To the editor,

I would like to take this opportunity to address a couple of issues that have come up involving the Onset Water Department in the last month. My name is Peter Murphy and I am the newly elected Water Commissioner for the Onset Water Department.

I was elected to attempt to get the department going in the right direction and to straighten out the financial problems the department was in for the past three years. At the last District Meeting I asked if the Water Department had met its past two commitments where the revenue for the year covers the expenses for the year. The answer ended up being “no.”

In fact, the department was not going to meet the current year’s commitment. When I joined the board, the Water Commissioners made that one of our primary goals. We looked at the expenses and slowly determined what we were obligated to maintain and what could be trimmed or cut.

We went through the entire budget and came up with two major cuts that would have to be approved at a District meeting. We then sat down with the Prudential Committee and discussed our options and determined how to start the process. We also talked about the newly funded full-time laborers position, but I’ll get back to that in a minute.

The two major items we submitted articles for are: 1). Rescinding the currently funded article for “Other Post-Employment Benefits” (OPEB), and 2). Decrease the currently funded article for medical benefits. The Water Department intended to begin budgeting money each year for a State benefits plan for retired district (water department’s share) employees. The plan is not yet mandated by the state so we would be delaying the start of funding the program until the next annual meeting.

When we start funding it is anticipated that it will become standard line-item budget expenditure for 15 years. This would not provide enough money to cover the commitment.

The second article would be to decrease the medical coverage account. At the time of the annual meeting the Water Department put enough money in the budget to fund it at 99 percent. At the meeting the District voted to reduce medical coverage for 99 percent to 90 percent in effect creating an excess in funds. Even if both articles are approved at the special meeting, the commitment will not be met.

Over the past month the Water Commissioners implemented a new plan to collect delinquent water bills and set up a framework for a payment plan for residents in financial need. In the past month, the office staff collected over $60,000.00 in unpaid bills. This is a complete turn-around in the way bills were handled in the past. The office also was authorized to handle and set up any payment plans with customers. If situations could not be resolved by the office the customer were scheduled to meet with the Water Commissioners to review and resolve issues face-to-face. Again, a completely new way from the past of handling situations.

The Water Commissioners reviewed and updated the fees and charges schedule to current financial rates. These include turn on/turn off charges, service charges etc., and demand and interest rates. These had not been revised in a number of years. Those charges were voted into effect by the Water Commissioners after meeting with the Prudential Committee.

That leaves the water rate. When I came on the board, the intention was to raise the water rate by $50 twice a year to meet the cost of funding the OPEB and hiring a third full-time laborer. By proposing the two special meeting articles and looking at expenditures closely we have brought the rate increase down to $15.00 twice a year. Even this number at this time is not carved in stone.

As I said before, it is a complex process. We are going step by step. We were waiting to see what the Fire Department was proposing to handle the fire employees going from 99 percent to 90 percent medical benefits. We then waited to see when the special meeting would be scheduled. We were required to hold a public meeting concerning the rate change. We are now waiting to see if the proposed articles pass.

If they do not we will have to set the increase at a higher number. We then have to submit the proposed change to the state for approval. If that happens we will have to notify the public through the newspaper and possibly in a notice for the rate to go into effect in the spring and putting the notice in each fall bill going out.

The problem with this is one variation in the process and we have to figure out another way to accomplish meeting the commitment this year. The state has told the Clerk-Treasurer that the Water Department must meet its commitment or there will be sanctions applied.

Due to boards in the past and their handling of finances there is no leeway due to any Water Department surplus or free cash. I do not know what happened in the past with the money situation and it is too late to worry about it now but 15 years ago when I was a Water Commissioner we had what was called the “Water Department Undesignated Fund Balance” account. It contained money brought in from water billing above the commitment.

The money and the account are gone.

This means that also gone is the ability to transfer money from that account to whatever account needs to be adjusted to meet the commitment without affecting the water rates. It also means that if something major, like a water main break or a problem with the standpipe should happen, we would be unprepared and unable to handle it properly.

Water under the bridge. From this point on, once we get a handle on this commitment we will be setting finances the proper way. We will be setting expenses based on the average commitment, not setting the commitment based on the department’s expenses.

When you do it that way you do not have to worry about bringing in enough money each year and you start to build up a surplus that can be put into capital expense projects like buying replacement meters, or lengths of water main or a reserve fund for a future standpipe and then you can consider dropping the water rates.

The final thing I would like to address is the third full-time laborer. When I came on the board the money went through District Meeting and the current work staff was made up of two laborers and an office superintendent. One of the things that was brought to my attention was that the Water Department did a minimum of work.

I was told that the reason they asked for another employee was that there were things that could not be handled by only two employees. Going back to when I was a Water Commissioner the first time, we had four laborers, a foreman and an office superintendent and we had plenty of work.

We went through with hiring the new full-time laborer and when we did the Prudential Committee requested that we meet with them and the Clerk-Treasurer to go over the finances. At the meeting we were advised that if we kept the new employee we would be out of money for the rest of the budget in two months. So we took the advice and voted to put the hiring on hold until we got the commitment squared away. The status of the job is still that way. The full-time salary is sitting in payroll untouched.

At our last Water Commissioner meeting, citizens at large along with a majority of the Prudential Committee voiced their opinion that there is no need for a third laborer. Since then, on Wednesday Oct. 8, it was brought to my attention by several people that there was a petition going around cutting $50,000 from our payroll account at the special meeting which would in effect eliminate the full-time job.

If that is the will of the people, that is fine. It is just for the Water Commissioners to do it the right way we will post an emergency special meeting of the board on Monday, have the meeting, advise the employee, figure out the actual amount in the payroll account that is available to be released and write the article to be submitted Tuesday before 4 p.m.

I believe it will work out to $40,000.00 +/- which is fine with me. I will propose it to the other commissioners. If we can get the article in and it is passed at the meeting, the figure will then be added to whatever else gets passed at the meeting and we will redo the figures and see how the rate change would be affected.

Then public hearing, state approval and public notice. To me that is the proper way of dealing with it, all open and above board not standing in front of the post office at the last minute. I still actually think that is why the people who voted for me elected me.

Peter M. Murphy

Onset Water Commissioner