Non-binding questions planned on new school's costs, water department
Kerry O'BrienNews Staff Writer
TEMPLETON — With a special election set for Jan. 14 following a citizens petition, the Board of Selectmen earlier this week approved adding two non-binding questions to the ballot.
“Having an election coming up, it’s an opportunity to gather feedback to see where we stand,” said Selectman Julie Farrell. “Having it as a non-binding referendum, it’s just a consensus of the town.”
The additional questions will ask voters if they would pay an estimated $10 million for a new elementary school, and if they would rescind a 13-year-old vote transferring authority over the Water Department from the town to the Templeton Municipal Light Department.
In June, the Templeton Elementary School Building Committee finalized a land trade with the state for a parcel of land at the Templeton Developmental Center known as Crow Hill to be the location of the proposed school. The committee is also nearly finished with a feasibility study for the new school using $550,000 provided by voters.
Ms. Farrell stated that the committee now needs to know if the community is able and willing to support construction costs.
“It’s been a long time since the feasibility study was funded, and a lot has changed since then,” she said.
Once the feasibility study is complete, Ms. Farrell said the committee will have construction plans and a cost for the project to present to voters for their approval.
The project is in line for a 60-percent reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, but without a complete feasibility study, Ms. Farrell said her best guess for Templeton’s share of the project is between $9 million and $20 million.
In light of water rate increases, town officials want to present voters with a non-binding question on whether they would rescind the vote authorizing state legislation to move the water department under the light department’s purview.
“It’s leading to costs much higher than other communities,” said Advisory Board Chair Wilfred Spring. “The advisory board is trying to get that down for the community.”
Some officials also say the town lost money by losing direct oversight of the water department.
“It’s not just a technicality, it has real financial ramifications for the town,” Ms. Farrell said. “Losing this asset, we have less to use to raise and appropriate. We can’t raise as much in taxes.”
Templeton Municipal Light and Water Department Manager John Driscoll stated that a rate increase that has led to recent questions about the department’s finances will be used to improve infrastructure.
“Templeton Water spent $27,000 to have Tighe & Bond do a comprehensive 10-year capital improvement plan — coming soon to our website — and water rate study already on our website. So the increase was not just pulled out of thin air,” he said.
Mr. Driscoll also said the department has improved in the past 13 years under the purview of the light department.
“The water department has made too many improvements in the last 13 years only to have it undone in 13 days by this town government,” he said. “They would take us over, lower the water rates, use the rest of the water department revenues to lower taxes ... and then the water system would be deficient again in months and taken over by the state.”
The special election will be held Jan. 14 at Narragansett Middle School. Also on the ballot will be a vacant seat on the board of selectmen.
******************************************************
Some of these links may be interest to people regarding the merger of the water department with Templeton Municipal Light.
A
Letter from the Inspector General, Gregory Sullivan, dated December 6, 2007
promoting “accountability and responsibility in our public utilities.” References “An Investigation into the
use of certain bond funds by the North Attleborough Electric Department (12/05).
[ when did the town's recap sheet stop including water receipts?]
Primary source documents related to Chapter 93 Acts of 2000.
Timeline
for Chapter 93 Acts of 2000
Transfer of
water department operations to Light department
July 6,
1999 Light Department minutes.
August 3,
1999 Light Department minutes . Sean Hamilton states the merger of Water
with light will be beneficial for Sewer department.
August 16,
1999 Water meeting (BOS)
September
7,1999 Light Department minutes.
Reference is made to a negative letter from Chris Ryan(town coordinator
at that time). “A motion was made by Sean Hamilton, seconded by Dana Blais and
unanimously voted to have Attorney Jack Ferriter review the proposal and draft
a legal petition for insertion in the town warrant or town ballot.” In my opinion this is where this proposal to
merge water with light goes from a friendly merger to a hostile takeover.
October 5,
1999 Light Department minutes.
November 2,
1999 Light Department minutes.
November
15, 1999 Water minutes (BOS)
December 7,
1999 Light Department minutes. On page 3 of these minutes is a reference to
PCBs in the river near the wells of the water system of which the Light
department is trying to take control. Gregg Edwards is listed as a
commissioner.
December
20, 1999 Water meeting (BOS)
January 10,
2000 Light Department minutes.
February 1,
2000 Light Department minutes.
February
14, 2000 Water meeting (BOS)
February
22, 2000 Water meeting (BOS)
March 7,
2000 Light Department minutes.
Meeting attendance 84 total.
39 voters from Precinct A. 45 voters from Precinct B. the warrant article to
merge water with light passes Town meeting.
Timeline
Continued
April 4,
2000 Light Department minutes. Discussion of letter from Attorney John
Ferriter regarding how to operate
the water enterprise fund. “Presently the Selectmen submit articles for
any repairs or projects which is not necessary.” Bottom
of page 1.
May 2, 2000
Light Department minutes. Page 2 “ The manager [Mr. Skelton] told the
Commissioners that if the merger takes place we will have some serious work to
return the Water Department to a viable entity of the Town. The Commissioners
agreed but felt it can be accomplished.”
