Appointing a Third Water and Sewer Commisioner

At Friday's Water and Sewer work session, Bob Boyle made a motion to appoint Sandra Coleman as the third commissioner. Alan Cilley did not second the motion because of a disagreement over the applicants (who and how many). We are not clear about who has applied and who is being considered. When asked about the number of applicants, Bob Boyle responded that there were two, Sandra Coleman and John Hughes. When questioned further, we learned from Alan Cilley that that both Eli Badger and Carl Abear had also applied. (Eli Badger was at the meeting and confirmed that he had in fact applied in writing.) We are not sure why Bob Boyle chose to exclude them from his list of applicants. We are also not sure who applied in writing and who was asked to apply by one of the commissioners.

To ensure that the selection is impartial and that the best qualified candidate is selected, the commissioners should establish a formal selection process that is designed to ensure the appointment is fair, impartial, objective, and is in the best interests of the public. There should be a formal application that calls for specific information about an applicant's education and experience. The commissioners should also develop specific criteria with public input for evaluating candidates based on the department's needs. There should be a specific time period for the commissioners and the public to review applications. Finally, the applications should be evaluated based on the criteria and the selection made in public.

The appointment of the third commissioner is on the agenda for the Water and Sewer Department Meeting on Thursday, August 4, 2011. Hopefully, the commissioners can agree on the best qualified candidate at that time and be able to explain their choice. If this is not done, we will continue with the petition to submit to the Board of Selectmen requesting a special election. This appointment must be completed so that the commissioners can return to the important tasks ahead of them.

Water and Sewer Rate Increase

Last night at a work session, the commissioners agreed in principle that they need to raise water rates to compensate for the current short fall. Alan Cilley estimated that the rates will eventually have to be doubled to make water profitable, but the commissioners said they are planning an incremental approach. They are close to a number for the first increment. Alan Cilley said 25% and Bob Boyle said 75 cents per cubic foot, both a which would amount to about $3.50 per cubic foot. Alan Cilley wants to determine an exact number for the shortfall before making a final decision on the increments and time frames.

One question is why don't the commissioners know what the short fall is? Alan Cilley said he thinks the number is around $100,000 per year. The Budget Committee figures are closer to $120,000. A good financial tracking system should provide exact numbers on a monthly basis as well as show trends. If the department does not have a tracking system, we recommend that they develop one.

Another question is how does the commission determine profit and losses? Is the profit or loss determined by taking the revenues and subtracting the operating costs. Or, are equipment replacement costs also figured in? If the estimates of the current short fall do not include anticipated replacement costs, then raising the rates will not actually cover the department's losses. Utility Partners has estimated that the department will have to replace $2.5 million dollars worth of equipment over the next 5 years. If $1 million of that is for replacing water equipment, then the department should be figuring approximately $200,000 per year into its rates in addition to its normal operating costs.

An Apology

I received a comment in person about allowing a comment that was not respectful to appear on the blog. I went back and read the comment which contained the phrase "these fools." I posted the comment because I feel strongly about publishing everyone's perspective. The comment made merit, but I agree that this phrase is disrespectful. In the future, I will be more careful and either ask contributors to rephrase their comments before I post them or edit them if I can retain the meaning.

Water and Sewer Commission Posts Meeting Notice

The Water & Sewer Commission is having a work session on July 29 (Friday) at 4:00 PM. Agenda items listed are: Signature I.D. program; Safety signs for lagoons; Water rate upgrade; and Third commissioner. We urge people to attend. It will be important to find out whether the Commissioners will appoint a third commissioner or how far they are along in the selection process. It will also be interesting to learn more about their criteria for selection and how they are going about the process.

The water rate upgrade is another key item. The department is losing approximately $10,000 per month on water and depleting is cash reserve to make up the difference. The department is also facing replacing an estimated $2.5 million in equipment over the next five years and does not have the cash reserves to pay for the equipment, nor does it have a plan to deal with these expenses. How the department decides to address this problem is of critical importance not only to rate payers but to taxpayers as well, because ultimately the town is responsible for the department's debts.

At the last Water and Sewer meeting, chairman Boyle asked people what they would do in this situation. People in the town can help by providing input and support, but the department has to be forthcoming about its true financial situation. The department's short term and long term financial obligations cannot be dealt with in isolation but most be considered and prioritized with the Electric Department's obligations, and the town's. We may need the help of outside organizations as well to sift through this complex situation and develop a plan that can help us restore the town as a whole to a solid financial footing while minimizing the impact on tax payers and rate payers.

More on the Surplus

We received the following anonymous comment on the surplus:

"So are you really saying we should spend it just because we have it? All these things you mention will cost a lot of money. We need a plan first. In the meantime, give us back the money."

