#1 2010-09-29 14:26:48
BRENDA AND JANE WHO REDUCED THE FEES OF SEWER USERS TO GET ELECTED NOT WANT THE TOWNS GENERAL FUND TO BAIL OUT THE SEWER DEPT , THIS IS A FEE FOR SEVICE FUND AND WE SHOULD NOT BAIL THE SEWER DEPT OUT , ED U RATES WILL HAVE TO RISE , O H WELL IF THE SEWER RATES RISE THAT WILL MKE FOOLS OUT OF THE WITCHES SO THEY WANT THE TOWN TO BAIL THEM OUT TO WIN ELECTION.
Offline
#2 2010-09-29 16:29:06
For the record, there was a significant amount of MISSPEAK last night by Saguinet and Andrews. What they failed to disclose was that the budget presented by the "operator" (Dave Simmons) of the sewer treatment facility was cut by Sanguinet some $400,000 in FY 2009. One line item within that budget was ELECTRICITY. Sanguinet, in his infinite wisdom, cut it from $300,000 to $180,000. In so doing, Mr. Simmons knew he would not have enough revenue to run pump stations beyond March or April of this year. SO because the Sewer Commissioners didn't and don't have a clue, the plant went into deficit spending or as we've learned, spent monies from betterment reserves. The old "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Well, guess what ? Peter needs to be repayed and the sewer users will have to cover those costs.
More mismanagement !
Ps. Mr Simmons has an unfair labor claim against Wareham and will likely WIN. So it's going to cost the sewer users even more. Hold your hats. We're still on that roller coaster.
EDITED: I stand corrected...FY 2010 should have been FY2009. That difference was still taken from betterment reserves and while "legal" (just like the PILOT) according to the DOR, it's not "prudent"
Last edited by bbrady (2010-09-29 19:57:21)
Offline
#3 2010-09-29 16:51:01
Mr. Brady, permit me to respectfully disagree with one of your points, and to add to it, as well.
You indicate that the sewer users will pay for the deficit in the sewer treatment facility. It will be the sewer users, for sure, PLUS ALL OF THE OTHER TAXPAYERS IN WAREHAM. the deficit is being made up via an article for funding at the Town Meeting, that will impact ALL taxpayers; whether it is a raise & appropriate, transfer from available funds, etc.
And note, Simmons wasn't too far off the mark on electricity - add the nearly 100 K from article 3 to the $180,000 appropriation yields $275,000 to 280,000 +/-. Not bad given the fluctuations in various utility costs these days.
If Simmons wins an unfair labor claim, then once again it will be ALL of the taxpayers who will have to shell out, not just the sewer ratepayers.
And finally, by laying off Simmons and one other worker, didn't the BoS/administrator make them instantly eligible for unemployment compensation? Then, won't this up the cost to the town in its unemployment insurance policy?
Hey! if it wasn't for mismanagement under the former regime, there would have been no management at all. On the other hand, anarchy might have worked better.
Offline
#4 2010-09-29 19:52:19
notalawyer wrote:
Mr. Brady, permit me to respectfully disagree with one of your points, and to add to it, as well.
You indicate that the sewer users will pay for the deficit in the sewer treatment facility. It will be the sewer users, for sure, PLUS ALL OF THE OTHER TAXPAYERS IN WAREHAM. the deficit is being made up via an article for funding at the Town Meeting, that will impact ALL taxpayers; whether it is a raise & appropriate, transfer from available funds, etc.
nota,
As worded, (see the following) I'm confident that ONLY the sewer users will pay the additional monies requested. The bigger issue is WHY ? Why is the fund short ? The administration assured us that the $5.47 M voted back in April would cover 100% of the cost of operations. This difference should have nothing to do with the plant operator's position.
ARTICLE 3 - TO FUND THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ENTERPRISE FUND
To see if the Town will vote to amend by a sum of money as approved at the April 28, 2010 Town Meeting Article 6 from the wastewater enterprise revenue in accordance with Chapter 44, Section 53F-1/2 of Massachusetts General Laws to defray the operating and capital expenses of the Water Pollution Control Enterprise Fund for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010, and ending June 30, 2011, or to do or act in any manner relative thereto.
Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the Town Administrator
As I'm sure you know, Ch 44 Sec 53F1/2 is Enterprise Fund accounting. All tax payers will not pay (IMO).
Now, while Article 6 in April was in fact the budget Article for FY-11, Article 3 for this fall TM is asking to amend that specific line within the budget, which means the rate will have to increase to PROPERLY account for the amount needed.
If the management doesn't get it right this time, they should be tossed (IMO).
Offline
#5 2010-09-29 20:35:20
point - counterpoint. Don't you just love a healthy debate?
it seemed to me, when listening to the BoS meeting, that sanguinet was talking about a TRANSFER of funds. In fact, he even delineated from where the funds would originate, did he not (referring to the $96,000). Didn't he reference the assessing department to the tune of $21,000, the T/C office due to a reduction in personnel and so on. Altho the folks at the BoS meeting avoided clarity on this article, it would seem to me that a TRANSFER would be to cure a deficit, most likely from FY2010. In fact, i believe sanguinet stated that the sewer enterprise fund ran a deficit for FY2010 (he called it "overspent").
On the other hand, a request to AMEND Article 6 from the April TM requires no funds, but can be accomplished with the increase in EDU rates by $12.00. In fact, Article 3 as you cited it above refers only to FY2011. by the way, the article wording seems to be incorrect, anyway. "to see if the Town will vote to amend by a sum of money as approved at the April 28, 2010 Town Meeting Article 6...." this verbiage says that the article is to amend Article 6 by itself, i.e. the amount of money voted on April 28.
if prior deficits and projected shortfalls can be cured by a $12.00 increase in the FY2011 EDU rate, then it is true that the ratepayers are on the hook.
BUT, if the cure(s) require fund transfers as cited by sanguinet, then the taxpayers are on the hook.
the lack of clarity and candor here is stunning.
Remember the comment by the FinCom chairman on this site that something was cookin' regarding Article 3 (not intended as a direct quote). It appears to me that we do not have all the info we need.
your turn.....
Offline
#6 2010-09-29 20:43:44
Here is the comment from Mr. Paulsen on Article 3. I took the word "funding" to be from the Town to the WPCF, and therefore different from a rate increase. Strictly my interpretation.
And while on the general subject of votes, we voted 4-4-1 on Article 3, more funding for the WPCF and I was a negative and will not expand on that vote in this forum, suffice it to say that things are percolating on this issue. I will say-and most people properly forget what I say- that I voiced skepticism at our last Town Meeting and that attitude has crystallized into a more doubtful stance. And clearly given the vote others, perhaps for different reasons, have concerns.
sorry to interrupt...NOW its your turn.
Offline
#7 2010-09-29 22:35:27
Yes, I do like healthy debate; especially with those willing to do their homework before commenting.
And yes, JS did state that funds would be coming from various department unused amounts (salaries in most cases) but I didn't hear that as the
$ 90,k needed for the WPCF. I heard that as part of what's needed to make up the shortfall due to the reduction in local aid. I'll review the tape tomorrow and report. Maybe I'll even transcribe, if able.
On another note from last night, how many times did we hear the term "re-organization" ? For those familiar with the HOME RULE CHARTER it's clear that ANY re-organization can only be made with approval from Town Meeting.
See Article 6, Section 6-3. AGAIN, complete disregard for the governing document.
Offline
#8 2010-09-30 07:54:46
DOR in the Report that Exposed Hypocrite Elite Incompetence wrote:
The water pollution control facility enterprise fund is intended to account for all direct, indirect and capital costs associated with the sewerage treatment operation. The selectmen should then set user fees at an appropriate level to recover those costs and to generate a reasonable surplus, which would remain available for use only for enterprise purposes. However, it is clear from historical data that the enterprise fund operates with a structural deficit. Over the preceding three fiscal years, the facility has relied on over $1,263,880 in retained earnings to support ongoing operations as reported to DOR, the bulk of which has been generated from betterment assessments paid in full rather than over the apportioned period. This use of retained earnings is lawful, but not prudent.
Offline
