COHASSET RFP still before inspector general- we think
19 Feb 2012
Cohasset Water’s RFP concession agreement continues to be on hold at the inspector general’s office – where Town Counsel Paul DeRensis is defending the Town’s position against Cohasset Water’s designer counsel. DeRensis says that the town has joint control of the water company. Designer counsel says naught.
In spite of the fact that Cohasset Water’s RFP is on hold with the inspector general, Peter DeCaprio, chairman of the water commission is out hawking the Cohasset Water RFP at luncheon engagements (if the Old Goats count) saying the RFP will be issued on Feb. 28th. Is this even legal? Isn’t the RFP supposed to be under wraps until such time as it is issued?
Has DeCaprio presented the Water RFP to selectmen? Have they reviewed it? Not at any public session we’re aware of. But then most things don’t happen in public sessions these days.
Town Manager Mike Coughlin has been suspended. The recently appointed acting town manager, Michael Milanoski, has in the past year been appointed as an associate member of the conservation commission and chair of the governance committee. Milanoski could not be appointed town manager because he would need to be out of town government for one year in order for the board to do so. But he can, apparently, be appointed interim/acting town manager for just about forever. Who knew?
If you Google Michael Milanoski you will find a lot of rotten stuff that raises some questions. We have no idea if any of it is true or not. In any case, we will not be publishing it here and you will not read about any of that old news on our blog – so don’t submit it.
There is something incredibly wrong with all of this, of course. In the end, it may not be the Inspector General or anyone else who saves us. We may have to save ourselves – at Annual Town Meeting.
When we created the strong town manager act we envisioned hiring someone strong, like our now suspended Town Manager, Mike Coughlin.
We didn’t get that in the first two town managers. The first one started off well and then he had problems with keeping his pants on. The second one became over-whelmed with the powers that be. He became un-strong.
Town Manager Mike Coughlin walked into a 1.3 Million water dept., incomplete records in the sewer department, and worked like a beaver to figure things out. He also questioned the selectmen’s ethics regarding various matters, not just the Cohasset Water RFP consignment contract.
Unfortunately, the questions surrounding the Water RFP is not the only issue undermining the ethical position of the Town of Cohasset. Even before Coughlin began employment with the town on August 1st, he became very concerned about the legal and ethical actions of certain officials on Cat Dam.
Coughlin expressed his concerns to the regional director of the DEP in Lakeville. Executive session minutes- will show two things– the close but highly questionable interelationship between the town’s legal position and that of the E-20 group. Secondly, a concerted effort to contact state officials some at the highest levels to influence the outcome of the regulatory review process. This is a quasi judicial proceeding– any contact by town officials to influence the outcome is one thin ice.
There is also the issue of the Governance Committee.
The Governance Committee was created in the aftermath of the controversy concerning the conservation appointments - which may be illegal. It never once looked into the conservation issues. Instead of studying the conservation issues– it began questioning the Town Manager Act. What ever happened to the inquiry on the Open Meeting Law violations?
The Chair of Governance (Mike Milanoski) - was appointed to the conservation commission. Executive session minutes of January 31st will reveal he is now part of a back channel effort to unduly influence the DEP. He was almost handpicked by certain selectmen to meet with the DEP — despite the fact he was not part of the con com when Cat Dam was considered. Now he has been appointed the Interim TM – if he can partipate in an ethically questionable effort to influence the DEP - how can he be entrusted to deal with the serious ethical issues surrounding the Water RFP?
In the very near future four town officials will meet with DEP -Town Attorney and the Conservation Agent– now– the vice chair (Selectman Paul Carlson)- one of the three who voted illegally to not reappoint the original conservation commission is part of this effort.
Instead of contacting the Con Com to choose their representative– the BOS hand picked Jack Creighton.
Why did the Selectmen pull back on their decesion to vet Peter DeCarpio, Cohasset Water Department chair, by the ethics comission? Hard to know.
