I have been focusing on problem areas in town in the Blog, but there are a number of positive things taking place. It seems clear that the town needs to get it finances in order, plan for the future, and attract sustainable economic development if we are to maintain the essential character of the town and our rural lifestyle. It will take combined and coordinated effort by the town government, the utilities, and the townspeople to achieve these goals, but there are signs that we are beginning to move in that direction.
I have already written about the Water and Sewer Department's plan to raise its rates to cover its short-term and long-term operating expenses. While no one wants to see rates increased, the department must cover its expenses in order to continue to operate. The department is also looking at ways to increase its dumping revenues, and is looking at the possibility of building a receiving station for sustainable long-term growth.
It appears that the Electric Department's new contract will keep the rates at their current level while improving the department's finances. Since this is a long term contract, it is important that the department explain the conditions of the contract with the townspeople as well as get an accurate accounting of the department's finances. It is important to point out the Electric Department's strengths. We did not lose power during the hurricane, and we have rarely lost power during major storms that have crippled towns and states around us.
Plan New Hampshire completed a design charrette and will have a final report for us later this fall. The report will contain ideas about improving the downtown, lower village, and river front, including ways to attract economic development, change the traffic flow, increase parking, increase the size of Memorial park, make better use of use of the mills, historical artifacts, and buildings.
The Budget Committee met with the Planning Board to discuss developing a capital improvement program (CIP). Voters gave the Planning Board the authority to develop a CIP in 1984. A CIP is a planning document that establishes the town's long-term capital needs, estimates the costs, and establishes priorities for purchasing capital equipment, improving facilities, and repairing roads. The object of a capital improvement program is to establish long-term savings accounts for for these expenditures to help pay for them or at least offset their cost. Voters have the final say in approving funds for capital improvements, but the CIP will help both government officials and voters make more informed decisions. An effective capital improvement program takes several years to develop, but we need to begin the process now. Town Administrator, Paul Branscombe, is looking at long-term capital needs with the town department heads, and the budget committee is also looking to include capital improvements in this year's budget.
Much work needs to be done in all of the areas mentioned above. We can help by staying informed, especially about current and future finances. Like many of us, the town has been focused on meeting current obligations but has not put away enough money to meet future expenses. It is very likely that we will have to borrow to cover large capital expenses, at least over the next few years. But, we might begin to think of the cost of operating the town as a combination of current and future expenses. Saving for capital improvements will help stabilize the tax rate, make it easier for us to get grants and loans, and make the town more attractive to sustainable economic development. Economic development can help to reduce taxes in the long term.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Questions from the Budget Committee Meeting Part II: Accounting Practices
One important issue that emerged at the last Budget Committee meeting has to do with accounting systems and practices. The Budget Committee asked the Electric Department how it was accounting for income and expenses. The answers to these questions were not always clear or definitive. However, my understanding is that the department reports most income as all revenues that it has billed for rather than revenues it has actually received, and reports expenses as the bills it has paid rather the bills it has received. This can be a problem because the financial reports can show that there is more income than there actually is.
How can this happen? Consider a simple hypothetical example. The department buys electricity and sells it to another town. If the department buys the electricity for $80,000 and sells it for $100,000, the income would be $20,000 (Income = Sale Price - Cost).
Say, however, at the time of generating the financial report, the department had billed the town but had not paid its bill for the electricity. The way the accounting is done now, the financial report would show the $100,000 as income, but it would not reflect the $80,000 that the department still owes for the electricity. In other words, the report would show an income $100,000 when the actual income is only $20,000.
Eventually, the income would be adjusted when the department pays for the electricity and enters it into the system. But, what if decisions were made based on the financial report before the adjustment was made? The department could easily spend more than it actually took in, or enter into long term projects that it would be unable to pay for.
This is why standard practice involves making sure that entries accurately reflect the actual financial status. If the $100,000 is entered as revenue, then the $80,000 must be entered as a cost so that the reports reflect the actual income of $20,000.
According to the Electric Department, their accounting system was set up by their auditor, and this is the way things have always been done. I suppose that would be fine if everyone who has to work with the reports understands what they mean and can adjust the figures to show the actual expenses and income. But, the department should be following standard accounting practices so that their reports accurately reflect their finances.
How can this happen? Consider a simple hypothetical example. The department buys electricity and sells it to another town. If the department buys the electricity for $80,000 and sells it for $100,000, the income would be $20,000 (Income = Sale Price - Cost).
Say, however, at the time of generating the financial report, the department had billed the town but had not paid its bill for the electricity. The way the accounting is done now, the financial report would show the $100,000 as income, but it would not reflect the $80,000 that the department still owes for the electricity. In other words, the report would show an income $100,000 when the actual income is only $20,000.
Eventually, the income would be adjusted when the department pays for the electricity and enters it into the system. But, what if decisions were made based on the financial report before the adjustment was made? The department could easily spend more than it actually took in, or enter into long term projects that it would be unable to pay for.
This is why standard practice involves making sure that entries accurately reflect the actual financial status. If the $100,000 is entered as revenue, then the $80,000 must be entered as a cost so that the reports reflect the actual income of $20,000.
According to the Electric Department, their accounting system was set up by their auditor, and this is the way things have always been done. I suppose that would be fine if everyone who has to work with the reports understands what they mean and can adjust the figures to show the actual expenses and income. But, the department should be following standard accounting practices so that their reports accurately reflect their finances.
