The Highs and Lows of Shutesbury's Annual Town Meeting

 Shutesbury’s 2022 Annual Town Meeting (ATM) was remarkable in many ways. Efforts to increase attendance coupled with a vote on a proposed new library enticed more than 500 voters to show up. The Article 5 library vote rocketed past its ⅔ majority requirement, with 422 in favor to 85 against.

Article 46, the Citizens Petition I sponsored, did not pass. This article requested an immediate set aside of $700,000 in Free Cash reserves to replace the asphalt section of the Shutesbury Elementary School roof. At least I was able to advance the Article from its lowly second-to-last position to place it with other Capital Items, immediately after Article 13.

I wasn’t surprised by the Article’s failure. I remember attending Town Meetings 20 to 25 years ago when a packed gymnasium voted to give the school whatever funds it requested. Over time, I noticed an attitude shift whereby many townsfolk considered a new library building to be a priority. By 2010, the town was considering accepting a library building grant. That is also the time frame when discussions of chronic roof leaks began showing up in Select Board and Finance Committee (FinCom) Minutes.

Questionable Commentary from “The Table”

What did surprise me was the quality of the discussion regarding Article 46. Much of the opposition came from town officials who described the project as a priority while they postponed it yet again. Several incorrect statements regarding Free Cash were made authoritatively by one particular FinCom member, something I found distressing–particularly since it was decided at last year’s ATM that minority opinions must be delivered from an audience microphone, not from the FinCom table.

According to the Division of Local Services (DLS), Free Cash is unused funds from the previous fiscal year’s budget plus any leftover money in the Free Cash account from previous years. The excess budgetary funds can be unspent money from the town’s various departments as well as receipts that exceeded estimates. Free Cash can be offset by certain deficits, can be a negative number and should be limited to paying one-time (not recurring) expenses.

Free Cash can accumulate when the town consistently raises more money in taxes than it spends, resulting in budget surpluses.

Here are a few of the misstatements (paraphrased) put forth from “the table”, usually considered a source of reliable information, with their factual corrections.

Statement:  We can’t drain Free Cash. It is the town’s “rainy day fund”.

Fact: According to the DLS, stabilization funds are considered “rainy day funds”. Free Cash can be drained and, as noted above, can be a negative number. 

Statement: If this Article passes, our Free Cash balance will be -$17,000.

Fact: Using FinCom’s numbers, committing $700,000 in Free Cash reserves would have left the town with nearly $33,000 in the account:

Free Cash ending balance $457,772 

Pending amount for school roof not moved at ATM   + $275,000

        $732,772 

Article 46     - $700,000

        $  32,772

Statement: Free Cash is the town's checkbook. The Treasurer uses it to pay bills. We use it to balance the books, pay bills, etc. after the end of the fiscal year.

Fact: Free Cash is NOT the town’s checkbook. I consulted with Shutesbury’s Treasurer and Accountant, each of whom explained how the town pays its bills throughout the fiscal year and beyond. 

Throughout the year, Department Heads submit invoices and/or receipts to the Town Accountant, who adds them to bi-weekly warrants. The warrants are submitted to the Select Board who approves and signs them. The Treasurer then prints checks, signs, and mails them. The Treasurer is responsible for moving money from a general fund into a payables account to cover the checks.

When bills from one fiscal year come due after the next has begun, Town Accountants use an accounts payable system which expends funds from the previous fiscal year to be paid once the new one has begun. This occurs during the month of July. Money for unpaid bills beyond July are encumbered so the DLS does not count these funds when certifying Free Cash for the newly begun fiscal year.

Statement: We can’t tie up Free Cash for such a long time.

Fact: Without another Town Meeting vote, Free Cash funds cannot be moved again before June 30. After that date, remaining funds are unavailable until they are certified by the state; for Shutesbury, this is usually sometime in the fall. 

No doubt that is why town officials said they would address the roof issue in the fall. However, since Free Cash is unusable from after ATM until the fall anyway, it wouldn’t matter if it was set aside in the spring or the fall.  

The Free Cash allocated by ATM to the proposed library will likely be tied up for a much longer length of time. That project still needs approval from voters, after which it will need its own design and engineering study–no doubt a more time-consuming endeavor than the study for the school roof. 

A Double-Standard for Cash Set Asides

A voter came forward to question the process by which the town allocates money to building projects based on whether a design study has been completed. They asked why the town could not appropriate money for the school roof project when Article 5 asked voters to do so for the proposed library. Neither project had a design study completed, after all.

The Town Administrator went to the microphone to explain that the library project had certain parameters outlined by the MA Board of Library Commissioners, one of which was a required vote on the project before the design phase. The process of having a design study completed is followed by the town in all other projects, she noted.

This is not entirely true. At last year’s ATM, voters passed Article 7, which set aside $17,000 for the SES HVAC control system design study and Article 27, which appropriated $200,000 for doing the work. Why then was it impossible for this year’s ATM to vote on both the design study and the estimated cost for the roof replacement? 

This fact was commented upon by another FinCom member, but no explanation from other town officials was offered.

The word “process” is tossed around quite a bit by town officials but it is unclear how it works. Shutesbury’s process can only be one of three things:

1. The process is adhered to identically in every circumstance.

2. The process is adhered to most of the time, but is subject to exceptions.

3. There is no true process; each case is considered and decided individually.

Considering past practices, it appears Shutesbury’s process is either No. 2 or No. 3. 

In case No. 2, the SES roof project could easily have been made an exception to the rule, just as the HVAC system and the proposed library were excepted. Prioritizing the project should have been no problem considering how long the roof has been leaking.

In case No. 3, the same logic applies. The roof is in poor shape and needs immediate attention. Considering this project on its own merits should have put it at the top of the list.

As I’ve noted in previous posts, the Town Buildings Committee has been advocating for the entire SES roof replacement since 2017.

This year, both the Town Buildings Committee and the School Committee voted to bring a funding request to Shutesbury’s Capital Planning Committee to have the issue placed on the ATM warrant. A majority of the Capital Planning members failed to support that request.

Hopeful Signs?

Still, I feel hopeful regarding our neglected school building. Town officials are speaking publicly about the roof project quite often these days. FinCom has announced a fall Special Town Meeting to vote on funding for the replacement project, which it estimates will be done this fiscal year.  

For the past few years, Shutesbury has failed to secure a grant from the MA School Building Authority to help defray the costs of the roof replacement. This year, the Town Administrator announced that the Authority agreed to tour the SES building, a development attributed to the assistance of our State Senator. Though the Authority is completely independent and immune from political influence, it is good to see town and school officials working together on the school’s behalf. When I spoke with the School Committee chair, it was noted that both the SES Principal and Superintendent made eloquent appeals to the MSBA representative, seemingly to good effect.

Soon we will know whether a true majority of townspeople want to build a new library. Come fall, we will find out whether the SES roof replacement will be postponed once again. On the first issue, we were able to vote twice; on the second, not at all. To my mind, this “process” needs improvement.