On tonight’s agenda at the Board of Aldermen are the results of the restructuring of Water & Sewer tiers and rates related to approval of the second-meter option. This document from the Friday Packet shows the proposed rates for HCF (hundred cubic feet) per quarter, as amended (once they knew how many people actually signed up for second meters): 05-04-15 Water-Sewer-Stormwater Rate Package – Executive
There are sample accounts that show the percent change vs FY15 rates at different levels of water usage. Some of which are large reductions, which I think must be accounts who opted for second meters, but that’s not really spelled out.
But to know how you will actually do under the new structure vs FY15, you need to plug your actual HCF from your water bills, and apply the rates for HCF in each tier. The FY15 rates are in this preliminary comparison FY2016-Proposed-water-sewer-stormwater-rates-1 as well as on your water bill.
Because the tier break points have changed, there are some anomalies, in that the some users at lower volumes will have higher percent increases in total cost than users at higher volumes. For example, here are some increases in combined water/sewer cost per quarter for different HCF, for customers without second meters:
1-10 HCF (lowest tier both years): 3.3% increase
20 HCF: 7.4%
25 HCF: 4.1%
60 HCF: 6.7%
70 HCF: 10.1%
200 HCF: 8.3%
The ‘related link’ below includes which alders voted for second meters, and which opposed. Whether the proposed rate structure meets their expectations I guess we’ll learn tonight.
Addendum: Here’s a chart, with FY15 in blue, FY16 in majenta. The lines with points show the total. Cost. I don’t know how to get rid of the extra straight lines, but I guess they show what a non-progressive rate structure would look like.
I haven’t liked this no-sewer-charge-for-2nd-water-meter proposal from the start. It seems like it’s the exact wrong kind of financial incentive. It subsidizes and encourages the highest water usage at the expense of everyone else.
The only reason this counter-intuitive idea ever got any traction was because of a historical quirk in how we bill for our water usage. Because of “sticker shock” around the rate hikes for the Boston Harbor cleanup, we broke our bills into two separate charges “water” and “sewer”. That public relations decision then opened the door for big water users to say “half my water isn’t going in the sewer so you can’t bill me for the sewer charges”.
Given that’s where we’re at now, I do appreciate the effort to somewhat temper this new break for high water users by adjusting the water portion of the bill.
Jerry, I struggled with second meters, and ultimately was persuaded that water/sewer/stormwater charges ought to be proportional to demand and impact. That is why I am disappointed that nonprofits and businesses, e.g., nonprofits that own affordable rental housing–which must pay property taxes–are still denied the second meter option. The last piece of the puzzle is to make stormwater fees proportional to impact on our stormwater management infrastructure, instead of a hike in the flat fee as has been proposed by the Mayor. It makes no sense that a shopping mall with acres of impervious surface from asphalt covered parking lots pays the same rate as a small business located on a tiny lot. But apparently the administration was not able to get the job done this year. But hopefully next year’s fees will proportionately reflect actual impact on stormwater management infrastructure.
Each year that the rates go up I find new ways to use less water. I will not likely open the pool and will water gardens less. As water collects in the pool cover I will use it for the gardens. I flush toilets half the time.
I really feel sorry for young families with children who must bear the brunt of these rate increases. I haven’t used my dishwasher much in the past year and I do my clothes washing in N.H. home.
I believe that many people are just like me and find ways to lower their monthly water use. So as the rates go up the actual revenues from the higher rates may not increase very much. Not good public policy.
Water conservation is good public policy. If higher rates are forcing people to use less water, isn’t that a good thing? (Second meter doing just the opposite) I’m not sure I understand the alternative — hope that people will waste water to subsidize our bills?
We ran out of (obvious) ways to conserve water a long time ago.
I’m not entirely certain how this will flesh out at the Burke household, but I’ve taken several steps to conserve water over the past 2 decades. I thought that’s what we were all supposed to be collectively aiming for. I can’t say exactly how many appeals for water conservation I’ve heard from public officials and from government produced public service announcements over that same period. Now, it seems I may be paying more per gallon because of the responsible way I’ve been trying to use water. This is extremely short sighted if the long range goal is to reduce water consumption so we can systematically reduce overall consumption to better prepare for that inevitable day when a prolonged drought threatens to overwhelm what the Quabbin Reservoir can deliver. It almost happened in 1982 and in other years when it was possible to see the remains of the 5 towns that were buried to create the reservoir.
