Haroutunian, Carol v. City of Watertown Department of Public Works (June 11, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
CAROLYN HAROUTUNIAN 	v. 	CITY OF WATERTOWN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
Docket No. F347793 	Promulgated:
June 11, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	filed 	under 	the 	formal 	procedure 	pursuant
to 	G.L. 	c. 	40, 	§§ 	42A 	through 	42F 	and 	G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§§ 	64 	and 	65,
from 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	City 	of 	Watertown 	Department 	of 	Public
Works 	(“appellee” 	or 	“DPW”) 	to 	abate 	water-usage 	charges 	imposed
on 	Carol 	Haroutunian 	(“appellant”) 	for 	the 	quarterly 	periods
commencing 	July 	1, 	2021 	and 	ending 	January 	3, 	2022 	(“period 	at
issue”).
Commissioner 	Bernier 	heard 	this 	appeal. 	He 	was 	joined 	by
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Elliott, 	and 	Metzer
in the decision for the appellee.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.1
Carol Haroutunian, pro se, for the appellant.
Jeffrey Blake, Esq., for the appellee.
1 This citation is to the regulation in effect prior to January 5, 2024.
ATB 2025-165

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the
hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the
following findings of fact.
This 	appeal 	arose 	from 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	appellee 	to 	abate
water 	bills 	for 	the 	period 	at 	issue 	for 	water 	usage 	at 	20 	Parker
Street, 	Watertown 	(“subject 	property”), 	which 	was 	owned 	by 	the
appellant. 	The 	original 	water 	bills 	were 	issued 	on 	November 	12,
2021, for the period July 1, 2021 through October 1, 2021 (“Q1”),
in the amount of $7,826.55 subsequently reduced to $5,432.97, and
on 	February 	14, 	2022, 	for 	the 	period 	October 	1, 	2021 	through
January 	3, 	2022 	(“Q2”}, 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$ 	2,152.54 	subsequently
reduced to $1,687.40. Not satisfied with the reduced amounts, the
appellant 	timely 	filed 	an 	application 	for 	abatement 	with 	the
appellee, 	which 	was 	denied 	on 	December 	7, 	2022. 	The 	appellant
seasonably 	filed 	an 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board 	on 	March 	7, 	2023.2 	The
balance 	in 	water-usage 	charges 	for 	the 	period 	at 	issue 	remains
unpaid 	and 	has 	become 	a 	lien 	on 	the 	subject 	property. 	The Board
therefore 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
decide this appeal.
Ms. 	Haroutunian 	testified 	that 	she 	does 	not 	reside 	at 	the
subject property and that during the period at issue she lived in
2 The appellant's petition was stamped as received by the Board on March 9, 2023,
but the petition was mailed in an envelope postmarked March 7, 2023. Under G.
L. c. 58, § 7, the Board used the postmark date as the date of filing.
ATB 2025-166

Florida 	and 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	rented. 	Ms. 	Haroutunian
further testified that for the quarterly period immediately prior
to the period at issue her water-usage charge was $339 and she was
unaware 	of 	any 	reason 	for 	such 	a 	drastic 	increase 	in 	water 	usage
other than a faulty water meter. She maintained that she had “good
tenants” 	and 	if 	there 	had 	been 	a 	leak 	of 	any 	type 	resulting 	in
excessive 	water 	usage, 	as 	suggested 	by 	the 	appellee, 	her 	tenants
would 	have 	notified 	her. 	On 	cross-examination, 	Ms. 	Haroutunian
conceded 	that 	she 	had 	not 	visited 	the 	subject 	property 	in 	the
summer 	of 	2021 	and 	was 	not 	aware 	of 	evidence 	of 	water 	damage,
including tiles near a toilet having been replaced.
The appellant then called to testify Russell A. Roland, whom
she offered as an expert. The appellee objected based on the lack
of prior notice and also failure to provide a Curriculum Vitae for
Mr. 	Roland. 	Mr. 	Roland’s 	testimony 	was 	allowed 	subject 	to 	the
appellee’s 	cross-examination 	and 	the 	Board’s 	evaluation 	of 	his
expertise. Mr. Roland testified that 422,512 gallons of water over
a six-month period of time, the appellant’s billed water usage for
the period at issue, is “far too much to be attributed to a leak.”
He further testified that such an “absurdly high” number “clearly
has to be an issue with the meter.”
On 	cross-examination, 	Mr. 	Roland 	testified 	that 	his
experience 	was 	limited 	to 	working 	for 	companies 	that 	provided
software 	to 	utilities. 	Mr. 	Roland 	also 	testified 	that 	he 	had 	not
ATB 2025-167

