The current $79,494 override request has been referred to as a "band-aid." It apparently does not have the support of our FinCom [0], among others, because it is only a temporary fix to a much larger problem. While I whole-heartedly agree that there is a much larger financial problem to be addressed, I don't see why that should be a reason to not apply this "band-aid" now, particularly given the impact that letting "the patient" bleed could have on our public safety and security, and the probability that denying the town this additional revenue now would end up costing taxpayers more in the long run.

FinCom's reason for not supporting this $79,494 override is not because they don't think the town needs the additional in tax revenue, but because they are standing by their original position that the town actually needs $398,000 more in revenue. They say it is "up to the voters to decide" whether or not to approve this smaller override as a short-term solution to get us through this year.

This town has not passed a municipal override in the 20+ years that Prop 2-1/2 has been in effect. It's a tribute to the town's frugality that we have gotten by this long without a municipal override. The "larger problem" stems from the fact that we have reached (possibly exceeded) the limit of how far our pennies can be stretched to serve the town under the limits of Prop 2-/1/2, and unfortunately, we have avoided the question of an override for so long that we are now faced with the need for a relatively large revenue increase to get the town back on a sound financial footing. At the same time, we are faced with the fact that at least 456 voters seem disinclined to solve that big of a revenue problem all at once. So, given that the big override failed, why would we not try to address the problem in smaller increments, starting with a smaller override that is targeted at preserving our highest priority services?

Some people have suggested that we should go ahead and let the townspeople feel the pain that would result from cutting services like public safety, so voters will be more motivated to support a bigger override. Let's hope it doesn't come down to that. Considering that the pain that we are talking about could be felt as serious damage to someone's property, or loss of life, the thought of putting a small "band-aid" on the town's finances right now to get us through this year seems like a pretty good idea. But, regardless of whether we buy into this short-term fix or not, we must all recognize the need for a longer-term solution to the town's financial concerns, and make a commitment to somehow solving the larger revenue problem that FinCom is talking about, before we have to vote on next year's budget.

Is this short-term fix such a bad thing? Would we lose anything by adding a small amount to the town revenue stream now to fund a "survival budget" for this year? It's not like the town doesn't need that revenue. Even if we manage to reduce next year's projected revenue shortfall by pursuing revenue from other sources and finding ways to achieve even greater efficiency in our spending, the likelihood of reducing the revenue shortfall that FinCom is talking about to anything less than $79,494 is slim to nothing. So, why wait till next spring to ask for this funding?

Whether we pass this smaller override now or pass a larger override in the spring, the town needs an override of at least $79,494 in additional revenue to keep its core services intact. However, passing this override now keeps us from losing ground that we would later have to pay to regain.

Band-aids often serve a useful purpose in keeping a cut from getting worse. In this case, if we apply this $79,494 "band-aid" now, taxpayers will get more and pay less on the long run.

• For example, some of the funding included in the balanced budget was for unemployment expenses that the town would incur as a result of laying off one of our police officers.
  
  Our Police Department needs all seven of its current officers in order to avoid gaps in police coverage. So, laying off one officer would not only cause significant delays in answering calls for police services, but would also potentially result in longer response times on calls for medical emergencies. In the case of a heart attack or anaphylactic shock, response time can be the difference between life and death. Our police are often the first to respond to medical emergencies. They are prepared and equipped to provide emergency assistance, if needed, until the EMTs arrive. (Our ambulance service is dispatched from Tyngsboro.) So, unless we are willing to compromise our public health and security, it is in the town's best interests to have seven officers on staff.
  
  If the voters on June 4 had not increased police wages to the level needed to keep the seven officers we have, the town would have had to set aside funding for unemployment for the officer we would have laid off, risked the consequences of compromised public health and safety for a year, and then, assuming the town would recognize and support the need for full-time police coverage next year, we would have to pay the cost of hiring and training a new officer. By applying this "band-aid", we avoid wasting money on laying off and hiring by keeping the staff we already have.
  
  
• Another example of how applying a now saves taxpayers money is related to our library certification. Without the additional funds provided by this override, our library could lose its state certification, which is a requirement for membership in the Merrimack Valley Library Consortium (i.e. the library network) and Dunstable residents would not be able to use other libraries. We would only have access to the materials within the walls of our local library.
  
  If I didn't have access to the library network, my only alternative would be to buy the books I need, some of which help us run our business. This past year, buying the books I borrowed through the library network would have cost approximately $500. The money I saved by having a certified library would have easily covered the cost of the tax increase that I was expecting to pay if the big override passed. The cost of this smaller override will be covered if I can borrow just 3-4 books. Having access to the library network lowers my expenses.
  
  But I'm not the only one who saves money by using the library network. Dunstable library patrons currently borrow an average of 420 books a month through the network. Estimating the cost of those books at $15 each, losing the library network could cost Dunstable residents roughly $75,000 per year. Regaining certification can take up to three years, so the cost of losing certification could be over $200,000. If you're thinking we can live without all those books, stop a minute to consider the needs of other residents, particularly those with limited mobility. The library and its network serves many residents every day.
  
  The best way to ensure that we don't lose the benefits of library certification is to get the library the funding it needs this year, which is why we need this smaller override to pass.

Those who are calling this override a "band-aid" are right. Passing a $79,494 override will not solve our longer-term financial problems. However, it will buy us some time, so we can figure out a longer-term solution, without having to pay the cost of cutting services we ultimately need.

Sometimes, a band-aid can keep a cut from getting worse while you seek proper medical attention. This is one of those times.

If you agree, please vote Yes on July 30.