Water budget to be removed from town vote

Water budget to be removed from town vote

Board could ask for a PILOT agreement
Eryn Dion
News Staff Writer

TEMPLETON — The town’s Municipal Light and Water Plant has requested to have their operating budget formally removed as an article from the Annual Town Meeting warrant in a letter delivered to the Board of Selectmen.

The request was in response to a letter issued by the state Department of Revenue stating, because of special legislation merging the town’s light and water into one department, Templeton’s water budget is no longer dependent on the board or town meeting approval. An inquiry to the state department was sent by the selectmen after the water department’s budget was rejected at last year’s town meeting in May and the board threatened to stop processing their vendor warrants — effectively shutting them down.

John Driscoll, the plant’s General Manager, authored the letter and stated he would continue to provide a copy of their budget to the selectmen as a courtesy.

Although the state department’s ruling was not technically in their favor, selectmen offered several interesting responses.


Selectman Doug Morrison reminded the board that while the water budget does not need town approval, the department’s debt does need to go before the town for a vote.

Fellow member Julie Farrell provided several suggestions that could be taken up in future meetings and said the board should look into having the water department process their own payroll and vendor warrants.

“A lot of that work is done by the accountant and treasurer, and I don’t think we should be doing that,” said Ms. Farrell. “It amounts to about 30-percent of the workload for them.”

According to Mr. Driscoll, the plant cannot process their own warrants and both the former town coordinator and town treasurer have already inquired about the possibility.

“The (Municipal Light and Water Plant) cannot process their own warrants because we would require our own separate treasurer to do so, which would be illegal,” said Mr. Driscoll.

Ms. Farrell also expressed her consideration of having the water department enter into a PILOT, or payment in lieu of taxes, agreement.

The payment is designed as a way for a municipality to recoup some of the money lost in property taxes where a town enterprise operates. The town would develop a formula for collecting said payment and it usually amounts to about 4.5 to 5 percent of net revenue, according to Chairman Jeffrey Bennett.

Although the plant does give money back to the town at town meeting in the form of a “donation”, the sum has varied each year — whereas a PILOT agreement would establish a set formula to be used.

Some residents expressed concerns that the agreement would take away money from customers who pay for water services due to their money going into the town’s general fund.

Mr. Driscoll said a PILOT would take money from, “Sixty-percent of the town’s tax base and simply redistributed back to 100-percent of the town’s tax base ... This seems like a waste of resources to me and money that is required by law to be used for water plant improvements cannot go to the town’s general fund to keep taxes low.”

Ms. Farrell said the board should pursue the payment since, according to the state department, the water and light department operate under Massachusetts General Law 164, and should be eligible for such an agreement.

“This town needs money,” Ms. Farrell said. “If under Massachusetts General Law 164, you can assess a PILOT payment for both water and light, then I believe we should do that.”

No action was taken on either item, although the board seemed receptive to bring up the issues for consideration in future meetings.