Water rates are hiked
Published on December 10th, 2003
STONEHAM, MA - With Stoneham's water consumption down 13 percent from last year, town officials will raise municipal water rates this month to bridge a projected $350,000 deficit.
According to Town Administrator David Berry, because the previous year's water usage dictates the current rates, two factors contributed to the shortfall.
"There's two major reasons for the increase: 1) as we mentioned, we had a very wet summer season and so citizens didn't use as much water and 2) we were unaware that Kraft Foods installed a well and are using that as a major source of their water," Berry explained.
According to Department of Public Works Director Bob Grover, the rate hikes will raise the costs of 100 cubic feet of water (or 748 gallons) from $2.75 to $3.50 - resulting in a $60 increase this year for the average four-person household.
And while that increase might not seem like a dramatic jump in costs with the average citizen paying nearly $1100 a year for water, several residents are challenging the timing of the price boost given the town's decision to utilize $950,000 in water surpluses to balance the FY04 budget.
"The people in this town are questioning who's running the government...People are getting suspicious and saying that [town officials] are creating a false surplus," remarked former Selectman and Water and Sewer Review Board member Frank Pignone.
"What we have in Stoneham is an oligarchy - just a few people are calling citizens to Town Meeting and scaring the hell out of them. You can't keep on doing that to people," added Pignone, referring to last May's Town Meeting vote to utilize the surplus for the FY04 budget.
While Grover and Selectman Tony Kennedy admit that the rate increases could have been absorbed by the water and sewer surpluses, they stand by the decision to use the funds to offset the budget.
Referring to advice by a DPW engineer that setting aside $100,000 of those surpluses in a water enterprise fund would offset any unanticipated increases, Kennedy believes that the town fathers made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time.
"As a group, we made a logical judgment call that $100,000 was sufficient. We would have had a severe budget crisis if we went the other way," said Kennedy.
"I could see the public perception that we were too aggressive and I admit, we were aggressive, but we took into account what the engineer told us," Kennedy added.
Touting the recent creation of a water enterprise fund as a restrictive measure, Kennedy also challenged the notion that town officials were creating a false surplus to balance future municipal budgets.
"That use was a one-time thing. It can't happen again because we invoked a water enterprise fund and that money can't be used for anything else but water rates," Kennedy argued, adding that the rate increases amounted to a 6 percent increase in the average citizens water bill.
However, according to former Selectman Darin Leahy, town officials knew about the water deficit all along and ignored the problem so they could circumvent an override.
"This is a sneaky way around Proposition 2 1/2. You take the money out of the water and sewer accounts and then you use it to pay for department costs. So the Selectmen have their cover and now they can say, 'we didn't increase your water rates, it was the Water and Sewer Review Board,'" Leahy charged.
"They said there was enough money in the enterprise fund to prevent rate increases. Now one month after town meeting they raise the water and sewer rates and say they didn't know about the deficit? C'mon now," Leahy added.
Leahy also refuted Kennedy, Berry, and Grover's claim that the rate raises would amount to a 6 percent increase.
Claiming that water rates breakdown into two categories, charges controlled by a municipality and charges controlled by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA), Leahy calculates the rate changes as a 69.4 percent increase.
"That's a 69.4 percent increase in the town's portion of the water rates. In February, the MWRA will increase their rates for the year. Then what happens is in July, the town will raise the rates again. So there will be three raises in a nine month period," said Leahy.
In response, Grover and Kennedy accused the former Selectman of unfairly manipulating the figures to advance his agenda.
"There is no separate MWRA charge. Figures don't lie, but liars always figure...The bottom line is water consumption is down," Grover retorted.
"Anybody can manipulate things their way. The bottom line is a $60 increase on an $1100 bill is a six percent increase. That's simple mathematics. They're just angry and want to call all the elected officials liars so they manipulate the numbers in their favor," responded Kennedy.
Although the two town officials couldn't say with certainty that the rates would remain unchanged come next July, they believe this month's rate hike should stabilize the deficit.
With a public hearing on the rate increases scheduled for December 16, Pignone requested that town officials be fair and present all the necessary information.
"I don't mind whether I win or lose. I just want a fair fight...I've lived in mansions and I've lived in cement cells, but let's be fair. Let's be men about it," said Pignone.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!