Selectmen couold have requested enforcement from state ethics. We (this newspaper) is under the strong impression that Town Counsel had serious reservations about DeCaprios’s relationship to Macquarrie and American Water. Actualy, it’s not an impression. We have Town Consel’s E-mail stating the same.
Has anyone told the I.G. office that Aquarion is the holder of the expiring water contract and is also involved in the RFP?
Aquarion owns the American Water Co (running the Cohasset Plant). They purchased Accord Pond and American Water Co. How do they get to help formulate the RFP for the water they are purchasing? Is Selectman Chairman Ted Carr involved, financially, with anything to do with this? May be.
How nice of Ted Carr to abstain on the vote to appoint Milanoski (4-0) as interim town manager. “We are neighbors, “he said. But Carr told Town Counsel to STOP the ethcs investigation of Peter DeCarprio who is financially related to AQUARION, AMERICAN WATERWORKS AND MACQUAIRE BANK…
Carr has no problem with that realtionship.
Just the little neighborhood ones.
How cute.
Feb 27, 2012 @ 19:29:54
Peter, Have any future ratepayer studies been built in to the 20 year deal? Has any future water consumption build- out studies been done for the town? What is your best estimate of any profit margin forthe bidder and the town in the 20 year contract?
Feb 28, 2012 @ 09:54:15
we’re not doing a 20 year contract. It’s 10 years. And rates will, pending any natural disasters, stay flat for the entire term of the contract. How’s that for a rate study?
I would encourage everyone to read this:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/more-bad-news-us-water-bills-triple/317086
You should thank previous commissions and town meetings that appropriated money to rebuild our system. Cohasset might be the only municipality in the country that will start reducing rates and that won’t face a crippling capex burden in the years ahead.
Feb 27, 2012 @ 14:38:03
The Tinytown Unleashed expert says….
If Hingham wants to municipalize its water system and we have surplus water to sell, we should see if Hingham would like to be a direct buyer from Cohasset. Same goes for Hull. If they are paying a high price for water then Cohasset may be able to offer water that is marginally less expensive to a wholesale buyer and still a good deal for out town as a seller.
Feb 27, 2012 @ 14:35:48
I did Mary. I said we had a contract that would have paid us $50,000 annually. That would also have improved cell service throughout the town. But AT&T stopped all construction plans after it tried to buy T-Mobile. What part of that is unclear?
Feel free to drop a dime to the Ethics Commission anytime you’d like.
Feb 27, 2012 @ 13:45:22
You still haven’t responded to my previous questions.
Feb 27, 2012 @ 13:43:50
Peter,
What planet are you on? If you aesmartenough, you can get a monthly fee paid for the use of the water tower. Gee isn’t that why the country went to digital so first responders could have sole use of anolog? At least that is what the government told us. You stated the antenna was for better cell phone use not emergency managment use. Since you want to give foolish responses, how’s that conflict-of-interst coming along. By the way anyone can drop a dime to the Ethics commission and there is a 6 year window to drop that dime.
Feb 27, 2012 @ 10:58:54
Mary:
With respect to post #14, I assume you’re kidding? This was a widely covered issue. We had a contract with AT&T and Verizon that would have paid us $50,000/year. Unfortunately, due to all the delays caused by the efforts of the Bear Hill Legal Defense Squad, AT&T shelved the idea temporarily as they worked through their acquisition of T-Mobile, which has now been dropped. I say temporarily because it is possible that AT&T resurfaces. Equally likely that we will get interest from a private tower operator (I have already gotten calls). Either way, we are working diligently to get antennae back atop the tanks. You could say it’s our number 2 priority.
The Emergency Management Response Effort in town is desperate for better coverage, as they reminded me after Wind Storm Irene blew through. Better tell Tanna that our funds have owned many of the public tower operators over the years and she should commence flipping out. Clearly my privatization effort of all our water assets continues apace. . .Oh, the horror. Next we’ll start selling naming rights to the tanks or even the air rights over the tanks! Can you imagine a giant Macquarie Bank logo on the Bear Hill tank?
