The Plan for Roads
Thursday’s City Council meeting was one of the longest in recent memory. Many of us were at City Hall for more than 5 hours after working our normal 8-10 hour days. It ran so long, that I motioned to adjourn the meeting before we got through the agenda. This motion received unanimous support from my fellow tired colleagues.
What we didn’t get to was a discussion about my suggestions for a massive investment in road repairs. We’ll take this up at our next City Council meeting, but I thought I’d take some time in this week’s article to let you know what I’m thinking.
I think we can all agree that our roads have major problems. This is by far the largest recurring complaint we receive as City Councilors – even more frequent than comments about high taxes.
The amount of money allocated annually to properly build and repair roads is clearly not enough. However, there is a general perception that taxpayers pay enough, and that the city is mismanaging the money, and not spending what they should be spending on roads. I’d like to clear up a few misconceptions. First, the gas tax does not get allocated to local roads – it goes to the state and federal governments. Second, the motor vehicle excise tax does not get allocated to roads – it goes into the city’s general fund, and it cannot be earmarked for roads. And third, the State’s Chapter 90 reimbursement funds have not been diverted to pay for city operating expenses – state law does not allow for this.For those who say excise tax should go towards roads, I agree, but that’s just not how it works. Those funds are used for general fund expenses such as schools, fire, police, DPW, debt payments, benefits, utilities, and all the other things the city has to pay for.
The fact is that it’s very expensive to properly build and maintain roads in New England. We have many old road beds that were not designed by engineers. Many don’t have proper foundations or water management systems. Water is by far the biggest challenge. Water erodes the beds and the roads, and freezing water cracks the road surface, swells the earth, and causes pot holes. In order to fix our worst roads, we need to redesign them, build proper stormwater management system, build them to last 20 or more years with realistic traffic volume and weights, and grade them in ways that manage the water. Then, we have to periodically maintain the stormwater management systems and the road surfaces – we shouldn’t be skimping on maintenance or reallocating maintenance funds to pay for other operating expenses. This all certainly possible, and there are many road segments in the Northeast that clearly were built, and are maintained, the right way. This all takes money. Certainly some road sections are cheaper, and some are more expensive, but in general think several hundred thousand dollars per road milein Massachusetts. Some of the things that contribute to our high costs are: our physical environment; the state mandated labor rates that are significantly higher than those in states that use a competitive bid system; and, our construction season in shorter due to the longer winters (the road surface materials need to be hot).
I recently took a survey online about the roads. People clearly want the roads fixed, but when asked if they’d be willing to pay $7-$10 per month more in taxes for better roads, the resounding answer was that they didn’t trust to the government to take the money and use it on roads. They felt the funds would be reallocated for some other purpose. I understand this, and those of us that have lived in Massachusetts for a while have seen countless examples of the state or city saying one thing and doing another – particularly with special taxes and fees.
Unfortunately, the issue really is money. There just isn’t enough money in the budgets, and in tight budgets, road work gets lower priority than schools, fire, police, and DPW. I’m not saying this is right, and I’m not agreeing with it, I’m just saying that’s how things work.
When it comes to budget time, it’s nearly impossible for the mayor and city councilors to vote to cut funding requests for schools, fire, police, DPW, or employee benefits. If you want more money for roads out of the regular budget, you need to stand up and encourage spending controls or cuts in those departments. There just isn’t other money laying around.
After spending a lot of time thinking about this, and talking with both taxpayers and councilors, I came up with a plan that I think will address all of the concerns. However, it’s a bit hard to explain, and it would require the voters to pass two Proposition 2 ½ initiatives.
There are three parts to this. First, “a Resolution requesting the Mayor of the City of Westfield to appropriate and borrow $20,000,000 for the rebuilding and repaving of roads and associated storm water management systems and sidewalks, and authorize the treasurer with the approval of the City Council, to issue any bonds or notes that may be necessary for that purpose, as authorized by General Laws Chapter 44, § 7(3a), or any other general or special law, for a period not to exceed 20 years, provided, however, that this appropriation and debt authorization be contingent upon passage of a Proposition 2½ debt exclusion referendum under General Laws Chapter 59, § 21C(k). ”
This resolution would require seven affirmative votes from the City Council, and cooperation from the Mayor. This is certainly possible, but the tricky part, and the part that’s likely to get a lot of negative discussion, is the debt exclusion provision.
