Chatham capital projects: 2009 Archives

Chatham’s town officials, despite repeated requests, have not published detailed information about the cost of the centralized sewer system they are proposing, although Dr. Robert Duncanson, who is in charge of the project under Town Manager William Hinchey, told a Cape Cod Times reporter this past week (Cape Cod Times, December 7, 2009) that over 20 years it would only cost the average homeowner $3,500 or $175 a year on average.

For a $200-$300 million project, that is an unbelievable statement. It is a shame that town officials have not published detailed information to substantiate that claim -- but then, they could not. They should publish the real information in full detail so taxpayers will know what town officials are planning for them to pay. The financial information about taxpayer costs in the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan posted on the town's website is also inaccurate, incomplete and not credible.

In the absence of any credible estimates of the true cost to taxpayers of the proposed centralized sewer, Chatham Concerned Taxpayers did its own calculation of costs based on publicly available information and common engineering assumptions and the best financing arrangements currently available from the state, e.g., 30 year terms, level payment, 2%.

For those getting sewers in so-called Phase 1 (about two-thirds of all residential properties) the average homeowner cost over 20 years will be about $52,000, not $3,500. Their average annual cost will be about $2,600 or $217 a month over a 20-year period. Payments will continue for 30 more years until all the debt incurred to finance the project is paid. The total financed cost of this property would be about $76,109.

Continue reading "CHATHAM TOWN OFFICIALS FAIL TO COME CLEAN ON SEWER COSTS: $2,600 OR $175 PER YEAR FOR AVERAGE HOMEOWNER?"

The big story continues to be the $240 million centralized sewer that town officials are planning to build, apparently without any town meeting ever voting on it.

It appears as if town officials are content to just use the vote this past May for a $60 million upgrade of the treatment plant as the only vote they need to plow ahead with their centralized sewer plan for the whole town.

Why is that, you may ask?

Once that upgrade to the treatment plant is done, in just two years from now according to the plan, we've been told voters will be forced to go ahead with the $240 million big city sewer or “waste” the money spent on the upgrade. The huge enlargement of capacity will require lots of wastewater to run properly. Their apparent strategy on this is just as clever as how they whisked the treatment plant upgrade through town meeting on a quick vote to see if the town could get “free” federal stimulus money, which required having all approvals in hand and being “shovel ready” by the deadline of February 17, 2010. Nobody understood the implications of that vote. CCT said at the time, well, let's get all the facts out on costs, stimulus and everything else and maybe in December or January a town meeting could vote to ratify or rescind the May vote, which was cast by an uninformed electorate. It isn't going to happen, if town officials have the say.

Indeed, as of this writing, taxpayers have still not been told what the true costs to them will be. But now maybe there's not even the need to rush for the stimulus money. The White House seems to have dropped the deadline and promised worthy projects will get funded after February 17.

As for costs, Dr. Duncanson made the astounding statement to a Cape Cod Times reporter last Saturday that the average homeowner would pay only $175 a year on average for 20 years for his sewer, which doesn’t compute. That amount wouldn’t even cover the average hook-up charge of $6,500 over 20 years let alone his cost for the sewer! This extraordinary assertion motivated CCT to do its own calculation. We found that for the average homeowner who gets sewered, the costs will be in the neighborhood of $2200 a year, not $175, on average over the first 20 years of financing. Get the details. (Payments will continue for another30 years.) See our analysis!)

We’re asking that town officials issue detailed financial information to support Duncanson’s claim or provide the real cost information for all property owners.

Again, the town should stop rushing the taxpayers along.

This is the biggest expense in the history of Chatham. Already, Chatham spends more per capita on capital projects than any other town on the Cape. Outstanding bonds to be paid off are now about $30 million. Imagine adding $240 million plus in debt to that! Multiplying debt eight-fold!

And we're in the middle of a great recession. Last spring CCT urged town officials to defer non-emegency capital spending in light of the dire economic situation, but they decided to press ahead anyway with the PD/Annex and this massive sewer project. The debt service costs for these two projects will be driving the property tax up in the not too distant future.

This project should not go into the ground until taxpayers have had a chance to be fully informed and a town meeting vote is held. But town officials have goine ahead and put out contract bids, which now have been opened. They are in the process of negotiating contracts with the aim of getting the treatment plant underway before taxpayers learn of the costs they will be forced to pay.

There are low cost systems that do the nitrogen reduction job just as well. They can be integrated into the sewer plan to save as much as $100 million in taxpayer money. Thus far, town officials have refused to evaluate them.

Selectmen have a fiduciary duty to spend taxpayer money wisely and they have not demonstrated they are doing that.

CCT does not believe chasing $10 million in stimulus money and ignoring $100 million in possible savings for taxpayers is responsible stewardship. The midst of a great recession is no time for wasteful spending, no time for such an expensive sewer system when the job can be done for so much less.

Let's stop and do this right. Many good Chatham citizens worked hard to identify the nitrogen problem and map out what needed to be done. But they never were shown any low cost alternatives that can reduce nitrogen as well as the big city sewer systems and cost far less to build and operate. All in all, they are better environmentally, are cheaper and can be built in much less time with far less disruption. Good information was presented at the recent forum in Mashpee on "Rethinking Sewers." Also, check this.

Town officials should inform taxpayers of the true costs of the proposed centralized sewer for their properties. Taxpayers should learn what alternatives can be utilized to bring the costs down. They should have the right to vote on the entire nitrogen reduction plan when it is finalized, hopefully at much less cost than town officials are currently proposing.

Instead, it appears as if town officials are buying a white elephant for the town's taxpayers and, worst yet, the taxpayers don't even know how much they are going to have to pay for it.

Chatham may be the last Cape Cod town to buy a centralized sewer system. Other Cape towns are looking at alternatives to big city sewer systems. These expensive systems just aren't needed to solve the excess nitrogren problem. Officials in Falmouth, Mashpee and Orleans want to save taxpayer money and aren't convinced they need to buy a white elephant as Chatham is doing.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the President has said that worthy projects that aren't ready for the February 17, 2010 target date for the first stimulus plan can relax.

"White House economist Jared Berstein said worthy projects not deemed "shovel ready" in the initial funding applications now will see money, implying that federal stimulus spending could stretch well beyond 2010."

So there is no reason not to take the time to evaluate how much money Chatham taxpayers can save by integrating decentralized systems and innovative devices such as the Nitrex permeable barrier approved by DEP for installation in Orleans into the nitrogren reduction program.

Wtth as much as $100 million in taxpayer savings possible, town officials have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to determine how and where to utilize these alternatives.

It never made any sense to rush to get "free" federal stimulus money of perhaps $10 or $15 million and ignore possible savings of $100 million or more.

Decentralized sewer systems are mini-sewer systems. Rather than lay big pipes all over town, neighborhoods needing treatment can be serviced one by one, thus saving moving wastewater great distances to one place where the wastewater usually gets wasted by being dumped into the ocean. Decentralized sewers save taxpayer money. EPA favors decentralized sewers over centralized sewers as better for the environment and more affordable for communities. So does the Conservation Law Foundation and national environmental organizations such as Clean Water Action.

The first chart below shows how decentralized and centralized systems differ. The conventional centralized system lays big pipes deep under streets and drains all the wastewater to one location, as in Chatham's case above Cockle Cove, to drain into the cove and Nantucket Sound. Along the way it picks up a great deal of drinkng water from the water table, which also winds up wastedin Nantucket Sound.

Continue reading "DECENTRALIZED LOW COST SEWERS -- BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER"

PRESS RELEASE
DECEMBER 6, 2009

RETHINKING SEWERS ON CAPE COD: TAXPAYERS DEMAND PUBLIC OFFICIALS NOT WASTE MONEY ON UNNECESSARILYEXPENSIVE CENTRALIZED SEWERS

December 5, 2009--On a rainy Saturday just a few weeks before Christmas about 110 people from across Cape Cod gathered in Mashpee to learn about better, faster and cheaper ways to clean up the Cape’s waters of its excess nitrogen than with hugely expensive and disruptive conventional centralized sewer systems.

Officials and taxpayers, consultants and environmentalists from the towns of Chatham, Orleans, Dennis, Barnstable, Mashpee, Falmouth and Sandwich were in the audience as was Department of Environmental official David DeLorenzo.

The principal sponsor was the national environmental organization Clean Water Action, which claims 30,000 members in Massachusetts.

Representative Matt Patrick opened the proceedings by detailing the struggles faced by taxpayers he deals with on a daily basis and the impossibility of their being able to bear the cost of the centralized sewer system ($600 million) being proposed by Stearns & Wheler for his home town of Falmouth.

As Patrick said, “I don’t fault Stearns & Wheler. Their job is to make money and building these big sewer systems is a great way for them to do that.” It’s up to public officials to find ways to do the job cheaper.

Representative Patrick said that the billions it would take to build centralized sewer systems all over Cape Cod was a mad and unnecessary expenditure – even it were affordable, which it is not.

Continue reading "MASHPEE CONFERENCE ON SAVING MONEY ON SEWERS SMASH SUCCESS"

Despite the repeated urging, pleading even, of Chatham Concerned Taxpayers, Chatham town officials have to this point refused to even look at methods to clean up the coastal waters at far less cost to taxpayers than what they are planning.

Even though alternatives to the conventional, hugely expensive centralized sewer system used in densely populated big cities exist and can do the job just as well at far less cost, Chatham officials seem determined to spend at least $300 milliion of taxpayer money to install a townwide sewer system. For a town with about 6,500 residents, this has to be the most expensive sewer on Cape Cod.

It is not clear who decided to plan for a centralized sewer system that will cover the entire town when it isn't needed to solve the environmental problem that was the reason for starting the process in the first place.

There has been no town meeting vote to plan to spend $340 million to sewer the entire town.

There has been no town meeting vote to plan to spend $240 million to clean up the coastal waters rather than spend far less to solve the problem.

Surveys indicate Chatham taxpayers could save as much as $100 million (of the $240 million) in cleaning up their coastal waters, but the selectmen and town manager refuse to even consider these cost effective alternatives.

Whaat about the fiduciary duty to spend taxpayer money wisely?

The new Chatham assessments are out!

These will be used for the next three years. They will be the measure of your property taxes when the debt service for Big Sewer begins to hit along with the debt service for the luxurious PD/Annex.

And, of course, your tax payment will go to pay for this fiscal year's spending, which soared far above that of fiscal 2009.

In case you forgot, this fiscal year's spending includes pay raises for all public sector employees, averaging around 6%, some as high as 7% and 8%. Plus increases in pensions and reimbursement for health insurance costs. You'd never know we're experiencing the worst recession since the 1930s.

Check you new assessment and compare it to your present assessment to see if it is higher, lower or the same. Having checked a sampling, some go up, some go down compared to prior years.

You have a week (through November 11th) to go to Town Hall to complain if you don't like what you see.

Later on, those thinking of abatements should know that there is a short window once the tax bills are sent out, so it's important to move promptly. You can download the Abatement Application form by clicking here. Your Abatement Application must be filed by the date your first (of two) tax payment is due. The due date will be on your property tax bill that will be in the mail in a few days in all likelihood.

Click on this link to find your new assessment number.

Cape Cod taxpayers are objecting to the staggering costs of centralized sewers to solve the nitrogen problem in coastal waters. Stearns & Wheler’s new number for Falmouth is $600 million, up from $500 million. The Stearns & Wheler number for Mashpee has been $550 million; maybe that will go up now, too. For just two Cape towns, the costs are over $1 billion before interest and the inevitable cost escalation. With 14 of the 15 Cape towns having to address a nitrogen loading problem, how many billions will centralized sewers cost?

Former State Representative Eric Turkington, who lives in Falmouth, is working with present State Representative Matt Patrick on getting the state Department of Environmental Protection more focused on less expensive alternatives to centralized sewers that are common in other U.S. states and in Canada that will do the nitrogen removal job just as well.

Mass. DEP has cold-shouldered these alternatives. We understand that DEP is now under orders from Secretary Ian Bowles to put these cost effective alternatives on an equal evaluation basis. The Office of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Environmental Protection are attempting to fast-track an information session for Cape Cod on nitrogen removing cost effective alternatives for later this month.

The article by Mr. Turkington that appears below makes some financial comparisons to show the magnitude of the cost to Falmouth property owners of a Big Sewer solution. Using the same approach, the comparison for Chatham is far worse: Where Falmouth would be “quadrupling” its outstanding debt with funding for the centralized sewer ($150 million, adding $600 million), Chatham officials are proposing to add to our present debt of $30 million some $210 million or $300 million, depending on what year you stop counting. Those are seven-fold and 10-fold increases.

To the Chatham numbers can be added the $30 million cost to taxpayers for running the centralized system for the 20 years before it’s fully operational at the end of Phase 1.

And one cannot forget the individual property owner’s cost of connecting to the system: For the two-thirds of property owners that will be connected in Phase 1, that’s at least another $28 million.

What Turkington says about the centralized sewer cost crowding out other capital needs and constraining budget growth applies to Chatham as well. Bond payments will run out for 50 years.

It’s no wonder that Cape towns want less expensive alternatives and state officials are finally paying attention.

Continue reading "FALMOUTH DEMANDING ALTERNATIVES TO TOO EXPENSIVE BIG SEWER"

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers this past spring urged town officials to postpone capital projects until the economy turned around. Instead, they accelerated the massive $340 million sewer project and pressed ahead with the $17 million PD/Annex (a 38,000 square foot twin-building plan for a handful of town employees) so that the debt service for the two projects will begin hitting property taxes with a big bang soon. First year hit for the PD/Annex bonds will be about $160 and $250 for the first of many sewer bonds issues for the $600K household.

One thing is sure. Chatham property taxpayers are going to pay. Chatham is already an expensive place to live, forcing a steady migration of families out of town. Just since the year 2000 or so, the Chatham school population has plunged from about 700 to 500, some 30%.

Chatham is #1 on Cape Cod for per capita spending on capital projects. It will surge ahead even farther when the debt service for the first sewer bond and the PD/Annex bond hit in 2012 or 2013.

Debt service on the property tax in fiscal 2010 is only $2.7 million. If the first payments for these two bond issues come due in 2012, debt service on the property tax could leap as high as $9.2 million, depending on how the town does its accounting.

For the $600,000 householder, who paid about $253 in property taxes for debt service in fiscal 2010, that could mean an additional $611. In addition,of course, will be the annual increases for Proposition 2 1/2 and new growth, which add together add about 3.7% to the property tax each year.

The overall leap in property taxes from fiscal 2010 to 2012, say, could be 34% for all homeowners.

In fiscal 2012 it could be $9.2 million!! ($5.1m of existing debt + $2.5m for sewer bond + $1.6m for PD/Annex.) A 460% increase over fiscal 2009. (If the sewer bond of $50 million (assuming $10 million in stimulus aid) is at zero interest, the increase will "only" be 420%.)

