34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Council reluctantly OKs higher city costs for sewer water
Top Headlines The water rate will jump from $3.42 per 100 cubic feet of water to $3.84 per hundred cubic feet. The new rate will fund a water budget of $6.8 million. The sewer rate will spiral from $7.25 per 100 cubic feet of wastewater to $8.65 per 100 cubic feet. The fee will fund a budget of $9.6 million. Budget and appropriations committee Chairman Bill Bowles said the rate hikes were unavoidable. "This is particularly difficult for me because I've always fought to keep the enterprise rates as low as possible," Bowles said of the water budget, but noted the comments applied equally to the wastewater budget. "But this year I do not see any way possible to do that," he said. "The budget is bare bones. It's made up of mostly personnel." Mayor Kevin Dumas said the hikes are needed to keep up with costs to meet federal and state water quality regulations, increasing chemical prices, skyrocketing heat and electric costs and burgeoning debt service. Bowles said he plans to open a discussion on reducing indirect costs for each department later this year. Indirect costs are the fees the city charges to the water and wastewater departments for various services provided by other city departments. Together, the two departments pay the city more than $1 million in indirect costs. Councilors also may consider requiring residents to tie into sewer lines. Meanwhile, the trash fee went down more than expected. The council voted to drop that fee to $178.32, down from $182.44. The fee was to have gone down about 1 percent, or $2.28, but Bowles said a surplus of about $22,000 allowed officials to bring the rate down more, a total of $4.12, or 2.25 percent. It's the lowest trash fee in three years. Fees have hovered around the $180 mark since the city started the pay-as-you-throw trash program, which encourages residents to recycle by charging them $1.50 for every bag or barrel of trash after the first bag or barrel which is covered by the trash fee. Before that program was started, the fee was $204 per year.
Post Your Comments Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:52 AM: " " ... supply and demand." " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:51 AM: " Seekonk is looking smarter and smarter for not tying in. Imagine the uproar from them if they got nailed with higher rates, even though they are using less. So much for the law of suplly and demand. It seems the city of Attleboro has reduced this law to a J.R. Puff-N-Snuff fable. What did they call this in the 80's Reaganomics I think! " ricknkim wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:44 AM: " attleboroconcerned - what does this nonsense have to do with the water and sewer fees going up? I think the board you are looking for is located in the soap opera section. As for the water & sewer fees, I think there had to be some gap closers for the budget and unfortunately this hits the consumers while they are down. Not sure there is a real alternative for this year. However, when the recession recedes and the budget looks healthier - do they roll back those rates??? " AttleboroResident wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:06 PM: " Residents of Attleboro, there is an alarming statement in Mr. Rhodes article. Councilors also may consider requiring residents to tie into sewer lines. should strike fear in anyone who maintains a private system. This is a threat that we will be forced to pay thousands of dollars to connect to the public system as well as tripling or quadrupling the current fees we pay for water. I have finally finished paying the $5, 500 for the lovely sewer pipe that sits in front of my property. I have absolutely no desire or ability to pay another $5,000+plus to use it. Mr. Rhodes, I look forward to future articles on this subject. Keep the public informed. " joeforcitycouncil2009 wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:44 PM: " Hello: I wanted to comment on this as its something I feel about strongly about. While I dont agree with the increase in the sewer in water costs - this increase is coming while be are facing a huge budget deficit here at the local level. While I dont agree with it - I agree that there was no way around it during this fiscal year. Joseph Lazzerini City Council Candidate www.joeforcitycouncil.com - You can see how I stand on current issues by visiting my campaign website. " harry hindsight wrote on Jun 15, 2008 11:24 AM: " Sorry, but the thought was that the city water is metered, not the water commming from your own well. " harry hindsight wrote on Jun 15, 2008 11:23 AM: " Just a thought. What would be the provision for those with well water on their property plumbed into their house for usage? If a resident has both city water and their own well discharged into the city sewer system, it is then possible to get your waste water processed for free since only the water commming into each residence is metered, not the water going out. " Kim Allard wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:31 PM: " Harry Hindsight I couldn't agree more! Unfortunately not everyone does. " socal1 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:30 PM: " Harry-of all the comments that were made today, your last one was by far the most succinct and is truly the answer in a nutshell. I raise my glass to you. Seriously, great comment! " harry hindsight wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:15 PM: " Uhm, I thought we were talking about increased water and sewer fees. Drink less, flush more! " Kim Allard wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:18 PM: " To the public attleboroconcerned is also Mr. King. These continued attacks on me seem to be all he has to do. Mr. King has tried to charge me with many things all of them have been investigated and found to be untrue. As for the no trespass order that was served by the Bristol County Sheriff's Office and I am willing to provide a copy to anyone who would like it along with all police reports regarding these allegations. Mr. King continues to attack me and in the process is hurting my children. Public office is a choice I made for myself but my children should not be subjected to this slander. I hope you can see Mr. King for what he is and if you have any questions please call me at 508-222-3733 I would be happy to provide any records asked for. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:13 PM: " attleboroconcerned, Are you sure you are posting on the right page? " attleboroconcerned wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:07 PM: " " to the public: We will copy and paste the below article each day until the the Mayor, Kim and Chief Pierce explain to the people of Attleboro. Also Chief Pierce why do you refuse to give Mr. King the records he has sought over the last years. Mr. King calls you a criminal with a badge. From the documents I have read I support such. Officers of the APD are great and good public servants but your Chief is dirty and corrupt " " attleboroconcerned wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:06 PM: " " To Kim: First we are not friends with Mr. King. History Lesson: The Bristol County Sheriff has no record, you lied! Remember Jim Hanley and John Davis going to court for stupid stuff not friends of the Mayor or yours. Nothing happened. But today Mr. King gave me copies of the Attleboro Police Reports listing you as a subject in theft of property and FBI reports showing this is true also in the FBI reports the records show that indeed your husband (ex) did assualt and threaten Mr. King. The records also state that the Mayor may have order the APD not to pursue the investigation into the criminal acts of you or your husband. The last article you had planted in the Chronicle said Mr. King has a stay away order for the Mayor's Office the FBI report this was issued by the City Attorney and issued because Mr. King was seeking information under the freedom of information act and the Mayor wanted it stopped so Mr. King was issued the order. FBI report stated that Mr. King only four times and since the Mayor and You did not not the public to know you and the Mayor covered up your criminal acts. To the Public: Do not believe this letter writer call the APD Cpt Poria or the FBI in Lakeville. Also Mr. King stated that if anyone wants copies they may call him at 508-222-3966. " " Markus wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:39 PM: " The city targeted the one thing you can'do without, water. And killed two birds with one stone. " Markus wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:11 PM: " Bill tell that to the oil companys. And what happens in a long term drout when you don't have the water to spare??? " BillB wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:33 PM: " socal1 is correct. It takes a certain amount of fixed cost to operate the water and sewer departments, therefore the more you sell, the lower the cost per gallon. The biggest expense in the water department, for example, is personnel and debt service, which make up 78% of the budget. These are fixed costs. It takes the same number of people to operate the department, even if water usage varies by wide margins, and debt service reflects past committments. The chemical costs varies slightly with usage, but again it still takes a certain amount of chemicals to treat our water supply. The best approach to reducing cost is to get a handle on the indirect costs, which we will be addressing later this year. Increased usage would also help. Having more people tie-in to the sewer system would help, but I would not support making it mandatory. We have probably hit the high point, and costs should go down as the debt service from the Water treatment Plant and the new Sewer Treatment plant begins to subside. Bill Bowles " Auk wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:32 PM: " Any corporation willing to buy the water/sewage treatment plants would be doing it to make a profit. We citizens of Attleboro own these plants, selling them to a "for profit" company doesn't sound like a good idea to me. " markus wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:25 PM: " Looks like I'll be heading down to the river bank to do my laundry and dishes, and take a chance on bathing. I'm not paying for the cities screw ups, and expensive lamp post that's going to cost me. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:12 PM: " forrestking, I beleive they tried to get Seekonk and they turn the city down becasue of tie in fees and cost of operation. Socal1, I beleive what you state, but the law of supply and demand just doesn't justify this practice. Maybe that's why the waste water plant is in trouble. They are charging more for less of a service. With this train of thought, those that conserve are charged more for this practice. So lets turn on our sprinklers, open up those hydrants and fill those pools! " forrestking wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:06 AM: " what about selling the water/sewer department some towns and cities have done this. Some with and some without good results. If everything is on the table the city should consider this " socal1 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:40 AM: " Harry-it does seem logical that an increase in treatment volume would increase cost. But this is not always the case. An example of this is during water shortages-the cities do a good job promoting reducing water use and the citizens respond. Volume of water sold drops and so does the water dept's income stream. With a reduced income stream water dept. has less money to meet their financial obligations. Water dept is forced to increase their rates in order to increase their income stream. I know it sounds illogical but it happens. I'm not saying that the following statement is the case, but may be Attleboro's water treatment facility is not functioning at full capacity and therefore it can handle more waste without increasing its cost and therefore without increasing the rate. Its fixed cost will be the same at or below full capacity. " Kevin h. wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:59 AM: " "Councilors also may consider requiring residents to tie into sewer lines." GET OFF OUR F'ING BACKS!!!!! Less government, not more, is the answer. p.s. You do this and you will surely LOSE your job next election. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:26 AM: " "Councilors also may consider requiring residents to tie into sewer lines." How is that going to lower costs? There would be more product to treat? All that does is force more people to pay for a service they may not need. Wouldn't it be cheaper if less residents were using the system, less burden. If more residents had septic systems, then there would be less going to the treatment plant. I say let the residents put in their own septic tanks and lessen the burden and cost of opertation of the waste water plant. " or
|