We are reprinting it because there is a case for returning money to taxpayers since there is no capital improvement plan and no separate capital improvement line item in the budget. This "surplus" money is in the general fund, which means that the Select Board can spend it as they see fit without public approval. They can focus on short-term projects without considering the long-term consequences. For example, some of the money can be spent to buy speed bumps for Leavitt Hill Road instead of being put aside to repair Leavitt Hill Road or the other roads in town that are in poor condition.

Perhaps a better example is the purchase of attachments for the new sidewalk plow. The voters approved the warrant article for $130,000 for the purchase of a sidewalk plow. The plow actually cost approximately $120,000. The Select Board then approved the purchase of attachments for about $6,000 even though the warrant article did not specify the purchase of attachments. The Board claimed that they saved the town money when, if fact, they cost the town an additional $6,000.

The fact is, the town did not have $130,000 for the plow to begin with. That money has to come from existing funds, revenues, loans, and/or taxes. If the town had had a capital reserve fund, it could have planned for the purchase of the plow over a longer period of time. This would have lessened the financial impact on tax payers. It would have also made it much easier for voters to approve the warrant article in the first place. As it was, we had no idea what the financial impact of the sidewalk plow would be, and we still don't because we don't know how it was paid for.

If the town had a capital replacement plan, the purchase of the plow would have been planned for and prioritized along with other long term capital items. Was the purchase of the plow more important than repairing Thompson Street, fixing the Fire House, replacing the fork lift at the transfer station? Did we take into consideration other critical long term needs like replacing the old equipment at the Water and Sewer? We will never know because there is no plan. We will also never know what buying the plow instead of addressing other important needs actually cost us. Delaying repairing a road, for example, can increase the cost of the repair substantially if put off too long.

The anonymous comment has merit. Poor planning and budgeting costs us money. We would hope that the Select Board would develop a capital replacement plan and establish a capital reserve fund. If that does not happen, it may very well be time to ask for our money back.

Send Us Blog Articles, Too

Blogs are set up so that readers can send comments but not post articles. The Coalition believes the blog it should be a place where anyone can share ideas or start a conversation. We have re-posted some comments as articles, and now we have added a link to the Blog so that you can submit articles. You need not put in your name or e-mail address, but if you include your e-mail address, we can get back to you with questions or concerns.

Petition for a Special Election for Water and Sewer Commissioner

The Coalition is circulating a petition to hold a special election to fill the vacancy in the Water and Sewer Department. The office of Commissioner has been vacant for more than 45 days despite the fact that the department has received applications for the position from several qualified applicants.

We received the following comment,"Have you considered how much a special election will cost?" The answer is yes. Elections cost money, but in this case it may be the only way to get the position filled. The Water and Sewer department is facing a financial crisis, it needs to change its accounting practices so that the operation of the department is clear and transparent, it needs to work on developing a feasibility study and business plan for the receiving station, and it needs to resolve problems with Utility Partners. The person elected to this position needs to have a good understanding of the issues, the operation of the department, and the ability to make good decisions based on factual evidence. It is very likely that the department will have to raise rates in the future, and the new commissioner must be able to make difficult decisions and explain them clearly to the towns people.

Given the current impasse, the towns people have no other recourse than to call for a special election. The current commissioners could save the town the expense by appointing one of the applicants.

Do We Really Have a Surplus?

At the last Select Board meeting, it was announced that the town has a surplus of several hundred thousand dollars. During the campaign, Dan Golden said that we should return the surplus to the tax payers. A good idea from political stand point, but it is impractical and will ultimately cost us more in the long run.

We only have an actual surplus when all the bills are paid, all the town buildings are in good repair, all of the equipment is in good repair, we have a cash reserve to take care of upcoming capital replacement expenses, and all of the roads are in good repair. This, however, is not the case. The town has failed to keep the roads in good repair, we are going to need to replace equipment at the Transfer Station, the Booster Club still needs work, and the fire station needs repairs. The cost to repair Thompson Street and Smith Hill Road today is about $750,000, about twice the "surplus."

The town has no long term capital improvement plan, so we do not know how much we need to put away to cover future expenses. If we return the current surplus to the tax payers, tax payers will receive a few dollars, but we will have to pay much more later.

A Comment from "Concerned Citizen" on Returning to a 5-Member Select Board

We are posting this comment because it raises an important issue, and it speaks to a recent comment to a post on Department Reports at Select Board Meetings. We had requested that the Electric Department and Water and Sewer present reports at Select Board Meetings. The comment pointed at the current Selectmen had not been attending Electric Department or Water and Sewer Meetings regularly.

