Budget mtg 3/21
I got caught in really bad traffic on the Merritt this morning. So I got to work late and, in turn, got to the budget meeting about 20 minutes late. Unfortunately, I missed both Elections and the Town Clerk. However, before she left, I got a chance to speak with the Town Clerk, Carolyn Soltis. Her budget is largely remaining the same.
Next up was the Planning Dept. They discussed the proposed plans for the West Main streetscape project, open space and Earth Day, among other projects.
Then came the Water Pollution Control Dept. As I mentioned recently, their budget is a doozy. With various accounting issues (related to the transition of the accumulated interest expense for denitrification project from "work in process" to operational), a proposal to move from a "flat fee" to a "user fee" for sewers, rising energy costs, the INI study, calls for competitive bidding on sewer engineering services (I'm a big fan of that) and potential new projects (even just maintaining pump stations), etc.... there is a LOT going on here. That's the reason that Michael Milone wants to hire some outside help... to sort out all the moving pieces and to provide different options.
I think the most interesting part of this whole discussion was what I felt was a philosophical debate on the possibility of:
1) switching from a "flat fee" to a "user fee" and
2) moving the $1,000,000 subsidy from the General Gov't budget (property taxes) to the WPCD budget (sewer assessment).
On the one hand was an argument that seemed to be espoused by Elizabeth Esty. She seemed to want to move away from a flat fee and to a user fee, as well as move the WPCD toward being "self-sustaining." The argument for this switch (either made by her or others) was a sense of "equity."
On the other side of the debate was David Schrumm. I believe he preferred staying with the flat fee and maintaining the sewer subsidy. His argument was that sewers protect the environment (aquifer, etc.) and therefore provide for the common good (or the "general welfare").
I haven't thought this whole thing through, but I basically agree with Elizabeth Esty on this. Regardless... I found the discussion to be quite a bit of fun and... well... it didn't seem to fit into the mold of what you might expect to come from these two Council members.
Public Works Dept came next. Their budget is fairly constant. They're asking for one new "maintainer" at $46k/yr + benefits. I'm kind of guessing that will not be approved. Anyway, there's lots of stuff going on here, but I asked a common question... "Why do the PW guys work on Saturdays getting paid time and a half?" The answer: Maintainers are prohibited from taking vacation during the winter months (because of snowplowing). That forces them to take a lot of vacation during the summer months... during the eight month "construction season." Furthermore, the overtime budget is $50,000. And most maintainers get paid $22/hr... so the Saturdays are a $33/hr rate. We were also told that it costs $60k to sweep the town streets every spring. And (I think) there's $40k in the budget for snowplowing overtime.
Which brings us to Public Properties. The big number here is probably utilities. But thanks to a number of different initiatives (most recently the Energy Commission-endorsed bulk electricity purchase), our costs are not crazy. The one thing here that caught my attention was $16,000 budget for an energy consultant at the police station. The meeting was running late and I had to leave (10pm), but I intend to learn more about this. See... this may very well conflict with my goal of getting the town to do a townwide energy project, financed through "performance-based contracting." PBC is basically a way for the town to avoid upfront consulting costs. Instead, you bury those costs in the cost-savings achieved from various energy-efficiency projects. That is, we never spend the $16k as proposed. Instead, we save $16k, then pay the consultant with the savings... after it is achieved... blah, blah, blah... I know it gets boring. But we may be talking about millions of dollars by the time we go through all 25 or so town buildings... so we should at least have a serious discussion before we continue down this road... at least that's what I think.
Finally, on a related topic to "energy consultants," the Public Building Commission met tonight. They were interviewing ESCOs (Energy Services Companies) for work to be done on the electric-heated portion of CHS (about 1/3 of the building). No word yet on how that meeting went, but I'm hoping to expand this project to cover the entire town.
Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee
13 comments:
This budget is a mess. How can the BOE need more money? Where does it end? Can we have one year without an increase? Please??
more, more, more. its never enough for DR florio.
JUST SAY NO to the 7.5 new teachers!
I think if they want to go to a user based fee, they have an obligation to esitame to every tax payer what there projected sewer bill would be. People cant just come up with endless amounts of money to support new taxes, which thsi change in fee will represent.
we did it was the zero budget year.
