(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

I am writing to register my disagreement with the proposed Fire Suppression Charge.

I disagree not with the concept of having some fee, but rather with the excessive amount of the fees.  Beyond mere self-interest (the building we live in has a fire suppression system), I feel that private sprinkler owners are being unfairly targeted as part of addressing a systemic problem with our water system.

By way of comparison, local cities and towns Arlington, Boston, Cambridge, Framingham, Norton, and Springfield all have such fees.  But their fees for, e.g. a 4″ pipe, average $371 annually.  The Somerville proposed fee for the same 4″ pipe is $1,240 annually.

I attended the Public Hearing held at 6:30 pm, May 14th 2018 at the Somerville High School cafeteria.  The meeting was informative, and Water and Sewer Department Director John DeLuca gave a clear background overview of our water system’s problems.  Surprisingly, not a single Alderman was in attendance.

I understand from Mr. DeLuca that many of our water “mains” are 100 years old, and need to be proactively replaced, not simply reactively repaired when they fail.  Further, I understand that fire suppression systems (which I believe include residential fire suppression sprinkler systems along with public fire hydrants) require sufficient water pressure to function usefully.  This leads to a theory that private fire suppression system owners should shoulder some part of the burden imposed by, presumably, creating a requirement to replace aging pipes either sooner than otherwise, or with bigger new pipes than would otherwise be needed.

(I further learned that some relatively small percent of the annual operating budget of the Water and Sewer Department gets spent on the servicing associated with residential fire suppression systems — I don’t see any fairness issue expecting those of us causing those operating budget costs to pick up those costs and would welcome greater visibility into what these costs are.)

So far, so good.  It is fair to expect us to shoulder costs associated with our sprinkler systems. I support Mr. DeLuca’s efforts to get our system on a better path, and am willing to pay my fair share to that end.

But I left the Public Hearing with several misgivings and unanswered questions:

1) While arguably a building equipped with a fire suppression sprinkler system is safer for residents and firefighters (in fact the National Fire Protection Association shows a 67% safer outcome for firefighters in a sprinkler-equipped building), our City financial structure whereby the Water and Sewer Department is meant to pay its own way means that any safety gain, cost or harm avoided, or even lives saved by sprinklers, as a benefit, cannot be used by the Water and Sewer Department to offset whatever the costs might be of servicing said sprinklers.    This budgetary division, while no doubt based on sound financial governance principles, makes sense assuming a well-managed system.  But…

2) Manifestly, we have not had a well-managed water system.  We apparently have not been proactively replacing pipes and mains, and instead have allowed our infrastructure to age beyond reasonable life.  This lack of professional management, no doubt extending back many decades, is now on all of us to deal with.  But to expect us now to bear extra costs for that failure, while previous generations took a “free ride”, seems unfair.  Minimally, I would expect a more long-term transition plan, to bridge the gap between that accrued “infrastructure debt” toward a properly maintained water system.  This mismanagement of the water system infrastructure cannot be blamed solely on the Water and Sewer Department.

3) Mr. DeLuca was unable to provide the underlying cost-model that produced the proposed fees at the meeting.  I don’t think it is fair to apportion costs to a minority of property owners (600 of us, apparently) without letting us see how those costs were calculated.  Furthermore, I want to know if the cost of maintaining adequate pressure to the City’s fire hydrants was part of the formula or not.  The City would have to maintain that fire hydrant pressure even if none of us had sprinkler systems.

4) Another fairness issue — buildings with sprinklers burn slower and cause less harm to people and property.  They also spread fewer fires to neighboring buildings.  This benefit of sprinklers is why we now mandate them for some buildings.  Why should those living in buildings without sprinklers enjoy a free ride by having safer buildings in their neighborhood yet shoulder none of the costs?  How is this fair?

In closing, I think there are many potential inequities of charging a minority of City property owners a fee that is several times larger than neighboring towns.  Presumably those towns manage to maintain their water systems with these more reasonable charges, and so I can only surmise that we are being unfairly asked to shoulder too much of the burden of a mismanaged past.  I know we all have this problem together, and as a loyal resident of Somerville, I will be happy to pay my fair share of fixing our ailing water system.

But please do not target those of us with safer buildings, who already shoulder the costs of annual backflow inspections and other ongoing costs, to pay many times the fee of neighboring cities and towns.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey Robbins
Somerville