Metes and Bounds

Today's blog starts with a word or two about advertisements.  Seems to have been an issue some of you wanted to discuss.  Not sure this is the advertisement on your mind though.

In the latest issue of the local weekly known as Fairhaven Neighborhood News, page 19 specifically there is a small block ad relative to a BPW meeting to discuss the increase in water and sewer rates. notes the time and date of the meeting on Monday, and notes you shouldn't "forget to thank the Board of Public Works for the 24% increase in your water and sewer rates."

Let's all start out by noting that I have had my own issues with the BPW over the years.  Quite frankly, I expect to have more issues with the BPW in the future.  I have been the subject of "formal" complaints made to the selectmen by BPW members.  I have been personally blamed for numerous ills and woes by that entity.  If your street doesn't get paved, more likely than not it is my fault, etc., etc. etc.

I accept it and it comes with the territory.

Again being frank, it would be easy enough and simple enough to tear into the board on this one.  As easy and simple as it would be however, it would be absolutely wrong to do so.

No one likes to see an increase in anything they have to pay for.  No one wants to see any significant increase in one year.

Yet everyone however expects and demands no problems with the services they want, and in the case of those provided by the BPW for water and sewer, absolutely need.

So before you crucify the BPW get a grasp on the how and why things are done; and, then look at this years appropriations and articles for water and sewer and then when you can confidently argue against the same, knock yourself out.

There is a whole lot of blame to spread around for the fact that these increases are so large.  Heck I will actually accept part of that blame for not having pressed harder for certain things earlier in time.  It is a big increase.  It is pretty much exactly what you would be paying next year however if certain assessments had been spread out of time in a more appropriate manner.

In a nutshell, water and sewer are run by enterprise funds.  So before any reader decides to slam the highway division or park division over the water and sewer rates, realize that.  Highway and Park operate from funding raised on the general levy.  Water and Sewer are suppose to operate from revenue generated by water and sewer usage.

These are distinct funding issues.  Get that?  Good.

Again, please remember that while the increase is large, it gets these enterprises to the point where they should have been had all cost of operations been correctly assessed to the enterprises over the past seven years or so.  Yes, smaller increase would have been easier to handle over the years, rather than all at once.  Yes that is what should have happened.

It didn't.

Neither can the general fund continue to absorb the associated costs of these enterprises without reductions being made to services intended to be funded through the general levy.   Time and space prohibit any in depth presentation as to the "nuisances" of budgeting.

Suffice it to say the enterprises were not paying the "true costs" of running the enterprises (mainly the costs for retirement, health insurance and administrative services).  Those are suppose to be determined by "town" administration, submitted to the BPW, which is then suppose to factor those costs into its budget, which is then voted on by Town Meeting, and it is those votes that in essence determine the "rates" needed to be charged to operate.

Between water and sewer, the associated costs were being underfunded by about $500,000.  We can argue about whether or not the general fund should pick up these costs, or should have phased it in, or should pick up even more than that amount.  We have been having those arguments for years.

BPW is not entirely blameless.  Someone at some point should have realized the fact that associated costs charges weren't accurate.  It may be said by BPW: how should we know, the town tells us what it should be. True enough.  Yet in any symbiotic relationship, both entities involved in such a relationship by necessity need to realize when something is wrong, otherwise disaster can occur.

Unfortunately, as in most cases, those benefiting from such things have a tendency not to look too hard at the why, i.e. never look a gift horse in the mouth.

The larger portion of the blame does in my mind rest on the "town" side.  These costs should have been accurately calculated year in and year out.  The costs simply were not in the recent past.

Time for another point or two here.

It was no "secret" that this was going to happen.  The problem was discussed throughout the budget season by three different entities on a number of occasions at public meetings (Selectboard, Fin. Comm. and BPW). There was no attempt to hide it.  There were do discrete discussions.

Throughout the budget process, the issue of a rate increase was always on the table.  The major problem was how to balance the budget and absorb costs or a portion of the costs.  The "phase in" approach was always on the table.

Given the facts and figures available, to adopt a "phase in" essentially meant cutting something somewhere else.

Enterprise funds of this nature need to be run as true enterprises.  If not, you have to curtail the services funded from the general levy; and, under the constraints of 2 1/2 you put other services at a distinct disadvantage when you partially fund water and sewer enterprises from the general levy.

Throughout the process, these rate increases were always in fact a factor, and again I note were discussed.  As was what options could be taken that would avoid or lessen the increases.

When you criticize the BPW keep in mind this:  BPW board members and administration lobbied hard for a phase in approach.

You may criticize the Board for some of the funding articles it presented, you may criticize it for its operations.  If and when you do however, when being critical at least consider the fact that the Board has made decisions to do projects and maintain levels of service adequate to provide you the two services essential to a town's existence.

How much of this town would remain inhabitable without the sewer division?  Whatever your thought on that one, think how many of you would be in town without water being supplied.  When a sewer or water main break, the last thing anyone wants to hear is there is no money to fix it.

To the defense of the BPW, the all at once increase was not its choice.  The articles submitted were presented as needs, not  wants or perks.  They were judged to be so by not just the BPW.

One other argument to address, being the fact that with a balanced budget why do these rates have to increase.  The answer is contained above, but so there is no confusion over anything, the budget was balanced factoring in the increases.

Again, this is no secret.  It was discussed.  Not just once or twice and not just by one board.

So if you are going to the meeting to address the increase, I don't blame you for being upset at the size of the increase.  Hopefully though you will mete out your criticisms in proportion to the responsibility.

As an FYI, if you are upset now, I can only imagine what you will be in the next few years.  If the town is forced to abide by new sewer discharge standards being advocated by some, future increases will make this one seem very modest.

But that is for a later date.

Enough on that.

As to the article on "advertisement" in the FNN which discuss the Board of Appeals , I know there are at least two of you who have decided that the same may be blog worthy.  Not sure that I see it that way, but heck here is your opportunity to mention it, as it is mentioned in the blog.

Just a reminder to everyone, you want your comments posted, stay on topic and keep the comments within the framework of "town meeting" protocol.

Enough of that too, and enough for today.

Be safe.