Newburyport City panel delays water and sewer rate vote as members debate dam phases, design risks and intermunicipal cooperation

Sarah, a city staff member, told the Newburyport City water infrastructure ad hoc committee that she had learned the council would not vote on proposed water and sewer rates at tonight’s meeting, saying the rates can be set by the end of the first quarter of FY27 and applied retroactively. "I got word this afternoon we will not be voting on the water and sewer rates tonight," she said, adding the delay gives the newly formed ad hoc committee time to weigh in.

That announcement framed an extended discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan. Committee member Lisa Medina Smith flagged a possible amendment to cut Project 3, the wastewater treatment relocation, noting that any change would still have to go through a formal motion and vote. Other members pushed back that separating design and construction for linked projects can create problems, and several urged keeping related design work together rather than breaking phases across different years.

The committee spent significant time on Project 20, described as phase two of the Indian Hill raw water line. Staff recommended funding full design in FY29 to align with phase-one construction funding; several members argued the two phases should have been designed together. As one member put it, "If you don't know what you're connected to once phase one is done, then you can't do phase two," emphasizing interdependencies among design choices, land rights and later construction needs.

Janet Daisley, introduced earlier in the meeting as a Conservation Commission member and former chief of staff at the Conservation Law Foundation, raised technical concerns about plastic (HDPE) pipeline materials and certain installation methods. Daisley said she had observed long periods of standing water and high temperatures in sample pipe, expressed concern about chemical leaching and asked that the city secure a peer or technical review. "They missed my question. I didn't say there was P‑FAS. I said, 'It's hormone uh disparity in the ... plastic components,'" she said, and urged project managers to bring engineers or contractors back to answer unresolved technical questions.

Members also flagged large shifts in early cost estimates for the lower-dam work, saying conceptual estimates that once ranged near $10–12 million have moved toward $40 million as concept designs grew more detailed. Several speakers warned that proceeding with only phase-one design could limit options and raise total costs later, and called for stronger coordination so that funding and design decisions reflect the projects’ interdependence.

The meeting also touched on intermunicipal cooperation with West Newbury. Andy, a staff member, summarized that West Newbury had signaled reduced cooperation under the existing intermunicipal agreement (IMA), which could affect wholesale/retail rate negotiations and land‑use coordination tied to water supply. Committee members said those external negotiations could influence what the city commits to for growth and supply and urged an early start on IMA discussions.

No formal votes were taken on rates or CIP amendments during the meeting. Committee members agreed to pursue peer review on technical questions, to reconvene the ad hoc committee (first meeting scheduled for Monday) to vet CIP priorities, and to ask staff to prepare materials — including a suggested Gantt/project timeline — so members can track design, permitting and funding milestones.

The committee agreed to revisit funding and design priorities in the fall as part of an accelerated CIP schedule intended to align budgeting and ad hoc review.