-5769 >>> Oak Knoll >>> >>> Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, 9:21 AM David Cuetos <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Rather than ask you to take my word for it, I’d like to present direct >>>> evidence. What I’m about to show proves—beyond any reasonable doubt—that we >>>> could reduce property taxes by 16% without cutting a single dollar from >>>> operating expenses. And notably, this evidence >>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85512/Fincom-Doc-for-FY25-potential-funding-2024-01-30> >>>> comes from the Finance Committee itself. >>>> >>>> Let’s go back to January 2024, when the town was deliberating how to >>>> fund the community center. At that time, FinCom was weighing how much of >>>> the project should be covered through bonding versus using free cash or >>>> stabilization reserves. >>>> >>>> The table below may be a bit dense, but I’ll highlight the key >>>> takeaway: by January 30, 2024—almost two months before Town Meeting voted >>>> on the FY25 budget, and a full five months before the fiscal year even >>>> began—FinCom and the Administration were already projecting $5.7 million in >>>> discretionary funds for FY25. To that number, we should add the $0.6 >>>> million contribution to the reserve fund, which wasn’t technically part of >>>> the budget but was included in the planning. That brings the total expected >>>> discretionary surplus to $6.3 million. >>>> >>>> Now here’s the striking part: the budget >>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85754/Fincom-Report-FY25-Final> >>>> presented to voters didn’t reflect this surplus. Instead, it claimed that >>>> $5.5 million in free cash would be needed to balance the budget (see the >>>> FY25 budget in the second image below). In other words, while FinCom knew >>>> in December—if not earlier—that the town would be over-budgeting by $11.8 >>>> million, or roughly 24%, the public was shown something very different. >>>> >>>> Let’s put that $6.3 million of annual overtaxation into context. The >>>> total FY25 property tax burden—including both the tax levy ($33.7 million) >>>> and excluded debt ($4.8 million)—adds up to $38.5 million. That means the >>>> town is collecting roughly 16.4% more in taxes than it needs to fund >>>> operations, which aligns precisely with the 16% figure I referenced >>>> earlier. >>>> >>>> A few additional points worth underscoring: >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Our reserves are already well beyond recommended levels. >>>> According to the latest estimates >>>> >>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/97800/Free-Cash-Estimate---Analysis-w-Budget-Flexibility-Ratios-2024>, >>>> Lincoln’s reserves now stand at 40% of the annual budget—compared to the >>>> ~15% guidance commonly cited as necessary to maintain a AAA bond rating. >>>> >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> FY25 is not an anomaly. >>>> This year’s $6.3 million in surplus matches the average “turnback” >>>> over the past three fiscal years ($6.34 million). This isn’t a one-time >>>> windfall; it’s a consistent pattern. >>>> >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> Our budgeting approach is an outlier. >>>> Peer towns do not operate this way. Most communities use free cash >>>> to cover only modest capital expenses—typically just a few percentage >>>> points of their budgets. Nowhere else have I seen surpluses of this >>>> magnitude being quietly repurposed without voter oversight. >>>> >>>> >>>> To be clear, I fully support putting capital questions to a vote. But we >>>> cannot have a meaningful democratic process if the numbers used to inform >>>> those votes are so deeply misleading. What we have instead is a >>>> budgeting approach that conceals structural overtaxation and creates a >>>> slush fund—one that can be used to “sweeten” capital proposals or quietly >>>> fund new expenses without transparency or accountability. >>>> >>>> [image: image.png] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 8:15 AM Andrew Payne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> David Cuetos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Those residents deserve to know that property taxes could be reduced >>>>>> by >$6 million per year without impacting the operations of our local >>>>>> government. >>>>>> >>>>> *This is objectively false. * We can't cut the town's spending by >>>>> ~$6m/year without deep & significant cuts in services (*unless we >>>>> add liabilities). >>>>> >>>>> When we budget conservatively & there's unspent money at year end, >>>>> that money is not "lost." It is rolled over as "free cash" into the next >>>>> year* to offset (lower) the tax levy. In other words, residents are >>>>> getting taxed for *approximately* what the town spent because the tax >>>>> levy is being reduced by the difference between budget vs actual. >>>>> >>>>> Let's say we budget $10 and spend $8: $2 leftover. Next year, we >>>>> budget $10 *but only levy $8*, because the $10 budget is lowered by >>>>> $2 of free cash. If you roll this forward and add in inflation factors, >>>>> you will see that the tax burden tracks the town's spending. >>>>> >>>>> Even simpler: * every dollar that a resident pays in tax corresponds >>>>> precisely to a dollar the town eventually spends somewhere. * There >>>>> may be a year or three lag* between taxation and spending, *but money >>>>> isn't created or destroyed.* >>>>> >>>>> So, if you want to cut $6m from the town's budget, *you've got to >>>>> find $6 million of things that we are going to stop spending money on.* >>>>> AND, you've got to find ~400ish fellow residents who will vote to support >>>>> it at Annual Town Meeting. >>>>> >>>>> One isn't-democracy-fun? resident's view, >>>>> >>>>> -andy >>>>> >>>>> **PLEASE NOTE: I've simplified a few things: Free Cash may actually >>>>> have a two-year "lag" because of the way certification works in MA law. >>>>> Also, pension & OPEB contributions may have a much longer "lag" - $1 put >>>>> into those funds might not be spent for 20-30 years. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>>> Browse the archives at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>> >>>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > > -- Rick
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