Jim Kreissl is the Environmental Protection Agency’s former principal technical expert for small community wastewater collection, treatment and reuse systems and onsite wastewater systems.

1. The cost of the recommended conventional gravity sewer for Chatham is about $200/ linear foot. This is about twice that expected in the US. It represents 83% of the total cost of the project or $240,000,000. In contrast, the more than 1,000 alternative collection systems (e.g., effluent sewers, grinder-pump pressure sewers, and vacuum sewers) installed in the country have averaged around $10,000 per house served. When compared to conventional sewering, these systems have generally saved from 25% to 50% of the capital cost. The inclusion of 80 lift stations in the Chatham planned conventional centralized sewer will drive up the cost of operation and maintenance significantly by at least $250,000/year and require hiring several additional employees by the town.

2. Alternative sewers consist of small-diameter plastic pipes that are buried below the frost line (usually about 30 in.), while conventional sewers are usually buried from 8 to 20 feet below the ground. The alternative or “low-cost” sewers can be laid by smaller equipment that is not limited to roadways. They also employ longer, lighter-weight pipe lengths and quickly-fitted elastomeric pipe joints. Thus, because much greater lengths of pipe can be laid per day, the community disruption is significantly less and shorter in duration.

3. These low-cost systems, with fewer and more water-tight joints, reduce the potential for infiltration and inflow (I/I). Coupled with their location, generally above the water table in Chatham, while conventional sewers lie below it, the potential for infiltration and inflow is greatly reduced. This means that only wastewater is to be treated at the treatment facility, not a mixture of wastewater and I/I fresh water that is the case with the conventional system. This saves the cost of unwanted additional treatment and dispersal capacity at the facility.

4. Alternative sewers do not need manholes, a feature required in conventional sewers every 250 or so feet (depending on the rules). These features cost about $2,000 each and offer opportunities for additional I/I to reach the sewer. By their nature, alternative systems also minimize the need for lift stations that are also expensive to construct and to maintain (there are 80 of these in the Chatham recommended plan).

5. One of these alternative sewers could be substituted for the proposed conventional sewer in Chatham and could easily save close to $100,000,000.

6. The potential impacts of the conventional sewer on Chatham are the growth-inducement that invariably follows its installation in order to reduce the cost per user, the potential drainage of the valuable fresh water lens that exists under the town, and the lengthy and severe community disruption during the next 30 years of proposed construction. If growth is what the citizens of the town want, they will surely get in spades after the sewer is built. If several neighboring communities also opt for the conventional sewer, the freshwater lens along the south coast of the Cape will be severely reduced, promoting saltwater intrusion under the land area and potential reduction of fresh drinking water along the Cape. Finally, the disruption that the town’s permanent population will endure over the next few decades will be severe, with a lack of alternative routes to take while main streets are blocked and businesses are jeopardized for lack of access to patrons. Even with seasonally limited construction, these problems will also likely impact seasonal residents.

7. The best way to maximize the potential value of alternative sewers is to consider using a decentralized approach. For example, if naturally draining, nitrogen elimination areas (target areas or hot spots) are identified, alternative sewers could deliver the wastewater from the sources (homes and businesses) to a cluster or neighborhood facility for treatment by passive means and infiltration or reuse. This will assure that the freshwater aquifer will remain intact and that the energy and facilities to remove it to another watershed will not be required. This approach reduces the amount of pipeline length required for collection and can be used to retain community character by not inducing unwanted growth in that area. New development will be required to manage whatever wastewater it will generate in its development plans and will be subject to the management of the sewer management authority.

8. In outlying areas that are difficult for even low-cost sewers to reach, onsite nitrogen removal systems can be required subject to the oversight of the sewer management authority. That authority may choose to operate and maintain these systems with internal staff or hire contractors to do so. The management task is far less than that required for the proposed Chatham conventional sewer system with its 80 lift stations, many, many miles more of deeply laid piping subject to enormous infiltration and inflow, several hundred manholes and required main flushing.

9. The technologies are available for alternative sewer systems to remove nitrogen at whatever the treatment level is –central, cluster or individual onsite locations. These low cost systems can be equipped to handle phosphorous (for fresh water ponds) and contaminants of emerging concern such as pharmaceutical residues and other chemicals. Alternative systems also typically provide UV disinfectant, which the proposed Stearns & Wheler plan seems to omit.

10. These systems are very reasonably priced, particularly in light of the recommended Chatham solution. Any state limitations or restrictions about their use should be evaluated and promptly modified in light of the huge economic overall Cape Cod needs. They are in widespread use throughout the United States and in Canada. Without question, these alternative systems provide the most cost effective solution for taxpayers. They are also environmentally superior.

11. The use of the Nitrex porous reactive barrier (PRB) technology utilizing the patents of the University of Waterloo in Ontario is particularly intriguing owing to its ability to provide an immediate reduction of the thousands of pounds of nitrogen that already exist in the ground water around the Cape that is moving towards the coastal waters. All other technologies will not have any impact for several years owing to the time it will take to flush the aquifer of those existing contaminants.

Additional information about Jim Kreissl

Jim Kreissl, Environmental Consultant, formerly of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Small community wastewater systems

Until his retirement, Jim Kreissl was the Environmental Protection Agency’s principal technical expert for small community wastewater collection, treatment and reuse systems and onsite wastewater systems. He now serves on the Water Environmental Research Foundation’s Decentralized Research Advisory Council, is an affiliate of the National Environmental Services Center and, until recently Chairman of the Water Environment Federation’s Small Communities Committee. Now as a consultant at Tetra Tech, he has authored several EPA reports designed to promote effective management of decentralized/distributed systems and has made many presentations at conferences and workshops on these topics. Mr. Kreissl holds degrees in civil engineering and sanitary engineering from Marquette and the University of Wisconsin. He makes his home in Kentucky.

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers issued this press release today.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 21, 2009

CHATHAM SELECTMEN TELL TAXPAYERS TO GET LOST

Chatham, Massachusetts – Last night Chatham selectmen refused to even look into an alternative plan that could save Chatham taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in cleaning up Chatham’s coastal waters.

Chatham has a plan in hand from the centralized sewer system specialist Stearns & Wheler for $340 million.

On September 22nd Chatham Concerned Taxpayers asked the selectmen, in the “exercise of their fiduciary duty to taxpayers” to look at decentralized systems such as are common elsewhere in the country that its investigations showed have the potential for saving up to half the cost of the proposed Stearns & Wheler system.

Mashpee has also received a hugely expensive estimate for a Stearns & Wheler centralized sewer system -- $550 million. But Mashpee went out and obtained an estimate from a provider of decentralized systems that will take care of the nitrogen problem for $250 million. As Mashpee’s man in charge said: “I’d be a fool not to look at a possible savings of $300 million.”

Not so for Chatham’s selectmen. They summarily voted NO 5-0 to looking at saving the kind of money for taxpayers that Mashpee is considering.

So Chatham taxpayers are facing the prospect of paying twice as much as they need to in property taxes to fix the town’s nitrogen problem. Would the alternative system do the job at far less cost, as claimed? Chatham taxpayers will never know, because the selectmen couldn’t be bothered with checking it out.

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers also announced to the Chatham selectmen last night that a coalition of officials and taxpayers across the Cape are joining together to demand increased state action on alternative systems because the costs of the centuries-old centralized sewer methods have escalated beyond reason. Citizens of Falmouth, Mashpee, Dennis, Orleans, Barnstable and Chatham have already indicated a readiness to band together. State Representative Matt Patrick is in the process of organizing a meeting with Secretary of Energy and the Environment Ian Bowles and top Department of Environmental Protection officials for the coalition.

Chatham is the only Cape town now rushing ahead to build a centralized sewer system which will cost the average property owner more than $55,000 in taxes and hook-up costs -- before adding interest and the inevitable cost escalation of a 20-year project.

Michael Barone comments today on the manipulation of the little people practiced by the insiders in the Chicago political machinery.

But his commentary is relevant to small towns such as Chatham as well. Consider this paragraph -- and use your imagination.

That's governance, Chicago style. The head of government is friends with the heads of every big business, lobby and union, and together they make decisions on how everyone else will live. Those on the inside get what they want. Those on the outside -- well, they get what the big guys want them to have. That's life in the big city.

In a small Cape Cod town such as Chatham, do insiders work with the town manager or administrator, who really controls the levers of power, to get what they want? Summer residents who pay most of the taxes but don't have the vote, no problem, they're insiders. They want a big sewer, bigger than needed to solve the nitrogen problem in the water? No problem, will the town manager see that they get it? Prominent organizations who benefit from appointments to important town commitees and have their own wish lists play ball in return.

Is there a need to squeeze taxpayer complaints out of air time at selectmen's meetings? No problem, a prominent organization which also wants a sewer and doesn't care about the cost agrees with the town manager/administrator to schedule an hour and 15 minute conversation with the selectmen for one of the other organizations they control that could happen anytime, but it's needed to run the clock against the taxpayers. No problem, they are there to back up the town manager. And the golf or the archery committee is ready to discuss its desire for more power at the drop of a hat. They're good for an hour, too.

So, the biggest decision of the century for Chatham is to be discussed -- a $340 million centralized sewer system. But, what do you know, there's only 20 to 25 minutes left before the hall has to be vacated for another meeting to begin.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer property taxes are at stake. Taxpayers point out opportunities for cutting perhaps as much as half the cost of the big city sewer system the town manager wants to give to the summer residents. They think the selectmen ought to look into it.

Time's up. No, we can't bother looking into that, say the selectmen. We don't care that some other town is doing what we won't do, giving careful consideration to saving $300 million for their taxpayers. Our taxpayers won't mind paying twice what they should. They've almost always done what we've told them to do. Why should this be different just because the possible savings are more than $100 million? They'll still trust us.

Fantasy? Conspiracy?

Mayor Daley must be smiling proudly.

And the little people who live in Chatham? They'll pay.

In a shocking display of indifference to the interests of Chatham's taxpayers, the Chatham Selectmen last night, in a unanimous vote, refused to consider a plan that could save taxpayers up to half the cost of the $240 million project to clean the waters of Chatham of their nitrogen problem.

The town-organized forum on the Chatham clean water plan this past Saturday was, as expected, a one-sided sales job for what town officials and their sewer consultant Stearns & Wheler are trying to convince taxpayers is the one and only way to solve the problem of excess nitrogen in our coastal waters. (Friends of Chatham Waterways had rejected including a knowledgeable spokesman for less expensive alternatives, but left the presentation about alternative solutions to, who else? Big Sewer's Stearns & Wheler.)

But, when push came to shove, and Chatham's Selectmen had the power to consider a far less costly way to fix the nitrogen problem, would they do the right thing by their taxpayers?

Last night the answer was "NO."

CCT has never disputed that the hugely expensive Stearns & Wheler centralized sewer plan will do the job. Our question has been "Can it be done cheaper?"

CCT has done enough investigation and study to conclude that an approach that would include modular systems in the Chatham plan has the potential of saving tens of millions of dollars. Shouldn’t Chatham at least looks at that?

CCT hoped that, with so much money at stake, Chatham's Selectmen would be sane and sensible and would show their concern for taxpayers. It didn't happen. They sold Chatham's resident taxpayers down the river.

The Town of Mashpee, faced with a similar potential for cost savings as Chatham, has said it would take a hard look at a different way to get the job done at far less cost.

Mashpee also received a shockingly high estimate from Stearns & Wheler for a traditional centralized sewer system to solve its nitrogen problem -- $550 million. Mashpee decided to ask a provider of a different approach featuring decentralized sewer systems for a similar estimate and got one for $250 million, 55% less than the Stearns & Wheeler number. Will Mashpee consider this alternative? Of course, it will. Mashpee's man in charge said: "I'd be a fool not to consider possible savings of $300 million."

But that's not Chatham's way. Tuesday night, in an artfully staged agenda for the Selectmen's meeting, the Selectmen voted 5 to 0 to refuse to even consider saving Chatham taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Apparently, Chatham Selectmen have no problem with their taxpayers paying up to twice as much as they need to in property taxes to fix Chatham's nitrogen problem.

The Town Manager's agenda put an hour-long status report of the Marconi project, which could have happened anytime, first. Then a lengthy discussion on the power of the Golf Advisory Committee, hardly a pressing issue, took up another big block of time. Then there was a discussion of a real matter, the important zoning change for the Chatham Village Market/CVS scheme, leaving less than a half hour to discuss the most important question for taxpayers of this century (the clock having to stop at 7 for another scheduled meeting):

"Would the selectmen seriously, openly and objectively look into how taxpayers can possibly save up as much as half the cost in property taxes by integrating cluster or other modular systems into the town's plan to fix the nitrogen-in-the-water problem?"

That question was put to them by CCT on September 22nd (see previous blog entries). At that time CCT provided the Selectmen with a great deal of information. In addition, CCT filed an 11-page letter with even more information with the Selectmen on October 13th. So the Selectmen had a lot of information at hand and plenty of time to think before they came up to last night's decision time.

During the course of the discussion the town's side said that the property tax effect of the centralized sewer on the oft-quoted example of the $600,000 home would at its peak only rise to $250 per year and decline after that. There was no time left in the meeting to rebut this preposterous claim:

By CCT's calculation, the debt service cost on the property tax for the Stearns & Wheler centralized sewer on that property would be $250 in the first year, doubling property tax debt service charges, and would more than quadruple over the next 20 years to a peak of $1,170 and remain there for ten more years before beginning to decline! (And that's without taking into account the kind of Big Dig escalation in costs that is likely to occur over those 20 years.) Furthermore, the few charts the Town Manager has shown anyone assume no other capital expenses for 30 years!

Robert Duncanson, who is in charge of the nitrogen project under Town Manager Hinchey, made a number of unsupported statements that also could not be refuted for lack of time. For example, he said the Citizens Advisory Committee had considered the alternative Nitrex system, one of the stars of the new technology that matches the performance of the best big sewer wastewater treatment plan, when two members of that committee told CCT it had not. Duncanson did admit the quality of the effluent output of the Nitrex system was as good as any first-rate centralized wastewater treatment facility.

Duncanson said far more land area was needed for the modular systems than is the case. Another red herring, Duncanson said that there are water areas that require 100% nitrogen removal, when the most that is required is 81%; either way, the Nitrex system can easily handle the requirement. Ms. Seldin, reading from a note apparently provided to her, said that state regulations would require a 100% performance bond for Chatham to use the Nitrex system, which requires special permitting, which is not true. (Even if true, why wouldn't the town want to save the money?)

The Selectmen were unmoved on hearing Mashpee is looking at saving 300 millions of dollars for their taxpayers.

They didn't seem to care about the taxpayer protests rising across the Cape to the proposed huge costs of centralized sewer systems.

