The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. All letters must be signed. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or not publish any letters received. Letters do not represent the views or opinions of the Post. editor@thereadingpost.com
To the Editor:
At the November Town Meeting, an Instructional Motion was presented by TM member David Zeek, which directed the Town to develop a new water and sewer pricing structure for multi-family units. The motion was approved and adopted by Town Meeting. Below is the text from the Post regarding the motion: “Town Meeting member David Zeek presented an instructional motion directing the town to develop a water and sewer pricing structure that treats multi-family units in buildings such as apartment buildings and condominium complexes as separate units as opposed to one building and that the Town Manager report the results to Town Meeting. The issue, Zeek explained, is that residents of these buildings are being charged for water at the highest tier rate, even though their usage would warrant lower rates if they lived in single-family homes. According to Zeek, twenty percent of the residents of Reading live in multi-family housing. He used the example of the Postmark building where there are no tier four or five users, but every unit in the building is billed at the tier five, or most expensive, rate. “Tiered rates are more effective and more equitable when they account for differences in customer type,” Zeek shared in his presentation.”
In June, the Select Board voted for new water rates (a presentation was included in the Select Board packet) but no additional changes were made to water rates for muti-family buildings. They were discussed, as was briefly the idea of a pilot program for allowing second/outdoor meters. Select Board member Karen Herrick stated that her priority was for the Town to work on the issue of rates for multi-family units first, as that effects many seniors.
Yet Select Bard Chair Carlo Bacci has made the issue of second water meters his priority, and has placed this as an agenda item for tomorrow (9/24) night’s Select Board meeting: “Discuss and Vote to allow second water meter pilot program.” As with so many other agenda items Chair Bacci wants to push through without any real discussion or comment from the public, he has not provided any information in the packet for the Select Board or residents to look over in advance. Shouldn’t the Select Board discuss what a program might look like, before voting on it? Shouldn’t the real discussion happen at one meeting, and the vote at a later meeting, to allow the public to weigh in? That is not Mr. Bacci’s way. He has called for a vote in the past even when a majority of the Board has stated that they do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision. When previously asked why nothing was in the packet regarding a topic, Mr. Bacci has stated that “motions aren’t put into the packet.” I expect he will say the same thing Tuesday night if asked why no information was provided in advance. Mr. Bacci will once again say, “we don’t put motions in the packet.” Jamming items through without sufficient information to make an informed vote was a tactic I witnessed first hand for over a year on SWEC, a committee on which I served, which Mr. Bacci chaired. Mr. Bacci pushed through votes which had to be re-taken at a later meeting, for violating Open Meeting Law.
Town Meeting has directed the Select Board to work to make adjustments to residents of multi-unit buildings, but Mr. Bacci’s priority is lower the sewer bill of residents with sprinkler systems. Any adjustment and lowering of those bills will cause an increase in the rest of Town residents’ bills. And we all are responsible collectively for maintaining sewer pipes and the entire water system. How many towns allow second meters? Not many I think, but there is no information in the packet. What would a program look like? No idea, no information in the packet. The issue of how MWRA charges the Town for sewer is complicated and the possibility of a second meter program deserves full vetting, which Mr. Bacci appears to be against. When can the public weigh in on this information and these details? Only after a vote has been taken. That seems quite deliberate to me.
Full disclosure – I do not have a sprinkler system but i do have a pool, and could benefit from a second meter, but I am against them. I urge the select Board to table this issue until the larger issue of multi-unit water rates has been resolved, and more information is provided to fellow Select Board members and the public, and we all have a chance to weigh in on the issue.
Sincerely,
Angela F. Binda
Orchard Park Drive, Town Meeting member