A Question about Accounting and Budgeting Practices
We received this blog article from an anonymous source.
Where is all the money that the Electric Dept as well as Water/Sewer appropriated by
depreciation" over the last 15 yrs? If it doesn't exist get an answer why. It appears
that this deceptive practice and deliberately designed budget accounting that hides all
expenditures prevented everyone from being able to question this and more.
Where is all the money that the Electric Dept as well as Water/Sewer appropriated by
depreciation" over the last 15 yrs? If it doesn't exist get an answer why. It appears
that this deceptive practice and deliberately designed budget accounting that hides all
expenditures prevented everyone from being able to question this and more.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Water and Sewer
Last night the Water and Sewer Commissioners voted on a plan to place the Water Department on a sound financial footing. The department will be presenting the details of the plan to its customers in the near future.
We have written about the Department's financial problems in the blog. What is important now is that the commissioners have reviewed their finances in depth, discussed various ways to make up for the existing shortfall, and developed a plan for restoring the water Department to profitability. This has been a difficult task. They have accomplished this work while having to appoint a new commissioner and continue plans to increase sewer revenues. Members of the public have played a part in this process, but most of the work has fallen on the commissioners. After reaching their decision at the meeting last night, members of the public congratulated them for recognizing the problem and working so quickly and effectively to take action. Clearly, no one wants their water rates raised, but in order to continue to provide service in the long term, the water department must be profitable. The department's plan is the least painful approach. Our thanks to Bob Boyle, Alan Cilley, and new commissioner John Hughes.
We have written about the Department's financial problems in the blog. What is important now is that the commissioners have reviewed their finances in depth, discussed various ways to make up for the existing shortfall, and developed a plan for restoring the water Department to profitability. This has been a difficult task. They have accomplished this work while having to appoint a new commissioner and continue plans to increase sewer revenues. Members of the public have played a part in this process, but most of the work has fallen on the commissioners. After reaching their decision at the meeting last night, members of the public congratulated them for recognizing the problem and working so quickly and effectively to take action. Clearly, no one wants their water rates raised, but in order to continue to provide service in the long term, the water department must be profitable. The department's plan is the least painful approach. Our thanks to Bob Boyle, Alan Cilley, and new commissioner John Hughes.
More on Access to Government Records and Meetings
We have posted our belief that the Select Board Work Sessions that are now held on Mondays at 9:00 AM are in violation of the RSA 91-A. We also have printed Sandra Coleman's opinion that the location of the meetings does not allow for handicapped access. The same is true of the Water and Sewer and Electric Department Meetings.
The RSA places the public's right to know and the public's right to free access above the needs and desires of public officials. The RSA does not include language like "whenever possible," or "when finances allow." Monday morning maybe good time for the Select Board to meet with the department heads, and the conference room at the town hall maybe a good place for the their meetings. There is no question that the work session was highly productive and helped to make the Monday night meeting very successful. But, the Monday morning work sessions limit public access. Perhaps, the board and members of the public can find a time and place that works well for everyone. The Utilities meet at the end of the work day, but they, too, need to find a place that is accessible to everyone. Perhaps the Booster Club might be a good meeting place once the repairs are made.
The RSA places the public's right to know and the public's right to free access above the needs and desires of public officials. The RSA does not include language like "whenever possible," or "when finances allow." Monday morning maybe good time for the Select Board to meet with the department heads, and the conference room at the town hall maybe a good place for the their meetings. There is no question that the work session was highly productive and helped to make the Monday night meeting very successful. But, the Monday morning work sessions limit public access. Perhaps, the board and members of the public can find a time and place that works well for everyone. The Utilities meet at the end of the work day, but they, too, need to find a place that is accessible to everyone. Perhaps the Booster Club might be a good meeting place once the repairs are made.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
A Comment on the Select Board Work Session
We received the following post from Sandra Coleman.
On the morning of Monday August 8, 2011, The Board of Selectmen held their work session in the conference room at the Town Hall. In attendance were three selectmen, the Town Administrator, three department heads, and the recording secretary for a total of eight people. The table in the conference room accommodates six people comfortably. Consequently, there was room for four folding chairs for the public. Other members of the public found it necessary to sit outside the conference room. This meeting was not very well planned, as the past experience indicates there are always more than four members of the public at a work session.
In my opinion, the Board of Selectmen violated RSA 91A, Attorney Generals’ Memorandum of July 15, 2009, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Title II. The RSA has been defined in the BLOG, and on page 12 in the Memorandum of Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The Title II of the American with Disabilities Act states “Title II requires that the State and local governments give people with disabilities and equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities. I will agree, the Board of Selectmen in order for them to accomplish their agenda, has the right to exclude the public from speaking or asking questions.
However, to deny the public the opportunity to be present or make it difficult for them to sit or stand is ‘just wrong’. For the past year and some months, the work sessions were held in the evening and in a handicap accessible facility (school library). The time and the place gave all residents to opportunity to see ‘Town Government’ in action. The library has a wheelchair ramp that my my husband and I used when attending the meetings. Time in the evening afforded people who needed a ride, could attend after friends/family were out of work for the day.
“Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society”, read in the Constitution of New Hampshire.
