I have always been a believer that there is some basis for old sayings. I am beginning to wonder if perhaps the person who came up with one saying was being just a tad facetious.
You see if ignorance was truly bliss, as noted in other blogs, we should be a very happy town.
Before I go much further, let me state as used for blogging purposes, I use the term "ignorance" as defined in the dictionary. The actual definition, not the slang version. As such I intend to mean a lack of knowledge or awareness.
To often, people use the word to imply dumb and stupid. You might perhaps wonder what is the difference. To put it in perspective, using a Ron White line, "You can't fix stupid". Ignorance is in fact a curable condition however.
I know, "dumb", "stupid" and "ignorant" are not considered politically correct terms anymore. You will forgive me though in believing part of the whole communication problem is the "PC" concept which as with so many other things has been carried to extremes.
But I digress ...
That being said, based on everything I am hearing and reading about the water and sewer increases, we should be a very, very happy town indeed.
The right to disagree is a fundamental right.
Indeed but for disagreements in life, who the heck would be reading this blog, or for that matter just about anything on the internet, or even in the printed media. Sure we all want news, but let's face it, we read, listen and watch things in a large part for the "blood boiling factor" or shock value.
But I digress ... yet again ...
You are not paying twice for indirect costs (associated cost is the correct term). Anyone who thinks you are paying twice for these costs simply does not understand how the always maligned process works. Again a big part of the problem in today's communication, too many people talking about too many things, without any solid foundation about what they are talking about.
The increase the BPW determined it needed to implement to cover the associated costs and maintain its standard operating procedure and reserves is for FY 14 is based on the proper shifting of costs for FY 14. Not for past expenditures.
The votes taken at Town Meeting for those items covered by associated costs were not simple totals to be raised solely from the tax levy. The amount to be spent was not based solely on paying the total expenditures from General Fund money and then refilling the General Fund coffers with enterprise money.
Every single year, at the end of the reading of the article 4 items, sometimes during the reading of the items, the motions read specifically include the amounts and apportionment from funding sources.
Trying to use the KISS explanation, motions are in the form of: Move to appropriate the sum of $100 of which $75 shall come from the tax levy and $25 from sewer enterprise revenue. That formula C = A + B by definition means you are not being charged twice either from source A or source B. It means you split the costs between A and B.
One of the legal premises behind enterprise funds is the money from revenue must be used for enterprise related expenses. You cannot take a $1,000,000.00 from the enterprise to pay toward say health insurance when the enterprise cost for health insurance is only $200,000.00.
General fund money can be used to pay enterprise expenses, but enterprise expenses cannot be used to pay general fund expenses. Indeed, if the enterprise doesn't generate enough money, the law requires you to use general fund money to pay for it. Despite that, let us be clear that the increase is not to cover such a deficit.
The motions for town meeting for FY 2014, dealing with associated costs all concerned prospective charges. No amounts involved sought retroactive payments to the general fund.
The enterprises are not, repeat are not, being asked to pay back prior expenditures. The enterprises are simply not being asked to pay for something that has all ready been paid for.
The only thing the general fund has all ready paid for was/were prior year costs. Again, no retroactive payments were sought.
So explain to me, anyone, the factual basis of the argument you are paying twice.
Again, I state again that the rate increase is not to cover any deficit. This is another statement being bandied about simply created not out of fact.
Future rates will be the determination of your BPW based on its determination of what is wants to do into the future, and what it may be required to do by mandates from the state and federal government. Yes town meeting will have to decide whether it wants to go along with the same, but the proposals come from the BPW or are mandated by other powers that be.
You can argue that the general fund should pay a portion of the enterprises expenditures. It is argued all the time, and if people actually pay attention they would realize that. It is nonetheless a legitimate argument you can make.
You want that $400,000 rolled back into the general fund? You want even more than that amount paid from the general fund. The recommendations so it can be done can be made. Easily. Of course doing so, means some preferred non-essential services go out the window.
Which of course is always a perplexing scenario. Keep what I pay down, but don't touch anything I like.
There will be plenty of people who will disagree with what I am going to say here, but what else is new. Before I cut any of what I consider the "big 4" budgets to subsidize enterprise funds, a whole bunch of "optional" will go out the door first.
I am not going to deal with an expanded explanation of the concept of why enterprise funds exist in the first place. I don't have enough time this morning; and, even the KISS argument for that one would require about a 1,000 words.
In a real nutshell, these enterprises were formed with the intent that the same where to be self-sufficient. The enterprises were formed so the same would 1) not be dependent upon the general fund for operation; and, 2) would not cripple the general fund through the costs of operations.
So, being a bit repetitive, I again ask what is your factual basis for stating we are paying twice? Paying more yes. No cuts to offset, absolutely. Paying twice, absolutely not.
As has been stated in previous blogs, I will also again note: If things had been properly charged over the past say seven or eight years, you would be paying the same amount for this year as the rate increases are going to make it.
So while you may take little consolation from the fact that you have been paying less than should have been charged, and while the catch up in one year may be a jolt, it is what the rate would be, and no one is paying double.
The shock and dismay are understandable.
The failure to have the rates appropriately adjusted over time inexcusable.
The reality might be little comfort, but it is the reality.
You have every right to be ticked off. You do, but if you are going to be ticked off, be ticked off for the right reasons. There are plenty of factual arguments to be had on this matter. Deficits and double payments are not in the facts however.