"It's time to return to the 5-member board. This board is ineffectual and does not represent the best interests of the town. This "dog poop" meeting is a prime example. Perhaps if there had been others, someone might have suggested that the conversation was a waste of time.

With the previous 5-member board, there was representation at the various town meetings, e.g., water & sewer, electric, budget, planning. This does not happen now. How can the board be effective if they do not stay on top of the issues. Being there, observing what goes on, asking questions and participating in the conversations are the only way to do so. Department reports are at best superficial.

At the last Board meeting, Dan Golden strenuously objected to Janette Stewart who seemed to be excluding him in her discussion with Glen Dion. Again, this would not likely be as much of a problem if there were others engaged in the conversation.

When Dennis Potter resigned recently, we were left with only two board members. The concept of "majority rules" was a joke. The position remained vacant for far too long. Given that the third member was then appointed by the two remaining, it would be difficult if not impossible to ensure that the town's wishes regarding an appropriate candidate could be determined. This also left open the possibility that a third member could be selected based only on his/her agreement with the current members. Again, this is not representative government.

If this town is to move forward and tackle the many problems that we face, we need to ensure that the Board of Selectmen truly represents the best interests of the town. And I for one, would feel better about that possibility if we had more voices at these meetings."

A response to Steve Lake's Question

At the last Select Board Meeting, Fran Newton made a presentation about the Coalition for Action. After the presentation, Steve Lake asked whether Pam Heidenreich could be a member of the Coalition since she is a Canadian citizen. Since Steve asked his question in a public forum, we felt it was appropriate to respond to the issues he raised by the question.

Steve asked a "loaded question," a question which contains a controversial assumption. In this case there are several assumptions. The first is that people should not be allowed to belong to a local organization if they are not American citizens, and the second is that the organization is not legitimate because it accepts people who are not American citizens.

If Steve had only been interested in the Coalition's membership criteria, he could have simply asked for the criteria. Fran had just stated that anyone could become a member. The fact the he singled out Pam on the basis of citizenship, however, made his question a personal attack. It should be pointed out that Pam is not a Canadian citizen. She is a British citizen with a green card. He also did not consider the fact that Pam is a resident of the town, a property owner, a business owner, a tax payer, and an active participant in town affairs. She is also a founding member of the Coalition. Clearly, she has a vested interest in the community and has demonstrated her interest by attending town meetings, serving on various committees, and taking part in town events.

The Coalition has a right to exist, and it has a right to establish criteria for membership. The right to assemble is guaranteed by the constitution. The Coalition is not a political organization; it is a community organization. Our desire is to build an organization that supports our community. A true community is inclusive, accepting, democratic, supportive, caring, understanding, and tolerant. Anyone can be part of a community. We have common interests even if we have different backgrounds, beliefs, and values. In a true community, people can discuss their differences and learn from them.

Steve's question implies just the opposite. It implies that we should exclude Pam on the basis of citizenship, even though she has a green card and is entitled by law to live and work in America, and even though she contributes a great deal to the town by paying taxes, bringing people to the town to visit, and participating in town activities. But, Steve's question implies that we should take her money and her contributions to the town but not let her have a voice in town affairs because she was not born in America. That idea is as wrong. It violates basic democratic principles.

The Coalition for Action would not exclude Steve Lake from membership. We simply disagree with the implications of his question. We also think that the Select Board meeting was not the proper forum to raise his concern. The Coalition provides a online form where anyone can ask us a question or make a comment. Steve is also free to comment on this blog article so that we and others in the town can understand his position.

Department Reports at Select Board Meetings

A few months ago I sent an email to the Town Administrator asking that Department reports at the Select Board Meets be more informative so and that the town adopt a standard format for the reports. Since then the reports have been more informative, but not all departments attend the meeting. The town treasurer never attends Select Board meetings but does provide a report. The fire department, police department, and Parks and Recreation attend regularly, but Water and Sewer, and the Electric Department have missed several meetings over the past six months and neither has provided a report on those occasions.

All departments should attend and present their reports at the Select Board Meetings, and they should be available to answer questions from residents. The board might consider changing the agenda of the meeting so that the department representatives could make their reports earlier in the meeting and residents could ask questions and make comments.

More on Planning and Budgeting - Why Departments and Commisions Must Work Together

As the budget committee conducts its hearings, we are learning that the town does not have the cash reserves to cover the large capital expenditures that will be needed over the next 5 to 10 years. Some are estimating that it will take at least a decade before the town can get back on a solid financial footing by the time we pay for needed capital improvements and build a reserve to cover future needs. However, we need to do a detailed analysis to determine the true extent of our financial situation.