What does the Board of Selectmen plan to do next in the wake of what they have done these past few weeks?
Sandra Coleman
On the morning of Monday August 8, 2011, The Board of Selectmen held their work session in the conference room at the Town Hall. In attendance were three selectmen, the Town Administrator, three department heads, and the recording secretary for a total of eight people. The table in the conference room accommodates six people comfortably. Consequently, there was room for four folding chairs for the public. Other members of the public found it necessary to sit outside the conference room. This meeting was not very well planned, as the past experience indicates there are always more than four members of the public at a work session.
In my opinion, the Board of Selectmen violated RSA 91A, Attorney Generals’ Memorandum of July 15, 2009, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Title II. The RSA has been defined in the BLOG, and on page 12 in the Memorandum of Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The Title II of the American with Disabilities Act states “Title II requires that the State and local governments give people with disabilities and equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities. I will agree, the Board of Selectmen in order for them to accomplish their agenda, has the right to exclude the public from speaking or asking questions.
However, to deny the public the opportunity to be present or make it difficult for them to sit or stand is ‘just wrong’. For the past year and some months, the work sessions were held in the evening and in a handicap accessible facility (school library). The time and the place gave all residents to opportunity to see ‘Town Government’ in action. The library has a wheelchair ramp that my my husband and I used when attending the meetings. Time in the evening afforded people who needed a ride, could attend after friends/family were out of work for the day.
“Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society”, read in the Constitution of New Hampshire.
What does the Board of Selectmen plan to do next in the wake of what they have done these past few weeks?
Sandra Coleman
Monday, August 15, 2011
Questions from the Budget Committee Meeting Part I: Is the Budget Committee Going to Far?
At the last Budget Committee meeting, Dan Golden raised the question of whether the budget committee is going too far in its meeting with the various town departments? I have also heard a number of other people in town ask the same question. But, what does going to far mean? Is it a matter of asking for too much detail or going into too much depth? Is it a matter of questioning the expenditures themselves? Or, is it a matter of asking questions that reveal problems with the way the town manages its money?
According to RSA 32:16 and 32:22 (reprinted below), budget committees can request information on spending, revenues, and services in the detail they require, and it compels town officials to provide the information. RSA 32:22 restricts budget committees from disputing or challenging officials over expenditures. These RSAs indicate that the budget committee can ask for as much financial detail as it needs to prepare the budget, but it cannot question an official's discretion over expenditures. I want to discuss Steve Heath's report to the committee here and Lee Nichol's report in another article. At the meeting, Fire Chief Steve Health was asked to give the committee an update on the department's spending. Steve could have given a general report and reviewed the financial reports for the department. Instead, he went through his budget line item by line item, in some cases providing more information than the budget committee needed to do its work. Here are some examples from Steve's report.
Did the committee or anyone on the committee intentionally try to embarrass Steve or the town? I have already pointed out that the committee focused on budget issues. Steve showed a highly detailed understanding of his budget, and also showed that he is an effective manager who makes well-informed decisions. If there are problems with the fire department budget, they have to do with long-term planning. We should be saving now to replace large pieces of equipment and upgrade facilities.
References
32:16 Duties and Authority of the Budget Committee. – In any town which has adopted the provisions of this subdivision, the budget committee shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
I. To prepare the budget as provided in RSA 32:5, and if authorized under RSA 40:14-b, a default budget under RSA 40:13, IX(b) for submission to each annual or special meeting of the voters of the municipality, and, if the municipality is a town, the budgets of any school district or village district wholly within the town, unless the warrant for such meeting does not propose any appropriation.
II. To confer with the governing body or bodies and with other officers, department heads and other officials, relative to estimated costs, revenues anticipated, and services performed to the extent deemed necessary by the budget committee. It shall be the duty of all such officers and other persons to furnish such pertinent information to the budget committee.
III. To conduct the public hearings required under RSA 32:5, I.
IV. To forward copies of the final budgets to the clerk or clerks, as required by RSA 32:5, VI, and, in addition, to deliver 2 copies of such budgets and recommendations upon special warrant articles to the respective governing body or bodies at least 20 days before the date set for the annual or special meeting, to be posted with the warrant.
32:22 Review of Expenditures. – Upon request by the budget committee, the governing body of the town or district, or the town manager or other administrative official, shall forthwith submit to the budget committee a comparative statement of all appropriations and all expenditures by them made in such detail as the budget committee may require. The budget committee shall meet periodically to review such statements. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to mean that the budget committee, or any member of the committee, shall have any authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of other officials over current town or district expenditures, except as provided in RSA 32:23.
According to RSA 32:16 and 32:22 (reprinted below), budget committees can request information on spending, revenues, and services in the detail they require, and it compels town officials to provide the information. RSA 32:22 restricts budget committees from disputing or challenging officials over expenditures. These RSAs indicate that the budget committee can ask for as much financial detail as it needs to prepare the budget, but it cannot question an official's discretion over expenditures. I want to discuss Steve Heath's report to the committee here and Lee Nichol's report in another article. At the meeting, Fire Chief Steve Health was asked to give the committee an update on the department's spending. Steve could have given a general report and reviewed the financial reports for the department. Instead, he went through his budget line item by line item, in some cases providing more information than the budget committee needed to do its work. Here are some examples from Steve's report.
