In my last column, I voiced concerns about unrealistic municipal capital plans. I described a gradual shift from saving to borrowing as a means of funding large expenses such as bridges, vehicles, building improvements and major road paving projects. My experience is with the situation in the town of Gray, although it wouldn’t surprise me if other towns have similar challenges.

My central concern is to reduce dependence on borrowing and to introduce planning for financial health for the indefinite future. In this column, I offer quite a few suggestions. But you won’t like them. I was not very convincing when I was on the council, and when you read some of them, you’ll probably understand why.

• Stop including interest and principal payments in the “capital plan.” There is very little that can be done about those payments once the town has passed a bond issue. In Gray, this amounts to $1.1 million next year out of a $6 million budget (at least until we borrow any more). Mixing debt service and discretionary capital spending in the plan misleads people. It is better to examine and review the importance of each of these two concerns separately, as well as to identify them individually if they appear on the ballot.

• Here is the tough one. Create a roads budget for all major paving projects, and set aside $300,000 a year from the operating budget for this, or whatever number will provide for an average year of major resurfacing (in addition to the current modest maintenance budget). If you polled the citizens, and asked them what their taxes should be spent on, I think that roads would be pretty much at the top of the list. Predictable, scheduled annual expenses should not be in the capital budget.

Ask the voters if they are willing to raise taxes to ensure that this new roads fund becomes a regular departmental line item of the budget. The ballot measure should specify that this is for roads. Do this instead of asking the voters every year or two to add to the town’s debt by issuing a new bond, or by transferring money from “leftover” borrowed funds. (An alternative would be to find $300,000 in permanent cuts to current services, but such a consensus seems unlikely.)

• Find some public forum where long-term financial planning can be the center of discussion. Present the current five- and 10-year projections. Fill in the citizens on the problems that are around the corner. Perhaps the upcoming election candidates will be willing to talk about the issue.

• Break the borrowing habit. This will be painful. Restore regular payments into the reserves, with the goal of always having enough in reserve for projects coming up in the plan. If the projections are such that payments are insufficient to keep the reserve account in the bank, calculate what is required. Add an annual reserve payment as a regular part of the budget with punctilious efficiency. Ask the voters to raise taxes if necessary (and it will be).

• When the budget review process begins each year, start with capital planning first. Funding for the big projects are the hardest decisions and should drive the rest of the budget. This will lessen the feeling that the other departments are somehow protected from the difficult budgeting choices that must be made each year.

• Restore long-term (15 years or more) planning. It is shortsighted to believe that there are no predictable expenses beyond 10 years. Knowing that there is an expensive project that happens to be 11 years away will allow adjusting the reserve payment so that the money will be available when the project is required.

To summarize, we have used up our savings and have been building up our debt for future taxpayers to worry about. To me this seems unwise – and borderline immoral. Paying more taxes is never pleasant, but sometimes it is the only responsible choice.

Raise your hand if you care about the future…

Mark D. Grover is a resident of Gray and a former elected official.