2012 Session #5, Monday May 7th

If you’ve read the news on what occurred at this session of Town Meeting, you know that we made a one time appropriation of money for energy conservation efforts, but voted down a proposal to create a dedicated fund for this purpose.

Why in the world would we do such a thing?

There are a few problems with the proposal for a Energy Conservation Fund that was put before us.

Some take issue with the Town creating too many special, distinct funds in general. The rational behind being against too many of these is sound: the more special accounts we create, the less money there is available in the general fund.

Dedicated funding can be useful. I know that I will spend money each week at the grocery store. Conceivably I could open up an account at a grocery store, and deposit some amount of money from my paycheck that could only be spent at the grocery store. This might help me budget better.

I do this for medical expenses now, through a flexible spending account that allows me to move aside money used to cover medical expenses pre-tax.

But if I do this for everything (groceries, medical expenses, housing, utilities, etc., etc.), or I allocate too much money for a particular expense, I lose flexibility, should something come up and I need to re-prioritize my spending.

I don’t believe we should never create special funds, and I think a special fund for energy conservation efforts is a good idea.

I voted no, in opposition to the Energy Conservation Fund, because it needed more restrictions in place on how much money we would allow to enter into it.

The fund would have been funded through energy rebates we receive when we implement new energy saving measures. Examples were provided where NStar offered a rebate of around $25k for some measure taken, as well as other examples wherein the rebates were of a similar amount.

Some dedicated funds we create have caps on them. The effect of this is that money is deposited into an account, until that account reaches a defined balance, at which point any additional money collected goes into the general fund.

I think this would be a much better way to approach the Energy Conservation Fund. If they bring this back to us next year, with language to the effect that the fund would only be allowed to grow to a maximum balance of X, then I anticipate that I’ll support it. We want these monies being put to work for energy conservation, not accumulating in an account somewhere. In the same way I don’t allow my healthcare flexible spending account to grow to an unlimited size, I don’t want this fund to grow beyond a useful amount either.