They didn't appear interested in learning of the formation of a Cape-wide coalition of taxpayers for cost effective sewer alternatives that will be meeting with the state's Secretary of Energy and Environment to demand action on less expensive alternatives than the hugely expensive centralized sewer systems sold by Stearns & Wheler. Taxpayers and officials in Orleans, Dennis, Barnstable, Mashpee and Falmouth as well as Chatham are demanding alternatives that cost taxpayers far less.

Were the Selectmen interested to hear that the state Department of Environmental Protection had signed off on an all-Cape, all day forum in November on alternative wastewater treatment systems, because “the Cape really has to look at alternatives”? It didn't appear so.

As the Conservation Law Foundation (of all people) has said, "The knee-jerk reaction is a central sewer" because the oldtimers in the DEP are familiar with that. CLF emphasized what the Cape needs to do is look at these alternatives that are mainstream in the rest of the country and not be "pushed into things" by municipal officials. But that’s exactly what's happening in Chatham. "Damn the expenses the taxpayers will be forced to pay, full speed ahead."

The "We can afford it" people are once again telling the taxpayers they will pay for it, whether the expense is needed or not. Debt service on the property tax on top of Proposition 2 1/2 and new growth increases will be unnecessarily squeezing the town's budget and taxpayers for 50 years to come.

The only financial charts shown to anyone by the Town Manager assume no capital spending for anything other than the sewer (and the PD/Annex) for 30 years. How likely is that, since Chatham's annual spending has been growing 6% per year for more than a decade, far above 2 1/2 and new growth (collectively, 3.8%)? The excess is all due to capital spending, since Chatham has had no overrides. So for 30 years there will be no new capital spending?

Yes, Chatham overspends and Chatham overtaxes.

The annual budget is a constant reminder of that.

But this huge project -- it's really $340 million, not "just" $240 million -- represents gargantuan overspending. The cost perhaps could be just as "little" as $120 million. Who wouldn't like to spend that much less? Who wouldn't like to find out if savings of that size are possible? We now know who.

The statement was made by the town official side that the vast majority of resident taxpayers support this spending. First, we would guess that only a small percentage has ever heard the numbers $340 million or $240 million and they surely don't know what that means to their property taxes. Second, CCT will guarantee that hardly anyone has ever heard that cleaning Chatham waters could be done for tens of millions of dollars less than what Chatham town officials are planning to spend of their money. Would they like to save maybe half their property taxes on the water clean-up? You bet they would.

How would Chatham taxpayers save that much money?

$340 million on the property tax: $100 million is to sewer properties that don't need to be sewered to clean up the waters. So drop that $100 million and the taxpayers are looking at a bill of $240 million: Integrating modular systems which require far less piping, don't involve tearing up the streets and digging down up to 20 feet (into the water table), and huge pumps and lifts and lots of heavy equipment, can save -- if you use Mashpee's current estimate ratio -- $132 million for Chatham’s taxpayers.

But say the savings are just half that -- $61 million. Don't forget the $100 million to sewer properties that don't need it -- $100 million. $161 million in savings. Not bad at all.

That's what the Chatham Selectmen, unanimously said "NO' to Tuesday night. They weren't interested in learning about whether these possible savings to taxpayers could be achieved.

That's all CCT asked: Make a serious examination of the savings possibility.

Is it irresponsible not to look at such potential savings? The Selectmen said "NO, it isn't." CCT says, "YES, it is." It's an abdication of the Selectmen's fiduciary duty to taxpayers.

Once taxpayers learn about the many millions of dollars more they will be paying in property taxes because the Selectmen said they couldn't be bothered to look into the possibility that indeed such sums of money could be saved, will they be pleased or angry? Will they be happy or sad that once again town officials chose the most expensive way to do something, this time on the biggest, most expensive project in the town's history?

Chatham town meeting is supposed to be the ultimate example of democracy in action. Too much of the time it rubber stamps what town officials are selling. When will taxpayers wake up to the fact their interests have been trashed, again?

Before any huge expenditure of $240 million or $340 million for cleaning the waters goes forward, taxpayers should demand that they have the opportunity to vote on the plan at a Town Meeting. That now appears to be the only way they can stop town officials from spending many millions of dollars more of taxpayer money than they need to to clean Chatham's waters of their nitrogen problem.

The town-organized forum on the Chatham clean water plan was as expected, a one-sided presentation of what town officials and their sewer consultant Stearns & Wheler came up as the one and only way to solve the problem of excess nitrogen in our coastal waters.

Since the offer by CCT to provide a spokesman for alternative ways to save tens of millions of dollars was rejected, there was no voice to counter the incorrect and to a large extent irrelevant information suppolied by the town's spokesmen.

Though "hosted" by Friends of Chatham Waterways the program and all speakers were selected by town employee Robert Duncanson who is in charge of the excess nitrogen project under Town Manager William Hinchey.

CCT had offered to produce an EPA expert or someone else knowledgeable of the cost and environmental benefits of alternative systems for the program, but FCW had rejected the offer. There was no effort to present a balanced view

The words "cost effective" and "cost savings" were never used by any speakers on the Duncanson panel.

There are well over 1,000 alternative systems operating in Canada and elsewhere in the United States that can do as good a job as a big centralized sewer system but at far less cost.

Continue reading "TAXPAYER SAVING IN HANDS OF CHATHAM SELECTMEN"

The following request for action was delivered to the Board of Selectmen at its meeting on Tuesday, September 22.

It calls upon the Selectmen to recognize their “fiduciary duty” to safeguard taxpayer money by more thoroughly investigating alternative techniques and technologies which have been developed that will remediate the nitrogen loading problem just as effectively, at considerably less expense and much more quickly with less disruption and greater environmental benefit than the outrageously expensive approach currently being recommended."

Here is the text in full:

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers’ Position on
Chatham’s Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan

All of us are united in our desire to rid Chatham’s waterways of excess nitrogen. We believe there are ways to do that which are far less expensive and more environmentally beneficial.

1. The projected cost of $340 million for the proposed centralized sewer system – roughly ten times the entire annual town budget – is too much of a financial burden for taxpayers.

2. The CWMP involves committing the town irreversibly in its earliest stage to an ancient and extremely expensive technology. The town’s plan calls for a huge expansion of the wastewater treatment plant at the very start of the process. If completed as scheduled, it would preclude the consideration and inclusion of alternative technologies that we believe can make it possible to save as much as $100 million while solving the excess nitrogen problem. This cannot be allowed to happen. We believe an incremental, gradual expansion of the treatment plant and a measured area-by-area expansion of the existing sewer system, starting with “hot spots,” in combination with alternative wastewater treatment technologies, will result in a superior environmental solution at much less cost.

3. The projected total burden of the CWMP on property taxes over the years has not been made clear to taxpayers. Further, the cost to individual homeowners has been presented in only summary form. For a project of this magnitude, complete transparency regarding the calculation of costs is required. Taxpayers need to know what they are voting for.

4. The proposed CWMP has been developed based on water use and population assumptions that seem unreasonably high and not supported by recent trends. These assumptions in turn have led to plans for a huge sewer system – some seven times the capacity of the existing system for two-thirds of the town -- that we believe is oversized. It is more costly than required and will provide both the capacity and incentive for undesirable development in the town.

5. The Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on July 17, 2009 said residents should have input in the final design and cost effectiveness of the plan and that the town should adopt stricter growth control measures prior to the construction of any new sewer extensions. We agree.

6. The CWMP has never been put to Town Meeting and it should be after all the relevant information, including the cost and environmental benefits from integrating alternative technologies with our existing sewer system, has been developed and widely disseminated. Only a $59 million bond issue was put before town meeting, not a $340 million plan.

7. The $59 million bond issue was accelerated and pushed through Town Meeting on the basis that stimulus funding could be obtained. We don't believe the prospect of stimulus funding should be the tail that wags the dog, being only 4% of the projected total costs.

8. It is our view that the proposed centralized system is not only wasteful of taxpayer dollars, but has environmental shortcomings. It will also be unnecessarily disruptive to the life of the town for years to come, because of the amount of excavation required. Alternative technologies can help do the job better, faster and cheaper.

All of these concerns, taken together with our overriding concern about cost, prompt us to ask the selectmen, in the exercise of their fiduciary duty to taxpayers, to initiate a process, with the participation of independent citizens, to address these concerns, including the need for stricter growth controls, and compare the environmental benefits, efficacy and cost efficiency of the proposed system with an integrated system utilizing the existing sewer system and modular alternatives, such as distributed systems, of which the Nitrex system is an example.

Orleans selectmen want to evaluate the cost savings from cluster systems over the big city conventional sewer system recommended by its consultant, sewer engineering firm Wright Pierce.

Friday morning, September 25th, Orleans selectmen convened a special meeting before a hall crowded with town residents for a presentation by Lombardo Associates. Cluster systems can solve the problem of septic nitrogen entering the town's seawaters cheaper, faster and better than the conventional sewer system, according to Pio Lombardo.

Savings of 25% to 50% are typical. For a $150 million conventional system, that could be as much as $75 million. In addition, since the construction strategy avoids many miles of unnecessary deep piping that would in part be in the water table, a conventional project that takes 20 years with a great deal of disruption of roadways, can be done in less than ten years with far fewer roadways being affected. Also, the risk of depleting the town's fresh water supply and spoiling marshes is vastly diminished because wastewater is not pumped into the sea in one centralized location as is the case with a conventional system. Instead, in most cases wastewater is saved for reuse and allowed to percolate back into the ground as it normally would.

The Wright-Pierce study, as had the Chatham study done by its consultant Stearns & Wheler, had dismissed cluster systems as more expensive than a conventional system. Stearns & Wheler, the dominant sewer consultant on Cape Cod, is currently involved in or recommending conventional sewer systems for the large towns of Barnstable, Mashpee and Dennis and even a small town such as Eastham as well as Chatham. The Cape Cod Times reports:

In addition to comparing the cost of clusters vs. sewers, Orleans selectmen also want to host a pilot study of Lombardo's Nitrex wastewater system, Selectman Mark Carron said yesterday.

The selectmen saw Lombardo's permeable barrier, which removes nitrogen in the groundwater before it seeps into the town's coastal waters, at a recent Upper Cape forum.

The Lombardo permeable barrier is based on technoloy pioneered by Canada's University of Waterloo, known throughout North America for its cutting-edge research. The barrier, used in sensitive waterside locations, can show dramatic improvement in water quality years before a conventional sewer system would.

Orleans selectmen were reacting to citizens asking town officials to take a fresh look at cluster systems instead of just plowing ahead with a big city conventional system that is enormously costly and environmentally disruptive.

Continue reading "ORLEANS SELECTMEN TO EVALUATE BIG SEWER COST-SAVING ALTERNATIVES"

In commercial settings as well as those of cities and towns, infrastructure specialists are looking at solutions other than centralized sewer systems. Read about clusters and how they work and enhance flexibility as well as save money.

Building Wastewater Infrastructure In An Era Of Phased Development

Craig Goodwin and Anish Jantrania

Phased and Modular are key terms we hear a lot these days from developers and builders. For now at least, gone are the days when banks and mezzanine lenders are willing to provide financing for large developments requiring big up front investments in infrastructure. Instead, financing seems to be available only for projects that are implemented in much smaller and less risky bites. Rather than providing infrastructure to support, say, 500 new residences, development in increments of 25 to 50 homes, or even less, seems to be the new norm.

How then can water and sewer be configured to better match these new realities while at the same time provide sustainable long term performance? Historically, we have had two choices: (A) development based on home well and septic or (B) provide/connect to centralized infrastructure often referred to as the big pipe solution. Development based on well and septic has the distinct advantage of limiting the upfront investment required for water and sewer. However, it also has some big disadvantages including significant lot size and layout limitations. It also provides little opportunity for land preservation and community open space and offers questionable long term sustainability. A central solution, on the other hand, removes lot size and layout limitations but also typically requires the largest upfront investment.

A third alternative is also now available and gaining momentum across the country. If development is planned in phases of 10 to 25 to 50 homes, decentralized water and sewer can be provided matched to these planned development rates - and largely remove the lot size and layout limitations of well and septic while also providing sustainable long term performance. In addition, higher lot yields/density, while still preserving community open space, can substantially increase short term ROI.

Continue reading "DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS WORK FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, TOO"

The best news for all Chatham taxpayers is the extraordinary presentation made this past Saturday, September 12th, by CCT’s panel of experts on the alternatives that can help staunch the flow of septic nitrogen into our embayments. These alternatives are real, currently available, vastly less costly than just a centralized sewer system and – what a bonus! – are better for the environment and use less in the way of natural resources. The Cape Cod Chronicle and Cape Codder both provided straightforward coverage of the event, which should be read.

It was a standing-room-only crowd, about 120 to 125, for the workshop "Cleaning the Waters and Saving Taxpayer Money, Too." Every seat was filled. People who came late and couldn’t do without a seat left, which we understand. The audience followed carefully the detailed presentations that were made, which took about two hours. After a coffee break, the question period went on until 12:30. At the very end of the 3½ session half the crowd was still there.

CCT members are as fully committed to the goal of clean water for Chatham as the Friends of Chatham Waterways, which organization encouraged CCT to hold this informational forum.

As the staggering scope and cost of what town officials are proposing sunk in, there was shock and dismay. But, as the presentations moved forward, there was hope and excitement in the air.

Many in attendance had no idea of the size and expense of the sewering plan town officials are proposing since they hadn’t heard much – which is why CCT held the wastewater forum.

It’s no wonder officials have been quiet about it, because the figure of $340,000,000 is so outlandish for a town with just 6500 residences that it’s difficult to comprehend. That’s almost ten percent of the cost of cleaning up Boston Harbor for more than 2 million people.

First thing to understand is this: This hugely expensive sewer system will do the job. The citizen committees that met periodically with town officials and their sewer consultant Stearns & Wheler were correctly satisfied that the traditional centralized sewer system would do the job. What was missing throughout the process, particularly as the cost estimates mounted from $20 million to $60 million and $120 million, was a focused attention on whether there was a less expensive way to address the nitrogen problem.

As recently as a year ago, even Stearns & Wheler admitted that the town could do what is necessary to solve the septic nitrogen problem at much less than two-thirds the cost of what town officials are proposing be charged to the property tax. Right there, that’s over $100 million in savings and alternatives that are available today haven’t even been factored in. It’s clear that somewhere along the line (some eight to ten years in the planning) somebody decided that Chatham would have a centralized sewer system no matter what the cost turned out to be.

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers is pleased to have had as a co-sponsor the national environmental organization Clean Water Action. Some might find it strange that an aggressive environmental group would team up with taxpayers looking to save money on property taxes. But Clean Water Action is looking at wastewater problems practically and holistically. They recognize that if costs skyrocket out of reasonable range, as in Chatham, hard opposition to spending money is likely to develop. Better to work with groups such as ours to find acceptable environmental answers at less cost. Not only that, Clean Water Action believes it is a terrible mistake to collect a city or town’s wastewater and just dump it into the ocean – thus depleting the water table.