visited the subject property and did not therefore see the bathroom
where the toilet in question may have been leaking. The Board found
no value in Mr. Roland’s testimony because he is neither an expert
in 	the 	subject 	matter 	nor 	is 	he 	a 	factual 	witness 	since 	he 	never
visited the subject property.
Greg St. Louis, Superintendent for the DPW, testified for the
appellee. Mr. St. Louis testified that in the summer of 2021, the
DPW 	received 	a 	“System 	Notification” 	about 	unusually 	high 	water-
usage 	at 	the 	subject 	property. 	He 	further 	testified 	that 	it 	was
the department’s policy to send written notice to the address where
the water was consumed and that review of records for the subject
property 	indicated 	that 	written 	notice 	was, 	in 	fact, 	sent 	to 	20
Parker Street, Watertown.
Mr. 	St. 	Louis 	testified 	that 	the 	appellant 	had 	originally
been 	charged 	the 	“highest 	tier” 	water 	rate 	given 	the 	volume 	of
water that was consumed for the period at issue. He explained that
taxpayers 	who 	consume 	more 	water 	are 	charged 	a 	higher 	rate 	to
promote conservation. Having received the system notification for
the subject property and determining that the high water-usage for
the 	period 	at 	issue 	seemed 	to 	be 	inadvertent, 	in 	comparison 	to
previous water-usage bills for the subject property, the appellee
reduced the appellant’s water-usage bills for the period at issue.
Lastly, 	Mr. 	St. 	Louis 	testified 	when 	DPW 	was 	granted 	access
to the subject property there were no tenants. During their visit,
ATB 2025-168

they made note of water damage in a bathroom that was most likely,
they opined, from a wax ring seal around the toilet that had given
out 	and 	had 	been 	leaking. 	Further, 	they 	noted 	evidence 	of 	tiles
having been replaced. Lastly, the DPW staff tested the water meter
and found that it fell within the standard accuracy parameters of
plus or minus two percent.
On cross-examination, Ms. Haroutunian asked Mr. St. Louis if
“such a small leak” as a toilet could amount to 422,512 gallons of
water, 	the 	usage 	on 	her 	water 	bills 	for 	the 	period 	at 	issue. 	Mr.
St. 	Louis 	replied 	that 	while 	a 	leak 	such 	as 	the 	one 	thought 	to
exist at the subject property may not create much usage in a single
day, 	it 	“certainly 	would 	over 	a 	period 	of 	time 	… 	six 	months” 	in
this case.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the
appellant did not sustain her burden of proving that the disputed
water-usage charges were excessive. In reaching its decision, the
Board 	found 	probative 	and 	credible 	the 	evidence 	that 	there 	had
existed at least one leak when employees of the DPW gained access
to the subject property and noted evidence in a bathroom of water
damage 	and 	subsequent 	repairs. 	Further, 	the 	appellant 	offered 	no
probative 	evidence 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	billed 	amounts 	were
excessive.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in
the instant appeal.
ATB 2025-169

