Sounds like Lynch makes a good case to refute your conjecture that he "fled" Chelmsford.

There is a BIG difference between an actual shortfall versus a projected shortfall in a few years. By projecting shortfalls by doing an actual analysis, you can AVOID an actual shortfall.

Seems like Chelmsford was/is much better run financially then the sloppy ways of Lowell.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

PS..thank you for the condensed version opinions

Dr. No, Bernie Lynch makes a sound case in his rebuttal but I still believe there is more upside in Lowell than in Chelmsford. And it is basically because Lowell is $10 million under the tax levy while Chelmsford is smack up against capo. Sure, Lynch has big challenges ahead in Lowell, but he also has more flexibility. The next town manager in Chelmsford is going to have to make some deep cuts unless people are willing to open their wallets. In Lowell, a tax increase will be necessary, but it won't be hard to swallow. Chelmsford going to have to gag on one.

Jimmy, so you are saying that Chelmsford is taxing itself almost to the exact amount of the "levy ceiling" ... meaning that under Prop. 2.5 they can't tax over that amount regardless of any override?

Or are you just talking about their regular "levy limit" which is the amount they can tax based off of what they could tax last year along with a 2.5% increase and any new growth?

Dr. No, Chelmsford tax levy for FX 2006 is $63 million. The town can only raise 2.5 percent of that total in taxes, which is about $1.57 million. Anything above $1.57 million, Chelmsford has to go before the voters in an override. Chelmsford's budget is $91 million.
So unless Chelmsford get an increase in local aid or new revenue growth, they don't have much room to grow their tax base since they are right up against the tax levy limit.
Lowell on the other hand is about $8 million below their tax levy limit. Councilors have some flexibility to raise revenue through tax increases if they find it necessary, in addition to raising taxes by 2.5 percent.

I think I undestand what you are saying now. The key thing to remember is that what taxes a community can raise is restricted by two things:

1 - The "levy ceiling" which is the max a community can ever tax and is calculated as 2.5% of the total assessed property; and

2 - The "levy limit" which is the max amount that can be taxed in one year without an override. It is calculated as: Last year's levy limit (LYLL) + 2.5% increase of LYLL + new growth.

So what I think you are saying, Jimmy, is that Chelmsford has been taxing almost exactly their levy limit each year and have had so little new growth that the only way to get the extra taxes they need is by an override.

Conversly, it seems you are saying that Lowell has not taxed as much as it could each year, so can just start increasing taxes upward towards reaching the levy limit.

Is this what you are saying?

I think that is what he is saying, but that is a view from the perspective of the taxer, not the taxed. What do you think would happen if Lowell were to jump its local taxes to the levy limit?

Yes, there is a degree of freedom that exists with Lowell that is not currently available in Chelmsford, but it is one that should only be explored in conjunction with cost-cutting, so that only a small portion of the extra taxing authority is used in any one year.

Jim -
Your blog may "back" but there have been no new postings from you since September 26th. (There have been a few comments, I'll admit.) Don't blogs need to be "written on" daily to keep interest alive?
I'll keep checking but I've been disappointed for a week.