Enough for today.
Be safe.
There has never been a pill to cure stupid.
ReplyDeleteThe voting public needs to understand what is A, B and C
The figure thrown around by the newspaper $400,000 appears in all three letters.
A. Water & Sewer $400,000.00
B. Digester program and funding $400,000.00
C. Money short from expected revenue from wind turbines about $400,000.00
You ask what is your factual basis for stating we are paying twice? Paying more yes maybe even three times as much.
Reading the S-T over the last year this is how a resident may come to the conclusion they are paying three times as much.
The Water & Sewer needs 400 thousand to pay their bills so they raise their rates to make up the 400 thousand. The Town Meeting Members vote 400 thousand for the Digester Program and grant funds thinking they no longer have to give 400 thousand to the Water & Sewer . The wind turbines were predicted to bring in up to 600 thousand or more. The shortfall for the turbines is actually around 400 thousand short .
Looking at the big picture at the end of the day there are three scenarios that involve $400,000.00
The shock and dismay are understandable but multiple all three together for a total of 1.2 million.
In other words C doesn't equal A + B . It's at the end of the day what A,B and C equal and what does the taxpayer end up paying.
You can see from this way of thinking that the lack of a good return from the wind turbines that everyone thought was going to happen snowballed into a series of 400 thousand dollar mistakes.
Ultimately the taxpayer is on the hook . How else can you explain a twenty something increase in a Water & Sewer bill ?
People are ticked off again
Let's take your A, B &C in reverse.
ReplyDeleteAs to C, the turbines, use any figure you want to throw out, have nothing to do with enterprises generating enough revenue to be self-sufficient. The mistake was a miscalculation of costs for the enterprise funds, not one of revenue from the turbines. Water & sewer are funded from water & sewer retained earning/revenue not the tax levy/general fund.
What I can see from your argument is an obvious red herring being raised.
Using your logic if the turbines were related to the need for the rate increases, the poor return has still saved the rate payer $151k, has it not?
Money for water & sewer has never been spent in anticipation of turbine revenue. Water & sewer articles have been recommended and approved solely based on information that the revenue from water and sewer was sufficient. Someone screwed up, but the screw up not based on the turbines revenue.
If the turbines didn't exist, the water and sewer problem still would. Feel free to ignore that simple fact if you want, but it is a fact.
As to your B, related to the digester. The last appropriation for the digester was not the only supplemental appropriation. Indeed there have been several large appropriations to supplement that project.
I would like to think everyone would have had enough common sense to appropriate the last $400K for that project no matter what. At that point we either finished the project or we have a $7 million plus loan forgiveness program turn into an actual repayment loan. Figure out what that would have cost you on your sewer rate.
Would other projects have been done from sewer retained earnings/revenue had it been known the associated costs were not correctly calculated prior to the discovery? Honestly, I don't know.
Some may have been delayed. Indeed some in fact were to make sure the then reserve was sufficient to cover the cost of the digester article referenced and the prior ones without resulting in an increase for it.
The use of $400k on the occasion you reference sped up the rate increase, it didn't create it.
As to your A., the $400,000 is the correct calculated associated cost for the enterprise funds. You feel it should be paid out of the general fund fine. More revenue from the turbines to the general fund may have made that possible. The lack of revenue did not create the problem though.
Your B. is nothing more than a means to pay it for a year, it does change the cost. Your C. as an argument as to why the enterprises are short is in my mind simply a red herring.
You want to argue extra money could be used to offset the enterprises fine. No decision was made for water and sewer using that potential money however. Again, your C did not cause the problem
The fact such "revenue" never materialized didn't create the costs.
How do I explain a 20% plus increase? Because somebody or multiple bodies who are suppose to calculate the costs in relation to revenue screwed up over a significant period of time so that instead of smaller increases over a period time to insure the proper running of the enterprise, you end up with the big one this year.
The tax payer is always on the hook for the tax levy and the rate payer for the enterprise funds. All too often they are the same. We all pay. Everyone gets that.
I have to add that tying the turbines into this issue is beyond the twilight zone realm. Seriously. Again, if I follow your argument but for the $151,000 received, the increase in water and sewer would be even larger.
It only works if you based a budget on your figure of $600,000 (which was not done)and you intentionally appropriated general fund money for those enterprises.
You have provided no factual basis for the argument we are paying twice. You are right though when you say there has never been a pill to cure stupid.
The public sector is going to have to run like the private sector does. Unless you offer something that is a necessity, you had better be prepared to tell us why we can't live without it. As money gets tighter and tighter something's got to give. This increase is going to negatively affect people. I hope that includes town meeting members to the point where they are willing to agree- we need to seriously consider cutting something.
ReplyDeletePeople might be ignorant about where the money goes, but they're not ignorant about what's in their wallets.
Is A $400,00 the correct calculated associated cost for the enterprise fund for 1 year,or is it the total for all the years in error. This answer is not clear...
ReplyDeleteThe $400,000 + is the amount that had to be added to the associated costs to be charged for FY 2014. It is for one year, but it is save to assume it will be applied each year after that.
ReplyDeleteIt is not being raised to cover previous years.
Take notice Fairhaven water users ,we will be paying more ,and the only relief is to use less.
ReplyDelete