Enter the enterprise funds

In the “Good heavens – is this thing still going on?” department, TM is starting to resemble a public radio fund drive. You know that feeling when you turn on the radio and it's like – “Ugh, still?” That’s how this is feeling right about now.

Hmmm – maybe we should start pitching the folks watching on ACTV – “We still need to raise $4.7 million dollars by the end of this Town Meeting. Call now with your pledge of support and we’ll send you an autographed copy of the Finance Committee Report and a one-year membership for the Cherry Hill Golf Course!”

Maybe not.

We are called to order first for another Special Town Meeting, which this time we actually conduct, instead of immediately adjourning until later. First though, our interim moderator makes a few announcements and explains how he will run the meeting, the most significant difference from usual being that when recognizing people to speak, he won’t use any names. He says this is because he doesn’t know as many names as our regular moderator, and he doesn’t want to embarrass himself by forgetting the names he does know. Recognition will be by eye contact and pointing. And just in case you think he’s going to be some kind of pushover on rules – like when you had a substitute teacher in social studies – beware: he will bang the gavel when your time is up, and you’ll be expected to finish your sentence and be done.

The Special Town Meeting concerns the acquisition of a parcel of land in Pelham that is part of the watershed area for Hawley Reservoir, one of Amherst’s water supplies. The land is for sale and can be acquired by the town for $220,000, which would come from our Water Fund surplus. Various people speak in support of the motion from the Select Board, the Finance Committee and the Conservation Department. The land could be developed if we don’t buy it. It contains streams that drain directly into the reservoir, and that’s worth protecting. There’s potential for grants and donations to help offset the cost, but we do have this money available in the Water Fund reserves, and that is its purpose. The area would not be closed to the public, but recreation is not encouraged – no trails, etc. Timber production on the land can help bring in off-setting revenues. We make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to Pelham for other such parcels, and this one would be expected to cost $4000 per year in payments, which also comes from the Water Fund. The Kestrel Trust, an organization that preserves open space, is supporting the acquisition process. This is the last unprotected watershed parcel so such requests to TM won’t keep happening

A member opposes the acquisition primarily on the grounds that just because the Water Fund is an enterprise fund, doesn’t mean it isn’t real town money. If this proposed acquisition were considered under the same financial strictures as the rest of our budget items this year, he predicts it would be opposed, but because of the accounting technicality of the enterprise fund, we treat it differently.

Another member explains that the reason we treat enterprise fund money differently is because it is different – the funds come from user fees, which encompass not just property owners, but also those who are property tax exempt, i.e., UMass, who ends up paying about 50% of the town water fees. She emphasizes that major capital expenditures like this one are the purpose of the fund’s reserves.

The motion to appropriate $220,000 from the Water Fund surplus to acquire this property passes nearly unanimously. I vote in support.

The Special TM is dissolved, and we’re back to the regular TM, right where we left off – still muddling through the operating budget and the endless subsections of Article 26.

Indeed, the first subsection we deal with is – ta-da! – the Water Fund. This is to appropriate $3,722,592 for the Water Fund’s FY07 operating costs, with $3,529,777 to be from its own revenues, and $192,815 to come from its surplus.

The Finance Committee explains the revenue structure: we have a two-tiered system in which the largest consumers (again, UMass) pay the most. And because of effective conservation efforts (by, yet again, UMass,) less consumption means less revenue, so we need to increase the fees to raise the money needed to fund all the water operations, so rates per 100 cubic feet of water will go up 40 cents to $2.40 for tier 1 users and to $2.50 for tier 2 users. These are still lower than ¾ of the other towns in Massachusetts, and are significantly cheaper than in Northampton ($3.37) and Hadley ($3.72.) Costs involved in water treatment issues aren’t just personnel—chemicals and lab testing costs have increased, various filter materials need to be replaced, and the Village Park water tower needs repainting and is extra costly because of lead paint issues.

The Select Board is unanimously in favor of the recommendation, and has much praise for the water department.

