Waterbury residents say proposed water-rate hike would hurt seniors, renters; call for credits and more transparency

A public hearing on proposed water rates drew a steady stream of citizens on May 11, with speakers ranging from homeowners who described chronic brown water and lost service to seniors who said a steep rate increase would be unaffordable.

“Liars, cheats, and crooks,” said Dominic Deino Jr. of 105 Norris Street, one of the first speakers, repeating a charge he used throughout his testimony as he described water outages at his home and said he could not afford a large rate increase. Residents frequently invoked affordability and public-safety concerns — including whether low pressure could hinder fire response — and several urged aldermen to delay or scale any increase.

The board’s chair opened the hearing by noting confusion on social media about the size of the increase: the budget packet provided to aldermen shows an average annual increase of about $130 for the “average homeowner,” not the $400 figure some posts claimed. Neither the board nor the mayor’s office took a vote at the hearing; the chair emphasized the purpose of the session was to receive testimony.

Speakers told repeated stories of service failures that shaped their message. Jennifer Gondola said she was without water for nearly two weeks after a main break and remains anxious about whether it is safe to bathe in her home; she asked the council to consider a credit for affected households. Faith Alowski, who identified concerns about both infrastructure and the process that placed the current water superintendent on the job, said publicly reported information that a superintendent faces criminal charges raises immediate questions about vetting and oversight.

Other residents, including renters and property owners, warned that higher water costs will be passed on to tenants and could accelerate displacement. Several urged a phase‑in approach and expanded affordability programs for seniors and low‑income households.

Corporation Counsel Angela Giuliani reminded attendees that a public hearing is for testimony and not for back‑and‑forth debate; she also outlined the remaining budget schedule, including department hearings and a June vote on the overall city budget. The board said the water rate itself is not before them for a vote that night and that there will be further opportunities for public input as department hearings continue.

What happens next: Aldermen and staff will review testimony and the mayor’s budget proposal during the posted budget process. The board set a second public hearing date for the wider budget on May 26 and continues department‑level hearings through late May before final votes in June.