- The Heating Fuel line. Steve reported that the heating fuel line was almost expended. He also said that the price of fuel had increased and that he saved some money on fuel by having the furnace cleaned. The budget committee only asked Steve to review his spending, not explain how he maintains his equipment and facilities.
- Mandatory Testing. During a discussion of testing, Steve explained that certain tests are required for certification, and that sometimes equipment must be replaced as a result of testing. David Reull asked Steve to identify which tests are mandatory so that the budget committee could include the costs for those tests in the default budget. However, the committee did not ask Steve to describe or justify the tests.
- Repair of columns in the Fire House. Steve was asked about the cost for repairing the columns in the fire house. He explained that they were considering replacing the bottom of the columns with granite to prevent deterioration due to salt. The committee only asked for cost figures and not the method of repair.
- Maintenance Line. Steve Heath said that he had spent about 10% of his maintenance line. Steve Felton said the the financial report showed the maintenance line had been nearly spent. In the ensuing discussion, Steve Heath said that his figures were based on what he had actually signed for, but the financial report contained other charges for fire department maintenance. The budget committee needs to know how expenses are accounted for to understand what the financial reports actually mean.
Did the committee or anyone on the committee intentionally try to embarrass Steve or the town? I have already pointed out that the committee focused on budget issues. Steve showed a highly detailed understanding of his budget, and also showed that he is an effective manager who makes well-informed decisions. If there are problems with the fire department budget, they have to do with long-term planning. We should be saving now to replace large pieces of equipment and upgrade facilities.
32:16 Duties and Authority of the Budget Committee. – In any town which has adopted the provisions of this subdivision, the budget committee shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
I. To prepare the budget as provided in RSA 32:5, and if authorized under RSA 40:14-b, a default budget under RSA 40:13, IX(b) for submission to each annual or special meeting of the voters of the municipality, and, if the municipality is a town, the budgets of any school district or village district wholly within the town, unless the warrant for such meeting does not propose any appropriation.
II. To confer with the governing body or bodies and with other officers, department heads and other officials, relative to estimated costs, revenues anticipated, and services performed to the extent deemed necessary by the budget committee. It shall be the duty of all such officers and other persons to furnish such pertinent information to the budget committee.
III. To conduct the public hearings required under RSA 32:5, I.
IV. To forward copies of the final budgets to the clerk or clerks, as required by RSA 32:5, VI, and, in addition, to deliver 2 copies of such budgets and recommendations upon special warrant articles to the respective governing body or bodies at least 20 days before the date set for the annual or special meeting, to be posted with the warrant.
32:22 Review of Expenditures. – Upon request by the budget committee, the governing body of the town or district, or the town manager or other administrative official, shall forthwith submit to the budget committee a comparative statement of all appropriations and all expenditures by them made in such detail as the budget committee may require. The budget committee shall meet periodically to review such statements. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to mean that the budget committee, or any member of the committee, shall have any authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of other officials over current town or district expenditures, except as provided in RSA 32:23.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Capital Improvement Programs
The following is quoted from the New Hampshire Local Government Center's publication Knowing the Territory - A Survey of Municipal Law for New Hampshire Local Officials.
Capital Improvement Program
"The use of long-term debt instruments may be reduced if the municipality engages in long-term capital planning and periodic appropriations into capital and other reserve funds created to carry out the plan. When major asset is acquired, such as a fire truck, planning can begin immediately to replace it in the future. Annual appropriations into a reserve fund will help to set aside the funds needed, so that wen the truck must be replaced, all or most of the money will be available to accomplish the task. The capital improvement program (CIP) is a task of the planning board or a committee appointed by the governing body, pursuant to RSA 674:5; cooperation with the governing body and the budget committee is important in CIP development."
Paul Branscombe is meeting with department heads to develop a capital improvement plans, and at a recent Planning Board Meeting, Steve Felton of the Budget Committee asked to meet with the Planning Board to discuss Capital Improvement Planning. These are good first steps. As residents, we can ask our representatives to move forward on developing an effective long-term plan, a plan that will ultimately help stabilize and lower our tax rate while meeting our obligations. We can follow their progress and provide input by going to meetings. We can also vote for candidates who support capital improvement planning.
Town Management Practices
The following sentence appears in Town Bulletin 15:
"Performance evaluations for the Town employees will be re-established this fall along with capital improvement plans to be prepared by the department heads."
We point this out because both the performance evaluations and the capital improvement plans are an essential part of good management. Evaluations benefit both the town and our employees. Evaluations that review performance and provide concrete goals give employees a clear idea of what they have or have not accomplished and what they will need to do in the future to improve the services they provide for the town.
Many of our Blog articles stress the need for coordinated long-term budgeting and planning. We see the capital improvement plan as a key step in putting the town on a solid financial footing. Both of these initiatives will help us meet current and future financial obligations in the most cost-effective way.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Comments on the Select Board Work Session
We have already commented that moving the work sessions to Monday mornings at 9:00 in the small conference room at the town hall limits public access. Six members of the public attended the session, but there was only room for 4 in the conference room. Those sitting outside could not always hear the discussion especially when the copy machine was operating.