Bob, once again you speak with wisdom. We try to do the right thing, at least the right thing based on “guidance” from our elected officials, and we get “rewarded” with this new rate hike.
The 7.4% increase at the 20 HCF level will have a significant impact on the senior residents, who are empty nesters trying to stay in their homes.
Maybe someone can explain why the need for the 7.4% increase at the 20 HCF tier.
I’m curious, how many HCF are people using? I’m only at 3 per quarterly bill for myself, so 20 HCF for an empty nester couple seems like a lot, even allowing for the fact that I take more showers at the Y than at home, have a water-efficient Fisher&Paykel clothes washer, and don’t do much outdoor watering.
Julia, for people like you and I who ration our water use. The city is charging us a flat rate increase on a portion of our bill. In future they could levy that surcharge for any amount. There is no mechanism to stop it.
I find it upsetting that our elected officials have changed the ratio of city spending. In the past the schools and city divided the revenues 50% each side. Now the schools take about 65%. Then the aldermen vote to levy extra charges on residents to make up for less and less revenue going to the streets, garbage etc.
We have given the S.C. a blank check to spend our money carelessly ie. $40 million for an unneeded rebuild of Zervas.
When will it stop?
Julia, the 20 HCF rate kicks in with water use above the 10 HCF level. I looked at the city website for my usage over the last 13 quarters. None were under the 10 HCF level; the winter quarters were in the 11 – 15 range. There are two of us, who live fiscally conservative. We do not have a second home or travel extensively so we are at the house year round using water. We are lucky to have some visits from the kids, even if that does add water usage. We do not eat out much so we regularly use water for cooking and dish washing. I have not found any leaks in the system. I would suspect we are typical for many “empty nesters” in Newton. Maybe others will enlighten me on better ways to conserve water.
Quarters during the growing seasons were over 20 HCF. Since our overall usage did not meet the guidance threshold from the city for a second meter, I will now be paying the 7.3% increase basically on the water I use to water our gardens; the same water that two meter households now get without the sewer charge. Gardening is my wife’s and my hobby and personal enjoyment. The city has now made it significantly more expensive for us. I doubt Social Security will give us extra money to compensate.
My family of 5 typically uses around 20HCF. We have relatively new, high-efficiency (but not Fisher & Paykel) appliances, 1.2 gal toilets, and don’t use much outside water (native plants and sometimes a brown lawn) Aside from joining the Y and taking everyone there for showers, not sure what else to do. Are our numbers that far off?
Adam, given your HCF use is normal for a family of 5 (I assume you have 2 adults and 3 kids), you have highlighted another situation for the use of the 10 – 20 HCF tier of water. Whereas I use that water to improve the exterior appearance of my residence for 6 months of the year, you use it for your kids year round (again assuming you and I are relatively equal in our water conservation actions).
So the city is now raising the water rates by 7.3% on families with kids still in the house. I thought we were trying to encourage young families to move to Newton? It appears the city wants young families to subsidize families that can afford swimming pools on their properties.
I’ve never read a thread that was so totally beyond me. We water our flowers, we flush our toilet, and pay our water bill. Life is good.
We have 5 adults living in our house, low flush toilets, a high efficiency dishwasher and laundry, and water saving devices on all of the faucets, and we use 20 HCF on average per quarter. We use the water from the dehumidifier in the basement to water plants and rainwater for the lawn and gardens as much as possible. We sometimes use the hose to water the lawn and garden, but we let the lawns go brown in the summer. We don’t use herbicides, there is a lot of clover mixed in with our grass, and we only use lime, not fertilizer, on our front and back lawns. Our perennials are just beautiful and our lawns come back greener every Spring.
It’s interesting how in this small sample of three families you are all around 20 HCF. I would love to see a histogram showing HCF usage on the x-axis and number of households at each level on the y-axis, and then see how it looks in a year and over time.