Approximately 25 Depot Road residents turned out at the Water Commission’s April 9 meeting to voice their outrage over a possible $25,000 betterment fee, a fee that is typically charged when a public project increases the value of specific properties. The betterment in question would be provided by access to public water from the pipes that were installed along the length of Depot Road as part of the $7.1 million project to connect Harvard’s municipal water supply to the Devens water system.
Commissioners explained that they had not yet had a chance to discuss the proposed betterment, and Chair Cindy Russo told the group that she would not recommend betterments for Depot Road residents. The commission will make the final decision at a future meeting.
On Feb. 5, Department of Public Works Director David Smith told the Water Commission that, based on his research of recent betterment fees for water service in nearby towns, he suggested a fee of $25,000 for residential properties along Depot Road. While nothing was decided at that meeting, residents said they read about the meeting in the Harvard Press and were shocked to learn that the town was even considering a betterment fee on their properties.
The first Depot Road resident to speak during public comment, Jeff Ostaszewski, said the intent of the water connection project was to bring better water to town center. Depot Road, he said, was “just a pass-through.” He added that he did not recall any discussion of betterment fees at the February 2023 Special Town Meeting where the project was first approved by the town. Other residents echoed that sentiment, saying they had voted to support the project, and betterments were never mentioned.
The topic of betterment fees was first introduced at a Nov. 20 meeting of the Water Commission, about five months after the project started. Chair Cindy Russo started the discussion by saying, “We know we need to do a betterment [fee], and we know we need to do a connection charge.” Town Administrator Dan Nason agreed, saying that the fee shouldn’t be used to cover the entire cost of the project, as it is in some towns, because connecting Depot Road residents to public water was not the purpose of the project. But he added that there should be a “nominal” fee to cover the increase in property value that the new water main will provide to Depot Road properties, whether they connect or not.
During the November discussion, Russo brought up the sewer betterment fees that were charged to town center residents when the town center sewer system was created in 2012. At that time, each residence was charged $18,700 per betterment unit, which was based on number of bedrooms, with an option to pay the fee immediately or over a period of 20 years. But she also pointed out that the sewer betterment was different because there was an agreement made in advance with residents in the new sewer district regarding the maximum betterment fee they would be charged.
Before the meeting last fall ended, Russo suggested that Nason research neighboring towns who have done recent water betterments to get an idea of what they charged. But, she added that this “really is a different kind of thing,” because the purpose of the project was to benefit the town center. The new line, she said, was just an added benefit to Depot Road residents.
A research-based recommendation
At the Feb. 5 meeting, when Smith presented the results of the research he and Nason did and gave his $25,000 recommendation, Russo reiterated that the people who are benefiting the most from this project are the 100 or so customers who currently rely on town water, which is contaminated with PFAS. Nason said he was concerned about the need to set a precedent for any future expansions to the water system, but both Russo and member Kyle Hedrick agreed that this was an “unusual situation” involving two sets of people that benefitted: the residents, businesses, and municipal facilities (including the schools) in town center who will receive safer water, and the people on Depot Road who, as a side benefit of the project, will have access to public water.
The commission did not meet again until last week. Much of the public comment from the Depot Road residents who attended that meeting centered on the absence of any advance communication about betterment fees from the commission. Beth Gaffan said the Town Meeting vote to support the project “would have looked very different” if betterment had been “on the table.”
Linda Ferguson said the cost of the new system should be spread throughout the town, much like the cost of education is. Jennifer Slavin said that asking each of the 37 property owners on Depot Road to pay a $25,000 betterment fee, which would amount to $925,000, was like asking 37 residents to finance the Tier 1 override of the entire town budget.
Russo recommends no betterment fee
After about 20 minutes, Russo responded to comments, saying she felt bad that everyone was upset. She said the commission was also surprised by the $25,000 recommendation. But, she added, “Not only have we not decided, we haven’t discussed other than hearing the proposal.”
Russo said that since the Feb. 5 meeting, she had been doing research to understand the state’s betterment laws, and she had also asked several questions of Town Counsel Mark Lanza, including whether a betterment could be put on town center residents as well. Lanza told her the homes, businesses, churches, and municipal facilities in town center were bettered by the project.
But, Russo said, there was a problem. She said the right way to do water betterments is to do it by dwelling units. However, Harvard has never adopted Massachusetts General Law 40, Section 42K, which allows water betterments to be done that way. So, in order to levy a betterment fee, she said, the town would have to consider some combination of road frontage, setback, and assessed property values.
Russo said she didn’t think that method of calculating betterments made sense for the Depot Road properties, and, combined with the fact that residents were not given advance knowledge, she recommended no betterments. “I don’t think it’s doable, and I don’t think it’s necessarily fair,” she said. She added that, to support infrastructure improvements in the future, the town should produce a clear betterment policy, and it should be public so everyone knows and understands it in advance.
Hedrick said he didn’t think the town should completely abandon betterments, but he said he was shocked when he first heard the $25,000 figure. And he reiterated that the commission had not discussed the topic since the Feb. 5 meeting, because to do so would have violated Open Meeting Law.
As the meeting grew more contentious, member Chris Mitchell told the crowd that the commission needed time to discuss the proposal. “I think you heard from the chair that she doesn’t feel it’s appropriate given the circumstances. I think you heard from me that I’m leaning that way. We need to do our job,” he said.