The meeting time and location, however, makes it easier for the board to meet with the department heads. This particular meeting was a good example of how the Board and the department heads work together as a team to resolve issues. In one case, they discussed a long-term problems neighbors are having with parking in a "passway." The discussion involved the selectmen, the police chief, the town clerk, and the head of public works. They all had different perspectives, but they listened to each other and worked through the issue effectively and respectfully. The selectmen did not resolve all of the issues, but they began the discussion, listened to each other, and took the time to think through possible solutions.
Does there have to be a trade-off between public access and the board's need to accomplish it's work? No, if both the board and the public respect each other's needs and rights. The board should have their meetings at times and places that accommodate the public, and the public should respect the board's need to work through issues without interruption and make appropriate use of the time allowed for public comments. Comments should also be made respectfully. Many concerns expressed at meetings could be addressed directly to the town administrator during normal business hours. We should also consider whether our concerns are actually public matters, or issues that we should resolve privately.
The meeting time and location, however, makes it easier for the board to meet with the department heads. This particular meeting was a good example of how the Board and the department heads work together as a team to resolve issues. In one case, they discussed a long-term problems neighbors are having with parking in a "passway." The discussion involved the selectmen, the police chief, the town clerk, and the head of public works. They all had different perspectives, but they listened to each other and worked through the issue effectively and respectfully. The selectmen did not resolve all of the issues, but they began the discussion, listened to each other, and took the time to think through possible solutions.
Does there have to be a trade-off between public access and the board's need to accomplish it's work? No, if both the board and the public respect each other's needs and rights. The board should have their meetings at times and places that accommodate the public, and the public should respect the board's need to work through issues without interruption and make appropriate use of the time allowed for public comments. Comments should also be made respectfully. Many concerns expressed at meetings could be addressed directly to the town administrator during normal business hours. We should also consider whether our concerns are actually public matters, or issues that we should resolve privately.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Reprint of a Comment on the Selection Process for Elected Officials
We are reprinting the following comment by Sandra Coleman because it raises a question about the selection process used to appoint a third selectman.
"Comment: Water and Sewer Non-public Session
August 4th, the Commissioners of the Water and Sewer Department, Chairman Robert Boyle and Alan Cilley called for a non-public meeting to deliberate on the four (4) candidates for the 3rd Commissioner. After the meeting was opened, Chairman Boyle made a motion to enter non-public. Before the motion could be seconded, Paul Branscombe, Town Administrator of Ashland objected. Mr. Branscombe read a passage from Attorney General Kelly Ayottes’ Memorandum of July 15, 2009 which stated: “interviews and deliberations on filling a vacancy in an elected office must occur in public session. Chairman Boyle, after reading the passage, agreed and withdrew his motion to enter non-public
Less than six (6) weeks earlier, the Board of Selectmen, Chairman Jeanette Stewart and Dan Golden, voted to appoint Glen Dion as the 3rd Selectman. There were six (6) other candidates who expressed their interest for this position, myself included. We were not afforded the opportunity to be interviewed or attend the selection process. Where and when did the Board of Selectman make their decision ‘who was to be the 3rd Selectman’? When and where did the selection process take place?
Chairman Stewart, Selectman Golden, and Mr. Dion, all experienced Board of Selectmen, must have known or should have known Attorney General Kelly Ayottes’ 2009 Memorandum in hiring an employee and filling a vacancy for an elected or appointed official. Chairman Boyle, Chairman of the Water and Sewer Department, acknowledged his error and withdrew his motion. The failure of The Board of Selectmen to follow proper procedure in appointing the 3rd Selectman appears grossly unfair, to myself, and all other five (5) candidates. More important, was it legal ??"
Sandra Coleman
"Comment: Water and Sewer Non-public Session
August 4th, the Commissioners of the Water and Sewer Department, Chairman Robert Boyle and Alan Cilley called for a non-public meeting to deliberate on the four (4) candidates for the 3rd Commissioner. After the meeting was opened, Chairman Boyle made a motion to enter non-public. Before the motion could be seconded, Paul Branscombe, Town Administrator of Ashland objected. Mr. Branscombe read a passage from Attorney General Kelly Ayottes’ Memorandum of July 15, 2009 which stated: “interviews and deliberations on filling a vacancy in an elected office must occur in public session. Chairman Boyle, after reading the passage, agreed and withdrew his motion to enter non-public
Less than six (6) weeks earlier, the Board of Selectmen, Chairman Jeanette Stewart and Dan Golden, voted to appoint Glen Dion as the 3rd Selectman. There were six (6) other candidates who expressed their interest for this position, myself included. We were not afforded the opportunity to be interviewed or attend the selection process. Where and when did the Board of Selectman make their decision ‘who was to be the 3rd Selectman’? When and where did the selection process take place?
Chairman Stewart, Selectman Golden, and Mr. Dion, all experienced Board of Selectmen, must have known or should have known Attorney General Kelly Ayottes’ 2009 Memorandum in hiring an employee and filling a vacancy for an elected or appointed official. Chairman Boyle, Chairman of the Water and Sewer Department, acknowledged his error and withdrew his motion. The failure of The Board of Selectmen to follow proper procedure in appointing the 3rd Selectman appears grossly unfair, to myself, and all other five (5) candidates. More important, was it legal ??"
