#1 2010-08-26 23:59:42
Having read the DOR's 2nd review of our "management", I've decided to share with the readers here some of the History surrounding the WPCF (Water Pollution Control Facility).
First, for those not familiar with Enterprise Fund Accounting, it was voted and approved by us, the voters, to take the politics out of treating sewer by assessing ONLY those "bettered" by municipal sewer vs. funding the operations within the Town's annual budget. That means that the expense of operating the treatment of waste is to be paid through user fees per each Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU).
Everyone here needs to understand that any additional neighborhoods added to municipal sewer pay their separate share of construction through betterments, which are separate of operations. Those betterments go into (or should go into) an account separate of operations. None of this is new and Wareham has been operating this way for nearly two decades now.
Within the cost of operations the consultant, Camp, Dresser & McKee (sp?) (CDM) advises our Sewer Commissioners on a variety of issues each year from engineering to standards to design and rates. Three or four years ago the former Sewer Commissioners were advised NOT to reduce the rate when it was $662/year for each EDU. The reasoning for that advise was because the bonding/borrowing (approx. $20 Million) for the improvements to the facility was coming due to be paid back at nearly $1 Million per year for the next 20 years.
At that time there were approximately 8000 accounts, maybe a little less.
So 8000 X $662 is close to $5.3 Million. The operation generates additional revenue from the Town of Bourne becase we treat waste from Main St. Buzzards Bay and we charge septic haulers to tip waste that they pump from septic systems throughout the town and the region.
So when the Commissioners did NOT keep the rate at $662 but instead dropped it by $40 to $622 and then dropped it again the following year to $584 (another $38), they effectively caused a drop in revenue of nearly $625,000. Of course they will argue that the reduction was necessary because the Town's operating budget was "immorally" assessing an administrative fee. What was overlooked (my words) was the additional $1 Million dollars needed to pay back the loan for the next 20 years. So over the last two or three years, because the rate (EDU) has been reduced when it should have remained at $662, the revenues have been short of FULLY covering the cost of operations. Because of the shortfall, the management and leadership (sewer commisioners) chose to take revenue from pre-paid betterments. What that term means is property owners all have the option to pay their betterment over 20 years or all up front the first year. Also know that when properties are sold, at the closing it is often that those betterments get paid in full. So those pre-paid betterments should remain in that account to fully pay back the money borrowed ($20 M) over the next 20 years. We've learned through the DOR's review that we've spent nearly $1.3 Million from the account due to the short fall in revenues, which is the same as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well, guess what ? Peter needs to be paid back and the ONLY way to do that is to increase the rate.
Now, while the DOR notes in their review that the use of those revenues is "legal", its NOT prudent.
The operation is being poorly managed so I propose that the BOS get OUT of the sewer business and appoint commissioners that better understand the operations and possess credentials.
So to all of you on municipal sewer, start setting aside an extra $100./year per EDU, maybe more. I see the increase as inevitable.
Just my opinion.
Please note that most of these numbers are rounded off. It's difficult to get actual figures in town hall. I think the Finance Committee is also struggling to get figures. I'm hopeful they get them soon.
Offline
#2 2010-08-27 00:16:55
Get this guy a seat at the table !
Offline
#3 2010-08-27 01:46:54
I am told he will say no, but he should be there.
Offline
#4 2010-08-27 07:05:36
THANK YOU BOB FOR THIS INFO, THE WAREHAM VOTER NEED TO BE EDUCATED ANY MORE INFO ON OTHER SUBJECTS WOULD BE APPRECIATED , WHAT WE HAVE IS VOTE BUYING PURE AND SIMPLE.
Offline
#5 2010-08-27 08:01:22
Good job, Bob....but, I wouldn't expect any less...
That's why this site is so successful and politically powerful...because people know what they are talking about, explain it for the average person to understand, and even more importantly, do it with their head straight on their shoulders and not stuck up their ass!!
I wonder if the Westfield development team, AKA the Westfield Review Committee, have considered who will pay for all of the infrastructure that will be needed by the developer when Utopia is built. The developer isn't going to pay huge infrastructure fees for LEASED property...YOU are going to pay...and you will NEVER get your money back nor will the alleged project EVER be self sustaining.
Yeah...it's time for Bob to be at some seat...