OPINION
Water-usage charges not paid on or before the due dates shall
be 	liens 	upon 	the 	real 	estate 	to 	which 	the 	water 	services 	were
supplied 	and 	“shall 	be 	added 	to 	or 	committed 	as 	a 	tax.” 	G. 	L. 	c.
40, 	§§ 	42A 	and 	42B. 	A 	taxpayer 	aggrieved 	by 	a 	water-usage 	charge
“may apply for an abatement by filing a petition with the board or
officer 	having 	control 	of 	the 	water 	department” 	and 	if 	such
petition 	is 	denied 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	taxpayer 	“may 	appeal
to 	the 	appellate 	tax 	board 	upon 	the 	same 	terms 	and 	conditions 	as
a 	person 	aggrieved 	by 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	assessors 	of 	a 	city 	or
town to abate a tax.” G.L. c. 40, § 42E (emphasis added).
General Laws c. 59, § 65 provides in pertinent part:
A 	person 	aggrieved 	. 	. 	. 	with 	respect 	to 	a 	tax 	on
property 	in 	any 	municipality 	may, 	subject 	to 	the 	same
conditions 	provided 	for 	an 	appeal 	under 	section 	sixty-
four, 	appeal 	to 	the 	appellate 	tax 	board 	by 	filing 	a
petition 	with 	such 	board 	within 	three 	months 	after 	the
date 	of 	the 	assessors’ 	decision 	on 	an 	application 	for
abatement as provided in section sixty-three, or within
three 	months 	after 	the 	time 	when 	the 	application 	is
deemed to be denied as provided in section sixty-four.
Accordingly, within three months after denial or deemed denial of
an 	application 	for 	abatement 	of 	unpaid 	water-usage 	charges, 	the
owner may appeal to the Board. See Epstein v. Executive Secretary
of 	the 	Board 	of 	Selectmen 	of 	Sharon, 	22 	Mass. 	App. 	Ct. 	135, 	137
(1986).
ATB 2025-170

In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	there 	was 	no 	dispute 	that 	the 	water-
usage 	charges 	for 	the 	period 	at 	issue 	remained 	unpaid, 	resulting
in a lien on the subject property. See Epstein, 22 Mass. App. Ct.
at 137. The Board also found that the application for abatement of
the 	water-usage 	charges 	was 	timely 	filed 	with 	the 	appellee 	and
that the appellant seasonably appealed to this Board within three
months 	of 	the 	denial. See G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§§ 	64 	and 	65. 	Accordingly,
the Board ruled that it had jurisdiction over this appeal.
The 	burden 	of 	proof 	is 	upon 	the 	appellant 	to 	make 	out 	its
right as a matter of law to an abatement of an assessment of water-
usage charges. See e.g. Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington,
365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974). The appellant must demonstrate that the
water-usage 	charges 	on 	the 	bills 	are 	improper. 	See Foxboro
Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982);
Epstein, 22 Mass. App. Ct. at 136. The charges are presumed valid
until 	the 	appellant 	sustains 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	otherwise.
Lacerra 	v. 	Harwich 	Water 	Department, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact
and Reports 2008-1325, 1333.
In the present appeal, the Board found that the appellant did
not 	sustain 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	disputed 	water-usage
charges were excessive. In reaching its decision, the Board found
probative and credible the evidence that there had existed at least
one 	leak 	and 	noted 	evidence 	in 	a 	bathroom 	of 	water 	damage 	and
ATB 2025-171

k~
~&flfUC
subsequent 	repairs. 	Further, 	the 	appellant 	offered 	no 	probative
evidence to demonstrate that the billed amounts were excessive.
“[The 	Board 	can] 	accept 	such 	portions 	of 	the 	evidence 	as
[appear] to have the more convincing weight.” Assessors of Quincy
v. 	Boston 	Consol. 	Gas 	Co., 	309 	Mass. 	60, 	72 	(1941). 	“The 	[B]oard
is 	not 	required 	to 	believe 	the 	testimony 	of 	any 	particular
witness.” 	Id. 	“The 	credibility 	of 	witnesses, 	the 	weight 	of
evidence, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters
for the [B]oard.” Cummington School of Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of
Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).
On 	this 	basis, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellant
failed to meet her burden of proving that the water-usage charges
for 	the 	period 	at 	issue 	were 	excessive. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Board
issued a decision for the appellee in the instant appeal.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By:
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-172