Dear Editor:
On Tuesday, October 6, Parsippany’s Town Council will conduct a public hearing and a final vote for passage of Ordinances 2020:28 and 2020:29, which will increase water and sewer rates by 39%, effective immediately upon passage. I believe that the ordinances, as written, require improvements in several areas before the council considers them for adoption. These areas include reducing the proposed rates to just what is necessary, transparency, and clarifying wording that deals with the rate effective date.
First, and most importantly, I believe that a 39% rate increase is excessive, based on the revenue that needs to be raised. To illustrate this point, $3.4 million must be withdrawn from the sewer utility fund in order to make ends meet in the 2020 sewer budget. However, if a 39% rate increase is enacted, sewer fee revenues will increase by $5.6 million annually. This $5.6 million is enough to cover the $3.4 million that is currently being withdrawn from the fund balance, with $2 million left over. When the 39% rate increase was originally proposed by the utility consultant, at least two members of the council objected to the size of the increase. Well, their initial reaction was warranted and is supported by the numbers. The council should scale down the size of the rate increase to an amount that is just sufficient to cover the fund balance withdrawals, plus a little extra to cover contingencies.
Regarding transparency, how can the public comment on the rate increases when the amount of increase is not even specified on the ordinance summaries that appear in the council meeting agenda? The ordinance summaries should clearly state that there will be a 39% increase across the board for both utilities. A rate increase of that magnitude will surely generate a lot more feedback than a standard 2% increase. In addition, the full text of the ordinances mentions several reasons why the utility rate increases are necessary, but perhaps the biggest reason is conspicuously absent. There is no mention of the almost $18 million that has been transferred from the utility budgets to the general budget over the last ten years. I think that the public would also like to know that the proposed 39% rate increases do nothing to eliminate these transfers.
Lastly, I think that the wording which says that the ordinance will take place immediately upon the final passage needs to be more precise. Specifically, the wording needs to describe what will happen when part of the quarterly bill is for usage at the old rate and part at the new rate. If the entire bill will be charged retroactively at the new rate, the ordinance should make that clear.
Before the council members cast their final vote on these ordinances, I ask that they consider the suggestions listed above, and amend the ordinances accordingly.
Bob Venezia
Parsippany
