Judge Greer's Order of May 10, 2011, (below) denies the City's requests regarding civil penalties previously imposed against the City and "reluctantly" grants the City's request for additional time to complete the rehabilitation of the Witt Sewer Line, a problem known by the City for approximately six years or more. In granting additional time for rehab of the sewer line, Judge Greer sets out specific benchmarks that the City must meet. Judge Greer also notes that the City's financial problems with illegal fund transfers, etc. were the result of the City's own malfeasance. The Order is printed below with omission of citations [].
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
PATRICIA STEPHENS, ET AL.
v. CITY OF MORRISTOWN, TENNESSEE
ORDER
On April 28, 2011, this Court held a hearing on a portion of defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, []. The defendant moved this Court to alter or amend its Orders,[], and its Judgment, [], in four ways. These include: (1) adopt a new schedule for carrying out the rehabilitation of the Witt Sewer Line in accord with the defendant’s newly proposed schedule; (2) grant the defendant 45 days to install odor filters on the manholes along the gravity line between the Witt 2 and Witt 3 pump stations; (3) reduce the amount of civil penalties imposed to no greater than those imposed on Koch Foods, a former codefendant; and (4) allow the civil penalties imposed to be waived upon the defendant meeting Court-established benchmarks for completing the rehabilitation of the Witt Sewer line.
This Court decided issues two through four in an Order filed on April 25, 2011, [Doc. 328]. Basically, issue two was moot because the City installed the filters, albeit late. As to issues three and four, this Court denied the defendant’s motion. Also, regarding issues three and four, the defendant asked at the April 28, 2011 hearing that the Court reconsider its decision. This oral motion to reconsider and issue one will be addressed in turn after setting forth a brief summary of the facts and the standards of review. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s oral motion to reconsider is DENIED and the motion to alter or amend the Order, [], and Judgment, [], is reluctantly GRANTED.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Many of the facts are set forth in this Court’s April 25, 2011 Order, [], and they will not be restated here. The City introduced additional evidence at the April 28, 2011 hearing as to efforts taken by the City to secure funding for rehabilitation of the Witt sewer line.
Again, the City’s financial condition is important in analyzing the issue of whether to alter or amend the judgment as to civil penalties and the rehabilitation of the Witt sewer line. Several letters submitted by the City show that Anthony W. Cox, the City Administrator, and Lamar Dunn, an engineer working with the City, have been communicating with the State Comptroller’s Office and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”) on satisfying the Comptroller’s conditions and TDEC’s requirements for securing the SRF loan, which will fund the rehabilitation of the line.
There was evidence and testimony that the City had included the funding for the rehabilitation of the line in its fiscal year 2011 budget; however, Mr. Cox explained that the budget reflected the amount of the SRF loan which had not been secured. Evidence showed that the City tried to get permission to use other funds from another SRF loan to fund the rehabilitation of the line. Nonetheless, TDEC did not allow this. There was also evidence that the City had placed a higher priority on other projects instead of the Witt sewer line.
Perhaps the most troubling evidence presented was a letter from Mr. Dunn to Bryan Fowler, the City’s Director of Wastewater Operations, on July 30, 2009. The letter was a cover letter to Mr. Dunn’s plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of the Witt line, which the City had requested. More importantly, it states that it is Mr. Dunn’s understanding “that the City has no desire to move forward with this project at the present time.”
This evidence is most troubling because it was represented to this Court that this particular document was not produced to the plaintiffs prior to trial. Nevertheless, there is evidence presented which showed the City, after the May 2010 hearing, did seek funding and was pursuing the project. Mr. Dunn testified to a proposed schedule for rehabilitating the Witt sewer line. He proposed the following schedule:
Loan package sent to City from TDEC 04-21-11
Council action to authorize the accpetance and completion of the loan package 05-03-11 Submittal of completed loan package 05-03-11
Submittal of construction plans and specification for by TDEC 05-03-11
Approval from TDEC to advertise project for bids 45 days after receipt of plans
Receive bids 40 days after approval
Review of bids by Engineer with recommendation 10 days after of award bids
Council approval award subject to approval of TDEC first council meeting after recommendation
TDEC approval of “Authority to Award” construction 45 days after contract c o u n c i l action
Pre-Construction Conference 21 days after ATA
Contract execution for construction with Notice to Proceed 10 days after Pre-Construction Conference
Construction complete/system operational 2 3 0 d a y s after Notice to Proceed
Mr. Dunn testified that his schedule is reasonable in his opinion as an engineer with experience in this type of construction.
