BCWA Boosts Water Rates by 11% for 1 Year
The Bristol County Water Authority board can't agree on a 5-year rate plan; it agrees to a 1-year boost of 11 percent with other rates over the next few years to be determined.
Photos
The rate for using water in Bristol and Warren went up Wednesday night by a little more than a $1 a week, based on the average bill of $500 last year for drinking, showers, laundry and lawn watering.
The board of the Bristol County Water Authority raised rates by 11 percent for one year after failing to agree on any of several five-year rate plans. They actually voted down an initial motion for a one-year, 11 percent hike, too.
After failing to agree on rate hikes of 11-4-4-4-4 and 10-4-4-4-4 over the next five years, they finally got the 7-2 supermajority needed to raise the price of water for one year. Chairman Allan Klepper of Barrington suggested the one-year hike twice; he got the votes he needed on the second go-round.
“I’m pleased with the 11 percent,” said Executive Director Pamela Marchand. “It will be the one big bump for a while.”
The proposed 4 percent increases over the four years after 2013 “were never automatic increases,” she said. New battles would have been fought anyway.
But with the 11 percent rate hike, Marchand said, “we can get to the summer work on water quality, the smaller water quality projects, which will make a dramatic difference in water quality.”
The summer projects include improving pump stations cleaning and replacing water mains, she said. They are all part of a long-range strategic plan to improve the infrastructure.
The authority’s obsolete management information system also can be upgraded with the new cash generated by the rate increase, she said.
The water authority also won’t be running out of money to pay its operating expenses, she said, which would have been a possibility without an immediate and significant percentage boost in water rates.
Board members failed to agree on any of the five-year rate plans because of differences of opinion over the size of the first-year rate hike and the longer term needs for the hiring of a project manager, operating engineer and MIS professional.
Paul Bishop of Bristol suggested a 5-year plan that called for percentage increases in each year of the plan of 11-4-4-4-4.
“The system needs major work,” he said. “It will cost less than $4 a month for the average ratepayer.”
Board member Frank Sylvia of Bristol said he thought a 9-3-3-3-3 plan would still work.
Ray Palmieri of Warren disagreed.
“The system has been neglected way too long,” he said. “We need to bring it into this century.”
Robert Allio of Barrington said: “We can’t continue to just get by.” He criticized Sylvia for having an “irresponsible attitude,” which he said was making the discussion “personal.”
Allio said it is personal.
“It’s essential we support the budget, which represents the minimum rate increase needed to continue operations,” he said. “A strategic plan fails when you don’t have the resources to carry it out.”
John Jannitto of Warren thought a 9-4-4-4-4 plan would be sufficient if the board didn’t approve several new positions.
Joe DeMelo of Bristol agreed the “the infrastructure stinks” and “it’s too easy to say people can’t afford the rate increase.” But he still said he had questions about the 5-year plans and wouldn’t vote for them without more information.
Kevin Fitta of Barrington, perhaps the biggest supporter of Marchand’s effort to upgrade the water system, said he supported the 11-4-4-4-4 plan because “it is not an arbitrary increase. It’s well thought-out, recommended by professionals, and the best decision for ratepayers.
“We’re taking all the right steps,” he said. “It’s the correct path for the future.”
Bill Gosselin of Warren said he supported the 11-4-4-4-4 with two conditions: the last four years not be automatic increases, and the proposed new positions be brought back to the board before anyone is hired.
Marchand said the new positions she proposes “will save us money.”
In-house professionals will be much cheaper in the long run than hiring consultants, Marchand explained.
“We’re labor intensive, and we’re severely understaffed,” she said. “We’re not doing things adequately.”
Klepper used a quote from Winston Churchill to push for the 11-percent rate hike for one year: “We’ve got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”
Have your say: What do you think of the BCWA board's decision to approve a one-year rate hike of 11 percent? How will it affect your water bill?
Post your thoughts in the comments below.