Feb 26, 2012 @ 13:55:40
Peter,
other towns charge cell phone companies a fee to place antennaes on their water towers. Did Cohasset do this?
Feb 26, 2012 @ 13:50:19
A privat water company could go bankrupt and possibly leave the town holding the bag.
Feb 28, 2012 @ 10:11:33
But United Water is public. They could go bankrupt too. They also could win the RFP. So could Whitewater Technologies. So could Woodard and Curran. So could Tighe and Bond. Why is everyone so focused on Aquarion? What are you going to do if Aquarion submits a bid that is clearly better than others? Will you all wade into Meetinghouse Pond wearing burlap sacks, wailing, while you beat yourself with sticks?
Feb 26, 2012 @ 00:34:57
The Gazette’s expert says…..
“What does the Town’s bond ordinance say about the qualification of an escrow agent who holds funds held in escrow for bond payments. Normally, this would be the paying agent bank (for general obligation bonds or bond anticipation notes) or a trustee bank in the case of revenue bonds, where the flow of funds is set forth in a trust indenture. Tom Wolf is right. Considering the Town’s history of sloppy book-keeping, missing records and a rap on the knuckles from the auditors, having anyone other than a qualified financial institution hold funds that are earmarked for principal and interest payments on the Town’s bonds and notes should be considered a very large red flag. How will Moody’s and S&P react to this when Cohasset has to go to market for permanent financing to retire its maturing bond anticipation notes? Those notes were issued without ratings. Any special reason for that? I see no problem with having a private company that is managing the Town’s water distribution system provide accounting to a custodian bank and receiving reports from the bank for its review. Leaving funds of the Town, especially funds needed to meet debt service, in the hands of a private water company that could change hands, loose a large law suit or have a major set-back in its operations and finances would be unwise in the extreme.
Feb 25, 2012 @ 16:27:31
Peter,
This statement by you, “Let me simplify my editorial for you: in 2007 market conditions favored sellers (operators) and not buyers (town owned water systems).” tells me You don’t know what you are talking about. You can’t willy nilly sell water as if you are competing with other towns to sell water: furthermore, if you are a private water system as you say,
“Since we are a private water system, and always will be until our debt is paid off in 20 years, I’m not sure what you mean about investors, and I’m not sure you do either.”
there isn’t any need to go to Town Meeting for approval of a 20 year contract. Is DOR o.k. with this 20 year contract? Have they requested any future ratepayer studies to be performed? Has a future buildout for water consumption been done for the Town for the next 20yrs.? Oh, you previously stated your a private water system, so there shouldn’t be any need to go toTown meeting concerning this 20 year contract. So, who owns the water in Cohasset?
You stated you knew a year ago that you outgrew the need to outsource the water dept. I would think it would be less expense to run the water dept in house than to contract out. Afterall, the contractor is not running the water dept. for free. How much profit will be built into this 20 year contract?
p.s. since the suspended town manager has written to the I.G., I am assuming he will receive a written reply( the I.G. office does do in writing) and you will be on the copy list; therefore, it will be suject to public record requests. Did you say the RFP is going out on the 28th? As of that date anyone can request to read it. Also, could you let everyone know when they can read the communication between your attorney and the I.G. office?
p.s. The only side I am on is that of having an ample supply of clean drinking water.
As soon as you can communicate to me that all is well, I certainly will apologize.
Feb 24, 2012 @ 16:38:49
Peter,
All I said was “Maybe the chairman of the water commissioner would like to share the letter from the I.G. office with the residents.”
Show the letter that states the Inspector General is O.K. with your RFP. Show the letter that states the I.G. is O.K. with an RFP of a city that Aquarion already services. Doesn’t Aquarion own Accord Pond? didn’t American Water Co. sell Accord Pond earlier in the last decade?
