No one can reasonably suggest that Sharon Gregory is not well meaning. Outside of the three involved towns’ select boards, Ms. Gregory has been the loudest voice and the most persistent force trying to resolve the Housatonic Water Works (HWW) conundrum. Until now, Ms. Gregory’s efforts have been laudable and beyond dispute. No one questions whether Ms. Gregory’s heart is in the right place.
But let’s not confuse admirable intent with wisdom. Goodwill is not the same as good judgment. While Ms. Gregory’s longstanding commitment to addressing HWW’s malfeasance is unquestionably commendable, the two articles she has proposed for the April 17 Special Town Meeting are ill advised. Doing nothing would achieve the same effect—at no cost to the town. [Author’s note: For your convenience, angry missives can be sent to petermostiswrong@gmail.com.]
It gives me no pleasure to criticize any sincere effort to fix HWW, but this effort is not that. This column has never been a friend to HWW or its owners, having repeatedly called out their missteps and misstatements. But we should resist the reflex to assume that any effort aimed at HWW is necessarily wise.
Instead, let’s take a clear-eyed look at the two articles proposed for the April 17 Special Town Meeting. Are they a genuine step forward—or just a headline-grabbing gesture spotlighting an obvious issue?
Article 1: Great Barrington Fire District Acquisition
Article 1 calls for the acquisition of the Great Barrington Fire District (GBFD) for an amount not to exceed $2 million—seeking to acquire the water system, its facilities, and property rights, and then to consolidate GBFD and HWW into a single water system.
What could possibly be wrong with acquiring GBFD and merging the two systems? Let me count the ways.
1. The not-to-exceed price is a meaningless placeholder—not a thoughtful plan.
There is no fair market valuation, no accounting for potential liabilities, and no consideration what a sale would mean to GBFD’s current ratepayers.
Why $2 million? Why not?
But million-dollar acquisitions of water utilities require more than nice round numbers and good intentions. They require analysis, negotiation, and a concrete, executable plan, all lacking here.
2. The article wants to pay $2 million for GBFD. It will soon have $5 million in debt.
Bondholders tend to get testy when you propose paying them 40 cents on the dollar. Unless paid in full, bondholders will protest (well, litigate). No one can reasonably argue the bondholders will willingly transfer GBFD’s $5 million debt onto the books of a merged enterprise. No bondholder would trade secured GBFD paper for anything within a country mile of HWW. Not that you could lawfully proceed—ignoring debt covenants is essentially a full-employment plan for attorneys. (So, not all bad.)
Article 1 doesn’t grapple with the real-world ins and outs—the what-have-yous and wherefores—of the town acquiring GBFD’s assets and liabilities. The legal complexities are significant yet unaddressed.
3. GBFD is an independent municipal entity governed by Massachusetts law.
GBFD is governed by the Prudential Committee, which owes a fiduciary duty to the enterprise with consideration of its 1,750 ratepayers. Separate entities cannot be acquired by a wishful vote of the town. Article 1 assumes legal and logical steps that are anything but simple. For good measure—and with about the same legal effect—the article might as well tack on the acquisition of Alford. Or Greenland, which is currently fashionable.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the article invokes Massachusetts State Statute 1886, Chapter 311 as the supposed statutory authorization to acquire the municipal entity. That provision pertains solely to the non-existent Berkshire Heights Water Company, making the article not just legally deficient but arguably ultra vires (so, not just your typical vires).
Voting to approve the acquisition based on the wrong law makes Article 1 unenforceable as a matter of law.
4. Estimated value of combined GBFD and HWW would be underwater.
In 2021, the town commissioned DPC Engineering to assess the value of GBFD combined with HWW. At that time, DPC placed the combined entity’s value at a negative $35.2 million. Four years later, neither HWW’s prospects nor water quality have improved, so we can assume the value is now closer to a negative $40 million. Shouldn’t saddling the town’s ratepayers with a combined $40 million liability require more discussion than a Special Town Meeting affords?
5. GBFD has already said, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
The town may be in for disappointment if it gets down on one knee with the marriage-of-utilities proposal. At a recent roundtable discussion with Ms. Gregory, GBFD Water Commissioner/Chair Walter F. “Buddy” Atwood III addressed the proposal directly. In short: not interested. “We already had a vote. Answer was ‘no.’” For the sake of everyone involved, that seems like the kind of answer worth considering before proposing.
