Newport officials want residents to approve almost $5 million to build a new water tower and other infrastructure — a move that would end services with the Village of Derby and, according to city leaders, free up future development.
“Our goal is to make sure we have no cap, that we control how much water we can use,” City Manager Laura Dolgin said last week.
The tower, with a 210,000-gallon tank, would be scheduled for construction in 2022, funded in part by a federal grant.
Since the late 1990s, Newport has gotten water for its eastern industrial park near Derby Road from Derby Village, which owns a water company. The agreement allocates 10,000 gallons per day for the city.
Relations between the two municipalities over the water issue have fractured in the years since — including a court battle that lasted from 2009 to 2017 — and Newport officials want out.
Derby Village officials, though, have made public appeals to Newport voters ahead of the bond decision slated for Town Meeting Day, March 2.
“We’d be happy to supply virtually unlimited water to city customers, negating the need for an expensive water tower,” wrote village trustees Rosaire Fortin and Stephen Mengel in a letter published Jan. 31 in the Caledonian Record. “The city only has to agree to pay the same rate as our village/town customers pay.”
Village attorney Christopher Smart called the outreach a neighborly act. But city officials find it inappropriate — and believe the village wants to retain the current agreement so it has leverage over the city.
“They want everything they can get out of the city of Newport at our expense,” said City Public Works Director Tom Bernier.
The original agreement came about because Newport wanted business development in its eastside industrial area, but the area is uphill from the city, and Newport didn’t have the infrastructure to pump enough water there.
Officials from both communities signed the agreement in 1997. After the village changed its water rates in 2006, bumping up the cost for Newport, the city went to court. In turn, the village claimed the city had underreported its water use and connected unauthorized customers to the water supply.
The village ultimately prevailed in the legal battle, and as part of a settlement agreement in 2017, the city paid Derby Village $50,000. The settlement also said the city would pay $30,000 to the village when Newport was ready to disconnect from the village water line.
That same year, the city asked voters to approve a $3 million bond to build a new water tower, among other projects. But that measure failed, 154-136.
This time around, Dolgin said, the city has changed the proposal in hopes of persuading voters: The water tower was originally planned on property the city bought in Derby; the new location is in Newport. And the new proposal includes a water metering system for the city, which officials say will give customers more control over their water bills.
“It’s very important for us to be able to do that so that there’s equity,” the city manager said.
The proposal also includes a new liner and floating cover for a water reservoir on Palin Hill.
It should come as no surprise to the village, Dolgin said, that the city wants its own water for the industrial park.
“So why are they coming back and trying to have another bite of the apple? You have to question one’s ethics,” Dolgin said, referring to public statements by Derby Village trustees.
“For them to continue to come back … and try to interject themselves in city business, that to me is a glaring demonstration of why the city needs to be independent from them,” the city manager said.
She said the city wants to make sure that Newport officials have complete control over supplying their water needs if new businesses want to set up at the industrial park.
Three or four years ago, she said, a soy company was interested in building in the park but backed away because its water needs couldn’t be guaranteed. City leaders don’t want that to happen again.
Newport and the village get along on other issues, Dolgin said, but “this is one area that is very serious. The ship has sailed, the separation agreement has been signed, and we’re moving forward on doing what we said we would do.”
Smart, the village’s Montpelier attorney, said the village isn’t trying to tell Newport residents what’s best for them.
“The village’s position is that it’s kind of like the good neighbor policy, which is like, ‘Hey, look, if you want to save a lot of money, we have lots of water under great pressure, which we’d be happy to sell,’” he said.
He said the village is prepared to offer the city at least 100,000 gallons of water per day, 10 times what’s allocated in the current agreement.
Any suggestion by the city that Derby Village doesn’t have enough water for Newport’s needs is misleading, he said.
But Bernier, the city public works director, said the amount of water is a minor issue in the debate.
The city has an agreement allowing Derby village to send 150,000 gallons of sewage per day to Newport’s treatment plant. Bernier believes the village will need to exceed that amount at some point, and he thinks Derby will try to withhold water from the industrial park as a negotiating tactic.
“Again, the village is looking out for the village, and it’s time the city looked out for itself,” he said. “We need to control our own destiny.”
Smart said he and village officials don’t understand Newport leaders’ fears about control.
“There’s no control; there’s no bells or whistles,” he said. “It’s just, the water would be supplied, and you’d be on the same rates as everyone in the town is.”
He added, “It’s really strange because there’s almost like this feeling like they’re the victim here. I find that fascinating; they breached the agreement, and then they made unlawful connections … and we’re the ones saying, ‘Look, we’ll still be a good neighbor to you.’”
Though the debate is playing out between public officials, it’s Newport residents who will make the decision. City councilors held a public hearing Monday on the topic, and a second hearing will be held March 1, the day before the vote.
Dolgin said she wants residents to understand that city officials want to make this investment for Newport’s future.
“This has been decades in the making,” she said, “and we’re at a serious point to be able to proceed.”