The issue at hand is not about collective bargaining or health care negotiations. Its about WATER, that finite resource in town.
This is your quote in the tinytown gazette,
“We can, however, take advantage of a change in market dynamics. In 2007 when we signed the last contract, operators were busy – it was a seller’s market. Today the situation is reversed. Operators have capacity, and to generate suitable returns are making their balance sheets available to those smart enough to take advantage”
Was your statement meant for investors?
You can’t manufacture water when you run low and you can’t drink money.
Why not run the water department without using outside help? You know, use the enterprise funds to pay employees, bonds, maintenance, all the things water department do in other towns without using a contractor?
Correspondence from the inspector General’s office is public record. Show everyone. Who wnats the 20 year contract, the water commissioners or Aquarion?
Feb 24, 2012 @ 18:17:27
Mary:
You’re not going to get a letter. They don’t do that. They reviewed it and communicated with our attorney that they had no issues once we incorporated all of their comments. If they weren’t okay with it, it wouldn’t have gone out. I know you guys were hoping for a different outcome. Sorry.
What is the relevance of Accord Pond to us? It’s in a different water basin. It’s not our property and never was. The issue at hand is the extent to which some of our residents will go to distort the truth to have their way. We saw it in Bear Hill, and we’re seeing it here.
Let me simplify my editorial for you: in 2007 market conditions favored sellers (operators) and not buyers (town owned water systems). A previous water commission got jammed on a contract and had no other options. None. That contract was the single biggest reason the water company was in a deficit in 2010. It was so one-sided in favor of American Water as to almost not be believed.
My statement regarding the change in market conditions was meant for our customers. I was referring specifically to those system operators adept enough to recognize the change in market sentiment to extract better terms for their customers’ benefit. Since we are a private water system, and always will be until our debt is paid off in 20 years, I’m not sure what you mean about investors, and I’m not sure you do either.
Since we’ve never run low on water and since alot of our water flows, unconsumed, into the Atlantic Ocean, I assume this is another uninformed scare tactic so frequently employed by your side. Ignorance is bliss Mary, embrace it.
What money enables you to do is pay down debt and pay cash for needed capital expenditures, instead of incurring even more debt. I suppose I could be like Mike Coughlin and spend every dollar we have and don’t have, but my preference is to be conservative, pay down debt, and hoard cash for a rainy day. But I’m a nut like that. I mean, I thought it was a good idea to raise revenue by installing wireless antennae on our tanks so that everyone in town could have better cell coverage. Stupid me, I forgot I lived in Cohasset where a vocal and uninformed minority tries to insure that only their views are heard on every issue.
We most certainly can run the water company with outside help, and have always held that as our bail out option from the start of this process. We knew a year ago that we had outgrown our need for an outsourced solution. The issue is, however, whether that’s the best solution for our customers. We’ll lose economies of scale by taking operations in house and that will make it more costly to run the facility. We won’t be able to reduce rates as much and as quickly. We won’t be able to pay down debt as fast. We’ll lose the expertise provided by a large professional operator overseeing our plant. We’ll take on much more risk for both operations and budgets, but we certainly can do it. We’ve always known we can do it, but it’s about math as much as anything.
When any correspondence shows up, we’ll be happy to share it with everyone. At the same time, when Coughlin’s charges are ignored by the IG because they were without merit, and recognized for what they were, a politically motivated attack, will any of you recognize that and apologize?
Feb 23, 2012 @ 12:04:42
Response to Peter DeCaprio
You list American Water in your Crow Point Portfolio.
American Water runs Cohasset’s plant.
You are Chairman of the Cohasset Water Commission.
Ted Carr may or may not have stock in American Water.
At one point I had obtained an e-mail discussion from Coughlin to Town Counsel and back again in which Counsel allegedly expressed some concern about Carr’s alleged stock in American Water. Why was counsel concerned? Did he talk to Carr and after talking with Carr, did his concerns go away?
