Water Rates Cut, Sewer Rates in Hands of the Voters
Selectmen approve water rate cut; sewer debt shift will be decided by voters at April 2 election.
Photos
Videos
For months, residents have complained loud and long that the huge increases in water and sewer rates imposed last summer were onerous and would make it impossible to afford to live in Tewksbury.
Last night, Town Manager Richard Montuori and the Board of Selectmen responded.
Selectmen approved a proposal by Montuori to reduce water rates by between 6 and 8 percent, depending on usage, in Fiscal Year 2012. For an average family, using 90,000 gallons of water a year, the bill would decrease from $873.70 to $812.62 per year. The rates would take effect for usage beginning April 1.
Montuori also proposed shifting 50 percent of the debt associated with $100 million in sewer line improvements/extensions to the property tax base.
Such a shift would reduce sewer bills by anywhere from 18 to 30 percent depending upon usage, while increasing property tax bills by 5.5 percent.
For an average family, using 90,000 gallons, that would mean a savings of $234.40 per year.
For home with a value of $300,000, it would mean an increase of $227.94 on their property tax per year.
While it seems like a break-even situation, Montuori pointed out that not shifting the debt would result in significantly higher rates for sewer users.
Selectman Doug Sears pointed out that all property tax payments are deductible on a person's income tax, while sewer payments are not, making for an added savings.
While the board showed support for Montouri's proposal, it did not voter to approve it. Rather, at Montuori's urging, the board voted to place the matter on the April 2 ballot, leaving it in the hands of residents to decide if they want the debt to be shifted from the sewer enterprise fund to the property tax levy.
"About 60 percent of the town is on sewer and 40 (percent) is still not on sewer," said Montuori. "This is a decision the entire town should make because it is a big cost item."
In his Powerpoint presentation, Montuori recapped why the rates had been increased so significantly last July. He outlined the $20 million in water system improvements and the $100 million in sewer improvements that had been approved by voters at Town Meeting several years ago, as well as additional improvements approved by voters more recently.
Montuori also alluded to the fact that because town leaders had, a decade ago, opted to charge a low (though mandatory) connection fee of $3,000 and fund the project mostly through rates, the burden of payment was being felt by the 60 percent of residents that are actually connected to the sewer.
Shifting the debt would result in the debt being shared by all property owners.
"This is a function of the bill still has to be paid its a question of how you pay for it," said Johnson.
Each member of the board spoke in favor of the proposal.
"I think this is a fair proposal whether you have sewer or don't have sewer," said Selectman Scott Wilson.
The public was not given the chance to respond to the proposals at the Tuesday night meeting. However, Montuori and Board Chairman Todd Johnson have stated there will be ample opportunity for public comment and input prior to the April 2 vote.
Carmen Piskadlo
4:23 pm on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
I think that Mr. Cressman and all of his buddies should have realized the consequences of this whole thing, but nobody really cared. I am sure that a lot of people made a lot of money off of this water and sewer thing. Good people of the town, I think that there is power in numbers, and I think we should all stop payments to the town for taxes, water, and sewer................the town should be bankrupt in no time at all...............meanwhile this is not Russia and you cannot just tell people what they are going to pay without an explanation. Personally, I am not going to pay this town a single penney until all of these problems are resolved.
TONY D
9:22 am on Friday, February 18, 2011
"Personally, I am not going to pay this town a single penney until all of these problems are resolved."
And the Town has the legal right to add penalties and interest to the already high bills. I definitely am abhorred by these ridiculously high bills but they still have to be paid. The people in the Town voted "yes" for all the "improvements" and should have known that the consequence would be higher rates and debt exemptions.
Carmen Piskadlo
4:33 pm on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Lets get this straight, those of us hookedup to the sewer will save 8 per cent but we make it up by paying more in taxes. How does that help all of us suckers that hooked up to the sewer???? Explain that to me. Pay one way or the other. What do you people not understand? We can't afford the water & sewer bill. Plain and simple. Ladies & Gentlemen do not pay this town a cent.
