LONGMEADOW – A variety of proposals to address inequity in sewer metering were presented at the March 29 public hearing hosted by the Longmeadow Select Board. Board member Mark Gold put forward three possible solutions that he and fellow Board member Richard Foster have been researching in recent months.

Gold and Foster used variables such as monthly usage and billing data from FY20 to evaluate each option. The current cost of sewage is $2.66 per unit, wherein one unit equals 748 gallons of water. There were 5,441 residents with sewer bills during the period the two considered in their study.

Gold explained the way that the sewer rate is calculated as a simple equation of the amount of money owed to Bondi’s island for sewer treatment and transmission divided by the number of units used by the town. “We took how much we needed to raise and divided it by the volume and came up with the rate. So if the number of units goes down, we have to raise the same amount of money, so the rate must increase,” Gold said.

Options

First, Gold presented the benefits and drawbacks to the current system, which assumes that the same amount of water that is used by a household is expended as sewerage. This system also has a cap of 220 units or $585.20 per year. The cap is designed to negate charges for irrigation uses – the water that is used outside of the home for activities such as watering the lawn or washing a car, and therefore, does not go into the sewer.

While the single system for all users is relatively easy to understand and administer, it also leads to heavy water users underpaying while irrigation users “subsidize” the system for everyone else, Gold said. It doesn’t encourage conservation, either. Gold said that 220 units is an arbitrary number, as well.

Alternative one, which is the focus of a petition article on the Annual Town Meeting warrant, would involve the voluntary installation of irrigation meters. These meters would measure household water separate from the water that is used outdoors, and therefore, does not go into the sewer. While the meters would result in a more accurate measure of sewer usage, Gold said, the roughly $850 installation and annual fee would be the resident’s responsibility and the town would have no way to know how many people use the secondary meters.

Gold and Foster estimated that residents who would make back the meter cost in savings over five years would likely purchase one. This works out to 1,190 homes, or 15 percent of users who would likely pay less per year. Because there would be fewer units of sewer used, the rate would increase by 23.3 percent and the other 4,251 users would pay more, Gold said.

The second alternative is called winter averaging. The average usage over a fixed period during the winter would be set as the sewer usage for the other months. Gold and Foster looked at using a three-month, five-month and seven-month period on which to base yearly usage and decided that the five months from November to March was “the sweet spot,” in which there was no irrigation, but there was enough data for an accurate measurement.

This option, of which Foster is in favor, would be relatively easy to implement and more representative than a cap. Gold said that the system is widely used across North America and has the benefit of spreading out the cost increase over all users.

On the other hand, Gold said, it doesn’t encourage the conservation of water and will require an operational change to the system. One issue that he pointed to as a drawback, is that residents who winter out of town, “snowbirds,” would average little to no units of sewerage and underpay for their summer usage.

Under this model, the rate would increase to $5.23 per unit, 96.6 percent. An estimated 3,096 users would pay more and 2,335 would pay less.

The last of the options evaluated by the Select Board members is “winter maximum.” This version, Gold’s preferred solution, sets the summer usage based on 110 percent of the maximum monthly usage during the five-month winter period. He said the extra 10 percent would account for the increase in laundry and shower water typically used in the summer. Gold admitted that there was no scientific calculation of the 110 percent number.

Winter maximum has many of the same benefits and drawbacks as winter averaging, but Gold said that it would largely eliminate the underpayment of snowbirds, as they would likely be home and using sewer at least one of those months. He also said that it would encourage people to use less sewer during the cold months, to save all year.

The rate with this method would increase by 54 percent, to $4.12 per unit. About 3,024 users would benefit from lower payments, while 2,017 would see higher bills.

Residents’ Alternatives

A couple of residents presented other metering alternates. Jim Moran proposed a flat fee. He said that it would work out to between $330 and $350 per year per sewer household. One benefit to this system would be its simplicity and transparency. He compared sewer to trash removal, which is a fixed rate service. Of Gold’s assertion that residents who irrigate subsidize the sewer system for everyone else, Moran said that if he only fills his trash can halfway he is subsidizing the trash system for those who fill it full, yet they pay the same rate.

Gold responded that a sizable number of residents were currently paying half that price and it was discounted as too large an impact on those residents.

Select Board Clerk Steve Marantz said that he agreed with Moran but acknowledged that there is an unfairness in the usage levels. Board member Marc Strange was for a flat rate and it was an “easily digestible, relatively fair way to administer this.” He also expressed approval for quarterly billing to spread the impact of the sewer charges out over time.

Resident Curt Freedman said the current system is driving residents away from using the town’s water infrastructure. “Unless we get this issue resolved, more and more people will go to wells, which will increase the burden on everybody else,” he said.

Freedman discounted some solutions, saying that flat fees are a tax, rather than a fee and that a cap is illegal because it is not “just and equitable,” as required under MGL Ch. 83 s. 16.

After presenting a short history of the issue in Longmeadow, including the defeat of a flat rate at the 2015 Annual Town Meeting, he proposed the establishment of four rate classes: residential, irrigation, small commercial and large commercial. He also spoke in favor of quarterly billing, “seasonal accounting” of usage, incentives for conservation and a water and sewer oversight committee.

Public Opinion

Residents attending the meeting asked questions and offered their opinions. Tom Shea said that the second meters would only benefit those who could afford them and were not equitable for that reason. Instead, he said he supported some form of “non-peak period metering” and quarterly billing.

Another resident expressed concern that the burden would be shifted to those who were less able to afford it.  He said homes with irrigation systems are generally larger properties with more affluent owners. He also noted that watering lawns is a discretionary use of water and not required. Lastly, he said that the increase in the sewer rate would make the town more expensive to live or move into.

Siobhan Matty disagreed about the importance of irrigation. “I understand the conservation issue and the need for water on a regular basis and not over-using your water, but if people’s lawns dry out and everything starts to die, it’s not going to be a very pretty place, either,” she said, adding that property values will decrease.

Select Board Chair Thomas Lachiusa opined that climate change is causing more droughts and large trees will be more likely to fall in storms if they do not get enough water.

The board will continue to consider the issue and a vote has not yet been scheduled.