Water and Sewage

Issue summary

On December 15th, the Board of Aldermen voted to permit residents to purchase an “Outdoor Water Meter” that will allow for separate metering of outdoor water use effective July 1, 2015.  Any resident wishing to obtain a second meter to qualify for this summer’s new rate structure must register with the City of Newton Utilities Division by April 1, 2015.  The installation of this second meter can be done at any time; however, we are asking that you register your intent to install a second meter by this date so that we can account for these impacts when we review Water & Sewer rates in May 2015 for the FY 2016 budget.

A second meter would only measure outdoor water use, such as water that is used to wash cars, fill pools, or water lawns and gardens and would cost each household approximately $750-$1000 for installation.  The City has “estimated” that most residents who use at least 40 HCFs of water outdoors during the warmer weather months may want to consider investing in a second meter. 

 

If you already have a second meter, you still must register with the Utilities Division by April 1, 2015 in order to quality for this summer’s new rate structure.  For more information on obtaining a second meter, to view your past water usage and billing history and to register with the Utilities Division for a second meter, please visit www.newtonma.gov/secondmeter 

A calcualator will be up on the city's website to allow citizens to see if they will save with two meters. Here are some links to various viewpoints:

Newton aldermen set to vote on second meter option Newton TAB article

Stormwater Plan, Water & Stormwater Rates Make Progress League of Woman Voters explanation

Proposal will cuts costs for heavy lawn waterers, increase everyone elses’ Village 14 BLOG by Greg Reibman Newton/Needham Chamber of Commerce

Docket item

NYT article on advances in water conservation by California cities
 

Comments

48 rental units under 40B 105 parking spots with access onto Karen road

The Beacon and Chestnut St intersection. is already too congested. We would contribute to stop this development. Developers make promises, but the reality of the finished project is always worse than what was proposed

Oakvale Road, unfortunately, is a private road and therefore is not maintained by the city. It is the cut-through of choice for vehicles going to Karen Road. Residents of Oakvale have been suffering the destruction of Oakvale's pavement by hundreds of construction trucks since the McMansioning of Karen Road started 10 or 12 years ago. So far, none of the developers has taken responsibility for mitigating the damage. We anticipate that this will get even worse during the project at St. Philip Neri. We would like to propose an agreement with the developer of St. Philip Neri that they will either send their trucks down a public street such as Montclair or Moffat rather than Oakvale, or repave our street when they are done with their project.

Residents of Oakvale are also concerned about the amount of traffic that will pass daily over our deteriorating private road once the multi-housing project is completed. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss with the city and the developer ways to mitigate this problem, and would like to be included in “near neighbor” meetings. Possible solutions to the problem include: establishing Oakvale as a one-way street from west to east, on the model of nearby (private) Roslyn Road; putting the ingress to the new development on Short/Beacon Street rather than Karen Road; having the city make Oakvale a public road without charging the abutters for the improvement; or by some other means.

I asked several questions at the end of May 6th meeting at the WC which was attended by approximately 140 people to get a sense of where people stood after the presentation.

  1. How many were involved in the meetings the developer held prior to the May 6th meeting? Less than a dozen raised their hands
  2. How many were in favor of the current proposal? About a dozen raised their hands
  3. How many were opposed? 80-90% raised their hands
  4. How many would favor a design that had half as many units and preserved the Church structure? 50-60% raised their hands.