Consider, if every town on the Cape built a sewer system such as Chatham town officials are proposing, how much water would be diverted from our aquifers. Yes, many say the Cape’s fresh water aquifers are inexhaustible, but very few things in life don’t run out sometime.

For example, the centralized system in Boston collects water from all over Greater Boston, feeds it into Deer Island treatment facilities and then pushes it down and through a tunnel beneath the seabed 9.5 miles out into Cape Cod Bay. As a consequence, fresh water reservoirs are suffering and stream flows are down because so much water is being sucked from the land and pumped into the Bay.

So the alternatives presented at the forum met the dual test for Clean Water Action as well as CCT – environmentally better and much less expensive. There’s nothing wrong with stretching environmental dollars as far as they will go.

The event was widely advertised and Chatham Selectmen Len Sussman attended and stayed through the major presentations. Audience members did ask where the other town officials were. Mr. Meaney noted that Mr. Duncanson, the principal official responsible under the town manager for the proposal, was in California and could not be present.

CCT’s position is simple: There is so much money at stake it is irresponsible not to look at alternatives that can bring the cost down substantially. Similar demands are being made in Orleans (over 1,000 have petitioned the Board of Selectmen to included alternative systems in their plan, which now, like Chatham, incorporates only a very large treatment plant and sewer pipes running out from that to cover the entire affected area).

In Falmouth, leadership for alternative solutions is being provided by State Representative Matt Patrick, an environmental activist before he entered the legislature. Rep. Patrick joined our panel in explaining how alternatives could work in Falmouth. As CCT fights for the taxpayers of Chatham, we will be working closely with those in Orleans and Falmouth and in other towns who are demanding that the full range of possibilities be examined for a combination solution that will do the job much less expensively and just as well if not better environmentally. Officials for Harwich, Orleans and Dennis were in attendance as were concerned citizens from those towns and Brewster and Barnstable.

Orleans selectmen have agreed to a Saturday forum on wastewater, which is scheduled for October 24th. State officials met this past Monday with Rep. Patrick in Falmouth and agreed to the installation of an alternative septic reduction facility. So there is movement. In our next report, we will recount what state and county officials are saying as they adjust their thinking to the new reality of centralized sewer systems being outmoded, too expensive and environmentally damaging.

Thanks to all who emailed and called afterwards to express their appreciation for the superbly qualified panel and their excellent presentations. As stated earlier, there is hope and excitement.

September 3, 2009

CLEANING THE WATERS AND SAVING TAXPAYER MONEY, TOO

Chatham property taxes are about to explode.

CCT made a great effort to reduce FY10 spending at the spring town meeting but fell short as town officials prevailed with their spending plan.

Town revenues other than property taxes are all down. We don’t know how much because the town has not released that information. If those revenues come up short (and they are off in other Cape towns), the town will try to increase property taxes over the $770,000 increase built into the FY10 plan.

Other towns are facing reality. For example, the Town of Brewster is carefully monitoring its revenues and already knows its budget, which was chopped substantially, is still too high, so it’s holding a special meeting this fall to cancel out some of the spending authorized at its spring town meeting.

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers on several occasions urged town officials to postpone new capital projects until better economic times return. Those pleas were rejected. Not only is the staggeringly expensive centralized sewer system expansion on full throttle but so is the PD/Annex. On the town’s schedule, the first year of debt service for both projects could hit taxpayers in 2012. The $600,000 household is currently paying about $255 for debt service in property taxes; in 2012 debt service costs on the property tax could leap to $850 and keep going up for 20 years!

But the elephant in the room for Chatham taxpayers as far as property taxes are concerned is the expansion of the centralized sewer system designed by town officials. Its purpose was and is to eliminate wastewater contribution to nitrogen in Chatham’s embayments. To accomplish this, it is proposed that Chatham taxpayers spend $340 million ($506,904,798 with interest but without adjustment for inflation, by our calculation) over 30 years of construction.

The Town of Orleans has the same nitrogen problem in its waters that Chatham has. Its town officials, like Chatham’s, proposed a major enlargement of its centralized sewer system to address the nitrogen problem at a cost of $150 million. Taxpayers in Orleans revolted at the proposed plan, citing the “overall economic environment.” (See Annex A.) The Orleans selectmen appointed a special citizen committee to critique the key aspects of the plan and now more than 800 voters have petitioned the selectmen to look at less expensive ways to solve their water pollution problem. Some speculate the work of the Validation Committee thus far point the way to savings of as much as $60 million.

Orleans selectmen held a special meeting earlier this month before a packed house to hear from state and county officials. The state and county officials said, despite what citizens may have heard and believed, they were not rushing to push Orleans into a centralized sewer system expansion solution. They said they understood the concern about the huge cost and suggested that Orleans proceed incrementally, testing out a solution in one troublesome area first to see how it works before moving on to other areas requiring attention. They even agreed that Orleans could “test drive” the model used to set the nutrient reduction requirements which the state had developed. (That model was used for all the Cape’s embayments, including Chatham’s.) Orleans’s special citizen committee had criticized what they perceived to be flaws and biases in the model. Criteria for testing the model will be drawn up during the fall by SMAST, the state’s contractor for development of the model.

While there has been a great deal of public discussion about the wastewater disposal plan in Orleans, there has been little in Chatham. To be sure, citizen advisory groups met with town officials over many years to satisfy themselves that what the town officials was proposing would work. And CCT agrees it will work. The question for those who will be paying the bill is, “Can the nitrogen problem be solved for substantially less money that what is being proposed?”

People in Orleans are as committed as those in Chatham to cleaning up water problems, but they want their town to examine ways to do it much less expensively than through a massive expansion of the centralized sewer system – which is exactly what Chatham officials propose be done. There are alternative systems out there that will do as good a job as a huge centralized sewer system at far less cost. Barnstable County runs tests on alternative systems that cost less and tear up roads a lot less. Recent results demonstrate that the nitrogen removal success is just as good as a large wastewater treatment plant, 95% removal of nutrients.

Indeed, county officials went even farther in recognizing that the enormous expense of centralized sewer systems had to be reevaluated and other ways of solving water pollution problems had to be developed. At a meeting on the Cape on August 25th, this was said:

“Sewer construction is going to be necessary for sure, but the Cape needs to look differently at how it approaches sewers and do a better job of managing the growth impacts of sewering.”

“The solutions of the past may not serve us as well into the future.”

“While the Cape needs to collect and treat wastewater, it does not necessarily need large treatment plants serving entire communities to achieve the goal of improved water quality.”

“Many see the 21st-century solution being a combination of strategies using natural freshwater systems such as bogs to naturally attenuate nitrogen with a combination of traditional central treatment and disposal facilities and smaller facilities serving smaller portions of a community or communities working together.”

“Smaller facilities allow communities to better target those areas that need sewering without piping large land areas not requiring collection and treatment.”

What these officials are saying and what Orleans is doing, Chatham should do. If the state and county aren’t rushing Orleans, they shouldn’t be rushing Chatham. Nonetheless, we need to keep the process moving ahead. The plan to clean up the seawaters is a 20 to 30 year plan --unless we can do it faster at less cost.

Reviewing new options that might save tens of millions of dollars – if not more – is in every taxpayer’s interest. As has been pointed out, proceeding incrementally as state and county officials are suggesting, can result in improved conditions sooner in target areas than waiting 20 years for the completion of a centralized solution. The reason stated for Chatham pushing ahead now was the chance to get federal stimulus money. It is quite possible that Chatham will be able to get as much as $10 million or even $15 million, but that is the proverbial drop in the bucket for the half billion dollar cost the current centralized plan will impose on taxpayers.

There is no dispute that a centralized sewer system as proposed can clean up the waters. There are questions: Are there other ways to solve the problem that are much less expensive and can even the centralized system be recast to be less expensive? Less expensive options that did the job as well or better were not presented to the advisory committees for consideration, as CCT understands it. Only the traditional centralized sewer plan was presented as a solution.

Protests against the high costs of expanding centralized sewer systems have erupted in Barnstable and Falmouth as well. 14 of the Cape’s 15 towns have the same nutrient problems Chatham does and ten right now are in various stages of looking at solutions. Chatham got way out in front and has developed the most expensive solution of all towns so far. Chatham can provide an excellent example for all Cape towns if it – along with Orleans -- leads the way to solving the nitrogen problem in a dramatically less costly way utlizing "21st Century" methods. The Massachusetts Secretary for Energy and Environmental Affairs, in his letter approving Chatham’s comprehensive plan, noted the comments on the plan made by CCT and urged the town to work with taxpayers to reduce costs of the project for taxpayers.

There is so much money at stake, it’s almost irresponsible not to evaluate every option that will do the job as well or better for less.

To start to get some answers, Chatham Concerned Taxpayers will hold an informational workshop for the public on “Cleaning the Waters and Saving Taxpayer Money, Too” Saturday morning, September 12th, in the Chatham Community Center, 9 to 12. The program will include experts from the U.S. and Canada with significant experience with innovative wastewater treatment solutions. It’s also possible that there may be ways to save money on our existing centralized sewer system – which will continue to operate no matter what -- through value engineering. Everyone in Chatham is invited. We are also extending the invitation to anyone from any Cape town who would like to learn if and how money can be saved in solving water pollution problems.

Also to be discussed will be the challenge of making whatever the solution is “growth neutral,” that is, so that the disposal system neither encourages nor discourages development. (The size of the treatment plant enlargement town officials are proposing does raise that question very acutely in the view of some.) Chatham is attractive as it is and preserving its character is important to all.

Invite all your neighbors across the Cape interested in saving taxpayer dollars to come to the September 12th workshop.

Fran Meaney and Phil Dupont for
Chatham Concerned Taxpayers
617 512 7743 Cell
PO Box 616, North Chatham, MA 02650-0616
chathamct@comcast.net Address for Chatham Concerned Taxpayers
www.chathamct.org Our website

ANNEX A
Orleans wastewater critics submit petition
August 25, 2009 2:00 AM Cape Cod Times

ORLEANS — Critics of the $150 million proposal for a new treatment plant and sewer system delivered a petition with 870 names of voters and taxpayers to selectmen yesterday.
The petition asks the selectmen to hold a public hearing in the next 30 to 60 days for a thorough discussion of issues raised by petition supporters. Taxpayers should have the opportunity to consider other, decentralized wastewater treatment options, the petition states. A majority of voters backed a draft plan last October after a summer of hearings on various wastewater options.
Selectmen take up the petition and other wastewater issues at their meeting tomorrow. Three agenda items are about the town's next steps in wastewater planning and design after a contentious spring and summer. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. in town hall.
SUSAN MILTON

One Reader’s response
On Aug 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM, PeoplePower said:
People are finally getting it. The truth is this project in the end will cost taxpayers well over a BILLION DOLLARS. The cost of 150 million is a figure projected for today's cost, NOT TOMORROW, and is deceitful to project. The town projected this same cost two years ago and the cost of concrete and steel has increased by 40% since. People, just look at the BIG DIG, sold to the people at a cost of 2.3 BILLION for this project. It now stands at a cost to taxpayers at 22 BILLION and still growing. The fact is that NO TOWN COULD POSSIBLY TAKE ON SUCH A MASSIVE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT WITHOUT TAXING EVERYONE OUT OF TOWN. Any Town would go Bankrupt without a Tax Base should it approve such a project which is TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE THROUGH TAXIATION. Do the 5th grade math people and you'll realize further what the cost per property when the project grows to the TRUE COST.

Chatham's rich flow of property tax revenues from second home owners -- who impose little in the way of extra costs on the town -- has enabled Town government to maintain a expensive lifestyle much more than it has kept property taxes low for resident taxpayers.

The fruits of this expensive lifestyle of Town government show up principally in two ways: extravagant building projects and unsustainable compensation arrangements with public unions.

The 22,000 square foot underutilized $10 million community center and the $17 million 40,000 square foot Town Hall annex to house a handful of town employees during working hours are current examples.

The most extravagant of all is just being launched now: a 100% townwide sewer system costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Everyone agrees that the chemical pollution of our ponds and embayments should be halted, but not everyone agrees such a massive undertaking is the only answer.

A review of the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan does not yield convincing evidence that cost-effective alternatives, particularly those employing newer technologies, were -- or are being -- seriously considered.

Our neighboring town of Orleans, also considering a large sewer system, has engaged a third-party consultant to conduct a cost-effective analysis of its sewer plan and has already learned that a major part of the proposed system may not be needed at all. This process is ongoing under the auspices of a special citizen Wastewater Management Validation & Design Committee.

This peer review is being conducted by the Woods Hole Group, an environmental organization respected worldwide, that Chatham has employed in the past. Orleans is also monitoring the kinds of alternatives under review at the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve to save water and lessen the need for wastewater infrastructure.

Chatham should do the same. Spending on this project will stretch out over at least 20 years, so there will be plenty of opportunity to adopt new possibilities and save many millions of taxpayer dollars in doing so. Even Democratic Cape legislator Representative Matt Patrick thinks this can be done and it would be irresponsible not to explore every option.

The other area in which the Town government displays its extravagance is in staffing and compensation of personnel. In this regard, Chatham is not alone. Chatham, like many other cities and towns, is in the grip of public service unions whose contract demands relentlessly push up costs beyond what would be reasonable in the private sector. Iron-clad contracts are signed with unions promising compensation and benefits come hell or high water, regardless of economics or revenues or the interests of those who pay the bills.

These outmoded arrangements are finally getting national and state attention and need to be addressed at the local level as well. Chatham has several collective bargaining agreements, the principal ones being for school teachers, the police department and the fire department. The police contract has expired and is in negotiation, the fire department contract is in the second year (FY10) of a three-year contract and the schools contract ends in FY11.

The time to seek dramatic change at the town level has arrived. New union contracts cannot continue the rich promises of increases and benefits of the past. Cities and towns across the nation are looking for multi-year freezes in union contracts, merit increases based on performance instead of automatic income step increases, elimination of various benefits and shifting from pension plans to defined contribution plans.

This unacceptable situation was addressed by David Luberoff of Harvard's Rappaport Center recently:

[H]ealth insurance [cost] is just the tip of the iceberg. The high cost of fully funding pensions and other postretirement benefits will continue to stress local budgets. Local officials’ ability to make needed changes are greatly limited by an outdated civil service system that bases promotions on test-taking and collective bargaining agreements that make it easy to challenge any changes to existing routines. Why, for example, does every town need its own emergency dispatch system? Why do many localities have separate systems for police, fire, and emergency services? Yet any effort to change these practices runs into a host of seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

Local officials are not blameless. State law, for example, gives them the power to greatly lower health insurance costs by requiring retirees to enroll in Medicare, a federally funded program. But many localities have not yet taken advantage of this option, not least because of resistance from retirees.

Such changes are hard to achieve because relatively small groups of individuals strongly oppose them. But the status quo may not be an option.

