With revenue shortfalls again expected to trouble the city's budget, councilors may ask the conservation commission to pay off some of its debt with money from its trust fund, traditionally reserved for buying open space.

And if commission members say no to the request - which this year would be to take more than $100,000 from the approximately $1 million fund - councilors could vote to cut the flow of money into the fund, diverting it to the city.

Councilor Fred Keach, who raised the idea during last year's budget hearings, described it as a fair proposal in an unforgiving economy. For several years, the city has been making the payments on bonds issued for open space purchases, an annual cost that Keach put at more than $100,000.

"In a difficult economy, it begs the question: Is that appropriate?" Keach said.

He said he would consider asking the conservation commission to tap into its trust fund a "one-time request" - comparable, he said, to the city's request last year that the library dip into its funds to support operating expenses.

Councilors have yet to make a formal proposal, but several members of the conservation commission said yesterday they were aware of the possibility. While they said they would be receptive to the council's request, they expressed some skepticism about what such an arrangement would mean for the future.

"If they're talking about a one-year reprieve, because they're in desperate straits, I would certainly listen," said commission member Jim Owers. "But these things have a way of not going back to the way they were."

Owers was less receptive to the other possibility Keach mentioned: cutting the conservation commission's share of the land use change tax. Whenever an undeveloped property is sold to a developer, a 10 percent tax is levied on the fair market value of the land, and the money gets split 50-50 between the city's general fund and the conservation commission's trust fund. The conservation commission used to get all of that money.

While the city council can't force the commission to cover its annual bond payments, it can vote to change the tax structure, lowering the commission's share, Keach said. With few sales during the economic slump, that wouldn't bring the city much money next year, but the structure would be in place going forward.

"Which is why, realistically, I would expect some cooperation from the trust," Keach said. "I don't think anybody wants to change that 50-50 split."

The conservation commission's chairman, Kit Morgan, hesitated yesterday to respond to the possible scenarios, since no official proposal has come before the group's members.

"I think it would depend on the specifics," he said. "Would it just be the interest? Is it the interest and principal? Is it just for one year?"

Morgan said he would be concerned about setting a precedent. "But I think we certainly owe it to the council to consider it, if it is proposed," he said. "I think it is a very bad time for the economy and the budget, and I don't think we could just dismiss this and not even listen to the specifics."

Commission members have questioned the legality of spending trust fund money on bond payments. City Manager Tom Aspell said last week the city had sought a legal opinion, which determined the funds could be legally spent.

The city's fiscal policy advisory committee will discuss the conservation commission's trust fund at its next meeting, and at least two councilors besides Keach said they would support going before the commission with a proposal.

"Given the way the budget's been going last year and then this year, it's a distinct possibility that many of us would recommend that," said Councilor Dan St. Hilaire.

The commission's trust fund has a "substantial sum of money," St. Hilaire said, and "if we're going to be cutting fire engines, public safety personnel, I don't see why we can't use some of that to make a bond payment on open space." (next page »)