Sandra Coleman
No Smoking at the Town Beach
At today’s work session for the Board of Selectmen, the issue of smoking at the town beach was discussed. A few residents have complained and would like to see this banned. The board discussed options including having designated smoking areas either near the entrance gate or near the double gates at the end of the beach near the covered bridge. There are currently disposal cans for cigarette butts, but these are not effective, especially since most of the waste appears outside of normal operating hours.
Janette Stewart voiced her opinion that smoking should be banned. We agree. Having designated smoking areas does not alleviate the problem of having to breathe second hand smoke. While it is true, as Dan Golden pointed out, the chance of developing lung cancer in an open area is remote, having to smell cigarettes is still offensive to many. A smoking area near the entrance gate means that those passing by will have to “run the gauntlet” to get into the beach. Dan also reminded the board that a ban would be impossible to enforce, especially after hours, so why bother. While perhaps true, this is a false argument. The same could be said of many laws. The speed limit on Main Street is 30 MPH. Unless there is a police presence, the law is broken repeatedly on a daily basis. Does that mean that we should abandon the law? The town passed an ordinance to prohibit dogs on the ball field. How is that enforced? If people still bring their dogs to the ball field, should we abandon the ordinance?
The State, indeed the nation, is moving toward banning smoking in public areas. The Town of Ashland should follow the State’s lead. There is no reason to continue to allow smoking on the town beach.
Janette Stewart voiced her opinion that smoking should be banned. We agree. Having designated smoking areas does not alleviate the problem of having to breathe second hand smoke. While it is true, as Dan Golden pointed out, the chance of developing lung cancer in an open area is remote, having to smell cigarettes is still offensive to many. A smoking area near the entrance gate means that those passing by will have to “run the gauntlet” to get into the beach. Dan also reminded the board that a ban would be impossible to enforce, especially after hours, so why bother. While perhaps true, this is a false argument. The same could be said of many laws. The speed limit on Main Street is 30 MPH. Unless there is a police presence, the law is broken repeatedly on a daily basis. Does that mean that we should abandon the law? The town passed an ordinance to prohibit dogs on the ball field. How is that enforced? If people still bring their dogs to the ball field, should we abandon the ordinance?
The State, indeed the nation, is moving toward banning smoking in public areas. The Town of Ashland should follow the State’s lead. There is no reason to continue to allow smoking on the town beach.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
More on Surpluses
So far on the Blog we have looked at two different points of view on what to do with surplus money. The first was for the town to keep the money and use it for longer term projects, and the second was to return the money to tax payers. In the past, the Ashland Board of Selectman has done both. Last year the Board encumbered "surplus" money to be spent on projects this year. But, the town has returned "surplus" money by reducing taxes in the following years:
- 2001 - $575,000
- 2002 - $200,000
- 2004 - $300,000
- 2005 - $450,000
- 2007 - $70,530
There was justification for doing both. But, how do we decide which is the best choice? We might begin by considering what we mean by the term "surplus" and then looking at what the Select Board can do with surplus money. This discussion might help us consider possible ways to balance short-term and long-term needs.
According to the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Adminstration (DRA) a “surplus” is properly called an "unreserved fund balance." That is, the money has not been put in a capital reserve account or encumbered. There is no correlation between the balance in the town’s checking account and the amount of “surplus,” however. We have a surplus if we have more actual revenue than we estimated, or if we spent less than we estimated.
In the budgeting process, we look at both the normal operating expenses of the town as well as the long term expenses such as road repair, the repair and upgrading of facilities, and equipment replacement. Each department has a budget for its normal operating expenses. The Board can move money during the year to cover expenses as long as they do not exceed the total budget. For example, it can take money originally budgeted for the Public Works Department and give it to the Police Department as a long as they do not exceed the total budget. (There are procedures for overspending in emergency situations.) This allows the Board to make adjustments between what was estimated in the budget process and what the departments actually needed to spend.
The town can also budget for longer term projects and expenses by creating capital reserve accounts for specific purposes like repairing roads. Unlike the money we budget for yearly operating expenses that must be spent during the fiscal year, these funds can be saved for a period of years and then spent on specific projects. Money can also be put aside through special warrant articles and under other conditions. (See RSA 32:7)
Money that is not spent during the fiscal year is said to lapse. This money must go back into the general fund and be reallocated, or as in the case above, be encumbered for specific legal obligations in the next fiscal year.
Given the above discussion, we might more accurately define "surplus" as the amount of money we have left after we subtract our short-term and long-term financial obligations from our revenues.
How would this work? For the sake or argument, let's say the town has $200,000 left at the end of this fiscal year. Does it have a surplus and if so, how much? The answer according to our definition is yes, but only if we have planned for all of our long term obligations. If we have estimated that we will need to spend $200,000 for road repairs during the next five years and we now have $50,000 in a capital reserve fund, we will still need to save $150,000 over a five year period. We should put away $30,000 per year into the special reserve account to cover the cost of the repairs, leaving an actual surplus of $170,000 not $200,000. We could return $170,000 to tax payers and still be in a good position to meet our obligations. (Note: $170,000 would reduce the tax rate by about $0.68. If you paid $1,000 in taxes last year, you would pay $932 this year.)
The actual process of budgeting and spending is much more complex. There are many medium and long term projects that we need to accomplish, and there is only so much much money. The Budget Committee and the town must consider all of the short-term and long term obligations and prioritize them in developing developing a budget.
