While we are still in the resolution-making business, let’s resolve that Great Barrington will tackle—or at least make a valiant effort to address—Housatonic water and workforce housing in 2024. The town has certainly not ignored either situation, but we should agree that there remains room for improvement. Although both present enormous challenges, let’s resolve to work together—each will require voters’ support—for marked change in the year ahead.
Of the two, the most immediate issue is the Selectboard’s consideration of the purchase of Housatonic Water Works (HWW) from the Mercer family. Immediate because the Department of Public Utilities has agreed to stay its consideration of HWW’s pending rate hike request and various parties’ objections thereto only until February 29, the deadline set for the parties to file a settlement agreement concerning HWW’s current disputed rate case. The settlement agreement will presumably set forth the terms of the town’s offer to purchase HWW, which leads to the question: How much should the town agree to pay the Mercers for HWW?
The Selectboard has been investigating what it should cost to purchase HWW since at least 2021. In 2022, the Selectboard commissioned an appraisal of HWW. Probably to the dismay of everyone, the appraiser opined that, as of January 1, 2023, HWW’s fair market value was $2.3 million, likely more than the town would like to spend and less than the Mercers would like to receive. Of course, the Mercers no doubt preferred the $2.3 million valuation to the August 2021 engineering firm’s estimated value of HWW’s system, which came in at a negative $25.2 million. The August 2021 analysis was in line with AECOM’s June 2021 evaluation prepared for the Selectboard, which concluded at the time that HWW required a bit more than $31 million in capital improvements, or about $35 million adjusted for inflation today.
Watching the Selectboard thread the HWW purchase needle will be a sight to behold. The $2.3 million valuation opinion sets the price ceiling; the Selectboard certainly cannot support paying more for HWW than its appraiser opined. Of course, one could reasonably argue that the town should pay nothing for a system with an estimated negative value of $25.2 million requiring about $35 million in capital improvements over the next 20 years, but nothing, even for a decrepit water system, is unrealistic. As reflected in the valuation report, there is value in HWW’s access to the Long Pond Reservoir water supply, in its poorly maintained water treatment facility, in its million-gallon storage tank, in its low-pressure fire hydrants, and in its nearly 20 miles of aging pipes. For that, the Mercers no doubt expect to be paid something in the $2.3 million ballpark, whether by agreement or through an eminent domain proceeding. Whether voters at Town Meeting will agree remains to be seen.
Assuming the town and the Mercers agree on sale terms (not a given based on the tortured history of the town’s effort to purchase from the Mercers the 27-acre parcel where the transfer station now sits), there will remain the Town Meeting hurdle in which two-thirds of voters will need to approve issuance of a bond to fund the purchase. Getting two-thirds of any group to agree on the time of day is tough enough, so imagine how hard it would be to get two-thirds of the town to agree to give the Mercers even $1 for HWW.
We can foresee that town residents obtaining water from the Great Barrington Fire District Water Department (GBFD) or wells (the vast majority of the town) may want nothing to do with funding HWW’s purchase if it means enriching the Mercers or sharing the cost of implementing HWW improvements. We already know that, on behalf of its 1,725 ratepayers, GBFD has stated it isn’t interested in touching HWW with a 750-foot pipe, although integration with GBFD makes the most sense. If GBFD remains a hard “no” on integration, a purchased HWW presumably will be managed by a newly-formed enterprise fund (a municipal entity funded by its users, such as GBFD) to undertake the necessary improvements. Thus, the post-Mercers’ HWW—let’s call it the Housatonic Water District, or HWD for short—will be saddled with $35 million in necessary capital improvements over the next 20 years to be shared among HWD’s 850 ratepayers, or about $100,000 per ratepayer (including interest). Ouch. And that $100,000 per ratepayer doesn’t include HWD’s ratepayers’ share of the bond to purchase HWW, presumably shared by all town residents, but perhaps only by HWD. Ouch, again.
One thing as clear as HWW’s water is murky is that the current HWW situation cannot continue. No doubt some will quibble with paying anything to the Mercers, but not buying and improving HWW is out of the question. The village needs clean, non- halocetic acid-laced (HAA5) water, and the entire town should agree to share in the cost of cleaning up the HWW mess. Let’s put aside how we got here and resolve to get this done.
As for housing, 2024 brings new opportunities to address the lack of workforce housing in Great Barrington. The Planning Board has been considering member Pedro Pachano’s proposal that the town create a “by right” zoning corridor for any proposed housing project of nine or more units along that portion of Route 7 with town water/sewer service. Mr. Pachano’s common sense zoning-change proposal deserves passage to jumpstart the housing construction the town desperately needs. The proposed change addresses developers’ reluctance to sink potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars into the town’s special permit application process without assurance of an ability to proceed. Permitting developers to proceed “by right”—that is, without the need for a special permit, variance, zoning amendment, waiver, or other discretionary zoning approval—should stimulate multi-family construction. While no panacea, the proposal intends to make multi-family housing development in Great Barrington less of a gamble, a necessary step.
Assuming Mr. Pachano’s proposal is approved by both the Planning Board and Selectboard, as it should be, the town will have its say at Town Meeting. To get the required two-thirds approval, we will need to change our tune about the gospel of single-family homes. Great Barrington needs to expand both its mix of housing stock and its concept of acceptable housing. Mr. Pachano’s proposal has been implemented statewide in Oregon, California, Washington, Montana, and Maine, each of which having ended single-family zoning laws to promote affordable housing. Mr. Pachano’s far more limited proposal should do for Great Barrington what has been successfully tested around the country: providing greater affordable housing options. Let’s resolve to do everything we can to implement Mr. Pachano’s excellent proposal.