NORTHAMPTON – Questions over the fairness of Mayor David J. Narkewicz’s proposed changes to water and sewer rates were raised at a public hearing Wednesday night
Residents also wondered whether water conservation incentives would backfire and force a rate increase.
The new rate system was sent to the full City Council with a neutral recommendation by the council’s Finance Committee after the Wednesday hearing. The vote was unanimous, although Councilor Maureen T. Carney was not present. The full council will consider the proposal at a future meeting and may hold another public hearing before voting on the plan, which would go into effect July 1.
The recommended changes come after the city hired consultants Chris Woodcock from Northborough Woodcock & Associates and Dave Fox of the Worcester office of Raftelis Financial Consultants to determine the best way to charge for water and sewer service while promoting water conservation. Other goals included providing assistance to those who are economically disadvantaged and enhancing revenue stability.
That stable revenue is needed to help pay for several required upgrades to the city’s water and sewer system, including $29 million in wastewater treatment plant improvements planned between 2017 and 2021.
Under the new plan, smaller, mainly residential users would see one set of water rates and larger users such as commercial properties would see another.
To promote conservation among those smaller-volume customers, the system charges users more if they surpass a certain amount. Smaller users would see a rate of $4.73 per 100 cubic feet for the first 1,600 cubic feet, and $6.21 per 100 cubic feet for any usage above that. There are 748 gallons in 100 cubic feet of water.
Narkewicz said the 1,600-cubic-foot threshold was calculated using the state Department of Environmental Protection’s consumption goal and an average household size of 2.07 people. The agency recommends that people aim to use 65 gallons of water per day.
Users with meters larger than 1 inch, such as restaurants and industrial complexes, would face a single rate of $6.09 per 100 cubic feet.
The city currently charges the same rate – $5.58 per 100 cubic feet for water – for all customers, regardless of water meter size, along with relatively small fixed quarterly fees, and $6.08 per 100 cubic feet for sewer.
The new system would significantly increase the quarterly fixed fee for water use, but would allow exemptions for those with financial need who receive real estate and Community Preservation Act tax exemptions.
Fixed quarterly fees for smaller users would increase to $12.64 or $18.96, depending on meter size, with similarly significant increases up the scale. Users with 8-inch meters would see the fee go from $50 to $1,010.69 a quarter.
Narkewicz said the increase in fixed fees addresses the cost of maintaining service pipes, the water treatment plant and reservoirs – costs that are present regardless of whether a customer turns on the faucet. He said the need-based discount is on this fixed cost because it’s the only portion of the bill that the customer does not have control over.
As for sewer rates, most users would be charged based on 80 percent of their metered water consumption, which would account for water that isn’t returned to the sewer system. This rate would be $7.52 per 100 cubic feet. Large industrial users with sewer meters would pay 100 percent of the sewer flow, at the same rate of $7.52 per 100 cubic feet.
There would also be a quarterly fire protection charge implemented for some buildings that have a dedicated pipe that feeds a sprinkler system. The fee, which ranges from $10 to $645 per quarter, would apply mostly to commercial buildings. Though some residential properties do have sprinkler systems, most have service pipes under 2 inches and therefore would not incur a fee under the new system.
At-large Councilor Jesse Adams said he was concerned that the proposal unequally shifts the burden onto commercial properties. He asked if the city could calculate what share of increased cost would be paid by businesses compared to residential properties.
“My concern is it will make us less competitive to attracting businesses or retaining businesses,” Adams said.
Chip Parsons, a Hadley resident who owns farmland in Northampton, asked Narkewicz if he had considered rate reductions for agricultural use.
“Ag runs on small margins,” Parsons said.
Narkewicz said he hadn’t considered an exemption for farming, but would look into it. James R. Laurila, acting public works director, said that issue had come up in discussions with the consultants but the idea was not explored further because the cost of treating and delivering water is the same regardless of how it is used.
Florence resident William Golaski said he saw a flaw in the proposal to promote water conservation through lower rates, because less water use will lead to decreased revenue for the city.
But Narkewicz said in a city that has already been recognized for its low water usage by residents, it’s not likely that a large number of people will go to extreme lengths to conserve even more.
“I would caution you (thinking that) by having this rate that our consumption is going to drop by 25 percent. ” Narkewicz said.
“It’s likely we won’t see a huge drop,” Laurila said.
Golaski also noted that water rates have increased dramatically in the last decade. The rate doubled between 2005 and 2015.
The rate should be kept the same, or even reduced, Golaski said. He suggested calling off plans for the city to continue to acquire land around reservoirs because he said that money would be better suited to pay for infrastructure improvements.
Laurila said that controlling land near a municipal water supply is the “best protection” to ensure water quality and is a practice that is viewed favorably by the state.
Fred Zimnoch, who owns apartment buildings in Northampton, asked if he could upgrade his service to a 2-inch pipe if it meant that he would get a lower rate than he currently pays.
Laurila said he would be required to replace the service line at his own expense and that the Water Department would install a meter based on the water usage in the building. So unless water usage in the building increased, the size of the meter likely would not.
Wes Hardy, of 19 Marc Circle, had a varied list of questions and comments ranging from the fairness of charging for fire prevention service to the mayor’s own water use.
He argued that because fire sprinklers are required in some types of buildings, it’s unfair to charge for water service.
“Would it be OK to have a sidewalk charge? Or a bike lane charge?” Hardy asked.
But even though sprinklers are mandatory for some buildings, Narkewicz said, a municipal water-fed system is not. Some systems use foam and others use tanks of water that are not fed by a dedicated fire line.
Narkewciz said the service is already being paid for – by both those who use it and those who don’t. “At this point all the other rate-payers are subsidizing that service,” he said.
Adams said he believes the fire protection fee is a “tax wrapped inside a fee” and is unnecessary because property taxes already pay for the services of the Northampton Fire Department.
Narkewicz said he “fundamentally disagreed.” He said the sprinklers supplement the services of the Fire Department.
“These are private systems put in by private companies and maintained at the expense of the owner,” Narkewicz said.
And the fees, which Narkewicz said have been upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and are implemented by cities such as Boston and Springfield, are indeed fees because they pay for a voluntary service.
“Water is mandatory in our lives but being a municipal water or sewer customer is not,” he said.