Second, the debt exclusion is a special part of Proposition 2 ½ that allows voters to approve a special tax over and above the normal Prop 2 ½ limits for a specific purpose – and only for that purpose. In this case, the funds would be earmarked to pay for the bond. By law, the money cannot be used for anything else. Here’s how it would read on the ballot: “Shall the city of Westfield be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued to rebuild and repave roads and associated storm water management systems and sidewalks? Yes ___ No ___”.
By now, half of you are thinking “there’s no way I’m voting for a tax increase – are you NUTS!!!!”. Other elected officials have said I’m crazy for even considering such a wacky idea in an election year. They’re probably right, but I’ve got a plan for that: a Proposition 2 ½ underride vote.
Third, the underride vote is a special provision of Proposition 2 ½ that allows voters to vote for a tax reduction. By law, this reduction is permanent unless overridden by a Prop 2 ½ override in subsequent years. Here’s how it would read on the ballot: “Shall the city of Westfield be required to reduce the amount of real estate and personal property taxes to be assessed for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 by an amount equal to $1,500,000?YES ___ NO ___”.
So, yes, we’d have to vote for an exclusion (more tax) and an underride (less tax) at the same time. The reason for this goes back to “trusting the government” and the challenges in tight budgets when it comes to controlling growth in expenses related to schools, fire, police, DPW, benefits, and all the other expenses of the city. The bond money can only be spend on the roads; the exclusion tax revenue can only be spent to pay off the bond; and, the tax reduction helps keep the total tax bill for taxpayers relatively that same while limiting the city’s ability to raise the taxes and spend the money on other priorities.
This plan is a win for the taxpayers. But, it’s not going to be an easy sell.
The good news is that this proposal already has people thinking – even before the City Council formally considers it. The other night in the Finance Committee meeting, another option was floated – raising the stormwater fee (residents currently pay $5 per quarter). If that fee was raised $5 or $10, the proceeds could be allocated to pay for a bond. That has merit in some ways, but I have a few concerns. First, the stormwater funds have been repeatedly redirected to pay for non-stormwater expenses – just the other night the Finance Committee and the City Council voted to not allow the transfer of $20,000 from this fund to pay for fuel for other department vehicles. Second, the stormwater funds had a well-defined set of appropriate uses – and roads was not one of them. The argument will be that “we’re building stormwater management systems, and as we do that work, we may have to dig up and replace the roads”. That’s probably legal, but I’d bet the lots of folks would complain about the increase in fees, and the use of some of the funds for road maintenance.
Maybe a combination of both approaches would work? A stormwater fee adjustment to cover the stormwater management investment; and a bond, debt exclusion, and underride to fund the road repairs?
What do you think? Give me some feedback via email at [email protected].
There may be a meeting on May 23rd to discuss road projects and funding. DemetriosKanavarosfrom “The Westfield Community Forum” on Facebook is trying to put it together. I’ve committed to attending, but he needs to confirm other attendees (elected officials and knowledgeable department heads), a location, and that we’d have a sufficient audience to justify the expense and effort. Join that forum and read the Westfield Evening News to learn more about this event.
My next article is due around budget time. Please read the proposed budgets (they should be on the city website in a couple of weeks), and reach out to your councilors with questions or concerns. Please attend the meetings. The next six weeks or so is when it’s most important to discuss your concerns about city spending and taxes. Once the budget passes in late June, there’s little that can be done to change it.
Regards,
Dave Flaherty
Westfield City Councilor
You can watch the replay of Thursday’s meeting on Local Access TV or on the City’s Vimeo channel (see link on city website). There were many very important topics discussed that I could not possibly cover in this article.
