A poor job of communicating my thoughts last night. A room full of people’s attention directed my way can do that so I am adding to them here.
While I applaud City of Williamstown (CoW) employees for acting in their self-interest by coming to the council meeting and letting their voices be heard, and empathize with them for understandably not wanting to see an important and generous benefit changed, it is the council’s responsibility to consider whether providing or changing any benefit is in the best interest of those who ultimately pay for it…the residents who elected us to our chairs. With that said a few points I would like to make…..
1) The CoW’s revenue base is shrinking
It has been on the decline for several years now. Prudence dictates expenditures be brought in line to reflect this. Instead utility customers have been counted on to make up the difference. According to the mayor and other council members this practice is nothing new. But to me it just isn’t right to charge utility customers higher than necessary rates, rather than reduce spending, in order to make the general fund balance. The 2013/14 fiscal budget forecasts a $791,000 deficit in the general fund which council approved to cover with transfers of $300,000 from water and $500,000 from sewer.
I commonly hear, “other cities envy us because we own our own utilities”. Sure they do. They would love to use them as we are to pay for all kinds of different things, instead of making the difficult decisions necessary to cut back. Shouldn’t a public utility operate to provide service at minimal cost to its customers when there are no other alternatives? The CoW has a monopoly on water, sewer, and electric. Isn’t it wrong to charge confiscatory rates to supplement its budget? I think many residents would agree it is and be surprised to learn that a good portion of the charges on their utility bill go to pay for items unrelated to the service provided.
I also hear “our utility rates are in line with others in the region”. That may be true but it doesn’t help Williamstown stand out and separate itself from other cities in trying to grow and build a revenue base. Why wouldn’t we want the lowest rates possible in order to attract more business and residential customers? This practice is doing far more long-term damage to the city’s revenue base than say turning down the Love’s Truck Stop project.
2) Changing benefits is a reflection of the economic climate
During good economic times I don’t have a problem with the CoW offering a competitive benefit package in order to attract, retain, and reward quality employees. But there is a flip side to that. During bad times choices have to be made, sometimes unpleasant and unpopular ones. I think it is safe to say we are in an economic decline and conditions may require sacrifices to allow the CoW to operate as a viable entity.
Health insurance benefits are not immune from scrutiny. CoW’s current ordinance paying 100% of coverage and reimbursing employees for keeping dependents off their plan is an exception to the norm in today’s employment environment. I doubt many residents who pay something for their coverage will have very much empathy for CoW employees asked to pay a small percentage for theirs.
3) Changing health insurance benefits now will do little to affect the 2013/2014 budget
As I said last night, any changes would have little impact on the budget just passed in June. That is why I was fine with allowing the current ordinance to stay in place. I might have a different opinion in the future. In my view staffing levels are the issue. From looking at the budget numbers it is obvious levels need to be adjusted to balance the budget without subsidies from the utility funds.
I doubt a change that drastic will happen in the near future. I think the mayor/council will “ride out” the current climate as long as possible in hopes the economy will rebound with new employers like the Ark Encounter coming on to the scene. However…if conditions do not improve I believe the CoW runs the risk of driving out existing sources of revenue if it does not reduce spending, leaving it in worse financial shape.
Troy Gutman 