Gary Morse
6:48 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
There is no question that the water distribution pipelines are crumbling. The fact that it got to this point given the significant health hazards deteriorating pipelines present to the community is a scandal unto itself.
To keep BCWA's overpriced operations budget out of sight, BCWA simply let the infrastructure deteriorate. Now we are paying the price. It cannot be avoided. The blame for this mess extends to a lot of parties, not just BCWA.
BCWA has been a microcosm of RI politics.
Linda
9:14 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
It is clear to me that this is another case of individuals not doing their jobs. Mr. Morse makes a good point in that the pipelines are health hazards. Instead of letting BCWA sweep things under the rug we need a real plan with looking at possible grant monies etc. BC residents approved linking up with the Prov water system. What happened to that? Where's the money. An 11 percent rate hike is extreme when given the fact that the authority has failed miserably to provide a healthy product. The thing to do at this point is get some individuals with good track records (verified) and go forward and perhaps the residents can endure say a 5 percent hike.
Still Broke
9:37 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
I just got my water bill yesterday for October to December. No lawn watering, car washing, etc. We don't even DRINK the water. (We buy the no name gallons from Stop and Shop.) $144 for 2 adults and 3 children. No wonder 24,000 people left RI; it's too expensive here to raise a family!
Still Broke
9:38 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Just did the math.. next bill will be $160!
Ray DeForge
6:05 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
WHEW!!!!! Fifty three bucks a month for laundry and bath water - - - INSANE.
When I was living in San Diego, the highest bill I got was $67. Then again, there was no way I was drinking that stuff :P
- the "Sausage King" !
marina peterson
4:27 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
At the meeting Mr. Morse made a good point about the amount of information Kent County Water was required to produce to the PUC before they could raise their rates. We got NO information until the night of the meeting. After we asked for it there was very little time to peruse it. I agree that the infrastructure is crumbling... we all know that BCWA has not put any money into the system for years and has directed it all to pensions, etc. But the thought of hiring 4 new people with this increase is not acceptable to me. Nor is the fact that they can afford to pay their counsel $375.00 an hour!!
Time to dissolve the BCWA, either have a new entity as a distribution plant, or turn it over to the PUC. When the comment is made that it costs $100,000 to get a rate hike down under the PUC... that may worth it to have accountability as to where the money is going. Just one of the positions that they are filling will be $100,000 PLUS pension, ect.
Wake up people!
Alex
6:21 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
New battles fought every year. Will that mean an 11% increase next year.
One other thing. There is a no layoff clause in that contract. I wish i had that
in my last contract before i lost my job. Really a no layoff clause!
Jack Baillargeron
6:46 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
After Marchand touted the cotract as the most excellent deals she has seen and the sacrifices made were enormous, they then admited that only 3 people can actually be layed off. Hardly a sacrifice in anyones book. Not to mention the rest of the contract is basicly status quo and golden compared to any other water authority and even teachers Unions. Shame on them all.
DownTown
6:46 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
The BCWA has the third highest water rates in the State behind only Block Island and Jamestown which are islands.
Marchand already detailed that people are not using enough water which is why they are broke.
That means the bill from the PWSB should have gone down but they are broke?
Since 2007 the inflation rate has either been negative or under 2% yet the BCWA says they are broke with all the increases that they have been given?
The BCWA is a useless leech sucking the life out of the East Bay area.
Bob Venice
7:23 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
And Downtown, it is only going to get worse, unless the Town Councils from the three towns step in and do something. The Town of Warren is hurting enough, and it would seem that an increase in taxes is not too far off. Something has got to give before my town ceases to exist. As of now, no jobs, empty stores, loss of houses, higher rates at the landfill and no help in sight. The Warren Town Council slashed their budget to the bones, while the BCWA continues to get skin graffs.
Bob Venice
7:23 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
And Downtown, it is only going to get worse, unless the Town Councils from the three towns step in and do something. The Town of Warren is hurting enough, and it would seem that an increase in taxes is not too far off. Something has got to give before my town ceases to exist. As of now, no jobs, empty stores, loss of houses, higher rates at the landfill and no help in sight. The Warren Town Council slashed their budget to the bones, while the BCWA continues to get skin graffs.