Together we can send a very strong message, money talks, bull.... walks. They will listen when you hit them in the wallet. Together we stand, alone we fall. Lets show the town that they need us, we don't need them.
Kim Redmond
9:03 am on Thursday, February 17, 2011
We voted to put the entire town on sewer. We voted for the new water tank. (and the police station, South St. fire station, Ryan school, Wynn school, high school, senior center, library, etc...) Now people are not only complaining about how expensive it is, but are actually refusing to pay. Unless you've arranged for bottled water, rainbarrels and porta-johns for the back yard, I think that you may want to re-consider paying your bills. I can't imagine how much time water needs to run to get a water bill to hit the 3 - 4 or even $5,000. mark. Sounds like some self control and personal responsibility are needed. If you're running up a bill of that magnitude you need to change your behavior, not ask that everyone else in town subsidize your overuse. How does changing 50% of the sewer debt out of the enterprise fund affect prop. 2.5? Will this vote be another debt exemption? Maybe next time a vote comes up to buy something this town can't afford, people will actually have learned a lesson from the mess we're in now and vote NO.
TONY D
9:48 am on Friday, February 18, 2011
"I can't imagine how much time water needs to run to get a water bill to hit the 3 - 4 or even $5,000. mark. Sounds like some self control and personal responsibility are needed. "
If you have a pool and irrigation system and do not have a second meter, the water and sewer bill would easily be in the range you mention - $3 to 5,000 per year. If you conserve water use, and in turn sewer use, the "Town" does not meet its income goals and raises rates to do so. This has already happened. It is a "no win" situation. For me to have a second meter for my pool and irrigation system, according to the "Town", I would have to connect to the sewer system first. A) It would cost me approximately $12 to $14,000 to connect to the sewer system. B) I could not afford the sewer system rates. C) I can barely afford the $1600.00 water bill that I receive now. If the "Town" set some realistic guaranteed goals to reduce the sewer rates maybe the 40% of the people would connect to it. As for moving part of the sewer debt to the tax bill wouldn't that mean that I, a non sewer user, would be paying for a service that I do not have the "benefit" of using. I don't think that would get my vote or the vote of 40% of the voters, hopefully.
Dan O'Neill
11:42 am on Friday, February 18, 2011
The reason the "Town" voted to complete the sewer project was because septic systems were failing all over town....also not passing Title V when real estate was being sold....if everyone hooked up to the system as it was installed on their street, the sewer rates would be much lower....everyone would be sharing the load....this did not happen....people were happy to pay their $3,000 insurance policy (if their system failed or had Title V issues, the sewer connection was available)...they also are paying over time $300.00 per year for ten years....nice deal....
Now let's complain about the high water bills....if you are not hooked up to BOTH water & sewer you pay a higher rate for water period....you can't have it both ways....no sewer bill & cheap water...sorry....
TONY D
2:06 pm on Friday, February 18, 2011
I am looking at my latest water bill dated 10/07/2010 and I don't see anything that states there is a different water rate if I'm also connected to the sewer system. Is what you state written elsewhere? I am aware of the option to have a second water meter installed but only if I am connected to the sewer system. This would only affect the total sewer charge. I would not be paying the sewer charge for water used for my pool and irrigation system. It would have no affect on the total water usage charge.
Kim Redmond
9:18 am on Saturday, February 19, 2011
I don't know anyone who "happily" paid the $3,000. sewer betterment fee. It has to be paid over 5 years, not 10. Prior to the vote to sewer the entire town, the betterment fee had been $800 so the increase was a big pill to swallow. No one with an ounce of sense is going to pay thousands of dollars to dismantle a septic system and tie into the sewer when the consequences are a water bill that will put a major dent in a budget, especially at a time when the economy has affected the way we're all getting by.
