Can Templeton water department budget stalemate be broken?

   
Can Templeton water department budget stalemate be broken?
Andres Caamano
Senior News Editor/NIE Director

With less than two weeks before a Special Town Meeting that could well determine how Templeton voters want to handle the town’s Water Department, the two sides mired in the dispute over the department’s fiscal year 2014 budget have shown little willingness to budge.

After writing last week how it took only 141 voters to reject funding for the department at last month’s Annual Town Meeting, it was only a few hours before I was sitting down with Advisory Board chairman Wilfred Spring to learn what was behind the board’s exhaustive push for details on the department’s proposed budget, going as far back as February.


Oftentimes, such a tug of war relates to officials demanding more information and the added time spent compiling it. In an email sent by Templeton Municipal Light and Water General Manager John Driscoll to the advisory board, Driscoll makes such an argument, writing that “this is the first time that Templeton Water has been asked directly by Advisory for a budget breakdown that is more detailed than the one that I am to present at my own Water Commission.”

In addition, Driscoll also voiced frustration over what he construed as differing opinions on how state law should guide the department’s operation.

“We don’t operate under (Massachusetts General Law) Chapter 44 (as suggested by the advisory board), but instead under Chapter 164. We can’t operate under 44, as that would need to be reversed in Boston. Chapter 164 allows the department to raise water rates and fees as they see fit.”

Under Spring’s interpretation, though, as written in a summary of recent correspondence with the water department, “in accordance with MGL 44 Sec 53 F 1/2, during a fiscal year that an enterprise incurs a loss, such loss shall be included in succeeding fiscal years’ budgets.” Driscoll, though, disagreed, stating, “(Spring) is completely off base. The primary responsibility by a manager is to bring in enough revenue to operate,” adding that MGL Chapter 164 supports the department’s move to raise its customer rate for one quarter to cover losses incurred last year tied to nine water main breaks.

With the Special Town Meeting scheduled for June 27, Driscoll noted he’s confident that the failure at getting the water department budget passed at town meeting won’t happen this time around.

“I think there’s a groundswell of people who want this (issue) to go away,” he said, adding that he found no legal justification to not fund the water department, as was voted at town meeting.

In my sit down with Spring, though, a significant amount of time was spent discussing the department’s failure to provide the same level of detail as had been done each fiscal year since fiscal 2009, using what is known as “Form 4.0,” particularly relating to staff pay, as non-salary income, including overtime, standby and “time in grade” pay is separated out.

Driscoll had said last week in a phone interview that it was not until March 25 that he was requested to complete that form, but in an email reply on March 4 to Spring about needing to provide “the detailed water budget for FY14,” the general manager admitted being unable to “locate a Microsoft Excel Template file which all of this information would fit into nicely.”

Such requests by Spring actually date as far back as February, as he wrote an email asking for “a detailed line item water budget for FY14, and not a summary recap,” shortly after Driscoll’s first released version of the budget that month.

That “recap,” just 22 line items, inexplicably listed department staff pay — 25 percent of the total budget — as a single number. On March 11, he offered another version, this time expanding only slightly to 44 lines.

That version, with its lacking detail, only opened the door to skewed numbers that were presented to Annual Town Meeting voters, as it appeared — at least on paper — that four of the department’s eight staff members were in line for raises of nine to more than 14 percent.

Two weeks later, on March 25, Driscoll responded to the advisory board by email, having received a revised version of the 4.0 spreadsheet (created by the board), or what could be tabbed as “Form 4.1,” with the general manager writing he would “amend the attached spreadsheet and email it back to you as soon as possible.”

Town meeting came and went. And no additional information on staff pay had been made available to the board.

Nonetheless, anyone paying close attention to the numbers could see that with a budget slated to be $3,270 less than the $1.41 million that the department was operating under, it would be extremely tough to dole out large raises without significant cuts elsewhere.

Spring acknowledged the overall budget number had largely been unchanged over previous years, having grown just $29,194 since fiscal 2009 to the one proposed (a total of 2.12 percent over that span), but that the board still was right to press for information provided in the past.

And without that information, the board simply could not recommend approval.

Recognizing that the data was likely incomplete, Spring said that he did note on town meeting floor that it “appears” big raises were in that budget, even if some department critics blindly took those numbers as concrete proof that the department was handing out lucrative pay raises.

All it took was $23,365.03 of non-salaried income targeted toward four staff members to skew their salary lines. For example, two department utility specialists were shown to each be in line for raises at 14.36 percent in the next fiscal year. Once the non-salaried income was separated out, though, that increase shrunk to 1.01 percent, as part of a previously agreed union contract.

So without knowing how much non-salaried income would be in the budget at last month’s town meeting, is the $23,365.03 cited here based on guesses or assumptions?
Nope.

During a two-hour sit down with Driscoll Monday, he handed over a new budget spreadsheet, which could be tabbed, “Form 4.2.” In it, virtually all the demanded detail was there.

Knowing how it had been done historically in the 4.0 form, what took so long? Driscoll argued that “I had become accustomed to it being a formality to get the budget approved by the town.”

Showing just how entrenched both sides are at this point, when asked whether this latest data could now be handed off to the advisory board, Driscoll said, “I wouldn’t give it to (Spring), without the (light and water board commissioners) first being OK with every number. It’s more important that the board approves the numbers first, as the board hired me, can fire me, so I answer to them first.”

(Andres Caamano is the Senior News Editor/NIE Director at The Gardner News. He can be reached at acaamano@thegardnernews.com.)

Two Hours on Monday???