Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Water District Relief topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Small Pillsbury Lake water district asks state to pay $355,000 in loans to avert unsustainable customer rates
Summary
Representatives asked the Senate Finance Committee to appropriate $355,000 to retire loans taken by the Pillsbury Lake Village Water District, arguing remaining ratepayers face bills averaging about $2,500 a year; DES staff described technical and regulatory limits that make replacement by private wells costly or infeasible.
Sen. Dan Innes told the Senate Finance Committee that residents served by the Pillsbury Lake Village Water District in Webster face unsustainably high bills and sought a one-time appropriation to pay off roughly $355,000 in district loans for piping, filtration and a possible new well.
Innes said the district’s original system dates to the 1960s and now serves roughly 37 customers after many users left the system. “The district borrowed a couple $300,000 to cover some upgrades,” he said, outlining piping upgrades (~$155,000), filtration (~$105,000) and an optional new well (~$65,000) described in committee materials.
John Marigenis, a Webster resident and member of a local community water advocacy group, told senators the high bills are borne by a shrinking customer base and urged one-time relief: “We're here today ... hoping that you'll support the one-time effort to relieve us of the loans.”
Brandon Kernan, administrator of the Drinking Water and Groundwater Bureau at DES, said the district fell from about 130 homes originally to 37 customers and that the average bill on the district is “around $2,500 a year, where the state average is closer to $900 a year.” Kernan and the bureau’s engineering chief explained regulatory limitations for pre-1967 lots of record: while older lots can sometimes accommodate a single-family well and septic, modern separation and site requirements mean drilling a compliant replacement well could require deep steel-cased, grouted wells and cost tens of thousands of dollars per household.
Witnesses and senators debated whether the state should make a one-time payment to retire the district’s loan debt or leave financing to local voters and property owners; proponents emphasized environmental and public-health risk if homeowners were forced to install septic systems or nonstandard wells on small lots. The committee asked DES and the district for more information; committee staff also advised consultation with the Department of Justice about the legal status of original ratepayer obligations for system debt.
The transcript shows the appropriation request was described as a single, non-lapsing payment to retire the loan; no public roll-call vote on the measure appears in the hearing record provided.