Costs are going to keep rising, revenues will remain flat, and the demand for services will not decline. Local policy makers, therefore, will have no choice but to reexamine longstanding practices and assumptions.

The Town of Chatham did not come to grips with this unsustainable situation in its FY10 spending plan, granting salary increases of approximately 6% across the board when local taxpayers were experiencing devastating losses in their life saving and reductions in their incomes. There is a severe disconnect from reality when public employees are receiving such large pay increases when on average they already earn more than half the households in Chatham live on.

Chatham taxpayers area facing sharp increases in property taxes because of the debt service costs of extravagant infrastructure projects. It is therefore all the more urgent to hold the line on property taxes for all other Town spending. No increases in the property tax levy for FY11.

Fiscal year 2010 begins today, July 1, 2009.

It's worth reviewing what this means for Chatham taxpayers.

In February, Chatham Concerned Taxpayers had urged the Selectmen, in light of the harsh economic realities suffered by resident and other taxpayers because of the world financial collapse, to hold FY10 spending to the FY09 level and not to increase the property tax levy.

The Selectmen spent several weeks reviewing the budget but did not make a single cut in the spending proposed by the Town Administration. What began as a proposed spending increase over FY09 of about $1.3 million wound up ultimately, after the Annual Town Meeting, as a spending increase very close to that figure. The core property tax levy was raised $770,000. In effect, CCT’s urging that the taxpayers’ interests in these difficult times be taken into account was ignored.

There was a real battle over the proposed spending increases on the floor of the Annual Town Meeting on May 11th. Taxpayers were angry at the proposed increase. At the same time they were understandably confused by the way the spending plan was presented in the Town Warrant. Town officials split the usual operating budget up into several pieces and scattered it over six Articles (excluding the water department, which is self-supporting).

This approach hid the true level of spending, which was far in excess of expected FY10 revenues, and how it was to be financed.

Continue reading "CHATHAM SPENDING HITS THE WALL, PART 1 -- FY10"

Barnstable residents rose up against the sudden push for an extension to the sewer system to get a few federal stimulus dollars and forced the town council to vote it down.

A good many condemned the assumption that sewers are the only way to clean up water pollution from nitrates. This is age-old technology that doesn't take account of emerging solutions which are far less expensive.

The same question troubles taxpayers in Chatham where the town is rushing ahead with a townwide sewer system that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Is such a massive project necessary to cure the real problem of nitrate pollution?

The Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan does not satisfactorily demonstrate that all cost-effective solutions were considered. A sewer in some congested areas combined with other methods could perhaps work just as well at far less cost.

For example, did you know that oysters remove nitrates from salt water? Very efficient.

How much of pollution in Chatham waters comes from the booming seal population?

Orleans was dissatisfied with the proposed cost of its proposed sewer solution. So it ordered up a so-called peer review from a respected environmental organization. Its recently released study focused on cost-effective solutions and looking with a more critical eye at the pollution levels supposedly found. For example, the study found that Orleans' end of Pleasant Bay, contrary to prior findings, already met state standards and wouldn't required the sewering proposed.

Chatham's CWMP hasn't had a critical look by a third party. The selectmen should do what the Orleans selectmen did and order a third-party review of the plan developed by town officials with its sewercentric consultant Stearns & Wheeler. Orleans hired the respecte Woods Hole Group to do the peer review. Chatham has employed the Woods Hole Group in the past, so its competence is recognized by town officials. It should now hire some organization like WHG to do a peer review while proceeding with its planning work.

Continue reading "BARNSTABLE REJECTS SEWER"

At a recent meeting of the Orleans Board of Selectmen, questions were raised about the Town's rushing ahead with constructing a $150 million townwide sewer system when new information has become available about water conditions and alternative technologies to traditional sewer systems are becoming available. A special committee appointed to review the work on the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and an outside consultant reported "uncertainties" that should be explored further before moving ahead with the town's sewer plan. The peer review was conducted by the world repsected Woods Hole Group.

The most startling disclosure was that nitrogen levels across the entire Pleasant Bay system are declining and some areas already meet state requirements. If Pleasant Bay continues to clean itself, this could result in a significant downsizing of the wastewater plan -- and huge savings for Orleans.

The Board of Selectmen want the answers before moving forward with the plan.

Continue reading "PLEASANT BAY CLEANER, ORLEANS MAY DOWNSIZE ITS SEWER PLAN"

The taxpayers could have won the budget battle at Town Meeting, Monday, May 1lth, but lost 456 to 342. The Cape Cod Times said the budget battle was “close.” It was. With just a shift of 58 votes, the deficit budget presented to Town Meeting by the Town Administration would have gone down to defeat.

This was the first challenge to a budget in at least ten years.

I am sorry to say that your lead spokesman Fran was largely responsible for the loss. I made two critical mistakes and bungled my presentation.

At the outset of the meeting, Judy Thomas, a League of Woman Voters poobah, jumped up during the routine adoption of rules and moved that a speaker’s time limit be cut to three minutes from the traditional five. Strange position for an organization dedicated to open debate. (Later, the moderator said this had never happened before in his long history of town meetings.)

I I thought that was so absurd no one would support it. I didn’t know town meeting. It passed easily without discussion. I should have got to my feet and said that speakers had prepared their remarks for serious debate and it would undercut the democratic process to reduce the time at the last minute like that. In my case, the 15 minutes I had written was pared down to five minutes through hours or work. In the few minutes before debate on Article 6 began the rule change should never have occurred. If I had spoken, I believe five minutes would have been retained as the speaking limit. My fault. But the forces that wanted to limit the speaking time of the opponents of the Town speinding had won a critical victory.

Continue reading "OVERTAXING AND OVERSPENDING DEALT A BODY BLOW!"

The following is a snapshot of the "real spending in Article 6 and its companion articles 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. Not including Article 7, the spending all adds up to $2.2 million in deficit spending financed off budget by stealing money from the emergency Stabilization Fund and using cash squirreled away from overcharges in prior years.

Article 6, the “Operating Budget,” is just part of the story. The rest of the operating budget is scattered among Articles 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. What the Town Administration wants to spend in excess of current revenues for FY10 (the property tax levy and expected other revenues) is deficit spending of more than $2 million. Reserve Funds and so-called Free Cash which is left over from prior years (and can be added to Reserve Funds) are being used off-budget to pay for town overspending. This is all taxpayer money, whether collected this year, next year or last.

Exclusive of water-related charges, this is the true operating budget spending situation:

$32.400 million Article 6 - the stated spending plan for operations
.200 million Article 7 - COLAs for non-school employees in zero inflation
.275 million Article 8 – overtime and other operational items
1.500 million Article 10 – mostly maintenance items normally in operations
.280 million Article 11 – if not capital, belong in operations spending
.050 million Article 12 – if not capital, belong in operations
$34.705 million Total “real” non-water spending

These are the off-budget sources of funding the deficit spending for FY10:

Article 6 $ .072 million Free cash to balance operations spending
Article 8 .275 million Stabilization Fund
Article 10 1.500 million Free cash
Article 11 .280 million Stabilization Fund, Allowance for Abatements Fund
Article 12 .050 million Stabilization Fund
$2.177 million Total deficit in current revenues

Ordinarily, Capital Exclusions would have been sought for some of the capital spending, but by using the Stabilization and Abatement Funds and free cash taxpayer override votes were avoided, which in all likelihood would have been defeated. Article 12 spending could easily have been included in Article 6 as a priority item for summer tourism. Article 11 spending could have been a priority in use of free cash. Article 8 items are ordinary operating items and should be included in Article 6 if considered priorities.

IF YOU WANT TO STOP CHATHAM’S EXTRAVAGANT SPENDING, VOTE “NO” ON ARTICES 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 AND 12 TO SEND THE BUDGET BACK TO THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE AND SELECTMEN FOR PRIORITIZING AND DOWNSIZING FOR RETURN TO A RECESSED TOWN MEETING JUNE 15TH.

In addition to voting NO on Article 6 and the other five parts of the red ink budget (Articles 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12), you can save $17 miillion by helping cancel a terriblly conceived Annex project by voting YES on Article 27.

There are several Affordable Housing articles in the Zoning articles 28, 29 and 30 which have been said to be confusing and inconsistent; a NO vote will force a set of clairifications.

Article 31 has important financial ramifications. Vote YES to require that the Finance Committee get the Town Manager's (and, hopefully, School Commitee's proposal) at the same time as the Selectmen so the Finance Committee can advise the Selectmen as well as the Town Meeting. The sooner the Finance Commitee gets these documents the more they can get to understand globally what's going on. For example, the Finance Committee rightly rejected Article 6 this year but had mixed votes on the other parts of the six-part budget, principally because they did not get the big picture early enough.

Vote YES on 31. If it may influence you, the Town Manager and Selectmen Whitcomb are for NO, but Chairman Summers, Selectmen Sussman and Berstrom and Selectwoman Seldin say vote YES.

With all the overspending that's been going on, the sewer project (Article 14) doesn't come at a good time. If Article 6 passes, the property tax levy is going to rise $770,000 or $80 for the $600,000 home.. If Article 27 doesn't get voted down and the Annex goes forward, add another$140. And if the first $60 million of sewer bonds gets approved and sold, add another $222.

An Article 14 YES vote tells the town to go see if it can get federal stimulus in some meaningful amount. During the summer and fall as the facts become known, there can be a drive to get all the facts on the table for a special town meeting in December (which 200 taxpayers can call) on wastewater pros and cons. There's been a flurry of articles in the past few days about how the state is going to force all Cape towns to really get going on nitrate reduction, but these were driven by the well know agitator the Conservative Law Foundation, whose press releases are dutifuly reprinted by the Cape Cod Times. There was a chuckle in one report: It said reducing nitrates could cost millions of dollars. Or was it tens of millions of dollar?. Of course, it's hundreds of millions of dollars. To get the needed favorable vote there has to be a YES at Town Meeting on the 11th and a YES vote in the secret ballot at the Election on the 14th.

Article 6, the “Operating Budget,” is just part of the story. The rest of the operating budget is scattered among Articles 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. What the Town Administration wants to spend in excess of current revenues for FY10 (the property tax levy and expected other revenues) is deficit spending of more than $2 million. Reserve Funds and so-called Free Cash which is left over from prior years (and can be added to Reserve Funds) are being used off-budget to pay for town overspending. This is all taxpayer money, whether collected this year, next year or last.

Exclusive of water-related charges, this is the true operating budget spending situation:

$32.400 million Article 6 - the stated spending plan for operations
.200 million Article 7 - COLAs for non-school employees in zero inflation
.275 million Article 8 – overtime and other operational items
1.500 million Article 10 – mostly maintenance items normally in operations
.280 million Article 11 – if not capital, belong in operations spending
.050 million Article 12 – if not capital, belong in operations
$34.705 million Total “real” non-water spending

These are the off-budget sources of funding the deficit spending for FY10:

$.072 million Article 6 Free cash to balance operations spending
.275 million Article 8 Stabilization Fund
.500 million Article 10 Free cash
.280 million Article 11 Stabilization Fund, Abatements Fund
.050 million Article 12 Stabilization Fund
$2.177 million Total deficit in current revenues

Ordinarily, Capital Exclusions would have been sought for some of the capital spending, but by using the Stabilization and Abatement Funds and free cash taxpayer override votes were avoided, which in all likelihood would have been defeated. Article 12 spending could easily have been included in Article 6 as a priority item for summer tourism. Article 11 spending could have been a priority in use of free cash. Article 8 items are ordinary operating items and should be included in Article 6 if considered priorities.

IF YOU WANT TO STOP CHATHAM’S EXTRAVAGANT SPENDING, VOTE “NO” ON ARTICES 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 AND 12 TO SEND THE BUDGET BACK TO THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE AND SELECTMEN FOR PRIORITIZING AND DOWNSIZING FOR RETURN TO A RECESSED TOWN MEETING JUNE 15TH.

One of the great sages of Chatham is former Selectman and veteran of the Finance Committee Parker Wiseman. He has grown increasingly distressed with the overspending in Chatham over the years. More than 45% growth of the budget in just eight years! People who pay the bills who live in town are stretched enough, particularly in these tough times, to go on like that. They don't need higher property taxes and they don't need deficit spending paid for by raiding savings accounts.

Peter has penned a letter to the Chronicle that he's waiting to have published, which hasn't happened yet. It says some important things for voters to know before Town Meeting about why taxpayers should shout STOP to ovespending.

To the Editor of the Cape Cod Chronicle:

VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 6, THE OUT-OF-CONTROL CHATHAM OPERATING BUDGET

The printed Warrant for Chatham's May 11th Town Meeting contains, in Article 6 (and related Articles), what appears to be a balanced budget for the 2010 financial year but is not.

Over the strong objection of Chairman Sean Summers, who voted no, his four Selectmen colleagues voted yes to recommend this article to the taxpayers.

In contrast, a majority of the members of the Finance Committee voted NOT to recommend Article 6. That decision was strongly supported by the recently formed nonpartisan Concerned Chatham Taxpayers group founded and led by Fran Meaney of North Chatham and other residents.

The purpose of this report is to ensure Chatham taxpayers understand what is behind this serious disagreement between two of the most influential Town government groups.

Here, as briefly as possible, is what happened.

Bill Hinchey, Town Manager, announced that, to cover the proposed fiscal year 2010 budget of $32.757 million, a property tax increase of about $1.3 million, which would require an override vote (the first in ten years) of approximately $630,000, would be necessary to pay for the 4.3% budget increase..

As $730,000 of the deficit was mainly due to pay for sizeable increases for police, fire and school personnel, union contracts were involved. It was hoped that the well publicized, serious financial problems of the Federal government, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many towns and cities would convince Chatham's unionized personnel to forego salary increases included in the 2010 fiscal year budget. That was not to be as the unions turned thumbs down. Only the non-unionized town employees offered to accept the call.

In the meantime nominal savings were offered by the School Committee although further cost reductions suggested by Superintendent Dr. Mary Ann Lonzo were ignored by the Committee. Concurrently, Bill Hinchey took advantage of the big reductions in estimated costs of heating oil, gasoline and diesel and other third-party charges. He then added together cash balances from accounts normally untouched except for the unexpected or one time purchases. These include Free Cash, the Stabilization Fund and the yearly substantial savings from the long planned reduction of town debt now called "debt drop off" which is supposed to reduce debt service costs, not be used to offset increases in operating expenses.

All of a sudden, the need for an override vote magically melted away. Members of the Finance Committee, Sean Summers, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, Fran Meaney and members of the public objected to this sleight-of-hand. The budget had been "balanced" by using emergency and savings money, NOT by reducing the cost of town government. This is why the FY2010 operating budget, article 6 in the FY2010 Warrant, should be voted down at Town Meeting.

If the FY10 budget is not reduced now, next year's deficit will be much higher and result in tax increases and overrides in FY2011 and every year in the future until expense is covered by current income. Even the Town Manager predicts that if school spending is not brought under control, it alone will force yearly overrides.