Michael Iannacci
10:04 am on Saturday, February 19, 2011
If we are trying to fairly distribute the cost of this entire mess, then shouldn't all residents be forced to pay the $3000 betterment fee? Step one in the process should be to bill all of the residents the difference between what they paid for a betterment fee and the $3000 currently being charged. Then we can talk about shifting the debt to all residents. It just doesn't seem right that some people who are using the system only had to pay $800 while those of us who are not have to pay $3000. And now we are being asked to contribute more. If I am mistaken about this then please correct me but this is my understanding of how the betterment fee was billed.
TONY D
2:29 pm on Saturday, February 19, 2011
What are you thinking! If I bought something 5 years ago and paid $200.00 and you bought the same thing now and paid $250.00 should I go back to the store and pay the $50.00 difference. Ridiculous. Also wrong for shifting the debt to all residents. If you use the service, the sewer system, then pay for it. If you don't use it don't pay for it. No one can do anything about the $3000.00 betterment fee. It was voted on and approved several years ago. It was very poor planning for it to not cover the actual expenses which have resulted in the exorbitant rates. When Billerica installed their sewer system the planners did their jobs and it did not cost existing homeowners practically anything. If a house was built on an empty lot then there was a reasonably small fee charged. What about the new water meters. "Someone" forgot to include the true cost of buying and installing them in the original budget. Just another "small" expense overlooked by Town officials that we have to pay extra for. CDM takes no blame for this error and is still the Town's consulting engineer.
Robert L Homeyer
1:26 pm on Saturday, February 19, 2011
I think the whole infrastructure improvement should be moved to the tax base and not just 50% of it. Doug Sears makes a great point. Shift the whole thing and make it a tax deduction. We are going to have to pay for it anyway...let's get a deduction for it.
TONY D
2:35 pm on Saturday, February 19, 2011
I am going to say it again - If I do not use it I do not want to pay for it. You should pay for the sewer system if you are connected to it.
Jake P
1:48 pm on Saturday, February 19, 2011
I think Mike I is wrong with his train of thought. I bought my house in 1988 for $130,000. My next door neighbor bout his in 2006 for $365,000, same house. Is this also wrong Mike? He should have a $235k rebate due him. And Market basket owes me $150 back on todays food because it was that much cheaper in 1988. Please , post your comments but think before you reply.
Michael Iannacci
10:11 pm on Saturday, February 19, 2011
I don't think that is a fair analogy becuse now I am being asked to subsidize your groceries at Market Basket going forward. And while I fully understand the concept of the time value of money, I don't believe the rate of inflation has been high enough to justify a 275% increase in the betterment fee. The argument being used is that this is an asset for the town and the debt burden should be shared equitably. If I have to accept that then everyone should have the same starting point. If it makes you feel better, then the difference should be between the $3000 and the betterment fee paid adjusted for inflation. My point remains the same. The betterment fee is not a tangible asset that has a market value such as a house. It is a fee being assessed by the town to help pay for the project.
Linda Rowe
10:14 am on Sunday, February 20, 2011
" Step one in the process should be to bill all of the residents the difference between what they paid for a betterment fee and the $3000 currently being charged. "
Are you kidding me ???!!! 14 years ago I paid my $800 for sewer to come down my street as did my neighbors. Now you think we should all pay another $2200 to bring our bill up to $3K . What about my neighbor that moved in 2 years ago...she has sewer, didnt pay $800 ....do you expect her to pay $3000 ??
Lets face it...residents dont hook up to sewer until they are FORCED to....by either selling their home or septic failure.
People should really THINK before commenting !
Michael Iannacci
10:54 am on Sunday, February 20, 2011
Yes Linda I agree people should think before commenting. Especially those that want people who are not on the system to help defray the cost of the people using the system. I am willing to pay some to help out you and my fellow townspeople who are now getting hurt by the high rates even though I did not want the project to pass and I am not using it. But as Dan O'Neil pointed out I do now have an insurance policy for my $3000. I just find it very funny that the people who are expecting everyone to pay money to help lower their rates are the same people complaining about the suggestion that they pay a more equitable betterment fee. I am not going to argue with you, I just find that very ironic. As far as your neighbor goes, the charge is per house not per occupant.
