There is no doubt that Northampton has critical water and sewer infrastructure needs that we must pay for. This requires raising the water and sewer rates, but it must be done in the most equitable and fair way possible.
Both Mayor David J. Narkewicz’s new proposal and the current structure can adequately raise the needed revenues, but it is important to compare the new proposal to our current structure as we ask ourselves which one is more fair, and makes the most sense for our community.
The proposal hurts renters. Renters living in multi-unit dwellings will surpass the conservation rate quickly and owners will likely pass the increased costs to them in the form of higher rents. Unlike low-income homeowners, renters cannot qualify for any reduction based on income, and cannot be exempted from the increased fixed charges.
Some homeowners will see small decreases, yet renters will see noticeable increases. Homeowners who fall behind can work with the assessor, or get a lien put on their property. Renters get evicted. Though the proposal seeks to provide assistance to economically disadvantaged users, it does so at the expense of other economically disadvantaged users.
This is socially unjust and will contribute to Northampton’s trend of exporting poverty.
The proposal will hurt businesses at a time when many are struggling. The Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce states that medium and large users will see increases of 15 to 30 percent. This result is intentional because one of the points of the proposal is to have the larger businesses pay a higher proportion of the total revenues.
Some may believe that this makes sense, but it hurts the workers. To make up for the increases, businesses will likely cut hours, employees, benefits, or in the worst cases, close or move.
The cumulative cost of doing business is becoming unsustainable and many businesses in Northampton are not growing. Meals tax revenue, a measure of growth, was up 6.8 percent statewide last year, yet in Northampton it has been flat for years. The growth has stopped, and the number of visitors has plateaued. The backdrop of the mayor’s proposal is a flat local economy.
The lack of growth combined with the increased cumulative costs will hurt many struggling businesses in a significant way. This includes restaurants, cafes and bars which are the very businesses that our economic sustainability and treasured downtown rely on.
Northampton has always been proud of its single tax rate for both residential and commercial properties. This is because the single rate is more attractive to businesses than a split rate in which commercial properties pay more. Yet this proposal takes a single water and sewer rate and splits it, and this is the equivalent to a split tax rate that Northampton is so proud of not having.
So why would the nayor propose changing the structure?
One goal is to create greater equity. Yet there is no evidence that it will create greater equity. To the contrary, it will be less equitable for renters and businesses.
Revenue stability is another stated goal, but the consultants’ report states, “The city’s existing rate structure generates sufficient revenues to adequately provide for current financial sufficiency.” This means that we do not need to change structures in order to fund our infrastructure needs.
The goal of water conservation is important but according to the current acting DPW director, Northampton is so successful at conserving water that there will be no increase in conservation with the new proposal.
So while it’s easy to get into the mindset that we have to do things differently, we don’t need to change the water and sewer rate structure. I have come to the conclusion that the unfair and disproportionate impact the proposal will have on renters and businesses is not in Northampton’s best interests.
While we need to raise rates to invest in critical infrastructure, the current structure spreads the burden evenly across the community, and strikes me as the more fair and preferable policy.
Jesse Adams is an at-large Northampton city councilor.