The unavoidable, frightening truth is supported by the diminishing receipts of what was once well over $1,000,000 in school choice money paid by neighboring towns whose students are educated in Chatham schools.

Added to that negative is the likely reduction in "growth" money currently estimated to amount to $250,000 in FY2010. The Town has been increasing the tax base as new expensive homes or additions have been built. These funds have allowed Chatham’s tax base to be continually and legally increased to help pay for otherwise unsustainable Town spending. Included in this darkening picture are almost certain reductions in the Town’s share of hotel/motel room tax revenues, vehicle excise taxes and investment income.

CONTINING INCREASE IN OUR REAL ESTATE TAX IS NO LONGER AN OPTION. SPENDING MUST BE REDUCED TO INCOME AND NOT HIDDEN BY ROBBING OUR TOWN SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

If anyone doubts how serious the present problem is they only have to think of the unbelievable situation which will soon occur when the astronomical costs of handling the wastewater situation begin to be factored into Town operating costs.

VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 6 THE OPERATING BUDGET *

Parker C. Wiseman

*Article 6 is the key budget item; however, articles 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 also represent operational deficit spending paid out of savings.

Parker C. Wiseman is a former Chatham selectman and former member of the Finance Committee.

Posted by Chatham Concerned Taxpayer on Friday, May 1, 2009 at 9:17 AM | Comments (1)
Email This | DIGG This | del.icio.us | Facebook | Stumble It

In these last two and one-half weeks before Town Meeting every effort should be made to get the word around that voters can block tax increases and out-of-control spending with their votes.

Let your views be known by phone, email and letters to the editors of the Chronicle and the Cape Codder. You can send the letters to them by email.

To the Chronicle editor Tim Wood, email twood@capecodchronicle.com with your “letter” just like a regular letter. Put your address, email and phone number at the end so they can call to verify it’s a real letter.

For Cape Codder, it’s cdumas@cnc.com with the same kind of information.

Earl Hubbard’s letter appeared this week in the Chronicle. Here it is to inspire you:

Editor April 19, 2009
60C Munson Way
Chatham, Ma 02633

Chatham is a small Cape Cod town with a Town Meeting coming up in May that is being asked to vote an initial appropriation of $60,000,000 to commence a sewering project that could shape the Town for decades. The construction cost of this project has been estimated at $318,000,000, with the real ultimate cost over 30 years in excess of $600,000,000, not including interest incurred on debt service.

It is a Town whose primary source of revenue is from retired people living on fixed incomes. Revenue also comes from tourism and second home owners. With the local, state and national economies in a deep recession, plans are to more than triple its debt from $32,000,000 to $95,000,000 in FY10. This is an action to be taken without a clear estimate of the Town’s future revenue sources. How do you think revenue be raised? Of course, increase our taxes. After the FY10 phase there is another $258,000,000 in debt to be incurred to complete the waste water project.

Town Government is mesmerized by the hopeful but in no way guaranteed possibility of federal stimulus money to help pay for an expanded waste water system. Local full time residents have not had an opportunity to review and debate the costs of the project at a Town Meeting and have little information on how much it will cost each of us.

The local taxpayers who attend Town meeting require a more detailed summary of Town finances to make informed decisions at Town meeting. The warrant of 100 or more pages with financial data scattered throughout overwhelms the voters. The summary should contain – a) summary of FY09 budget, proposed FY10 budget and estimated FY11 budget – b) breakdown of where the revenues came from in FY09 and an estimate of where the revenues will come from in FY10 – c) before and after data of the Stabilization fund, free cash, overlay monies (all pots of money used to balance the FY10 budget this year). Also, a summary of all articles to be voted on at Town meeting and how they will affect future levies. Last, but not least, if all articles with a financial impact pass at Town meeting what will the Town debt and debt services be?

This is not the time to just go along. Citizens need to be informed and have the opportunity for dialogue and debate at Town Meeting.

Earl Hubbard
99 Potonumecot Road phone number email address

We will make available a handout to advise what votes will do what and what we think is the best vote for financially stressed taxpayers. Earl is right; the Warrant is confusing. It’s particularly so this year because the operating budget is split among several articles because it’s being funded in a very unorthodox way, using reserves usually maintained for emergencies and sharp falls in revenues. (It’s way too rich, anyway you look at it, it increases the property tax and should be voted down with a big NO.) The Selectmen should be made to take the budget back and do their job for the taxpayers.

Check our website every day now. Attend our meeting on Monday, May 4th at 4 at the Community Center. Print up flyers for your neighbors using the one on our website. We may have more shortly.

Be active. Voting concerned taxpayer can vote can stop the runaway spending, but they have to show up at town meeting and vote. Everyone has to pay attention, because efforts will be made to confuse things and to push spending proposals through. Spending in Chatham has risen 44% in just eight years and this year proposed spending could push it over 50%. Every year most of that increase in spending is paid for by your property taxes. The same is true this year.

Property taxes should be kept at the fiscal 2009 level and non-emergency capital spending should be deferred until better economic times return.

Stand up for yourself.

First, a correction: Our big, final meeting to prepare for Town Meeting will be Monday, May 4th (not May 7th as we have said at least twice), at the Chatham Community Center, Main Street, just up from the rotary going towards Chatham Village Market. It will begin at 4 o’clock. We will review the Articles in the Warrant with the most financial impact on resident taxpayers. It is important for all concerned taxpayers who can do so to attend town meeting on Monday, May 11th and to vote in the election that follows on Thursday, May 14th since votes affecting finances will be on the ballot. Get your like-minded friends to do likewise. The spenders will turn out, so to protect your wallet and pocketbook, you need to be there.

The printed copy of the Warrant you receive is huge and daunting. It is important to familiarize yourself with it, since that is your guide to voting. Town Meeting has the “power of the purse,” as it’s called. That means that voters at Town Meeting can vote to fund something or not. For example, Article 6, the budget, recommended by the Selectmen but rejected by a majority of the Finance Committee, continues the trend of overspending that has pushed Chatham’s budget up more than 44% over the past eight years. The budget should be rejected and sent back to the Selectmen, who should cut it back to at least the fiscal 2009 level. (It should actually go about $650,000 lower because debt service should have dropped by that much from FY09 to FY10.) You can vote “No.”

At our meeting on Monday, May 4th we will have an open discussion about how to address the various articles. This is a time of financial stress for all taxpayers, including the many retired folks living in Chatham. Every dollar counts and overspending has to be reined in. Capital projects pose a big problem, too.

It’s a grave question as to whether this is the time for a town like Chatham to launch expensive building projects. As we reported yesterday, Moody’s has announced that because of the fiscal crisis all (not some, all) municipal bonds are candidates for default as their supporting revenues collapse.

But it seems overspending and the hollowing out of the revenue base is a nationwide phenomenon affecting cities and states everywhere.

The New York Times, in reporting on Moody’s giving all municipal bonds a “negative outlook,” said:

The report suggested conflicts ahead between taxpayers struggling to keep their own households afloat and elected officials charged with balancing budgets, making their payrolls and protecting their credit ratings. “Taxpayers, worried about their own financial condition, are more resistant than ever to increasing property or other local taxes,” the report observed.

As we know, in Chatham this isn’t a matter of “making their payrolls,” but of continuing the award of handsome pay raises in a time of crisis.

As we have said many times before, “end overspending,” and “not now” for non-emergency projects. These are difficult times and Chatham should not be putting its taxpayers in harm’s way.

As for the $300-$500 million sewer project, whatever the amount of the federal stimulus might be, the overwhelming percentage of the cost will fall on the property tax. We don’t even know why the town’s plan is so big and expensive. At most, during the height of the season, Chatham’s population is in the 20,000 range. Why is it being built to accommodate more than 50,000 people flushing toilets every day? In what high rises and condominiums will they all be staying? We all want to clean up Chatham’s waterways and ponds, but efficiently and cost-effectively, without destroying Chatham’s unique character and driving people from their homes. We have to think about those issues. Is the federal money worth being rushed like this?

We also need to rethink the best way for police and fire to work together in this time when increasingly the calls to both of them are asking for help for seniors. The ill-conceived PD/Annex project should be cancelled. Separating the police and fire makes no sense. Let’s do some re-planning to provide joint new quarters for police and fire that will better serve the town and, hopefully, at more modest cost than the $17 million ticketed for the PD/Annex now. Harwich built its brand-new police headquarters (being attached to the fire station) for $8.5 million. Chatham should take a lesson from that.

This is a time to make your voices heard. Send letters to the editors of the Chronicle and the Cape Codder saying this is no time for overspending and selling bonds for non-emergency projects. Concerned taxpayer Earl Hubbard just fired off a letter to the editor of the Chronicle decrying the way town overspending as usual is going on, ignoring the economic pain of suffering taxpayers. His letter will be posted on our website as soon as it appears in the Chronicle.

Also, since we are a very low-budget operation, we encourage you to make up flyers urging your neighbors to show up at town meeting and vote against overspending. They don’t need to be fancy; just let folks know they can make a difference with their votes. Email us a copy and we’ll post them online for people to copy.

If you can spare a few dollars, even $10 or $20, to help with ads and such, they would be welcome. Just send to Chatham Concerned Taxpayers at our PO Box 616 in North Chatham, MA 02650. Thanks.

What is the Tea Party movement about? It's a nonpartisan citizen taxpayer uprising against too much spending, too much debt and too much resultant taxing, as this cartoon captures.

What follows is a report of CCT’s first volunteers get-together April 15th, yesterday, at Campari’s Bistro on Orleans Road.

The turnout exceeded our expectations. We had a great cross-section of Chatham residents, all concerned about the rising costs of living in Chatham – which are reflected in constantly rising tax bills. Forget the tax rate; it’s the tax bill that counts.

Our grateful thanks to Campari’s for its generous hospitality.

The importance of town meeting. The basic point made to the volunteers is this: It is voters at town meeting who decide what spending to approve. After all, it is their money. If they think what the Selectmen are recommending is too much or too little, they can disagree and vote accordingly. CCT wants taxpayers to be informed and to stand up for their interests.

We discussed the importance of getting like-minded concerned taxpayers to attend town meeting on May 11th and to vote in the election on May 14th. There will be important financial items on the election day ballot as well as on the floor of town meeting. There are about 30 articles, so the meeting may run late or run to two days. Some important items may not come up till late in the process so all should plan accordingly.

For those new to town meeting, it was explained that the Warrant, which should be arriving in mailboxes in the next few days, is the core document which contains all the issues to be voted on at the town meeting and the following election, It should be read carefully to get an understanding of the important issues that, depending on how the votes go, can drive spending in Chatham to unprecedented levels. Of the 30 or so different articles in the warrant to be voted on, most of them involve spending money. Shortly after the Warrant is distributed, CCT plans to hold a second volunteers meeting to go over the Articles in detail. A grand meeting of all concerned taxpayers is being scheduled for Monday, May 4th, probably at 4 o’clock, in final preparation for participation in town meeting.

The Operating Budget and Capital Spending. We reviewed what Chatham Concerned Taxpayers has been doing since its sudden emergence the first week of February in response to the announcement that the operating budget would be going up about $1.25 million. We have attended many meetings. We made concerted pleas to the Selectmen that in this year of unprecedented financial stress the plight of the resident taxpayers be taken into account. Whether those pleas fell on deaf ears or were ignored, the result was the same: Spending as usual prevailed. Similar entreaties were made to the members of the Finance Committee and on the Operating Budget a majority led by Chairman Coleman Yeaw and Vice Chairman Jo Ann Sprague showed they shared our concerns and rejected the budget recommended by the Selectmen 5-4.

CCT had asked that spending for fiscal 2010 beginning July 1 be held at the fiscal year 2009 level and that non-emergency capital projects be deferred till better economic times returned. We said it was too much to ask financially stressed taxpayers to fund pay raises ranging as high as 6 and 7% for those full time public employees whose pay packages already placed them above the median of household incomes in Chatham. There was some hope when the Selectmen led by Chairman Sean Summers asked town employees to accept a voluntary compensation freeze. While the Vice Chairman of the Finance Committee voiced an appeal aimed at the unions that “we are all in this together,” the unions saw it differently and rejected the call. Pay raises in the budget total more than $730,000, not counting overtime, not taking account of the nine-month school year, not taking account of “longevity payments” and not taking into account increased payments for employee health insurance and pensions. As for capital projects, we won’t know the exact dollars until the Warrant is printed, but at least $1.5 million in what appear to be non-emergency, mostly maintenance, projects were okayed by the Selectmen, using off-budget taxpayer money collected in previous years to pay for them. So the “real” operating budget is about $35 million, not the $32.5 million as it will appear in the Warrant.

Even though members of the Finance Committee and of the Board of Selectmen identified hundreds of thousands of dollars of cuts that could be made – in addition to eliminating or reducing pay raises – at the end of the process no real cuts were made in the budget proposed by the Town Manager and recommended by the Selectmen to Town Meeting for adoption. Indeed, the unusually careful examination of the fiscal 2010 budget disclosed that a smaller budget than fiscal 2009 and a property tax cut to taxpayers could have resulted if the will were there.

A principal argument CCT advanced was that FY10 and FY11 are being forecast as very difficult years and therefore spending should be restrained so that reserve funds could be built up to deal with emergencies that might arise. The Selectmen acted to the contrary. To avoid an override vote at town meeting (to authorize more spending than permitted), the Selectmen approved taking monies out of reserve funds to keep spending high but not push up the property tax levy to the point of a special vote. So-called “free cash” was used for more than $1.5 million to pay for projects and at least $600,000 from other reserves were used to support the fiscal 2010 budget. Rather than commit to so much spending, why not keep money that could be used during the next two years to avoid layoffs or slashes in essential services should conditions continued to deteriorate?

Town revenues are slipping. Town spending depends on more than the property tax. Of the FY10 budget of about $32.5 million (actually, about $35 million) proposed by the Selectmen, the anticipated property tax levy for FY10 will provide about $24.5 million. The rest of the money comes from various sources (in addition to reserve funds and free cash) such as the local share of the state’s hotel/motel tax, vehicle excise taxes (from cars and boats) and mooring fees. What if those revenues don’t live up to expectation? Already, for fiscal 2009, revenues appear to be falling below forecast for the first nine months – and fiscal 2010 revenues from these sources are forecast to be the same as for fiscal 2009. So, it would appear that already the fiscal 2010 budget could be in deficit. If so, should the budget not be cut to account for the shortfall as well as the overspending?

This is a time for caution and fiscal restraint.

Annex/PD project. The article to defer and rethink the “oddly conceived” $17 million Annex/Police project was discussed at length. Why so costly when Harwich, twice Chatham’s population, built a new police station for half that? Why separate police and fire at a time when they should be working ever closer together to serve Chatham’s older population with EMT and similar calls? It is agreed a new fire facility is needed as is a new police facility. Maybe new police and fire facilities should be planned and built together when the economy improves. Some real planning should be done as this non-emergency project is deferred and rethought until better economic times return.