Offline
#6 2010-08-27 09:37:29
Bob, would you be willing to create a citizen petition article that will prevent the BOS from continuing as sewer commissioners? I'd love to sign such a petition. (Note: petition deadline is posted as September 3 on the town website.)
Offline
#7 2010-08-27 10:33:45
Sure.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
I move to amend Wareham's Home Rule Charter, Section 8 - 4 a) by removing the language in the second sentence,which reads: "At such time the office the sewer commissioner shall be terminated and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the office shall be transferred to the board of selectmen, with the language that : At such time the office of the sewer commissioner(s) shall be terminated and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the office shall be transferred to a newly appointed Board of Commissioners, to be appointed by the appointing authority made up of the Moderator, chairman of the board of selectman and the Municipal Maintenace director. The Board shall consist of three members each serving for three years so that one member's term expires each year. Applicants for consideration must possess education and experience in municipal infrastructure and waste water treatment. The Town administrator shall attend every monthly meeting of the Commission and work in conjunction with the Maintenace Director to establish the annual operating budget to be presented for approval at the Spring Town Meetings and the rate SHALL be set accordingly.
Last edited by bbrady (2010-08-27 10:38:29)
Offline
#8 2010-08-27 10:48:59
You just made some butt cheeks pucker! I like it! Qualified people making good decisions!
Offline
#9 2010-08-27 11:12:52
Section 8 of the Charter is about the transition to the “new” Home Rule Charter and does not appear to be where you would make this change. I think one way to do this is to modify the Charter to prevent the Selectmen from acting as Sewer Commissioners (or to my way of thinking, anything similar, like Cemetery Commissioners) and then add a section to the By-laws that describes how the Sewer Commissioners are to be appointed.
My other concern is “education and experience in municipal infrastructure and waste water treatment” as a requirement. I’m not sure exactly what this means and it might limit suitable applicants. Certainly engineering types and financial types would be ideal candidates because of the nature of the decisions to be made.
Offline
#10 2010-08-27 11:20:29
Mr. Onset,
You seem to have your own mind set so maybe you should DRAFT your own. (: )
Offline
#11 2010-08-27 12:54:09
bbrady,
I think you have already done half this work because I found this on the town website:
http://www.wareham.ma.us/Public_Documen … arrant.pdf
ARTICLE: 53
To see if the Town of Wareham will vote to take the following action:
Replace the sentence in Bylaw Section 6, pages 1 and 2:
No person elected Selectman on or after January 1, 1973 shall hold any other elective Town office during his term of office as Selectman.
with the sentence:
No person elected Selectman shall hold any other elective Town office, serve as a voting member on any other town board, committee, or commission during his term of office as Selectman.
Inserted by Robert Brady, et al.
Offline
#12 2010-08-27 13:32:45
Mr. O,
While I concur that adding the language to Division I, Article I, Section 6 of the Town By-law addresses your concern of BOS members wearing any other "hats", the establishment of a Sewer Commission to include any appointing detail should be in the Charter (IMO).
That said, it just goes to show how thorough such a change must be so as to NOT create any contradictions.
So, please include any language so as to not limit "suitable" applicants.
In fact, anyone else here that has any ideas to include in the language, by all means, please offer.
We may be able to get a great solution for a warrant Article for this October's meeting. All it needs is then ten (10) registered voters signatures for inclusion and consideration.
That is OUR democratic way.
Isn't this FUN ? (: ) woot, woot
Offline
#13 2010-08-27 20:54:21
My choice for putting the Sewer Commission in the bylaws was based on the fact that the Historic District Commission, Finance Committee, and similar bodies are defined in the bylaws rather than the Charter. I see nothing like that in the Charter. I assumed that the only reason we saw the Chapter 8 language was because of the change to the "new" Charter.
With regard to qualifications: how about
"A preference will be given applicants who have education and experience in the fields of engineering or finance."
Something like that? Other fields useful?
I also think I would take out the phrase "and the rate SHALL be set accordingly." (Or maybe we should discuss this issue further.)
Offline
#15 2010-08-28 07:25:02
BREAKING NEWS:
BOBO WRITES ENTIRE ARTICLE ABOUT BOB BRADYS POSTING YET BOBO CONTINUES TO NOT READ THE BLOGS. AND THIS WAS DONE HOURS AFTER BOB'S ORIGINAL POST.
Offline
#16 2010-08-28 17:13:52
I'm trying to figure out this comment by the TTW: "The role of sewer commissioners is far too important to give it to an appointed group of special interest representatives."