TONY D
11:56 am on Sunday, February 20, 2011
Mike go shake the cobwebs out of your head. You are babbling on and do not know what you are talking about. Think really good, if you can, before commenting about this again. Linda is correct in her statements. $800.00 fee assessed (14) years ago. Paid in full. That was what is was for the projects at the time. New project, new contracts, new costs for completing the system. $3000.00 fee assessed and approved. Being paid over (5) years. I think the only common denominator is the consulting engineer, CDM. Do they have a lock on the Town's business. Seems to me they are not very efficient at projecting true costs. Apparently "same old same old". SEWER USE TO BE PAID FOR BY THOSE USING IT. I am not connected to the sewer system. Unless something major happens, I never intend to be connected. Why should I pay for someone else's crap being processed.
Kim Redmond
11:35 am on Sunday, February 20, 2011
There are no "do-overs" in this situation. I know bake sales and car washes aren't going to make a dent in paying down the debt owed on the sewer infrastructure, but maybe some creative fundraising could help. The lottery is a perfect example of people, voluntarily, paying toward taxes. I don't think the state is going to want Tewksbury in the lottery business, but maybe there are other fundraising ideas that would encourage people from out of town to come here and contribute to paying down our debt. A non profit "Friends of the Sewer System" group of volunteers to figure out ways to get people to pay our bill, without us having to pay higher property taxes or out of control water/sewer bills, may be able to find creative ways to bring in money. The bottom line is that the sewer bill has to be paid. Maybe we can make it less painful.
TONY D
12:33 pm on Sunday, February 20, 2011
Yeah, that is going to happen in this Town. Not. First of all I don't think it would be legal to have a "fundraiser" for a Town approved betterment project. Aren't the total projected costs for a project supposed to be evaluated and bonds issued, debt exclusions; or something like them, to pay for it over a defined period of time. Once the method is determined, that's it. You can't change horses in midstream. The Town is not a charity where you can raise money to pay it's debts. The next "project" that comes up for a vote should be rejected with a resounding "NO".
Kim Redmond
1:01 pm on Sunday, February 20, 2011
It would be rediculous to think the whole project could be paid for through fundraising. When I pay my mortgage, the bank doesn't ask if I came up with the money by working at my job or holding a yard sale. They cash the check I send. This isn't about refinancing the debt (I expect the town manager has handled the debt financing in the most favorable way for the taxpayers) and I don't think the bond holder cares where the money is raised as long as the bond is being paid when due. If a contribution to the bill can be made through means other than taxes and rate increases, it would be a bonus for all of us. I think we're all on the same page about not liking what's happening right now. We also agree we want the other guy to pay. Instead of looking at our Tewksbury neighbor to do it, let's just broaden that idea and figure out how to get Wilmington, Billerica, Andover and our neighboring towns (or the entire state) to WANT to chip in. Complaining doesn't address the problem. It just makes us look like whiners...
TONY D
1:17 pm on Sunday, February 20, 2011
You are being facetious about getting our abutting town neighbors or the state to chip in to pay our bills. Aren't you?
Kim Redmond
2:15 pm on Sunday, February 20, 2011
I think if a Wilmington resident comes to a fundraiser Tewksbury is holding, to offset sewer costs, I'll happily take their money. Ditto on a resident from any other town in this state. I'm talking fundraisers. In the "big tax picture", our town and all others, are subsidized by the state (and federal government) taking tax money our abutting town neighbors have paid to the state, and redistributing it to us. Where do you think the money is coming from for the high school? We're paying a portion, the "state" (taxpayers from other towns) are paying a portion. Again, do I think fundraising is going to pay off the sewer debt? NO. But complaining without coming up with solutions is called whining. It gets us no where.
