LONGMEADOW — After what was billed as a single-quarter increase to the meter cost component of Longmeadow water bills, the Select Board debated whether to continue with the higher price for the last quarter of fiscal year 2025. Ultimately, the board decided the fiscal benefit was not worth going back on its promise to water users.
On April 7, the Select Board voted to increase the water meter rates from a quarterly $17.50 for the average customer to $31.54 for the third quarter of FY25. A similar adjustment was made for the fixed cost component of sewer bills. The adjustments were made to cover the shortfall left over from an FY24 change in billing practices.
Town Manager Lyn Simmons said the town can expect significant increases in its water costs in FY26, which begins on July 1. After discussing this with Finance Director Ian Coddington and DPW Director Sean Van Deusen, the consensus had been that lowering the water meter cost for one quarter, only to have to increase in for FY26 would give residents “whiplash.” Instead, they recommended leaving it at $31.54 for the fourth quarter.
Additionally, leaving the water meter rate at the elevated level would generate $177,000 in revenue and Van Deusen said the town needs several water infrastructure projects.
Select Board Chair Vineeth Hemavathi said the change in April was made based on the expectation that it would only be for one quarter. “We tell residents one thing” and to “then go against that expectation,” was something he was not comfortable with.
Select Board member Mark Gold was hesitant to vote on the matter without seeing information of the impact to water customers. He was concerned it would be “more than our residents can handle.”
However, Select Board member Josh Levine said an extra $24 for water customers would not result in whiplash. However, like Hemavathi, Levine said he was “uncomfortable going back on” the board’s promise that it was a one-time increase.
Fellow Select Board member Andrew Lam said he recognized the need for revenue and that the approach was “reasonable” and “incremental.”
Select Board member Dan Zwirko said issues around water rates and increasing costs have been known for 12 years. “Of course, we’re not going to address it in one quarter,” he said.
Simmons said the recommendation to keep the meter cost elevated was not meant to solve the issue all at once. However, she warned that the extra revenue from another quarter at the higher rate was “a drop in the bucket” compared to the “staggering” costs that the town will face beginning in July.
Gold was adamant that the last quarter of FY25 should not be used to address the needs of FY26. That would be handled when the tax rate is set in June, he said.
Zwirko asked what impact the revenue would have on the DPW’s projects. Van Deusen said all water projects have been paused because there is not enough money in the retained earnings account to bond for them. There are “significant vulnerabilities” and multiple water mains are expected to need repair if there is a “hard winter.”
“The reality is our system is broke,” he said.
Gold pushed back, saying the funding cannot be used until it is approved by Town Meeting in the fall, at which point revenue from FY26 will be available. But Simmons contended, “We cannot make plans for money that doesn’t exist.” Gold countered that bonds can be undertaken based on “anticipated revenue.”
The board voted to allow the meter costs to revert to the levels they were at in the first two quarters of the year.
The board plans to set its FY26 water rate at a future meeting. That rate discussion will be based on the results of a water and sewer rate evaluation study performed by consultant Tighe & Bond.
At the May 5 Select Board meeting, Tighe & Bond Project Manager Jess Gilbert presented the study results. Gilbert said the goals of the rate evaluation study performed by Tighe & Bond were to evaluate rate structure options, their customer impact and to anticipate what increases from Springfield Water and Sewer Commission might be expected. The study also looked at how to maintain stable retained earnings accounts for water and sewer, and spread rate increases over several years.
Water bills are based on two components — a per-unit rate that depends on how much water is used and a fixed meter cost. The meter cost varies by the size of water line a customer has. Most water customers, 86%, have either a 5/8-inch or ¾-inch line.
Water rates are determined by dividing the amount it costs to provide water to customers by the number of water units that are expected to be used in the fiscal year. Gilbert said water expenses are expected to rise from about $4.25 million in FY25 to more than $8.5 million by FY29, largely due to infrastructure and capital costs. Tighe & Bond recommended a minimum of $1 million in the water retained earnings account, which largely funds infrastructure.
Based on the town’s existing water fee structure, Tighe & Bond proposed a residential water rate increase from $5.50 per unit in FY26 to $8.60 per unit in FY29, while quarterly meter fees for most customers would rise from $35.35 to $55.65. With this plan, Longmeadow could stagger the increases over time and build its retained earnings account to $1 million in that time.
However, Tighe & Bond recommended changing its structure to limit the portion of a water bill that is based on the per unit cost and increase the amount of the bill that is based on the fixed meter cost. Doing so would create more reliable revenue for the town and a tiered water rate for customers. For FY26, Gilbert said it would vary from $2.60 for those who use the least water, up to $5 for the heaviest water users. By FY29, the range would be between $3.85 per unit and $7.70 per unit.
Meanwhile, the FY26 quarterly meter cost would be $65 for 5/8-inch water line customers and $81.35 for those with ¾-inch pipes. By FY29, those costs would increase to $100.15 and $125.20, respectively. Customers with larger lines would pay higher meter fees. The impact on the average water bill would be an additional $.50 per day under the existing structure and $.35 per day with the alternative.
Sewer costs would be structured similarly, with the fixed cost accounting for more of the bill than the per unit rate.