The same member who opposed acquiring the watershed protection land symbolically opposes this article with a recommendation to reduce the appropriation by $1. He wants to make the point that the SB recently removed what had been a costlier third tier in the fee structure that had UMass paying more, and since the water fees are one of the few ways we can get money from UMass, it was unwise to reduce their fee.

A member of the town’s water study committee praises UMass’ conservation efforts and said that despite increased enrollment, their water consumption had decreased significantly.

The preliminary vote is on the higher number – the FC recommendation – and it passes nearly unanimously.

There is a little more discussion on the topic of the need for UMass to contribute more to the town, and explanation of how and why the third tier of water fees was removed. A SB member explained that SB representatives meet with the UMass Chancellor regularly, and the high rate had been an ongoing concern, and one that was hampering the university’s efforts to invest in conservation measures. They also increased their contribution to our fire and ambulance funds because of the water rate reduction.

We then have the appropriation vote, which again is nearly unanimous, and we’re on to the next enterprise fund.

Now if ever there were a budget proposal that should not be accompanied by a photo essay of how the system works, it would have to be the Sewer Fund.

And yet, with the rousing introduction of “I took pictures of what comes into the plant and what goes out!” that’s exactly what we got. If you really want the details, you can catch the ACTV replay. I’m just going to say that while the presentation was really not even relevant to the budget discussion, I found it informative and funny and delivered with such enthusiasm and careful language that it may end up as my highlight moment of Town Meeting.

The vote to appropriate $3,232,035 to the Sewer Fund, with $3,020,200 from revenues and $211,835 from the Fund’s surplus, passed nearly unanimously.

The Solid Waste Fund was next. Perhaps because we were now afraid of where exactly that discussion might lead us, we needed only the briefest explanation from the Finance Committee and we were ready to vote. We voted unanimously to appropriate $473,497 to the Solid Waste Fund, with $440,000 coming from revenues and $33497 from the Fund’s surplus.

Every session seems to have its dramatic hot button issue. Tonight it was the Transportation Fund.

The Finance Committee recommended spending $829,199 for this budget. The Select Board recommended $920,199. The FC recommended discontinuing a couple of low-ridership bus routes and instead using that money to fund the remainder of our PVTA assessment (which last year was funded by taxation, outside of the Transportation enterprise fund.) The SB recommended keeping the bus routes and making up the difference in paying for those as well as the PVTA assessment with increased parking fees.

As with most discussions so far regarding funding cuts, this one quickly departed from the economic rationality of the situation and devolved into moral tsk-tsking and tales of personal woe. (This is a depressingly effective tactic. Has it failed yet? I’ll have to think about that.) Some folks on both sides of the issue attempted to bring it back to fiscal stuff, but they couldn’t counter the fact that it had been redefined as a referendum on public transportation and you were either for it or against it.

There were a lot of interesting elements of this discussion and I might parse through my thoughts on it more in the next day or so, but I’m just not up for that now, so I shall conclude. We ended up with a preliminary tally vote on the larger SB measure, which passed 84 in favor, 70 opposed, and I was opposed. We then had the appropriation vote on that amount – $920,199 – and I voted for it, because there was no other option. Many voted “no” that time, but I think that was symbolic. I have no idea what would have happened if somehow the appropriation vote failed.


Random Bits

So whadya think – the Cherry Hill video retrospective or the sewage treatment plant photo montage?

All these years I thought I was among the childless tax payers helping to subsidize the school system without adding any strain. Turns out I’m actually repaying debt I incurred back in the day as one of these freeloading school kids from UMass family housing. Those were some pricy Cuisenaire rods . . . (Do they still use those?)

I’m really intrigued by the constant refrain of needing to get more money from UMass. It sounds good to me too. But I wonder – might a truly comprehensive analysis of all the financial plusses and minuses possibly come out with us owing them? Then what?

It must be a good sign that “nearly unanimously” and “near unanimous’ are becoming my most over-used phrases.

Kudos to Jim Pistrang for being willing to fill in for the moderator, and for doing that so ably.