Lots of Questions, Few Answers, Part 2
Lots of questions, few answers, Part 2
When I was first elected to the Finance Committee in 1996 the Board of Water Commissioners discussed our aging pipes and how we will need a plan to handle pipe replacement. This was something we needed to do. Almost twenty years have past and we are FINALLY starting to do something about it. For that I applaud Sean Reese and our new DPW for getting this project underway. Make no mistake, this a massive undertaking and it is long overdue. It will however cost considerably more than it would have had we started it long ago.
I will speak in some broad generalities here because I have read a lot of numbers being tossed around but at this point do not have the exact figures. But certain parts of the plan are confirmed. What I am aware of is that the numbers we are discussing are substantial. Here’s what I have found out.
I remember hearing that we have approximately 100 miles of pipe that will need to be replaced. Some cost estimates have run as much as $1 million per mile! Overall I have heard that the best guess at this point is in the $60 million range. Obviously this will not all take place at once. Areas with the most dire needs will be handled first.
There are approximately 5,000 residences in town. Last month the DPW submitted a plan and the Board of Selectmen approved a rate increase of 7% (not that unusual and more than justified) plus there will be a new surcharge of $75 per house, per quarter or $300 per year. Again speaking in very broad terms, this would generate around $1.5 million a year to fund the project. Given some of the other numbers cited ($1 million per mile) this means the project could take well over 60 years to complete! Wow!
This gives us a scope of the enormity of what we are dealing with. Everyone acknowledges that this has to be done and we are already some 20 years behind where we should be. Our current problem of broken pipes and water loss will only get worse if not addressed and the costs will continue to rise. So I am 100% behind the DPW’s desire to get it going. I do have some serious issues with the funding mechanisms presented and approved by the Board of Selectmen. I also find it very curious that this issue will not come before Town Meeting even in an advisory capacity.
Here are the problems I see. I have a small house, as do many others. A lot of people I have spoken with have quarterly bills in the range of $75 -$85 per quarter. The 7% increase together with the $300 annual surcharge would take an average $320 annual bill and boost it to $642! That is more than doubling it. These houses are those that use the least amount of water. If you are high usage customer and pay $200 per quarter ($800 per year) the increase and surcharge will still be substantial but it will raise your payments to $1156 a year, only a 44.5% increase. It seems to me that those that use more water should pay a greater share of the costs, not less.
I understand the idea in trying access to the costs evenly, but there is nothing fair about this when those that use the least will have to pay an increase that is considerably higher than the largest users. In addition, those that use less tend to be on the lower end of the economic scale. For some this could be a crushing burden.
I fear that this view may have not been considered carefully enough.
I question the logic of this flat surcharge when a usage surcharge of 20% or more would be a more equitable way to spread the burden. Especially to lower end users who can least afford such a huge hit. Further, there may be other and better ways to fund this.
While this is in fact a water issue, it should still fit the overall definition of a long-term capital improvement project. Much like the schools or other municipal building projects. Therefore a debt exclusion override might provide a more equitable solution in more than one way. Why is this not an option?
If the debt exclusive override were selected, the charges would be apportioned in an fairer manner as part of the property tax bills. In addition, those amounts being part of the taxes become deductible on your income taxes and reducing some of the sting. Over my last few years on the FinCom we had endless debates about the former trash fee; one of the annoying aspects of it was that it was not deductible. The potential deduction was small because the trash fee was never this costly plus it was seen as temporary. At a potential for 60 years, this is more or less permanent.
I had not been able to attend the meetings on these because as “plugged” in as I appear to be, I found out about them AFTER the fact. When I did find out I called Mr. Reese and left a message. I did not get a return call until after this was in his words already a “done deal.” Therefore, no matter what comments I had, the Selectmen approved it and it would be implemented.
I have been in around town government for a long time and I can say categorically, that very little is set in stone, especially if the public is bothered by a decision. I have outlined the issues above and some alternative solutions that I am proposing. But there is one item that bothers me more than anything else. That is the lack of public input. This is a big decision that has an effect on everyone. I do not feel that enough public input has been considered.