In an ideal situation, real surplus money - money that is left after we have made provisions for all of our longer term expenses - should be returned to tax payers. The DRA, I believe, says that approximately 10% should be placed in an emergency fund and the rest returned to taxpayers. The town, however, should have a carefully prepared plan for long-term capital expenses so that they can determine when we have a real surplus.
In our current situation, when many people in the town are experiencing financial hardship due economic conditions, and the town has not put away or been able to enough money to deal with all of the long-term expenses, the town has to make difficult decisions about budgeting and spending. The Budget Committee is taking a very close look at the department budgets this year in an effort to begin to put the town on a more solid financial footing. We can help by learning more about the budget process, and attending and participating in meetings so that we can make more informed decisions about the budget and spending.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Invitation to ask Lee Nicols Questions
Lee Nicols asked me to meet with this coming Monday so that we could talk about some of the posts and comments that have appeared in the Blog. I wanted to invite readers to send in questions that you want me to ask Lee. You can do so by making comments to this post.
We have focused on issues concerning Water and Sewer. The object has not been to single out Water and Sewer. Other departments also have similar issues that we need to deal with. It just happens that the department is dealing with important issues at this time. We feel that the discussion has helped in getting the public involved in both the selection process for the new Commissioner, understanding the department's financial situation, and contributing input toward a plan to get the Water Department's finances on track. Last night's Water and Sewer Meeting meeting was an excellent example of how informed citizens can work with town departments on difficult issues in a positive manner. Your questions for Lee can help move the process forward.
We have focused on issues concerning Water and Sewer. The object has not been to single out Water and Sewer. Other departments also have similar issues that we need to deal with. It just happens that the department is dealing with important issues at this time. We feel that the discussion has helped in getting the public involved in both the selection process for the new Commissioner, understanding the department's financial situation, and contributing input toward a plan to get the Water Department's finances on track. Last night's Water and Sewer Meeting meeting was an excellent example of how informed citizens can work with town departments on difficult issues in a positive manner. Your questions for Lee can help move the process forward.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Correction to Water and Sewer Rate Increases
Alan Cilley asked me to correct figures I published in the posting on Water and Sewer Rate increases. Alan said that the department estimates that it will have to spend $2.5 million in equipment and projects over the next 10 years. It will cost $900,000 to clean the lagoons in 10 years. There are $530,000 in equipment replacement in projects for water and $1.07 million for sewer over the next 5 years. I had been following the discussions, but my understanding was that the department $2.5 million in equipment replacement and projects over the next 5 years, and $1 million to clean the lagoons in 10 years. The paragraph that I wrote should read as follows The correction appears in bold type.
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 $530,000 of that is for replacing water equipment and doing projects, then the department should be figuring approximately $106,000 per year into its rates in addition to its normal operating costs.
I might also add that the department would need to put away $90,000 per year over a 10-year period to clean the lagoons, and $214,000 per year over a 5-year period for sewer related equipment and projects.
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 $530,000 of that is for replacing water equipment and doing projects, then the department should be figuring approximately $106,000 per year into its rates in addition to its normal operating costs.
I might also add that the department would need to put away $90,000 per year over a 10-year period to clean the lagoons, and $214,000 per year over a 5-year period for sewer related equipment and projects.
How Do We Get Qualified People in Local Government?
We are posting the following article from Anonymous.
"Those of us who have worked in the business world or service industries, as professionals or skilled laborers, are accustomed to a hiring process that typically considers an applicant’s experience, skills, educational background, references, and other criteria. And usually this process results in an appropriate match between employee and the job.
But small town government in New Hampshire is structured by law to rely on people who are elected and/or volunteer for the various boards, commissions, and committees. The only legal requirement that I know of for these positions is that the members are legal residents of the town.
So how do we get qualified people (at volunteer prices) in our town’s positions? How do we get the Water and Sewer Commission to fill their vacant seat with a qualified person? [In this instance of filling a vacant position until the next election, it is entirely the responsibility of the remaining members of the commission.]
Part of the solution lies with the commission itself. The Commission needs to acknowledge that it is responsible for running what is essentially a large business. The commission members must be able to understand and analyze complex financial data, and make fiscally responsible decisions based on that data. They need to understand legal contract language, and abide by state and federal regulations. They need to assess short-range and long-range needs and develop strategic proposals and plans to address those needs. The commission needs to communicate (orally and in writing) clearly with its ratepayers and Ashland citizens and conduct all of its own business in a timely, open, consistent and legal manner. If the Commission were to establish these high expectations as their standards, then they would also be part of their thought process in selecting a replacement commissioner until the next election.
Part of the solution lies with us as voters, citizens, taxpayers and residents. We have to go to the Water and Sewer Commission meetings. We have to listen, ask questions, request information, read minutes, challenge them when issues are not dealt with – and we must do this regularly, over and over. We need to let the Commission know that we expect them to be proactive and responsible in making thoughtful decisions on all issues.
It is also our responsibility as voters and residents to ensure that the most qualified people are put in place to run our government. Can we legally require that citizens who run for an office or volunteer for a position possess certain qualifications? Unfortunately, we probably cannot. But that makes our responsibility as citizens and voters even more crucial – we must make wise choices in who we elect or appoint to run our local government. And we must let the Water and Sewer Commission know that we expect them to make a well-thought out choice in the replacement commissioner to serve until the next election."