June 6,
2000 Light Department minutes. Discussion of ballot election for merger of
light and water now that the special legislation is approved.
June 20,
2000. Light Department minutes.
July 3,
2000 Light Department minutes. Ballot election set for September 12, 2000.
August 8,
2000 Light Department minutes.
September
5, 2000 Light Department minutes. Check out “Other Business”. Then go back
and read the paragraph beginning…” The Commissioners and the Manager discussed
a water meeting they attended at the selectmen’s office.”
September
11, 2000 Light Department minutes. “The Manager received a phone call from
the Town clerk informing the Light Department that the vote merge the Light and
Water Departments passed by a vote of 230 in favor and 83 against.” Departments to merge on January 9,
2001.
The Light department paid for the ballot election to merge
the Light and Water departments. Schedule of
Payments to Treasurer.
October 3,
2000 Light Department minutes.
October 30,
2000 Light Department minutes open session. Advertise for a water
superintendent.
Timeline
Continued
October 30,
2000 Light Department minutes executive session. In my opinion this is where the management structure of the Light and
Water department becomes unsustainable. Organizational structure – An
Electrical Superintendent, A Water Superintendent and the Manager oversees it
all. Old structure before “hostile takeover” one person – Harry Aldrich was the
Highway Superintendent, Water Superintendent and Sewer Superintendent. Bruce
Evans operated the treatment plant.
November 7,
2000 Light Department minutes open session. On page 2, “The Manager updated
the Commissioners in regard to meeting he attended with the Sewer Commissioners
to discuss the sewer billings and how the information would flow from department
to department.” On page 3 the
Commissioners vote themselves a raise.
November 7,
2000. Light Department minutes executive session. Everyone gets a raise!
Not even legally in charge of the water department.
December 5,
2000. Light Department minutes. On page 2, …”The sewer commissioners voted
to contribute $25,000 toward phase I which is the replacement of 200 water
meters that are presently in stock at the Highway department.”
January 2,
2001. Light Department minutes.
Other
Supporting Documents
Legal
invoices paid by the light department to take over water department.
“Citizen
Petition” signature sheets gathered by the Light department to call for a
special town meeting to request special legislation to merge water department
with the light department.
A
Letter from the Inspector General, Gregory Sullivan, dated December 6, 2007
promoting “accountability and responsibility in our public utilities.” References “An Investigation into theuse of certain bond funds by the North Attleborough Electric Department
(12/05).
My opinions...supported by FACTS ! ! !
Julie Farrell
There have been a lot of questions about the finances at the water dept,not just since the rates were increased. We have been asking before the major water main breaks in July, Our Advisory has been telling us these things and why our rates were so high would never get a full answer. No reason other than to say we got the water dept. in a big mess and did all the fixing we had to to stay compliant. Why is it the other water plants in other towns can do the same for 1/2 the money and not be in debt for 40 years. It is all about the administration costs. Julie and Will Springs and a few others will dig up more as time goes on and when you go to vote remember your budget. Driscoll has not be honest about a law brought to his attention and has ignored the law for some time. Only after spending our 2500.00 on the 3 member lawyer team has he seen fit to provide a partial list of the contracts of 5,000. or more as required in chapter 164 laws. He has been less than forth coming with answers and more asking lawyers if he has to comply.It is equal for the blame for rates to be placed on both the manager and the commission. As they boast about the rates not going up for so long is points out why they need so much so soon. A gradual increase over time would have been a plan, not a reaction like we now see happening. When we see a budget with cuts to administration and overhead of any kind we can start to think we have a commission working for the ratepayers.If the water dept. was a stand alone department the overhead would never been inflated to the point we see now. The insulting way the manager and commission have talked about the previous superintendent and crews ability to handle the issues,is the only way they justify why we should let them keep whacking us with the higher water rates. As with our soon to increase electric rates will be voted on by the commission "reluctantly"? They will be sure to take care of the big users and spread out the increases over the residential customers, i think we all know why that is. When asked about low income and senior rate discounts at the last meeting the rate study official was puzzled about any discussion they had ,not surprising to hear it would have to be paid by other rate payers. They thought it would be to hard and confusing to help out the needy and seniors alike. Their "Compassion" is only for the Light and Water budgets. Good luck low income and seniors on fixed incomes. You should let them know you still are their boss every vote you cast. Vote to rescind the chapter 93 acts of 2000. It's the only way to get the answers we all deserve to have.
ReplyDeleteI would like to thank Julie for her Factual timeline and limitless efforts to make the Light and Water departments work for us and not just for them. The L+W transparency is in the infant stages and will grow faster with a vote to rescind ch93 as people want the laws followed to keep all our departments legally operated and not in conflict with the Mass General laws.Its all about the money and following the laws to make it.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely a good idea to place the non-binding questions on the ballot. Maybe some additional information is necessary in order for voters to decide to support or not support the new elementary school. For example, is the cost of the building the only additional cost to taxpayers? Or will this new school result in additional hiring of non-classroom staff? Will the number of classroom teachers remain the same?
ReplyDelete