Those of us who have been in town government understand full well that oft times even the most controversial meetings may not be well attended. While we wish it were otherwise, some watch them on cable to stay informed, if they cannot attend, others don’t even know there are taking place. The one place that EVERYONE understands where the town’s business is discussed is Town Meeting. While that too could be better attended it is a widely publicized open forum, true democracy in action. At the very least 100 voters will be attending.
In the past when the FinCom and the Selectmen thought it was best to impose a trash fee, it was included as an advisory question on the town warrant and voted on at Town Meeting. This was included as a courtesy to the voters. Even if it were voted down at Town Meeting, the Selectmen were well within their rights to impose the trash fee at any level they wished (with certain restrictions). Over the years it was debated and passed a number of times. In fact, the first time it came up for a vote, the voters increased the amount of the fee to subsidize other areas of the budget that were thought to be underfunded. Why doesn’t this Board of Selectmen see fit to seek the approval of the voters, even if it is not binding? Where is the harm of a public debate?
This year we will be asked to approve overrides for the purchase of lighting and streetscapes; and the purchase of a building to house several town offices. Together the projected cost of these amount to less than half of the cost of annual water surcharge. We will be asked to vote on these issues but not something even more costly? This makes no sense at all. I would hope that people raise these questions of fairness and that the Selectmen will reconsider and find a better way to fund this project. It is essential that this project should be started as soon as possible, however the current idea of how to pay for it is flawed. It is likewise essential that the funding be fair and equitable to everyone in town. As it stands right now, this raises more questions than it answers.
Mark, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I, for one, was not even aware of this "surcharge" until you mentioned it at the May 4 town meeting. While I accept that this infrastructure needs to be replaced and personally could absorb this "surcharge" I have a few of questions that arise our of this: 1) how high of a "surcharge" can a department levy before it is required to be addressed in a town vote? (perhaps this is somewhere in the town bylaws) 2)how do we assure that this surcharge ever goes away from our annual bill (presumably the infrastructure is eventually replaced) 3) what is the project plan for this project and does this involve only town employees or a third party contractor as well and how is that overseen?
Jim Pond | 2015-05-05 04:36:25
I just spent thousands of dollars to upgrade my failing well, as town water is not available to me. Over the years that I've lived in town, I've spent even more for new pumps, holding tanks, etc. If the money needed to fix water pipes is added to my tax bill, I would be paying for a service to which I have no access, and, in effect, paying twice for the water I use. I understand that it will be a major cost to replace the pipes and am sympathetic to the burden it will be, but people who have access to the water need to be responsible for paying for the needed infrastructure.
Well water | 2015-05-03 13:43:11
Jeff and mark....thanks for caring....if all the test have been done can you please tell me where one could view these documents.....and Jeff asbestos pipes are extremely dangerous if not wet....in construction work it is handled as hazardous material....I would really like to see the data Jeff.....again thank you gentlemen for all your time and energy.....peace Alan stone
Alan stone | 2015-05-02 03:55:13
The problem for Holliston is the fact that of the 100+ miles of water pipe in this Town about 70% of it is made of asbestos-cement (no health threat). That has been proven to have a service life of about 75 years - it than gets "mushy" and porous. Most of that pipe was all installed in Holliston in the 1950s. The concern is not if some of it is reaching the end of its useful life (tests have shown that it is) but what if a lot of it starts to fail at the same time? Current engineering estimates still indicate an average replacement cost of $1 million per mile. Mark is right: we have been investigating, testing, postponing and diverting funds to other unicipal needs for decades. In time there may be new sources of funding, less expensive options or other options available? However, the time is NOW to at least start digging up and replacing pipe. Evan a mile a year will be better than nothing. Jeff Weise, former member and Chairman Holliston Board of Water Commissioners
Jeff Weise | 2015-05-01 05:02:57
Water has been a hidden issue to 95% of townspeople. Unless water isn't coming out or comes out brown, citizens haven't paid attention. Wells taken off line for years, putting pumps on non-town owned land, contractors painting a water building without shutting down air intakes, and discolored water, all examples of issues the past 5 years. Ranting about citizens not getting involved is fine in theory, but busy families are leading busy lives. I applaud the new DPW and the Selectmen for deciding the right step to finally raise funds to start taking care of this issue. Good call and let's get to work! And please, no more studies!
