One item at the meeting was an discussion on reinstating an outside water meter program to help seniors monitor outdoor water usage without incurring sewage charges. The current system, which replaces outdoor meters with interior meters, has led to issues such as freezing and discrepancies in readings, according to Chris Chera, Superintendent of Public Works. The interior meter system allows for a separate account for seniors, maintaining their discount tiers based on usage, with a 30% reduction for those using less than 25,000 gallons.

Concerns were raised by Councilor Joanne McKenna regarding the $400 cost of the interior meters, including installation, which could be burdensome for seniors. The discussion revealed that several seniors had already invested in hardwired meters, leading to potential confusion over the possible reinstatement of outdoor meters. Councilor Anthony T. Zambuto voiced frustration over the matter, emphasizing the need for a solution that avoids further financial strain on seniors.

Councilor Marc Silvestri praised efforts to support long-term residents but stressed the importance of finding additional cost savings for homeowners. Drawing from his experience as a past DPW superintendent, he echoed concerns about the reliability of outdoor meters and the issues that had arisen from their use, including fraud and incorrect readings. He advocated for exploring ways to reduce the cost of the interior meters, such as waiving the plumbing permit fee or negotiating lower installation costs.

The financial implications of providing these meters to seniors were detailed by City Auditor Rich Visque. He noted that supplying the meters to the estimated 1,257 users would cost approximately $1.1 million if provided for free. He suggested a more practical approach, proposing that the city consider waiving the $55 permit fee, amounting to about $70,000 in total, and offering a 25% discount on the meters to seniors, which would cost around $120,000. He emphasized that installation costs could vary depending on each household’s specific situation and suggested allowing seniors the freedom to choose their plumbers to potentially secure better rates.

The debate revealed a consensus among council members to support seniors while recognizing the need for a sustainable approach that mitigates the risks posed by outdoor meters.

During public comment, a resident named Linda expressed frustration over the inability to replace broken outside meters and the higher installation costs of inside meters. Another resident, Deb, echoed these sentiments, pointing out that seniors who had incurred expenses to switch to inside meters were now facing the prospect of not being able to use them for deducting water usage, adding to their distress.

The council also discussed a proposed composting pilot program aimed at reducing waste sent to landfills. The ordinance, presented as an opt-in program, would allow residents to voluntarily participate in food scrap disposal, converting the waste into usable byproducts for farming or gardening. The program included a sliding scale for costs.

Councilors expressed their perspectives on the environmental benefits and logistical concerns of the composting initiative. One councilor highlighted familiarity with waste management contracts and expressed support for the program, citing its voluntary nature and potential for cost savings. Concerns were raised about the implications of widespread composting in residential areas, with one councilor voicing apprehension about attracting pests and unpleasant odors. A counterpoint suggested starting the composting program within schools to serve educational purposes and community engagement.

Tom Scosi, Chief of Planning and Community Development, provided insights into the logistical aspects of establishing the composting program. He explained that the city was exploring various pricing structures from service providers and mentioned efforts to secure additional funding through grants, including those from the USDA and the EPA.

The council also considered a motion to amend the water rates for owner-occupied multifamily properties. The motion aimed to provide relief for those managing four, five, and six-family homes, emphasizing the difference in treatment between these homeowners and absentee landlords. The proposal sparked debate, with some councilors expressing skepticism about the motion, arguing that rental income from multifamily properties could justify the existing water rates. An amendment was proposed to limit the reduced rates to buildings owned by senior citizens aged 65 and older.