6. An advisory opinion masquerading as a consequential vote.
Folks will line up at the Special Town Meeting to speak in favor of merging GBFD with HWW. They will vote, pleased to have had the chance to do something. But did they actually do anything, or is this just a mirage? There is no purchase agreement to approve, GBFD is not for sale, and, according to Ms. Gregory, there was no analysis behind the offered amount: “I didn’t want to [] say zero, so I said $2 million, and that’s how I got that, so that were was going to be some flexibility in the negotiation.”
Article 2: Acquisition of Housatonic Water Works Company
This article calls for the acquisition of HWW for an amount not to exceed $2.3 million to acquire the water system and property rights and then place HWW into a new GBFD division.
Same question: Why not pay $2.3 million and merge the system? Well, consider the following:
1. The not-to-exceed price is meaningless.
HWW is for sale, and the $2.3 million offer amount was driven by the 2024 DPC Engineering appraisal commissioned by the town which, coincidentally (or perhaps not), matches the fair market valuation previously provided by Raftelis in 2023. But consider that appraisals commissioned by purchasers are interesting only to the purchaser. Just because two town-hired appraisers came to the same valuation should not lead one to conclude that HWW agrees.
2. Should the entire town want to purchase HWW?
AECOM reported in June 2021 that HWW needed $31 million in capital improvements, a figure that likely now sits closer to $35 million to $40 million, factoring in construction cost inflation. Great Barrington has roughly 3,300 households—about 1,750 served by GBFD, another 750 served by HWW, and approximately 800 on wells. Would it be equitable for the 2,550 households that don’t receive HWW water—or the 800 who use no municipal water at all—to shoulder their share of a $40 million bill?
As a community, we must provide clean water to everyone, just as we strive to provide good schools, paved roads, and functioning bridges. These shared assets support the entire community. However, homeowners who sank $20,000 into drilling a private well may find the additional burden of HWW’s remediation costs unpalatable. How shall we work out their reasonable concerns?
Beyond that puzzle lies another: Should all ratepayers bear the cost of remediation equally? Or should HWW customers—who through no fault of their own benefited for years from artificially low rates that failed to fund basic maintenance—be expected to shoulder a larger share of the burden?
These are questions worthy of greater consideration than would be afforded at the Special Town Meeting. We can presume—but not obvious from the articles—that only ratepayers will pay for the acquisition. Too many questions are left unanswered for this article to proceed.
3. What is the point of this exercise?
On December 19, 2024, the town engaged Eric Krathwohl, an attorney with deep experience in public utility purchases, to represent Great Barrington in ongoing negotiations with HWW. While it is frustrating that the negotiations are taking place behind closed doors, we know that the Selectboard is actively engaged. Calling a Special Town Meeting has not suddenly put this on the town’s radar—we know this because it is the first item on the town manager’s weekly report to the Selectboard. If these articles are simply the result of an urge to do something, it is an expensive urge.
The Special Town Meeting Warrant is a half-baked idea posing as a solution. Proposing to purchase two utilities and working out the details later is neither a plan nor good governance. Residents of Great Barrington who depend on reliable water delivery—nearly everyone—deserve assurances more substantial than “everything will work out” before committing to an overhaul of two utilities into one.
We have not considered the implications of seeking authorization to spend up to $4.3 million despite the reality that the town is already pressed firmly against its levy limit. This budget season, both town and school administrators had to pare back worthy expenditures. That the transfer station was briefly considered for closure to save approximately $80,000 speaks volumes about the town’s fiscal constraints. Yet while the Selectboard and Finance Committee have spent months painstakingly wrestling with budget issues, these two articles have the temerity to suggest only that “if you buy it, $4.3 million will somehow materialize.” Buying two utilities deserves greater financial diligence.
The April 17 Special Town Meeting is unhelpful. It risks giving voters the illusion that something has been done. We might as well shout at the rain. The only difference is that when the skies eventually clear, we will convince ourselves that we had a hand in changing the weather. After the Special Town Meeting, nothing of consequence will have changed—not a pipe replaced, not a dollar saved, not a drop of water improved. When the issues surrounding HWW are ultimately resolved, these votes will have played no part in the solution.
Survey Monkey Question
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Does holding a performative Special Town Meeting bring us any closer to fixing HWW?”
Survey Monkey Results
Here is the result of the following recent survey question: “Will the Attorney General’s failure to uphold the Settlement Agreement influence your vote in next year’s election?”
As of publication, 54.55 percent said, “Yes, I will definitely vote against the Attorney General.” 31.82 percent said, “Yes, it will factor into my decision.” 4.55 percent said, “No, but I am disappointed with the handing of the issue.” 9.09 percent said, “No, this issue will not affect my vote.”
