FAIRMONT — The employees of the City of Fairmont have a reason to celebrate.
For the first time in three years, since a water crisis crippled the city and its finances in the early months of 2007, employees will get one-time pay increases worth about $750. On Tuesday, city council approved its $10.9 million general fund and its $4.18 million water fund budgets. Water, sewer and storm water will not be excluded from this one-time increase, which represents a total compensation package worth $41,250.
That amount doesn’t exclusively come from the water fund budget. The general fund will braid monies with the water fund to provide that one-time pay increase for the 55 employees.
Yet again, it seems like the general fund is subsidizing the water fund. And again, we have to question whether that is good policy.
Operating and maintenance expenses have increased in the water fund by about $730,827, which takes into account projected funds raised from rate hikes approved by the state’s Public Service Commission. The revenue of the balanced budget also takes into account the various water rate increases that took effect in 2010.
The now-approved budget includes various capital improvements to waterlines, hydrants and pump structures. And there will be no layoffs. In fact, the new budget will allow water officials to hire a new meter reader and another employee to handle backflow issues associated with the water system.
Assuming that there is a justifiable reason for hiring a backflow specialist, are there so many new customers of the water system that a new meter reader is required?
In fact, the original operating financial pro formas for the new water treatment plant would eventually mean two fewer employees required to operate the computerized system. It projected that we would save money on chemicals to treat the water as well.
Flash forward, keeping in mind the 363 percent increase in water rates since the proposal of the new water filtration plant a decade ago. Within a few years of going live, the system crashed, hampering the general fund budget for the city — not just the water fund.
At a time of deep recession, city residents must be asking themselves how the city can justify adding employees to a budget that has drained the city of its ability to provide services to its residents without asking them to pass a levy or accept yet another rate increase. This is a time to cinch belts and cut back — not add employees.
Let us not forget that the $10 million project to fix the faulty water plant was awarded a $4 million grant from stimulus funding. The award was made after the last water-rate increase. And city officials said that the most recent 49 percent increase would not be reduced to reflect the money flowing in from the federal government for the project.
In fact, the only relief customers of the system can count on in the future will be the removal of the $1.54 surcharge imposed by the PSC to help the water fund pay overdue bills and invoices.
Again, we urge the city to consider establishing a water board, much like the sanitary sewer board already in place. The creation of a water board would separate the general revenue funds from the water fund’s liabilities. It just isn’t good fiscal policy to co-mingle the funds.