Are you doing business with any members of any town boards and committees who would vote or recommend any contract which might go before May Annual Town Meeting?
You are doing the public’s business, and the public has every right to know who you are. It is not slander (which is verbal) nor is it libel (which is written) to question town officials about their ethics or financial involvements in the public’s business.
Feb 23, 2012 @ 09:19:55
I continue to be disturbed about the tone of the comments in the press and in public. How many times have we heard our children say, “He hit me first!” There’s no need for us to degenerate into insults, thinly veiled innuendos, derogatory comments and debates based on personalities, rather than positions on the issues themselves. There are some real issues here. The issues will not go away just because we fire a town manager or remove members of committees with which some disagree. We still need to decide what governance rights the Town Manager’s Act imparts or if the Board of Selectman has final authority. We still need to decide whether Cohasset will issue a contract for twenty years for operation and control of one of our town’s most valuable assets – water. We still need to develop and execute both short and long term plans to solidify the town’s financial health. On the topic of finances, I for one would like to see a regular accounting of the legal fees resulting from the current debate between the Water Commissioners, the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager. The Water Commissioner’s council and town council are both paid by you and I, the citizens (whether tax revenue, water bills, etc.). It seems to be in the town’s best interest to cease this unnecessary litigation, not expose ourselves to an almost certain law suit from yet another dismissed Town Manager and spend our valuable time addressing the issues at hand.
Feb 20, 2012 @ 19:29:43
You really need to be more careful. There are some egregious errors in this post. Aquarion is not the holder of the expiring contract. Aquarion DOES NOT own American Water. American Water is a public company and trades on the NYSE. It has its own board of directors and is not a subsidiary of anyone. For you to suggest that Ted Carr is financially involved in our RFP or could benefit from it is the height of irresponsibility, bordering on slander, but then you’ve proven that you have no idea what responsibility means.
With this blog you should run the soundtrack to Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid.” It would be apt.
Oh, by the way, the IG had no problem with our RFP. Toodles.
Feb 23, 2012 @ 20:06:28
Maybe the chairman of the water commissioner would like to share the letter from the I.G. office with the residents.
Feb 23, 2012 @ 23:24:05
Mary:
It’s only in Coughlin/Quigley/Kasperowicz fantasy-land that the white knights from the IG’s office ride in on their white horses to smite evil. On planet earth, they just examine your documents and make sure everything complies with 30B.
They examined our document (because we asked them to long before Mike launched Public Relations Campaign #46), made some minor suggestions which were incorporated into our finished product, and let it out with their blessing, quietly of course, because there was nothing amiss, and that is how the process works. Since the IG is the only one besides our lawyers that have actually seen the final product, they can actually speak with some authority.
Those of you on the Campaign to re-Elect Karen Quigley will just have to start dealing with some uncomfortable facts: everything was done according to the strict letter of the law, and your beloved town manager was responsible for all his own trouble. The RFP will hit the street Monday and all the conspiracy theorists will be supremely disappointed. If we get bidders, we get bidders. If we don’t, we don’t. It is our job only to present options, and that is precisely what we are doing.
If there were really something amiss, we’d have flown under the radar and gone for a three year contract that required no town meeting vote as others have done. Instead, we opt for the approach that warrants the most possible scrutiny.
Have any of you thought of scrutinizing other contracts the town enters into as thoroughly as this? How about something that can really impact your pocketbook, like collective bargaining? Anyone here ever get as exorcised about those negotiations? Have you asked about the cost from the recent health care negotiation at the schools? Know the impact? Any of you ever pay attention? Anyone even know the impact on the town’s budget as a result of a bad collective bargaining outcome? Would you even know what a bad outcome is?
Yes, let’s get all up in arms about something that will lower a department’s operating costs by 20%, and fix those costs at that low level for a long period of time thereby eliminating future budgetary risk that will benefit the entire town. Let’s not rethink the water company’s operating equation. Instead, we should stand pat and miss an opportunity to prepay debt and return money to constituents.