Suddenly, the sewer. The most contentious item discussed was the town sewer proposal. While it has been in planning for years, it appears not too many have followed it closely on the assumption they would never live long enough to use it let alone be asked to pay for it. But, suddenly, because of the possible availability of federal stimulus money, the Selectmen are proposing full speed ahead on this $300 million project with a $60 million bond issue proposal. No one knows if any stimulus money can be obtained or how much, but, as usual, there are federal strings which demand an unconditional vote for project approval before June 30th and planning and design to be finished and the project shovel-ready by February 2010. As one volunteer said, “We’ve never had a chance to vote on whether we want to spend $300 million for a town-wide sewer system.” Another said, “I’ll never get a sewer where I live, but I’m going to have to pay for it anyway? Why wasn’t a betterment approach used as most towns do, so the people who get the sewer pay for it?” And so it went. Selectmen Sean Summers explained the sewer was a good thing for the environment and some day state or federal environmental requirements might demand that Chatham have a sewer, though he admitted that wasn’t the case right now. Questions about the size, scope, extent and necessity of the project could not be answered. Nor could questions concerning costs to the taxpayers. The only thing that was clear is that there is no way taxpayers can be fully informed on the project and what it means to them as taxpayers before the May 11th town meeting. There was a lot of anger about being rushed into this, though it was explained it was the federal stimulus money that triggered the sudden rush. There may well be some stimulus money for Chatham, since not too many communities are far enough along on their environmental wastewater plan approvals to have a chance of being shovel ready by February. And most other communities are concentrating on cutting spending.

The 20-year Phase 1 of the sewer project, using the 2007 estimate, would cost about $318 million (including interest) if no federal money becomes available. Because the massive upgrade and expansion of the wastewater treatment facility would be done upfront, probably 60 to 70% of that money would be spent during the first ten years (when most of us think we’ll still be alive and paying the bills). If the bonds sold to pay for that spending are more or less to be paid off during those ten years, that would mean about $200 million being added to the property taxes in those ten years beginning in 2011, 2012 or 2013. Since the current “real” operating budget is around $35 million, the average addition of $20 million a year is no small matter.

So, what to do? Vote no and lose the chance of federal money? Vote yes and commit to a $300 million project without adequate information? Unhappy choices. But perhaps there is a way: If the Selectmen agree that they would do all the design and planning necessary to be shovel ready but not do any implementation (i.e., actual digging) until February 2010, that would provide the opportunity for a special town meeting (called by the Selectmen or by 200 citizens) in December or January solely on the sewer project. In the meantime, through publications, meetings and debates throughout the town, taxpayers can get the information they need to make informed decisions and vote yea or nay on the project. There may be other solutions, but the need for informed decision-making must be met.

Most important town meeting ever. Is this May town meeting important? You bet. Biggest operating budget ever proposed. Bonding proposals to be acted upon could more than triple outstanding debt to over $100 million – and in effect commit taxpayers to at least $200 million more in spending to finish Phase 1 of the wastewater project.

Chatham is a great place to live. Keeping it affordable should be a paramount objective at all times, but even more so in these murky financial days.

The people have the power. The power to keep Chatham affordable is in the hands of those who attend and vote at town meeting and in the election that follows. CCT will do its best to help inform, analyze and comment on articles to be voted on. We are unpaid volunteers, not experts at all in town finance or administration, just doing our best to dig out and understand the facts. If we make mistakes, we correct them. Since we have very limited funds, we will resort to simple ways to spread the message. That’s why we use email and our website. There will be a few ads in the Chronicle – and Cape Codder if we have the money -- to reach those without emails. We also will prepare and volunteers will distribute leaflets to reach those same people. We hope people will make phone calls to other concerned taxpayers. The emails we send out can be forwarded to people not yet on our email list. Since email and our website are our principal information outlets, we urge one and all to send us emails of like-minded people who care about sensible spending in Chatham. The more people we can reach, the better chance there is of a sensible outcome at town meeting.

We do need a few dollars for the final push. A bank account has been opened and although contributions are not yet deductible because there has not been time to file papers, we have obtained a Federal ID number, so we’re legal! Your contribution in any amount will be gratefully received; mail it to Chatham Concerned Taxpayers, P.O. Box 616, North Chatham, MA 02650-0616.

It is time for concerned taxpayers to stand up and be heard.

We thank those who aided the organization of this first meeting of volunteers:
Parker (Peter) Wiseman, former Selectman, former member of the Finance Committee
Phil Dupont
Dick Curtiss
John Payson
Rosalie Moretti
Kim Doggett
Ginny Nickerson

We also extend thanks to those who attended and said they would help spread the message and rally the concerned to attend town meeting and to those who made contributions.

The Boston Globe reports that cities and towns are delaying financial decisions in light of budgetary uncertainties.

"I expect this to be very fluid for a couple more months," said Sam Tyler, executive director of the business-funded Boston Municipal Research Bureau.

"And it's not just Boston. Every city and town is in the same situation."

Not so, Sam. Chatham has sent its budget off to the printer for the May 11th Town Meeting. Unlike almost all other cities and towns Chatham's operations budget for FY10 rises almost 4% (about $1 million), boosted by generous wage hikes for all town employees. (The Selectmen ignored the Finance Committee's majority vote rejecting the budget.) The Selectmen did not make a single reduction of even one dollar in the spending proposed by the Town Manager.

For property taxpayers who did not build anything on their properties in FY09 the property tax levy will rise precisely 2 1/2. To avoid an override vote the selectmen approved taking money out of the Stabilization Fund and other reserves which are principally set aside for emergency use to pay for the spending in excess of the Propositon 2 1/2 limit. This is one of the maneuvers which drew fire from the Finance Committee.

Continue reading "ALL (WELL, ALMOST ALL) MASSACHUSETTS CITIES AND TOWNS CAUTIOUS ON SPENDING DECISIONS"

99 citizens of Chatham filed a petition with the Town Clerk Monday asking that the Police Department/Annex project be put on the agenda for the Town Meeting.

In essense, the petition said that some $17 million for this project seemed way too rich and, in any event, because of the collapse in the economy since the Town Meeting last voted on it, this just isn't the time to go forward with the project.

This is not the time for a big new bond issue to drive up the property tax. The taxpayers need a break from property tax increases.

The petition proposes that the best course is to clean the decks, rescind the past authorizations and go back to the drawing board and come back with decent space for the Police Department and for the folks in health, environment, community development, planning, coastal development and conservation. But with the economic darkness that has descended, this is not the time.

Not Now.

The group that had recommended the original PD/Annex project came before the Selectmen tonight and, noting how dramatically the economic situation had changed, recommended that the Town look at an alternative for the Annex people along Route 28 in West Chatham at the former (but renovated) High Tide Restaurant space, which could make more efficient use of space and be less costly for taxpayers. It also might add significantly to the revitalization of that business area.

The Selectmen voted the group the funds needed to develop a floor plan over the next few weeks to see if the Annex personnel can function efficiently in the the High Time space, which wis less expansive than the planned new Annex, at a savings to taxpayers.

Mrs. Norma Avalar rose from the audience to remind the Board that times had changed dramatically since the Town Meeting had voted $17 million for the project. Whether the alternative plan works or not, the point has been made: Even the proponents now feel the original plan was too rich and, in any event, the 99 backers of the petition (only ten were needed) feel now isn't the time. When the economy bounces back, a new, less costly and more cost-effective plan should be ready for the Annex and the Police Department.

But Not Now.

For a copy of the petition and the letter delivering it to the Town Clerk (with copies to the Selectmen), click below.

Continue reading "THE POLICE DEPARTMENT/ANNEX PROJECT: "NOT NOW""

Our excitement about what the Selectmen might do in their special Friday's meeting for fiscal discipline quickly fizzled as Town Manager Hinchey took control of the proceedings. Nothing would change.

Having guided the Selectmen skillfully through weeks of close scrutiny of the operating budget, the Town Manager finally got them to do exactly what he wanted them to do. The budget he had advanced did not suffer even one reduction in increased spending. The only "cuts" in his $32.757 million budget were downward adjustments due to final costs from third party providers coming in a couple of hundred thousand lower than estimates.

It was a masterful performance. He is really good at what he does.

In the blink of an eye Mr. Hinchey proposed free cash for off-budget capital spending ($1.2 million?) and then allocated Stabilization Fund monies amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars for off-budget operations spending for the town side and the schools, thereby reducing property tax levy increases this year for the operating budget to $710,000, more or less. An override approval vote for about $190,000 will still be required at the election on May 14th following the Town Meeting on May 11th. (An override is sought when spending would drive the increase in the property tax levy up beyond the 2 1/2% allowed (but not required) by state law.)

The bad news is that that free cash and stabilization money won't be available as a cushion for hard times in fiscal 2010 and 2011. (Free cash and stabilization money were mostly raised by the property tax in prior years in excess of what was actually needed.)

Cost of living increases were approved (the nation is at zero inflation) to the approval of the large complement of town employees attending the meeting.

Ironically, the $700,000 or so increase in the property tax levy for fiscal 2010 for the operating budget is almost exactly the amount of pay increases in the budget. The unionized town and school employees declined to go along with the Selectmen's request for a voluntary compensation freeze. Chatham taxpayers have rewarded their public employees very well over the years and it was hoped the employees would appreciate the stress ordinary citizens were experiencing at this time. If they had, there would be no increase in the property tax for operations. And there would be a strong constituency to resist layoffs if economic conditions deteriorate.

The result is that resident taxpayers will be asked to accept increases in their property taxes to pay for raises -- ranging as high as 7% for fire personnel and 6% for school personnel -- for full-time public employees, most if not almost all of whom already have compensation packages adding up to more than the incomes of roughly half the households in Chatham.

And that's before considering the cost proposals for various capital projects being prepared for articles in the warrant. For example, if the Town were to go forward with the Police Department/Annex project, the first year debt service cost would be about $1.3 million on top of everything else. We're still paying about $1 million a year for the costly and under-utilized Community Center.

The numbers are not yet clear on what the Selectmen will recommend that will drive up property taxes. Nonetheless, the FY10 operating budget is now going over to the Finance Committee for its "official" examination. Because of the financial crisis, the members of the Finance Committee have been informally -- but diligently -- studying the spending plan for some time and now will dive into it in earnest. In a $32 million plus budget, it's hard to believe there's nothing to cut

It is clear that the schools are on a collision course with reality. That they sought increases in spending of the magnitude they did (8% or 10%, depending on how you count) in these awful times indicates they are living in an alternate universe. Town Manager Hinchey predicts that they will become a chronic cause of overspending requests every year in the future unless they mend their ways. While the schools complain the town doesn't give them enough money, the town provides the schools with substantially more dollars than the state requires, about 50% more for fiscal 2009.

Another attitude that must change is the assumption that the town has a right, a duty, even an obligation, to raise the property tax 2 1/2% every year. Town spending has grown 44% in the last eight years, twice as fast as the CPI. Don't be misled: Chatham's low tax rate doesn't mean a thing. What's important is the increase year by year in property taxes. The town is indeed well-run, but is it run as efficiently and as cost-effectively as it should be?

Whatever the Selectmen and the Finance Committee recommend, it is up to Town Meeting to decide whether or not to put up the money, regardless of what the Selectmen have approved or recommend. All public contracts are subject to appropriation and that's what voters do at Town Meeting -- appropriate or don't.

Surely, voters do not want to have a financial crisis develop during fiscal year 2010 or fiscal 2011 because of spending decisions made now that are out of synch with fiscal realities. Chatham is not an island; it is not immune from real world developments. Chatham spending relies in substantial part on revenues from other sources, such as hotel/motel revenues and motor vehicle excise taxes. Will they be as high as projected for fiscal 2010?

In 2008's last quarter, the American economy contracted by 6.8%, the sharpest drop since 1982. The Dow Jones average in February had its worst February since 1933. Chase has cut its dividends 87%, GE, 67%. The Dow, as a predictor of the future, is now at a 12-year low, closing today down about 300. Retired people are suffering and it's no wonder they're scared.

It's a time to be cautious and prudent. Or is there more in the magic hat?

Friday Alert!

Chatham taxpayers may still have hope that the Selectmen will help them.

Last night Town Manager Hinchey told the Finance Committee that Selectmen Chairman Sean Summers has asked the Board to make a major effort at tonight’s final meeting on the operating budget to cut increased spending that will force property taxes up.

This is very late notice, we know. You have a chance to be heard.

We also know that many if not most of you receiving this email are seniors, you’ve never done anything like this before.

But, if you can, go to Town Hall at 5 and speak your piece.

There’s nothing to be afraid of. You will be received courteously.

Stand up, give your name and this simple message:

We are not panicking, but we’re very, very concerned.

Please. Think of us.

No property tax increases. No override. No Prop 2 ½.

Thank you.

We have excellent employees in this town. We hope they will recognize this is a time for them to step up. And there is a benefit: A freeze on compensation and filling vacant positions can save jobs.

Unfortunately, times may get worse so the town, same as you, has to be cautious.

Federal report out this morning said last quarter of 2008 the economy shrank 6.2%! Worst since 1982. It's ZERO INFLATION and heading lower.

Capital projects are for later discussion, at Town Meeting. Now it’s the Operating Budget. Non-essential capital projects should be deferred until the economy improves. Only emergency capital spending should be undertaken now.

Thus far the Selectmen have made no reductions in the Town Manager's Operating Budget spending increase proposal (including schools) of $1 million or so that will drive up property taxes for Chatham's taxpayers. Indeed, they have increased spending over the Town Manager's initial recommendations. They plan to button up the Operating Budget and send it to the Finance Committee for its formal review.

How much more spending will impact property taxes will be known until the capital spending proposals are identified and quantified.

The agenda for Friday's Selectmen's meeting at 5:

Meeting will be broadcast on Channel 18 and video posted within 24 hours on the Chatham town webiste.

Taking up the spending plan for Fiscal 2010 beginning July 1:

Article 6 – Operating Budget W. Hinchey
(CCT comment: No cuts made yet; spending still $1 million over fiscal 2009 despite
taxpayer stress)
• Union Response (Apparently, there will be responses from all)
• Additional School Cuts (CCT: No cuts yet; spending still sky high; property tax
increases coming)
• Additional Town Cuts (No cuts yet; property tax increases coming)
• Article 10 – Lighthouse Beach
• Other Action (CCT comment: Taxpayers must rally for fight at Town Meeting to
oppose property tax increase)
• Ballot Question (CCT: Taxpayers must be heard at May 11th Town Meeting and May 14th Election.)

Tuesday turned out to be a sorrowful day for taxpayers who live in Chatham.

The week had looked promising.

