HOLYOKE – After months of discussion, the Holyoke Council agreed to vote in favor of raising their sewer rate.

The meeting on Oct. 5 was the final discussion on the increase in sewer rate. Previously the council had spent hours discussing and voting on sewer rate increases, none of which they agreed on.

In an amendment to the Ordinance Committee recommendation, which was $7.77 per 1,000 as opposed to the original $8.05 per 1,000 gallons rate proposed months ago, Acting Mayor and Councilor Terrance Murphy proposed the rate be set at $7.50 per 1,000 gallons. However, he said with his amendment on July 1, 2022, the rate would increase to $8.15. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. From there, Murphy went on to propose the rate increase be to $7.50, which was seconded by Councilor Joseph McGiverin.

Murphy said even at the proposed $7.50 rate, during the current fiscal year “with 96 percent collection” they would need to address a significant deficit. “We’re talking about a $500,000 deficit in that account,” he said. Murphy went on to say during the Fiscal Year 2023?(FY23), the wastewater budget would increase to approximately $540,000.

“So if we do not address this, both now to try to keep the deficit at a minimum and $7.50 would be about $500,000, and consider doing something to start in July 1 - and if we stayed at $7.50 [on] July 1 it would be approximately [a] $1.1 million deficit to start with,” he said. Murphy said he knew people felt as though the Sewer Commission should set the rate, however, he said should that happen, he felt confident they would set the rate at $8.15. This, he explained, was because of the information they would get from the Department of Public Works (DPW) superintendent.

He said the City Council would have the authority to review and change the fee in the future, but they needed to act soon. “Right now we are making a judgement, if we continue to allow this deficit somewhere down the line our bond rating, our insurance, our interest is going to go up,” he said. Murphy went on to say that if the rate remained at its current state, which was $6.65, they would be looking at a deficit of $1.4 to $1.5 million.

He said while he was “not very comfortable” with the rate being set at $7.50, they needed to do something and that rate would cut the proposed deficit significantly. Councilor James Leahy proposed hiring an outside collection agency to continue collecting fees to ensure those who owned property in the city, but didn’t pay such fees would have no choice but to pay. Leahy said he would not be voting in favor of the increase as he felt it wasn’t the job of those in the sewer department “to be working non-stop on collections.” He said, “They have other jobs to do. We should hire a collections’ agency and they’ll just take a small percentage of whatever they collect. That’s what they do, and that’s why they want to collect money, they’re pitbulls.”

Councilor Rebecca Lisi said the city was at 97 percent collections and there was only $500 in unpaid sewer fees left to be collected. However, she said there was a $1 million operating deficit, which left a shortfall of $1.5 million. She said while she supported going to a collection agency, she felt as though they needed to set a sewer rate that “reflects the cost of operations,” for “managing and operating the sewer plant.” Without this, she said, “We are going to be taking money out of the general fund.” This fund, she said, paid for quality of life services such as the city pool, trash services and the city’s parks.

Councilor Howard Greaney followed Lisi’s remarks by stating that many people in the city of Holyoke were on a fixed income and couldn’t afford the sewer rate increases. He made recommendations such as charging interest for those who owed money to the city, a collection agency and finding alternative ways to fund the deficit. McGiverin said that there was no question that the bills would be paid. He said that should councilors not vote in favor of an increase they would need to take the money out of property taxes to pay the bill and this would result in them having less money “to do what we need to do.” He added that there was interest charged to late payers already.

Murphy went on to say they still had quite a bit of late payments to collect and the fact that they could shut off water helped ensure payment of bills. He then continued and stated that even at the highest rate he projected, “the average home was about $23 every three months.” in an increase. He said in total the average home would pay about $85 every three months. Due to how late in the year they were having the discussion, he said should they approve the rate that night it would only raise peoples’ sewer bills by about $40.

However, Lisi said the increase Murphy had discussed was for the “median user,” however, there was no way to differentiate between industrial, commercial and residential users. This, she said, would result in residential users likely paying less than what Murphy stated.

Vacon said she felt they had been on a “spending spree” which had resulted in “almost no free cash.” She said they needed to “live within their means” of those who were funding the budget, the taxpayers. Ultimately, the council voted in favor of raising the sewer rate to $7.50.

The council also discussed an ongoing issue involving the consolidation of handicap parking spaces on Ivy Avenue. Several councilors including Councilors Libby Hernandez and Peter Tallman agreed with Councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos who originally filed the order. However, Vacon said when the matter was addressed there were four handicap spaces designated in the area, including one that had “never been marked” and another “that was in the book as an extra.”

Vacon said they already eliminated the space that wasn’t marked and they’d heard testimony from one resident on the matter several times. “The spaces are used and I’d just like to remind my colleagues that these spaces are not created for a person and only people who have a proper handicap placard can park in them,” she said. Vacon said there were two people that lived in the neighborhood and used the spots, as well as others in the area using the spots.

“I’ve never, as long as I’ve been on the council, had residents object to something happening and we’ve gone ahead and made it anyway. We create these spaces at the request of the residents and we usually only eliminate them at the request of residents,” she said.

Greaney echoed Vacon’s sentiments and said he’d seen all three spaces in use and knew of additional parking residents had access to. McGiverin said he would not be voting in favor of the consolidation as it would eliminate the number of handicap spots down to one, leaving at least two residents “fighting” for one handicap space.

Anderson-Burgos defended his position, stating there used to be four handicap spaces available, and since one had been eliminated already they were only eliminating one more. This, he said, would leave two spaces available for the two residents that lived on Ivy Street and used the handicap spaces. “The third handicap parking space was never needed,” he said.

“We’re wasting time. We’re wasting time here and we’re wasting money getting our employees to do something that specifically benefits one resident,” he said. Anderson-Burgos said that while some councilors “drove by” the area in question, he had “talked to all the residents” and knocked “on every single door.”

“I spoke to every single resident and I spent – I can’t even count how many days and nights I’ve counted taking pictures and video of no one using all the handicap parking spaces. This is a no-brainer,” he said. “I don’t know what else to tell you guys, I don’t know if I have to make it as simple as a, b, c, d, e, f, g. For crying out loud, this is a simple thing.”

Murphy pointed out the language in the order, which stated that the spaces would “be condensed” into a single space. Lisi said that while the item had been tabled for a while, it had been voted on favorably when in the Ordinance Committee, so she was surprised to see members of the committee disagreeing with the order.

Council President Todd McGee then read the specific language in the amended order that came out of committee, which Lisi said should have the correct language and specified which space would be deleted. After additional discussion, the item was voted down on the first reading, effectively killing the measure.