Just for the record, American Water has been operating our plant for 14 years. Had we done a five-year contract this year and American won the bid, which they were interested in, at the contract’s end they would have been our operator for 19 years. In 2007, when the contract went out to bid last, American had been in place for nine years. When they won, did any of you do the math and say, “wow, 14 years is a long time?” How long has DW been our law firm? Roselli our auditor? Any of you ever ask that question?
So what exactly is the problem with a long duration contract? Has anyone here ever given any consideration at all to the notion that towns get better pricing on a longer-term contract? Yields on long bonds are better than short term paper. There is a reason for that. Why do most people opt for 30-year fixed mortgages instead of five-year floaters? Why is it better to fix housing costs for as long as possible? Maybe because the known is better than the unknown? How is this equation any different?
Feb 24, 2012 @ 16:03:45
The Inspector General’s office says it is continuing to investigate Coughlin’s charges.
More later…
Feb 25, 2012 @ 10:03:02
This comment from Tom Wolf, we just posted it for him.
The big red warning flag on the Water Department RFP should be that the successful bidder will be the escrow agent for three million dollars a year in debt service collections, more that three times the amount billed for water usage itself. For the BOS to allow this to happen is fiscal irresponsibility if not malfeasance. It would be the equivalent of allowing the sewer department plant operator to collect the betterments along with the charges for sewer treatment.
There are some big clues here for figuring out what is really behind this RFP. Number one, of course, is that it allows Commissioner Decaprio to win; i.e. to recover from the stigma of being unable to manage the Water Department without a loss while accumulation enough working capital and authority to avoid answering to anyone for years to come.
Second, it allows the BOS – particularly Water Planning Group Chairman Carlson – to conveniently forget the promise made to water users that as debt was repaid, the debt service portion of our bills would be reduced accordingly. Under the RFP, there is no mention of this commitment let alone any hint that it might at least benefit the town. In fact, there is no mention of just who would benefit from this pay down, the Water Department or the new contractor.
Third, as capital improvements are inevitably (and desirably) made in the future, it would appear that the plant operator will continue to be the escrow agent for this debt service, clouding and compounding the issue.
Last, the entire notion if not the basis of the RFP is to verify the complete independence of the Water Department, making it a private company independent of the town, a prospect none of us would have dreamed was the case let alone was about to become a certified reality. The implications are staggering; isn’t this exactly the point where our highest elected officials should step in and protect the town’s interests?
Feb 25, 2012 @ 16:33:28
Tanna/Tom/Karen/Ronnie:
Let me suggest two things. One, that you rename this blog A Series of Non-Sequiturs. Two, that we start an over-under pool on the number of facts that your posters actually get right in any given post related to the water company. I’ll start with the over and take zero.
Escrow accounts are commonly used today, in municipal finance in particular. Ours would be the property of the town. Furthermore, if we do decide to go with a concession contract, the concessionaire will be responsible for depositing monies monthly, in advance of quarterly collections, for the benefit of our debt service payments. So, on a cash basis, the concessionaire will actually be in deficit to the town until it collects quarterly bills. Billings, including the quarterly charge, actually totaled $4.0 million last year. An additional $700,000 annually comes to us directly via checks for fees from Linden Ponds and other non-billed revenue.
I have been on the water commission for two years. In each of those years, on an operating basis the water company has run a surplus. In fact, Karen once wrote a blog post praising our management approach. She even named me personally and said she would like us to teach the sewer commission a thing or two.
Between the town neglecting to pay over $200,000 in past due bills, and other residents neglecting to pay an additional $399,000 in bills, according to the state’s definition of retained earnings we had a cash deficit. The good news is that cash collections are likely to improve this month when the shut-off policy goes into effect.