Well, I believe (that means it is MY opinion) the THE ROLE OF SEWER COMMISSIONERS IS FAR TOO IMPORTANT TO GIVE IT TO AN ELECTED GROUP OF SELECTMEN!!!
When I vote for a selectman, I look for certain qualifications. Surely, those qualifications are NOT the same qualifications the appointing authority would look for in appointing sewer commissioners.
No offense to the two new selectmen, but I see them working very hard to try to learn the job of being a selectmen. They (and most new selectmen) came to the table with no sewer-knowledge type backgrounds. And being a selectman takes a lot of time. There is a major learning curve for new selectmen. Yet we expect them at the same time to do a good job as sewer commissioners. That just doesn't make sense to me. But again, that is MY opinion.
And to imply that the appointing authority in this town would, in this case, only appoint "special interest representatives" certainly doesn't say much for our appointing authority--the chair of the bos, the town moderator, and the chair or head of the board or committee. In fact, I think it is an insult to the appointing authority. I give this town's appointing authority plenty of credit to be able to figure out the most qualified people to serve as Sewer Commissioners.
And even though I was not a Cronin fan, he was the only bos who had the construction/engineering background that would be considered to be a sewer commissioner. And, remember that he voted AGAINST almost every CDM bill because, if I remember, they did not break down the costs/fees on their bills. Maybe he knew something. When Cara questioned a $62,000 boulder removal, she was vilified. Hmmmm.
Offline
#17 2010-08-29 10:42:26
Just thought you all might like to see what a group of so-called "special interest representatives" accomplished. This is the report accepted by the BoS this past week. Look at the document yourself. http://www.savebuzzardsbay.org/Document.Doc?id=490
In my opinion, this group did some great work and produced some creative and thoughtful ideas to help reduce nitrogen. And who were they?? Cranberry growers, scientists, septic system business owners (of which my husband is NOT one!!). Gee. Imagine if some of these folks were sewer commissioners.....the Horror!! (sarcasm alert)
Below is an excerpt from the intro:
In order to understand how the group came to the conclusions described below, it is important to recognize and summarize the process that lead us here. Below is a summary of the process undertaken to produce this document, why this process is so important to Wareham, what we have learned, what further information we need, and what we have agreed upon.
I. Process
Recognizing that numerous unsuccessful proposals had been made at Wareham Town Meeting about how the town might manage the nitrogen pollution from septic systems and cranberry bogs, in November 2009, a small group of concerned citizens took the initiative to invite more than 50 other active and outspoken Wareham residents, all with diverse backgrounds and various expertise, including cranberry growers, developers, septic installers, scientists, financial minds and environmentalists, to participate in a series of meetings convened by The Coalition for Buzzards Bay to actively think through various local solutions to the nitrogen problem.
Offline
#18 2010-08-29 10:58:20
As a participant, I have to say I learned a great deal from the experience. I knew very little about nitrogen pollution going into my first meeting. I was completely in awe of some of the participants. Their background, experience, research, and willingness to share their ideas and concerns was eye opening.
If we have this much talent and experience in our town, why do we not consider an elected sewer commission? Come on people, we need to tap into the intellectual capital of this town! For way too long, we have relied on people that proven they lack the management and leadership skills necessary to lead this town. If you look around, there are organizations and other entities that have a proven track record. Where are the leaders of these groups? They are on the "do not contact" list. Why???????
Enough is enough! it's time to quit labeling anyone that is successful as power elite. They are the true leaders of this community and it's time to recognize that.
Last edited by Larry McDonald (2010-08-29 13:35:03)
Offline
#19 2010-08-29 17:34:42
Larry, I'm also impressed with how quickly the report was completed and how comprehensive it is. It just goes to show you how things can work when good leadership and management run the show.
And remember, when asked during citizen's participation, our Sewer Commissioners couldn't even answer a simple question--how much sewer capacity do we have left in the system??? That should be the one number that ALL the commissioners should have at the tips of their tongues!!! To not know (or to know and refuse to tell--transparency???) is, in MY opinion, a travesty of good sewer commissioning!!!
Your idea about elected officials takes the appointing authority and the implication that they would only appoint "special interest representatives" out of the picture. Great idea!!
Last edited by Nora Bicki (2010-08-29 17:35:32)
Offline