Like most of us, the town has been focused on the short-term, but it is clear now that we must also develop a long-term plan. The Planning Committee is developing a Master Plan that will contain both short-term and long-term goals and objectives, but the town needs to coordinate the activities of all the departments and commissions in order to implement the plan. Implementing the plan will be difficult because we currently do not have the reserves to meet up coming needs, and it will be difficult to raise taxes or find new revenues.

The town will need to establish priorities based on need. This process would be difficult under normal circumstances, but it will be more difficult because the town's departments and commissions are not coordinating their activities. We have to realize that decisions made by one department can have an impact on other departments and the town. For example, if the Water and Sewer Department needs to spend $2.5M over the next 5 years to replace equipment, the town will have to borrow money to cover the cost. We will have to raise taxes, find new revenues, or cut services. But, what if during the same period, the town has to borrow money to repair roads, buy new equipment for the transfer station, or repair or build facilities?

Planning may not make these problems go away, especially in the short term. But, it can help us prepare to deal more effectively with them, and it can help us minimize the cost. Planning can also help us get back on a solid financial footing in the future. Our Selectmen and Commissioners can help by working together and making their financial situation transparent to the public. The public can help by taking time to understand the situation and participating in the planning process. We can also help by taking care of our own responsibilities and our relationships with our neighbors rather than burdening the town. Working together to solve the big issues will help resolve the smaller ones.

More on Solar Energy - My Conversation with Lee Nichols

At the last Select Board Meeting I asked for the Electric Commission's report on the Solar Energy Proposal. I was pleased to receive a call from Lee Nichols the next day. Lee explained that the commission did not do a formal analysis of the proposal, but the decision was based on the new contract which will take effect in January, 2012. Lee can explain this better than I can, but the contract will hold the rate at the 2010 level if we use the same amount of electricity. We are contracted to purchase 100% of our electricity for the first three years of the contract and 80% for second three years. Lee said the commission's decision was also based on the fact that the solar project would provide energy only during peak load hours. The proposal did not include a battery back up system. A battery back up system could have been added, but he said the cost of the system would have raised the rate to or above what we would be paying under the new contract. Right now the commission is looking to hydro power from the four dams in town to help us meet future "green energy" requirements. However, the commission will look at solar energy again in 2013.

How we deal with providing electricity to the town in the future is a major concern. We have to move toward using more sustainable energy sources while meeting our energy needs at an affordable cost. It is likely that our future needs will have to be met with a combination of fossil fuel, hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. We need to start preparing for the future by studying the options, planning, and putting ourselves in a better financial position to invest in sustainable energy.

The Select Board Enacts Dog Poop Ordinance. Really?

At the last Select Board Meeting, there was a lengthy discussion on dog poop at the ball field, and the dog poop signs that are posted on River Street. Earlier this year, there was a similar discussion about dog poop in town. There was also a lengthy discussion about removing the green flower barrels from Main Street. Are these the kind of issues we want dealt with at Select Board Meetings?

The Select Board should be dealing with the important issues facing the town and not with "housekeeping." Housekeeping is important, but these items should be dealt with off line by having the Town Administrator refer them to the appropriate department for action. Instead of having the town purchase and post signs, pass ordinances, and send out the police department, dog owners could use a little common sense. Residents can help by taking care of their pets, cars, garbage, and property.

Get Involved in the Town Master Plan

The Coalition urges residents to get involved in the development of the Master Plan. If you cannot attend meetings, you can read the planning documents and minutes online at the Ashland Town Website. You can also use this Blog to make comments and suggestions.

Long term planning is essential to maintaining the character of the town, promoting economic development, and improving our quality of life. A good plan can help us develop an integrated approach to addressing key issues facing the town and help us use our resources more effectively to promote sustainable growth and financial stability.

As the Budget Committee conducts its hearings, it is becoming clear that the town is facing large expenditures to replace equipment, repair or upgrade facilities, and build new facilities to meet our needs. Like many towns, we do not have the capital reserves to cover these costs and will need to borrow money and obtain grants. The downturn in the economy has made our situation more difficult. Grant money and loans are more difficult to obtain and a number of residents are having trouble paying taxes at the current rate. And, as we put off large capital projects to hold down taxes or utility rates the cost of repair, maintenance, and replacement increases.

The best way to meet our needs is by developing a long term plan and encouraging sustainable economic growth. At this point, the town does not have the capital reserves to pay for all of the capital improvements we will need to make over the next 5 to 10 years, so we will have no choice but to borrow money. We can work to reduce the amount of money we need to borrow through long term planning. Planning will also put us in better position to apply for grants. Finally, planning will help us coordinate the activities of various departments so that we can make needed improvements more efficiently and effectively.