State supports Light & Water Department

State supports Light & Water Department

Department of Revenue weighs in, rules department's budget does not fall under town's legislative body
Eryn Dion
News Staff Writer
TEMPLETON — The state Department of Revenue  has ruled that the water department’s budget does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen and is therefore not subject to their approval or a town vote.

“The water service budget no longer requires approval of the town’s legislative body,” reads a letter for the state department addressed to the board and Light and Water Department General Manager John Driscoll. The letter was written by Director of the Bureau of Accounts Gerard D. Perry.

“These select and advisory board members don’t know just how close they came to a full blown legal battle,” said Mr. Driscoll. “It would have absolutely been against the law for them to suspend processing of our water warrants back in June 2013 if we had not been able to pass a water budget with simple majority from a non-binding vote.”

The decision was made in response to a letter received by the state department inquiring about special legislation combining the light and water departments and the effects it had on the town’s budgetary process.


This issue came to a head last summer, when voters rejected the water department’s budget during May’s Annual Town Meeting. In the following month, the board threatened to stop processing the department’s water warrants — effectively shutting them down.

As explained in the state’s letter — under Massachusetts General Law c. 164 — light plants have “independent budgetary authority” and their department expenses are subject only to the approval of the Light Board and Commissioner.

According to the letter, after the town voted to adopt Chapter 93 of the Acts of 2000, the water department running under the selectmen’s authority was “clearly abolished”, and placed under the jurisdiction of the light department — thus creating Templeton Municipal Light & Water Department. Because of this, the water department is now subject to the same rules and processes governing a light plant.

“By consolidating water and light plants into a single department … the special act makes G.L. c. 164 govern water service budgets and accounts as well,” said Mr. Perry, in his letter.

At the town meeting last May, the Advisory Board recommended that voters reject the budget put forth by the water department, on the assumption that the revenue, assets and expenses of the department were placed in an enterprise fund and were subject to the town’s normal budgeting laws. As the state’s letter explains, this is incorrect, and the water’s enterprise fund is not subject to appropriation by the board.

Members of the board expressed relief that they now had an answer on this controversial issue.

“I’m very glad that someone finally made a ruling,” said Selectman Julie Farrell. “There will still be an issue ... We need to discuss it as a board and figure out what to do next.”

While this particular problem has been resolved, the relationship between the board and water department is still rocky and there are future roadblocks to be navigated. The department’s budget conflicts may be resolved, although future borrowing is subject to a town vote — according to Mr. Driscoll.