The Selectmen had taken a big step towards reducing spending – and avoiding any increase in property taxes – by unanimously asking all town employees -- union and non-union alike – to accept a voluntary across-the-board freeze in compensation. All had to agree. By our calculation that would save taxpayers more than $700,000 or 70% of the million in reductions needed to keep the property tax levy at the fiscal 2009 level. The Selectmen asked for employee responses by this week.

Then the Selectmen changed their meeting schedule for this week, adding a special Friday meeting (tomorrow) to deal with the responses. That seemed like good news.

Tuesday’s meeting opened with the Public Forum. Chatham Concerned Taxpayers thanked the Board of Selectmen for the close attention they seemed to be showing to the concerns of taxpayers in “these extraordinarily difficult, indeed unprecedented, times.” (Note: CCT is just forming; our first meeting was February 3rd. We’re still digging, still learning and there’s much still to learn. What we say is what we know so far.)

CCT briefly reviewed the above-inflation growth in town spending of over 44% in the past eight years that had to stop. During those years the town’s employees had handsomely benefitted with excellent pay and benefits. But the good times, at least for now, were behind us. Federal statistics were showing ZERO INFLATION, a strong argument against any pay increases in these tough times. .

We reminded the Selectmen that more than half of Chatham’s adult residents were of retirement age or nearing retirement. Chatham’s population is one of the oldest in Massachusetts. They are “hurting”, we said, using the words of a similarly disposed Selectman of Brewster. They are “scared” as they see their nest eggs dwindle.

Though many think of Chatham as a rich town, according to publicly available information, the median household income of Chatham is below even that of neighboring Brewster, and far below that of a rich town such as, say, Weston, $153,918.

We suggested that the Selectmen ask the representatives of the employee groups – school union, police union, fire union and other municipal employees – to appear at Friday’s Selectmen meeting in person to deliver their responses to the request of the Selectmen for an across-the-board freeze. We said “We certainly hope that they will show appreciation for the past generosity of the Chatham taxpayers and an understanding of the anxiety and fear that those past their earning years are now feeling in these very difficult times. With their cooperation, Chatham can hopefully get through this next fiscal year without imposing additional financial burdens on already stressed taxpayers.”

We noted that an added benefit of the Selectmen’s proposal would be keeping all or almost all public employees employed without the need of major layoffs.

We closed by urging caution for what could be even worse times ahead. “As residents tighten their belts, the town must do the same.”

Well, that was the end of hope for the taxpayers, at least as far as the Selectmen were concerned. Or so it appeared.

Immediately thereafter, Town Manager William Hinchey informed the Selectmen that the fire union had rejected the Selectmen’s request, although the non-union employees had agreed to it if they could avoid layoffs. The police and school unions hadn’t bother to respond.

In the following exchange between Mr. Hinchey and the Selectmen, “some taxpayers” were accused of “panicking” and one selectman maintained that he for one wasn’t going to panic. Indeed, he could live with the property tax increases including an override and if there was to be a battle at town meeting, so be it.

One of the written principles adopted by the Selectmen for this year had been to avoid any override. (State law permits but does not require an increase in the property tax levy of 2.5% each year; anything beyond that requires a vote of town meeting be it for an override (excess spending in the operating budget), a capital exclusion or a debt service exclusion.) The town spending plan proposes almost a 5% increase in the property tax in the operating budget, requiring about one million dollars in reduction in a $32 million spending plan to avoid property tax impact.)

Not another word was said about the across-the-board freeze or the fact that two unions had refused to respond to the Selectmen.

The Selectmen then proceeded for the next two hours with spending as usual. The first thing they did was vote cost of living increases for all town employees outside the school department; the cost of living increases for school employees are already in the school budget as other pay increases. The Town Manager argued that since the Board had just recently approved (4-1) the new fire union contract he had negotiated giving the union a 7% increase for fiscal 2010 (at a time when cost of living figures were plunging towards zero), it was obligated to give them their 3% cost-of-living increase. (The other 4% of the fire union’s 7% increase was already in the fire budget). Selectmen then voted cost-of-living increases for the other town employees.

Not a single reduction in spending was made by the Selectmen. In fact, several spending items were added off-budget as it were by taking from emergency funds money raised in prior years in excess of what was needed. It was difficult to follow what the Town Manager and Selectmen were doing because they were working from papers the public in attendance did not have. Free cash was tapped for this, the Stabilization Fund for that involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. The School Department 10% spending increase came down somewhat because of health insurance costs came in lower than estimated and the magical injection of off-budget money from the Stabilization Fund. One member of the audience rose at one point to state what she believed was the unspoken obvious: The real “elephant in the room” is the chronic and unsustainable overspending by the schools.

Overall, the sole reduction in spending came about because health care insurance final figures came in below what was estimated. At the end of the discussion, the Selectmen were still proposing an operating budget that raises property taxes in excess of 2.5% and requires an override vote at Town Meeting, an override they had pledged to avoid.

The Selectmen led by the Town Manager then went on to adopt and approve Articles for Town Meeting that will ask for spending for capital projects that will also raise property taxes. Only Chairman of the Board Summers on several occasions brought up the concerns of the town’s resident taxpayers and questioned what was essential capital spending and what could be deferred. Nothing was deferred.

Tomorrow’s Selectmen’s meeting at 5 (new time) is supposed to wrap up discussion on the town’s operating budget. Will any reductions in spending be proposed or adopted if proposed? Will the police and school unions deliver their answers to the Selectmen’s request for a compensation freeze? Based on Tuesday’s Selectmen’s actions, neither is likely.

The taxpayers’ hopes now lie with the Finance Committee (Chairman, Coleman Yeaw), which will formally receive the Selectmen’s recommendations in a few days. They meet Thursdays a 7 at the Town Hall and live on Channel 18 and by video later on the Town’s website.

It’s beginning to look more and more as if the taxpayers who live in Chatham will have to fight for themselves at Town Meeting.

The Selectmen have a difficult job. The Town Manager is a master at what he does. They are all intelligent and diligent. But their actions Tuesday reflected their apparent judgment that the stress being suffered by those in Chatham who pay the bills because of the financial crisis did not warrant any change in the course of their projected spending, that the town could afford it. The town, of course, is that Chatham household with median income of $45,817 which will be voting at Town Meeting in May.

A number of people have indicated they are uncertain about who makes the final decisions on spending in Chatham.

The answer is “You do.”

CCT’s position is there should be no property tax increase for fiscal 2010, except for those who have added new value to their property (new building, a deck or whatever), for the operating budget or for capital project that aren’t demonstrably urgent and can’t be delayed until better economic times.

Chatham voters at the Annual Town Meeting and Town Election in May make the decisions. The ATM this year begins May 11th (it can go beyond one day) and the Town Election is May 14th. It is important for voters concerned about town spending growth to attend town meeting AND STAY TO THE END. Strange things can happen if voters aren't vigilant.

Simply put, the process is this:

The Town Manager William Hinchey prepares a spending plan and presents it to the five-person elected Board of Selectmen. The Town Manager has reviewed all the spending requests of all town departments EXCEPT for the School Department. The School Department spending plan is in the hands of the elected School Committee. The Town Manager includes the spending plan approved by the School Committee in the overall town spending plan without any change.

Despite the world financial crisis, the town’s spending plan calls for an increase in spending of $1.268 million, of which approximately $1.1 million is attributable to a 10.52% increase in spending approved by the School Committee.

The Selectmen are giving what is perhaps unprecedented attention to the spending plan. They have identified the largest single item of increase in the budget is about $713,000 for salary increases of one sort or another. According to our calculations, these increases are roughly equal between the School Department and all other town departments.

Since the town has been very generous to all town employees in terms of compensation and other benefits, the Selectmen proposed to all town employees they accept a voluntary freeze for fiscal year 2010, thus saving $700,000 or so. The answers of the employees (most of which are represented by unions) are due this week. If the employees consent, then the spending increases that have to be peeled back are in a manageable area of about $300,000, less than one percent of the $32.757 million budget, to freeze the property tax level for the operating budget at the fiscal 2009 level for those who didn’t add improvements to their properties.

In just a week of so, the Selectmen will hand over the spending plan with their changes and recommendations to the Finance Committee for its review. The Finance Committee has been informally reviewing the budget already for weeks. The Selectmen and the Finance Committee have suggested to the School Committee they subject their spending plan to further review, but no changes have as yet been forthcoming.

On or about April 1, after all the back and forth, the Warrant goes to print with all the recommendations. The Warrant is what the voters who attend the Annual Town Meeting and vote in the election a few days later act on. The voters have the final say. They can change the spending plan or reject it in total. For example, voters can reject a compensation freeze the employees have agreed to or refuse to fund any compensation increases if the employees have insisted on their increases. The same is true for capital spending. (The town, in effect, has two budgets, an operating budget and a capital budget.) Whatever the recommendations of the Selectmen, the School Committee or the Finance Committee, the voters decide.

So it’s important for all concerned taxpayer voters to be informed and show up at the Annual Town Meeting and Election on May 11th and 14th. There is a certain intimidation factor in speaking out at a town meeting of several hundred, but one should not worry about that this year because the stakes are too important to stay silent.

Chatham Concerned Taxpayers will be offering suggestions and guidance all the way up to Town Meeting and helping to organize speaking on the floor as well. While we hope we can give full support to the recommendations put before Town Meeting, as of this writing it is impossible to know if that will be the case. We will be prepared to advocate in support of the taxpayers.

We welcome the input and suggestions of all who believe this is a time for fiscal prudence. For taxpayer voices to be heard it’s important that we reach as many as possible. Please send the emails of like-minded taxpayers who don’t want to see property tax increases to chathamct@comcast.net. And stay in touch not only by these email alerts but by regularly checking our website www.chathamct.org.

These are extraordinary times and the voices of the taxpayers must be heard. In the last analysis, it is the votes of the taxpayers which will decide the outcome in May. The future of Chatham's spending is in your hands.

The Selectmen's agenda for their regular Tuesday meeting at 4 has changed and a special meeting has been set for Friday at 4. Responses from the unions and the non-union employees to the Selectmen's proposal for an across-the-board compensation freeze to avoid property tax increases and staff layoffs were asked to be in on or before Tuesday's meeting. Now the union response is scheduled for Friday's special meeting.

This is the revised Tuesday agenda dealing with ATM Warrant Articles, the discussion to be led by Town Manager Hinchey:

• Article 8 – Cost of Living Increases -- (CCT comment (that's Chatham Concerned Taxpayers): federal statistics show we are in a zero inflation environment and such discussions are premature before receipt of the employees freeze response.)
• Article 9 – Stabilization Fund
(Police/Fire Overtime; Library; Circuit Breaker) (CCT comment: Funding excessive Police and Fire overtime is not the purpose of the Stabillization Fund.)
• Article 11 – Five-Year Capital Authorization (CCT comment: Should the Town not take a "pause" in its building plans during such financially stressed times?)
• Article 12 – Stabilization (Trailers) (CCT comment: Trailers for the Recycling Area from the Stabilization Fund?)

General Discussion - Hotel/Motel Tax; Meals Tax W. Hinchey
( CCT comment: Presumably this is about possible State House legislative action to permit cities and towns to expand taxes for local retention. These punish second home owners and hurt local businesses.)

General Discussion – Operating Budget Goals W. Hinchey
(CCT Comment: The Selectmen's stated goal on record is to avoid overrides in connection with the FY10 budget. CCT's goal is no property tax increase for FY10.)

The agenda for the Friday's Selectmen's meeting at 4:

Article 6 – Operating Budget W. Hinchey
• Union Response (CCT comment: If they say yes, they realize how taxpayers are suffering, taxpayers save $700,000,)
• Additional School Cuts (CCT: needed, but not that much, only $300K)
• Additional Town Cuts (needed, but not that much, only $300K, with the Schools)
• Article 10 – Lighthouse Beach (swiim or sand only)
• Other Action (CCT comment: Stand up for the taxpayers)
• Ballot Question (CCT: Ratify that taxpayers will be heard and property taxes will not be increased)

At A special Friday meeting, the Chatham Board of Selectmen took a giant step towards recognizing the reality of the difficulties being experienced by Chatham's taxpayers. The Board on a 4-0 vote adopted a resolution asking all school and other town employees, union and non-union alike, to accept a compensation freeze for fiscal year 2010 no higher than fiscal 2009 compensation. An answer is due on or before February 24th.

An across-the-board freeze was raised as the most sensible first step at reining in spending at the initial meeting of Chatham Concerned Taxpayers on February 4th.

Almost all school employees are unionized as are fire and police employees, but the police do not have a contract in force. However, the fire contract has not been funded by Town Meeting. As a practical matter, the unions will accede to the request since not to do so would force a considerable number of layoffs of their fellow union and non-union workers.

According to the prelliminary calculations of Chatham Concerned Taxpayers, the savings for fiscal 2010 should be approximately $700,000, more than enough to offset any need for an override vote at the May Town Meeting.

To prevent any increase in the property tax for fiscal 2010, additional reductions in proposed spending increases of approximately $300,000 will have to be made. .

There are clearly more savings that can be made. For example, Chairman Summers specifically asked that a costly, optional healthcare plan that has been discussed for years be finally dropped. The Schools Department has lots of work to do, since it has resisted efforts to trim its spending. The schools and other town departments have room in a $32 million budget to pull back their spending requests and the examination of spending by the Finance Committee and Selectmen should help them unearth such savings.

However, thanks are due to Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Sean Summers for putting the motion on the table and to Selectmen Sussmen, Seldin and Whitcomb for supporting it.

These actions only concern the operating budget and its effect on property taxes. Capital project costs that will raise 2010 property taxes will be taken up at the May town meeting. Details are not yet available. Also, sentiment is growing among taxpayers to rethink the $16 million plus authorized in 2007 and 2008 for the expensive Police Department Annex project that could start hitting property taxes soon if not stopped.

At the meeting Town Manager Hinchey was at his most candid in pointing out that the chronic overspending by the school department can no longer be contained within even the limits of Proposition 2 1/2 and will present an override issue in FY11 and later years unless something is done. It does not appear as if the school department has the capability to manage its finances within the limits of available resources. It needs help. Indeed, one way to look at the across-the-board compensation freeze for FY10 is that is just spreading the result of school overspending over all departments.

The Town Manager also stated that unless economic conditions improve, the compensation freeze may well have to be continued through FY11, since a substantial portion of town spending is supported by revenues other than property taxes, such as the hotel-motel tax, which could well be done in these difficult times. Fees may be able to be raised in some cases, but state law forbids fees that exceed the cost of the services for which the fees are charged.

The Town Manager warned that significant property tax increases were not too far in the future if plans for the town wastewater project are to proceed as scheduled. He noted that nearby towns are rethinking their wastewater plans due to the economic collapse. Chatham might, too, since the ability to finance the project depends in large part on low interest or nterest-free money from special state funds -- which may not be there if the down times continue. Projects of lower priority such as the Police Department/Annex and the fire department facility may have to be deferred or scaled down or both.