16:12A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing a betterment assessment for the sewer commission, aimed at addressing financial deficits caused by the leeching field’s replacement. The board explored various financial strategies, including the possibility of implementing a betterment assessment that would charge new users a fee while existing users might see a charge at a reduced rate. This approach was considered due to the understanding that current users had already benefited from previous services. Concerns about the legality and fairness of charging existing users the same as new users were raised, with an emphasis on ensuring that any charges were legally defensible. One voice in the meeting highlighted the significance of justifying charges based on property improvements, stating, “Your property is being bettered by that improvement.”

18:08The dialogue revealed disagreements on whether the proposed charges were equitable, with some participants arguing that existing users should not be charged the same as new ones due to their prior access. The financial burden of replacing the leeching field was also a focal point, with questions raised about the town’s responsibility in managing these costs, especially given the constraints imposed by a water moratorium.

The impact of the water moratorium on the sewer department’s funding sources was another concern. This moratorium, imposed by the water department, restricted new connections, thereby affecting potential revenue streams for the sewer department. The discussion revealed frustration among participants, with assertions that the water department’s actions were beyond the town’s control and that relying on new connections for funding was unreasonable under the current restrictions. The debate over the water department’s authority and the rationale for the moratorium was marked by one participant challenging, “I don’t believe they have the power.”

Further financial discussions included the complexities of betterment assessments and operational fees. The board grappled with the challenges of maintaining equity in charging for sewer services, particularly given the varying benefits received by current versus future users. Proposals were made to consider a depreciation model for cost allocation.

14:10Attention also turned to user fees, usage fees, and septage revenue as pivotal components in the town’s financial calculations. The board acknowledged the need for a transparent process. A potential $2,000 charge for existing users receiving limited benefits was discussed, contrasting with higher amounts for new users. The conversation underscored the necessity of balancing financial implications with the town’s need to maintain a balanced budget and ensure free cash certification.

The session further examined the town’s broader responsibilities, including strategies to manage existing debt while preparing for future connections once the water moratorium is lifted. The board considered various strategies, such as charging new users once connections are permitted, which could potentially reduce fees for current users. In exploring these options, the board highlighted the importance of establishing a formula for calculating fees, emphasizing equitable distribution based on equivalent residential units (ERUs).

27:50As discussions progressed, the board recognized the need for clarity in structuring fees to ensure they adequately cover expenses. Suggestions included offering multiple charge codes based on ERUs to accommodate varying levels of service and usage. The potential for interest income on funds within the enterprise fund was also mentioned as a means of providing additional budgeting flexibility.