TONY D
3:19 pm on Sunday, February 20, 2011
Yeah, and I can see the fundraiser sign "Help the Town of Tewksbury residents offset some of the cost of disposing of their crap". My friends in Wilmington and Billerica are going to come running to buy something. I don't think so. They have their own problems. Obtaining grants from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Government to offset part of the costs for school projects is a completely different subject. Approached in various ways by all parties concerned. Like comparing apples and oranges.
Kim Redmond
5:52 pm on Sunday, February 20, 2011
Your anger is obvious. I wonder how it could be channeled into something productive? Maybe some kind of fundraiser...
Elysa Winn
8:27 am on Friday, March 25, 2011
I am hooked up to sewer as well. I think shifting 50 percent of the debt is not going to make much of a difference. i am drowning here in water debt. Just got my new bill for 36000 gallons my bill is 997.00. Thats crazy.If they shift the debt, the town manger says we should be equal to MWRA rates. I dont think so. I own rental property there and for 58000 gallons my bill is $350.00. I paid that in full. I watch the recording of shifting the debt. If it doesnt pass the rates will rise to some crazy amt. If it does pass water rates will come down slightly. On sewer or not we are all suffering
TONY D
12:27 pm on Friday, March 25, 2011
In their example, by shifting part of the sewer debt to the tax base the Town Manager/ Selectmen make you think you are getting a tax deduction of $227.94. It actually would only increase your itemized deductions by that amount and in turn decrease your taxable income. This would have a minimal effect on your actual tax. More likely in the $35 to $40.00 range. The emphasis should be made to have those that are not connected to the sewer system to become connected. The only way I would connect would be for someone to guarantee that the sewer rates would decrease considerably as more homes were connected. As for now my vote is for the sewer charges to remain as is. They should be paid for by the people that use the system.
Alex Ro
1:30 pm on Friday, March 25, 2011
Sorry but this whole sewer thing is so unfair. This started as many of the South part of town had sewer problems, they all get it in before the beterment fee, then bingo the $3,000.00 vote comes in well ALL Those voted yes from that part of town since they have it so guess what they get it and have no beterment fee. Then they have huge bills and are complaining....every0ne said the water bills would almost double if you hooked up. NOW those who have it think the ones with septic should pay for sewer when they dont have it ....again those are making out,t his town is very unfair. This nonsense has to stop. I dont go to Market Basket and get a plain pizza and get charged for a pizza with a topping when I dont get one/didnt order one. Well come off it. Why should those with septic have to pay and pay I bought my house with a brand new system right before this mess started, I paid for it in my cost of my house. I paid my share, Why should I be paying for stuff that I dont have. I agree with Doug. RAISE the taxes then, then that way everyone has to pay but to continue to pick on certain people you are being so unfair. And also for those that think everyone is going to connect, you are TOTALLY wrong with new systems that we keep up and do the maintance on we are not throwing money out the window. We will NEVER connect unless our system fails. And also it costs money to connect, money we dont have with these astrinomical water bills.
TONY D
2:02 pm on Friday, March 25, 2011
Alex, by you agreeing with Doug, I assume Sears, you are agreeing to have people that don't use the sewer system to pay for it. By raising taxes, part of the sewer cost burden is being put on the people that are not using the sewer system.The first and last parts of your statement are correct. You do not use the sewer system therefore you do not want to pay for it. I assume you paid, or will pay, the betterment fee, either the original $800.00 or the new $3000.00. Can't get out of that. You can vote April 2nd to not have 50% of the sewer burden to be transferred to the tax base. Otherwise you end up paying for a pepperoni pizza when all you got was a cheese pizza.
Melissa Gleaton
2:19 pm on Friday, March 25, 2011
one way or another, the whole town should be responsible for contributing to the "betterment" of the town, whether by raising taxes for that purpose, or shifting the debt. There are plenty of people who don't use LOTS of services in this town, but still contribute to their costs.
TONY D
2:28 pm on Friday, March 25, 2011
We are all contributing to the "betterment" of the Town by paying the approved "betterment fees". In the case of this discussion, they were the original $800.00 fee and the newer $3000.00 fee. No problem. It is the usage charges that are in question.