Gary Morse
8:08 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
The rates are high because of BCWA's the past problems.
Who was their legal counsel through all the bad times? Sandra Mack!
The board voted last night to re-interview all the law firms. But the illegal meeting was not because of the interviews, but because of the boards "consensus" discussions after the interviews on the 18th.
There is no need to re-interview any of the law firms, just open up the board's discussions to the public.
DownTown
8:59 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Marchand was quoted as saying people are not using enough water.
An 11% increase and no one looked at the books?
Fire up the back hoes and push it in the Bay. Water will continue to come in from Providence.
b kcaj
9:12 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Jack "The Union Hater " Baillargeron blabbed:
"Not to mention the rest of the contract is basicly status quo and golden compared to any other water authority and even teachers Unions."
Kind of like your golden pension you get from the firemen's union at the navy base. What a hypocrite you are Jack.
Manifold Witness
7:58 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” *(Winston Churchill).
*At 1/9/13 meeting BCWA shared details. Late.
BCWA FY14 operating budget vs. FY11 (“production” yr):
Chemicals DOWN by $413,580.
Sludge removal DOWN to $0.
Production labor DOWN by $373,352.
Power & gas DOWN by $50k.
Above REDUCTIONS TOTAL: $873,823.
Expenses to go up 4.5% per year for 5 yrs.
11% Rate Increase:
FY14 op budget vs. FY13 proj. actual-
MANAGEMENT/OFFICE- Salaries up $218,124 to $651,123. Add $25,000 Consultant Engineer. Legal Fees at $100k. Property taxes at $504k. Pension Exp $325k (up $133k).
Group Ins up $28k (after 'ee cont.). Consults (Actuarial, Gen & Fin., Audit) at $51k. Public Relations & Advertising up $5k. Employee Ed/Tuition up $10k. Dues & Misc - up.
PRODUCTION DEPT: Budget is up to $3,234,382. Up by $425,231. Salaries up to $382,882 ($36k-o.t.) from $378,377. “Dam Repair/Maintenance Expense” of $200k (up from $0). Meals up. Clothing up. Treatment/Labs up by $15k to $88k.
DISTRIBUTION DEPT: Increase by $180,177. Salaries up by $132,000; hydrant repairs & paving up $44,000; telephone, materials, repairs, clothing, transportation- all up.
COMMERCIAL/CUST DEPT: Expenses up $44k. Salaries up $28k. Postage & printing up $20k. Computer consultants at $60k.
Total op exp $7,933,531. Revenue:$12,000,000. Difference?: Debt service $3.4 million; RESERVES $392,000 & capital $700,000.
*The Truth
Govstench
9:08 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Perhaps residents should look into installing well water. The cost associated with the installation would be easily offset with these rate increases from this board.
Jack Baillargeron
11:15 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Just not a viable alternative for most of the customers of the BCWA Gov. Expense and location are a real problem here not to mention the problem that would happen with the water table defeating the whole purpose.
The only real and logical solution is to dissolve the BCWA and let the State take it over.
marina peterson
10:43 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
It is time to demand that a change is made to PUC oversight!
Bob Venice
5:56 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Marina, wat I do not understand, is how seven board members selected by the three towns and knowing how most of the citizens in their own towns are hurting, can approve everything that Pam Marchand wants. And as far as Pam Marchand, her ideas are to costly for a company that does not treat water. I believe the Board hired the wrong person for the Directors job. This woman will never take no for an answer
DownTown
6:33 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
And just based on their word without actually looking into it.
Jack Baillargeron
8:49 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Looking like all we have here is a female Delise who had the same kind of affect on the Board sadly.
Joseph Hutnak
9:06 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Hi folks:
I've removed a few off-topic comments — please leave the moderation to Patch staff [rather than try and engage users who are posting derogatory statements].
Thanks.