The other good news is that we have convinced the new finance department that they are in fact on the hook for the $500k that the town owed us previously, and they have also agreed that their original overhead allocations to us were incorrect. More cash for the water company. I know you will regard that as a net negative somehow, but everyone else that doesn’t view our operations through the prism of Bear Hill is likely to see it the same way we do.
Only the crowd on this blog would see the accumulation of working capital in a capital intensive business as a bad thing, but rational, clear thinking is generally in short supply on Tinytown Unleashed. As for not answering to anyone for years to come, I would remind you that the enterprise fund has to produce annual financials, so I suspect I will be answering to the BofS and the DOR as long as I am still serving and we have an enterprise fund. Pretty tough to hide when you run a public utility. But, as your hero Mike Coughlin proved, it’s always easier to deflect attention from the real issues with straw men arguments.
As for debt service, your blinders have enabled you to consistently miss one of the most salient points of a concession contract: the concessionaire prepays us in year one for debt service reductions to come thereby enabling us to reduce your bills as we said we would as debt is paid down. By doing a concession, it is as if we did actually pay down debt immediately. Absent a concession, the earliest opportunity we will have to pay down debt will be 2014, and then our call schedule only allows for $200,000 of debt paydowns, which will hardly impact our amortization schedules. Most of our debt is non-callable, and therefore we have to wait for the normal amortizations before any real reductions occur. I know you’ve all studied our debt schedules in earnest in an effort to become fully informed (they are on our website), but in case you haven’t, the first real opportunity to reduce the quarterly charge will without a concession contract will come ten years from now.
If any of you actually understood the RFP, you would see that revenues are projected to be significantly lower next year and that is because we are planning on sharp rate reductions. The whole point of a concession is to return as much cash to ratepayers as possible as soon as possible. We can opt for the in-house solution, but you’ll be waiting for lower rates for a long time.
Again, with respect to future capex, you are conflating issues and missing the point of the concession. The up-front fee from the concessionaire to us stays in the enterprise fund as retained earnings, so there is no escrow for that. Had your boy Coughlin stayed, he no doubt would have tried to reach into the enterprise fund to steal money to cover his stealth pay raises to his beloved employees as he tried to do at Special Town Meeting. Frankly, I’d rather have an escrow account that an incompetent town manager, but in any case, there will be no escrow for capex.
The point of the RFP has nothing to do with making the water company independent. We are an enterprise fund within the town. The point of a concession contract is to fix the department’s expenses for many years to come to avoid a negative surprise in the future. When you consider the likelihood that Chapter 70 money will dry up soon, and other sources of state subsidies will also go away, and that union contracts will continue to escalate, the town’s budget will get pinched. Instead of saddling the town with more employees and more pension and health care expense, the water commissioners (and most normal people) think it better that we avoid adding to future budget burdens for the town. Let me ask you this: if the school’s could fix their budgets at a lower level today and keep the budget fixed at that low level for ten years, would you think that a bad idea? If any town department budget could be fixed SO THAT IT WOULD NOT ESCALATE FOR TEN YEARS, would any of you think that to be bad? If the town negotiated new collective bargaining agreements that rolled back costs to much lower levels, and then fixed those contracts for ten years we would all collectively celebrate. So, why is it that our contracts are any different?
Oh, right. I forgot. Bear Hill. We’re not allowed to let that go. Never mind. I get it now.
You guys are so focused on our RFP you are losing sight of the larger issue: now that Karen and Coughlin are publicly joined at the hip, when the extent of his malfeasance comes to light, how will Karen ever explain their close association on the campaign trail? He favored employees over taxpayers. I guess that means she does too. He showed zero budget discipline. I guess that means she thinks budgets mean as little as Coughlin does. She got trounced last time running on her own record. What’s going to happen when she is forced to run on his?
She’s going to need a really good campaign manager. . .
I used to think that the inhabitants of this blog should quit carping and get involved. Now that I’ve seen your logic up close, I’ve changed my mind. Please keep carping and never run for office again. I’m not sure the town can withstand any of you.