That is one of the main reasons why the Rs are in the MINORITY
If we implement a user's fee for sewage, why not for trash pickup? What's the difference? (Some towns require you to buy special trash bags, a portion of which the merchant turns over to the town...more garbage = more bags = more paid to town. Less garbage= fewer bags = less cost. No bags--doesn't get picked up.) Not sure where we should draw the line on shared costs vs. user fees. I certainly never use the pool but am paying my share of the $400K subsidy each year.
A fee for sewer based on water use is the right way to go. You pay for what you consume. It is not difficult to do. Take the Regiuonal Water Authority's bill they charge a homeowner, offset that by one quarter; 90 days; and that is the sewer bill for that address. This way the sewer bill is paid in 4 installments; based on water use. If you choose to use water to wash your car, water the lawn or fill the pool you will pay for it as swere consumption. Now for those few in Town that have a well and city sewer, there are standard calculations the WPCA uses for water use per house based on bedrooms and people in the house. Normally people with wells are more stringent on water consumption and do not waste it like those on city water. A standard quarterly fee can be developed for those people. This approach has been done in several towns and works well. No pun intended.
I think the teachers make more sense than some silly expensive cosmetic construction on W. Main.
Lets face it. The tire shop and the body shop are out there. We are going to spend beaucoup bucks to pretty up their sidewalks, so , we drive them out of town?
That's a prudent use of scarce resources....not
Anon 8:09 We already pay for what we consume. It's called the water bill. Under your plan would you pay based on your lowest ie: winter 90 days as your base figure? Because water used for pools, etc, does not go into the sewer system, therefore you should not be charged a sewer usage fee. (You already pay on the way in and unless it is being recycled via the water treatment plant, you shouldn't have to pay for it on the way out.) And the watering season is longer than 90 days, that is, pool filling, car washing, and lawn watering is not just 90 days-- more like May 1 to Aug 31. Can meters be put on outflow lines so that people are just charged for the amount they contribute to the treatment plant?
anon 8:09
I guess my idea wa snot clear. I offset the billing dates by 90 for the accounting process to catch up. It could easily be changed, whatever your water bill is you pay an equal amount for the sewers. The billing offset can be week or 90 days, makes no difference. The bottom line is you pay for the use of the water and then you pay for the disposal of the water, whether it goes into the sewer, swimming pool, lawn or down the driveway.
anon 8:09
So you are essentially calling for what may be substantial tax increase? Yes that seems fair, lest just throw more weight on the backs of middle and lower income residents in the town. Sure whats another few hundred dollars or more? The town, the state, the government has every right to my income.
Tell you what, if you so for this, than you can just pay the additional tax for everyone. I can only assume this would require council approval?
God, let me go on record, I will vote against any councilor who approves a tax increase on the backs of hardworking people.....any councilor....
adb;
I'm advocating a person pays for what they consume. Under the existing rate structure a single person pays the $290.00 for sewer use but does not come close to putting that much water into the system. On the other hand a family of 4 or more pay the same $290.00 and put in 4 or times that of a single person household. It does appear to be fair. I do not advocate the same approach for all Town services but for the case of the WPCA I happen to believe this is the right way to go. The WPCA is a complete and separate organization and budget from the Town, although it is included within the Town's budget. The WPCA is a business that has to stand on it's own, the pool is the other. The entire approach may be an exercise to come up with the same amount of money but the system would be a bit more fair for the lower income and middle income folks. You pay for what you use, does that not seem to be a fair and just approach?
I agree that a user-based fee is a more fair way of apportioning sewage treatment costs. In addition, it provides an incentive to conserve water, and for those who wish to reduce their sewer bill, it provides a means to do so.
One question is how best to measure a household's sewer discharge. As neither the money nor political will exists to install flow meters on everyone's sewer pipes, it seems likely that an estimate of sewer use will be based on water consumption. As several posters have noted, during the warm months, gardening and filling pools consume a significant amount of water. Since this water does not enter the sewer, a fee, based on water consumption, would charge people even when they haven't used the sewer system, which seems unfair. One solution would be to base the sewer fee on water consumption during the winter months (Dec - Feb), when most water is used indoors and presumably is discharge into the sewer.
emma's dad,
Your idea of charging based on winter use makes sense. The idea is to examine the issue, look at all possible solutions and make the choice that best solves the problem. It is expensive to fit every house with an outflow meter although it could be done by attaching the meter on the sewer pipe inside the basement before the pipe exits the foundation. I also believe there are only about 4000 homes on sewer, not as many as people think.
Post a Comment