Doing Their Job | 2015-04-30 21:03:57
Alan, you do need to understand a few things here. Nothing here has anything to do with "my" experts. I am just a citizen like you. However I was on the FinCom for a long time and I can assure that the expertise you are asking about was employed. This was not a causal decision by the DPW (or water department) this has indeed been examined over the years and I'm sure the DPW would provide with answers. The point of the the article is the manner in which they want to pay for it and the manner in which a $75 per qtr, per house was passed. I agree that it should have more public input and am concerned it as well. Regarding the increase in the price I was informed by one the Selectman that it could go that high. Given the length of time involved for the project I would not be surprised if it did. These are my questions as well, not an endorsement.
Mark Schultz | 2015-04-30 14:27:07
Mark....I respect your caring about holliston.....my issue is with your experts or lack of them....who is everyone that says this 100 miles needs replacing.....they are broken.....where mark.....they should have been replaced 20 years ago.....says who......you do 100 miles of pipe in holliston the price is 80 million.....it went up 20 million since the morning.....you will be up another 20 million when you post again....the truth is this is a massive job that should be discussed with public input....where is this money coming from....some people are struggling and this could get very expensive.....show the public facts......give one experts name who has given his opinion on specific areas of holliston in need of total replacement.....mark I just see things different......just my opinion from doing construction.....unless this is done by real experts it could get crazy expensive mark.......no name experts or peoples opinion is not enough....Alan stone
Alan stone | 2015-04-30 12:43:04
Mark, thanks for calling attention to this important issue. But I'm not sure I agree with making larger water users or more expensive homes pay for a greater share of this project. Wouldn't the cost to run new pipe to a small home be more or less the same as to run to a large home? And same regardless of usage? I don't think other utilities (mostly private) pay for infrastructure upgrades based on size of home. BTW, how did we pay for the new remote water meters when they were installed years ago?
Medium Size House | 2015-04-30 10:11:33
Holliston is not alone re: water issues. The following is quoted from the April 17, 2015 The Kiplinger Letter-"The utilities that supply most Americans' tap water and sewer services are in a bind:Costs of maintaining or building water infrastructure are up, but revenues are down as folks use less water. Many utilities' only option will be to charge more for service. Expect higher rates and additional fees for water over the long term"
Bill Tobin | 2015-04-30 09:47:58
I feel very disturbed that this seems to be a "done deal" without any input from the residents. I had been thinking that a an increase in the quarterly meter fee would be in order but not an increase in the water rates and that it should be considered a capital improvement project and financed by the property tax.
Warren Chamberlain | 2015-04-30 07:43:27
Alan, just to be clear, the need is legitimate. The pipes we have are very old and need replacement on this everyone agrees. We should have started it 20 yrs ago. The thing is they are "broken". The result is broken pipes that are VERY costly to repair piece by piece. We have significant water loss in the system and have for yrs. This needs to be done, the sooner the better. The issue is how to pay for it. I'm sure the DPW would be happy to go over the date with you. Also, since I wrote this was informed that cost could up to $80 million and the project would long out live me. Again, that is why I am questioning this method of funding, not the project itself.
Mark Schultz | 2015-04-30 06:32:09
If this is such a long term, capital improvement project I am wondering also, why this isn't going to be funded by a debt exclusion override instead of the same annual surcharge amount no matter how high or low the water use which seems unfair. Either way, this expense will be a particularly harsh burden on Senior Citizens.
Ellen | 2015-04-30 06:00:25
Very intelligent.....well written....thank you.....I was in construction ......our pipes are old but do they need replacing.....old does not mean they are not functioning correctly....who are they saying we need 100 miles replaced.....where are all these leaks in the pipes.....60 million dollars to replace pipes ......I'd leave pipes alone and see if we don't get another 50 years from them....I remember a saying if it ain't broke don't fix it......if a pipe or section leaks then fix it.....I would like to see some facts .....who said a 100 miles need replacing and why......
Alan stone | 2015-04-30 04:57:17