"Those of us who have worked in the business world or service industries, as professionals or skilled laborers, are accustomed to a hiring process that typically considers an applicant’s experience, skills, educational background, references, and other criteria. And usually this process results in an appropriate match between employee and the job.
But small town government in New Hampshire is structured by law to rely on people who are elected and/or volunteer for the various boards, commissions, and committees. The only legal requirement that I know of for these positions is that the members are legal residents of the town.
So how do we get qualified people (at volunteer prices) in our town’s positions? How do we get the Water and Sewer Commission to fill their vacant seat with a qualified person? [In this instance of filling a vacant position until the next election, it is entirely the responsibility of the remaining members of the commission.]
Part of the solution lies with the commission itself. The Commission needs to acknowledge that it is responsible for running what is essentially a large business. The commission members must be able to understand and analyze complex financial data, and make fiscally responsible decisions based on that data. They need to understand legal contract language, and abide by state and federal regulations. They need to assess short-range and long-range needs and develop strategic proposals and plans to address those needs. The commission needs to communicate (orally and in writing) clearly with its ratepayers and Ashland citizens and conduct all of its own business in a timely, open, consistent and legal manner. If the Commission were to establish these high expectations as their standards, then they would also be part of their thought process in selecting a replacement commissioner until the next election.
Part of the solution lies with us as voters, citizens, taxpayers and residents. We have to go to the Water and Sewer Commission meetings. We have to listen, ask questions, request information, read minutes, challenge them when issues are not dealt with – and we must do this regularly, over and over. We need to let the Commission know that we expect them to be proactive and responsible in making thoughtful decisions on all issues.
It is also our responsibility as voters and residents to ensure that the most qualified people are put in place to run our government. Can we legally require that citizens who run for an office or volunteer for a position possess certain qualifications? Unfortunately, we probably cannot. But that makes our responsibility as citizens and voters even more crucial – we must make wise choices in who we elect or appoint to run our local government. And we must let the Water and Sewer Commission know that we expect them to make a well-thought out choice in the replacement commissioner to serve until the next election."
Tonight's Water and Sewer Meeting - Non-Public Session
The agenda for tonight's meeting indicates that the commissions intent to vote to go into non-public session to discuss the appointment of the third commissioner. The Coalition believes that this is a violation of the law according to The New Hampshire Attorney General's Right to Know Memo dated July 15, 2009:
"Filling a vacancy of an elected or appointed public office is an 'appointment' and is not the 'hiring' of a public employee. Interviews and deliberation on filling a vacancy in an elected office therefore must occur in public session. Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375 (2007)."
"Filling a vacancy of an elected or appointed public office is an 'appointment' and is not the 'hiring' of a public employee. Interviews and deliberation on filling a vacancy in an elected office therefore must occur in public session. Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375 (2007)."
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Two Issues from Last Night Select Board Meeting
Last night Jeanette Stewart said that all departments should present monthly reports at the Select Board Meeting. We agree. We understand that that the departments all work hard and that some may not always be able to be present. We also appreciate that The Electric Department and the Water and Sewer Department have their own meetings and provide minutes. However, the people of the town work hard, too. Not everyone can attend 6 individual meetings each month to find out what they could have found out in one meeting from a brief, concise report of the department's activities and financial status.
Second, the Board of Selectmen announced that it was returning to day time work sessions to be held Mondays at 9:00 AM in the conference room at the Town Hall. The board feels that this time will allow to deal with their workload more effectively. However, this will mean that many people who want to attend the work sessions will not be able to because of the time or because the conference room is not large enough to accommodate the number of people who have been attending the work sessions.. The board has already limited public comments to one period at the end of the monthly meetings. The 5-member board allowed two opportunities for public comment. To be fair, the board allows some public discussion on issues when requested, but they have also stopped public discussion of issues on other occasions. One final point, and that is the board made this announcement at the meeting without previous discussion, which indicates that they discussed this matter in private before bringing it to the meeting.
We feel the board should accommodate the public and not the other way around. According to RSA Chapter 91- Access to Government Records and Meetings:
"Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people."
In this case, we believe that the board is not providing the public with "the greatest possible access to its actions and discussions. We also feel that the board acted improperly by not discussing the matter in public before making the announcement. The public has a right to know whether all of the board members agreed to this change.
Second, the Board of Selectmen announced that it was returning to day time work sessions to be held Mondays at 9:00 AM in the conference room at the Town Hall. The board feels that this time will allow to deal with their workload more effectively. However, this will mean that many people who want to attend the work sessions will not be able to because of the time or because the conference room is not large enough to accommodate the number of people who have been attending the work sessions.. The board has already limited public comments to one period at the end of the monthly meetings. The 5-member board allowed two opportunities for public comment. To be fair, the board allows some public discussion on issues when requested, but they have also stopped public discussion of issues on other occasions. One final point, and that is the board made this announcement at the meeting without previous discussion, which indicates that they discussed this matter in private before bringing it to the meeting.
We feel the board should accommodate the public and not the other way around. According to RSA Chapter 91- Access to Government Records and Meetings:
"Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people."
In this case, we believe that the board is not providing the public with "the greatest possible access to its actions and discussions. We also feel that the board acted improperly by not discussing the matter in public before making the announcement. The public has a right to know whether all of the board members agreed to this change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)