Date: Fri 20-Oct-1995

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

sewer-assessment-council

Full Text:

Council Committee Takes Issue With Proposed Sewer Assessment

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Legislative Council members have made it clear to Water Pollution Control

Authority (WPCA) Chairman Peter Alagna that the council won't support the

WPCA's plan to assess individual homeowners only $9,600 for access to

municipal sewer lines.

Members of the council's finance committee met October 18 with Mr Alagna and

Peter Grose, the sewering project manager for Fuss and O'Neill, the town's

consulting engineers.

In recent months, WPCA members have been formulating a sewer assessment

formula intended to "equitably" divide sewer assessment costs among

residential proprty owners with access to sewers, non-residential property

owners with access to sewers, and taxpyers with holdings outside of the sewer

district.

Finding how to split those construction costs fairly among the three groups

has proven a delicate matter, as members of the various groups question what

makes for an "equitable" division of the costs.

After much review, WPCA members recently settled on a $9,600 sewer assessment

for houses with up to four bedrooms because such a figure would be

"defensible" in legal challenges against the town, Mr Alagna said.

The $9,600 figure is the amount that individual homeowners would be charged

across a 20-year period, plus a two percent annual subsidized interest rate.

Council member Melissa Pilchard said properties which receive more than a

$9,600 increase in value from access to sewers would be given an unfair

economic advanatage under a $9,600 assessment plan.

But $9,600 is an "affordable" number for people receiving sewer service, Mr

Alagna said, stressing that affordability is one of his key criteria in

establishing a sewer assessment formula.

Residential properties in the sewer district would actually gain an average of

approximately $14,000 in value after sewers are available, according to Mrs

Pilchard.

Even if $14,000 were used as the residential sewer assessment figure, it

wouldn't hold down the level of general taxation very much, according to Mr

Alagna.

Mrs Pilchard told Mr Alagna the council has a variety of spending issues to

deal with besides sewers, including library expansion and public school

expansion and renovation.

"We have to balance everything," she said.

Stressing the need to hold down the costs to residential sewer users, Mr

Alagna said the WPCA "feels very comfortable with the preferred option" of

$9,600.

"If you took a vote of the council, you wouldn't have a single member in favor

of $9,600," Mrs Pilchard said.

A Higher Assessment

Council member Pierre Rochman said town officials should be considering a

sewer assessment somwehere in the range of $9,600 to $11,500, possibly at

$11,200.

A $9,600 sewer assessment would cost residential sewers users $587 annually

for 20 years to cover sewer construction costs, Mr Grose said.

An $11,200 sewer assessment would cost $685 annually, he said.

Mrs Pilchard suggested that the assessment be set at either $11,200 or

$11,500.

Council Chairman Joseph Mahoney noted that more residents live outside the

sewer district than within it, requiring that the financial impact on those

living outside the district be considered in establishing a residential sewer

assessment.

But, Mr Algana said, increasing the assessmsnt from $9,600 to $11,000 or

$11,200 wouldn't have a significant effect on holding down the rate of general

taxation.

Mr Alagna noted that perhaps only 15 percent of the septic systems within the

sewer district have failed to work, adding that most of the people who will

have access to sewers have no septic system problems and, in effect, will be

subsidizing those in the district with septic system problems.

Burden Shift

Earlier in the sewer planning process, it was thought that the town share of

the sewer project would be approximately $17 million. But rising project costs

have put that amount at approximately $18.5 million. To hold down the portion

of the sewering project to be covered by general taxation, the town opted to

shift some of the project's financiual burden from residential to

non-residential properties.

While most "non-residential" properties are privately-owned, some of them are

publicly-owned such as schools and town halls. Thus, the amount of money

needed to cover providing public buildings with access to sewers has risen by

roughly $1 million.

Mr Mahoney said the town could cut its bonding costs for the sewering project

by approximately $1.1 million, if the residential sewer assessment were to

increase from $9,600 to $11,200.

In the past, the council had set aside $500,000 to connect public buildings to

the sewer system, but now more than $1.75 million will now be needed for that

work.

Mr Rochman said he favors some amount greater than $9,600 for a residential

sewer assessment. Such a higher number would make financial sense for the town

as a whole, he said.

The WPCA has the authority to set the sewer assessment rate. But Mr Alagna has

repeatedly said WPCA members want to cooperate with the Legisltaive Council,

the town agency which serves as the municipal finance board.

Summing up the views of council members attending the October 18 finance

committee session, finance committee chairman Joseph McGowan said the WPCA's

preferred option of $9,600 isn't supported.