II. RULE 59(e) STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may be granted (1) to correct a clear error of law; (2) to account for newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law; or (3) to otherwise prevent manifest injustice. []. A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to re-litigate previously decided issues, reargue a case, or raise new legal theories. []These motions “are not the proper vehicle to attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering the same arguments previously presented.” []. Furthermore, Rule 59(e) motions are “‘extraordinary in nature’” and “‘should be discouraged.’” [] As such, these motions are “granted ‘ very sparingly.’” []
III. RULE 60 STANDARD OF REVIEW
A Rule 60 motion may be filed within one year after the entry of the judgment or order or within a reasonable time, depending upon the grounds upon which relief is sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Furthermore, Rule 60 motion may be granted only for certain specified reasons and is, thus, a significantly higher standard than that for granting a Rule 59 motion. [] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Subsection (b)(6) should “apply ‘only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are not addressed by the first five numbered clauses of the Rule.’” []
IV. ANALYSIS
First, this Court will address the City’s oral request that the Court reconsider its April 25, 2011 decision regarding civil penalties. The City argued that the additional evidence presented should lead the Court to alter its conclusion that the City had made no effort to secure the SRF loan other than the initial request. The reconsideration of this conclusion, the City argues, should lead the Court to also change its conclusion as to the amount of civil penalties.
It is true that the evidence presented by the City at the hearing shows more effort on the City’s behalf to secure the SRF loan. However, the efforts the City had to undertake “to get its financial house in order” were a result of its own malfeasance. The State Comptroller’s Office required the City to meet certain conditions before the City was allowed to incur any new debt as a result of an illegal transfer and other issues found in an audit of the City’s finances. The Comptroller’s Office made this clear to the defendant on May 21, 2010, just 10 days after this Court’s hearing where the City represented to the Court that the rehabilitation of the line could be completed by June 30, 2011. The fact that the City could not incur new debt was reiterated to the City on June 21, 2010. Thus, it took time to satisfy the conditions, which delayed the SRF loan, and which delayed the rehabilitation of the line.
It is clear from the record that the City was aware as early as May 21, 2010, that it could not receive the funding to rehabilitate the line. However, the City did not inform this Court of the problems in receiving the funding necessary to rehabilitate the line. In the months thereafter, the City never communicated any difficulty in receiving funding to this Court. It never communicated to this Court that it could not meet the schedule it represented to the Court at the May 11, 2010 hearing. This failure is inexcusable. The City knew that its proposed schedule could not be met and that problems with the Witt sewer line would persist until the line could be fully rehabilitated. Evidence shows that overflows have continued, endangering the environment and human health. Such a failure to inform this Court cannot be ignored. For these reasons, the oral motion to reconsider the decision regarding the issuance of civil penalties is DENIED.
Second, this Court will address the issue regarding the rehabilitation of the Witt sewer line. The City bases its motion on newly discovered evidence and to prevent manifest injustice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Alternatively, the City argues to alter or amend based on Rule 60 for the “same reasons.” []. Despite the City’s specific written argument, it is actually asking this Court to alter the injunctive relief ordered in documents 307 and 312, namely that the City must rehabilitate the Witt sewer line by June 30, 2011. “A court has continuing jurisdiction to terminate or modify an injunction.” [] Modifications or dissolution of injunctions must take place under Rule 60(b). [] Rule 60(b)(5) provides that a party may obtain relief from a court order when ‘it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,’ not when it is no longer convenient to live with the terms of a consent decree. Accordingly, a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Id. “Modification of a consent decree may be warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous.” [].
In this case, the factual conditions suggest that a modification of the injunction is warranted. As stated above, the City presented evidence that it did make efforts to seek funding for the rehabilitation of the line after its initial request on February 15, 2010. It is also true, however, that the City knew as early as May 21, 2010, that it could not incur debt to fund the rehabilitation of the line. The City also represented to the Court at the April 28, 2011 hearing that the rehabilitation of the Witt line could not be accomplished without incurring debt in the form of the SRF loan. Due to the amount of time it took for the City to get its “financial house in order,” which the City did work actively and consistently to do, the securing of this loan was not possible. Thus, the line could not be rehabilitated by June 30, 2011. The plaintiffs do not dispute that the rehabilitation of the line by June 30, 2011 is impossible. However, they do argue for daily penalties after the June 30, 2011deadline until the line rehabilitation is complete. This Court declines to impose such penalties.
Moreover, despite the egregious error of not informing this Court of its efforts in securing the funding prior to the original Order, [ ], and Judgment, [ ], the City has apparently learned from its mistake. Since the entry of those orders, the City has consistently kept this Court informed of its progress. On May 3, 2011, the City informed the Court that it had completed all paperwork associated with the SRF Application. The package was then hand delivered to TDEC that same day. Therefore, it appears that the City is on schedule with the dates proposed in Mr. Dunn’s timeline, and it appears that it will continue to keep this Court informed of its progress on a timely basis. To be sure, however, this Court will order such updates as set forth below. In addition, the Court will order penalties if the City fails to meet periodic benchmark completions in fairness to the plaintiffs and to keep the City on track.
As such, the City is hereby ORDERED to comply with the following schedule in rehabilitating the Witt Sewer line. The City should note that this Court will likely not be forgiving as to any missed deadline, and the City must keep this Court informed of the progress. The amount of penalties for missing any deadline will not be determined at this time. Such penalties will be decided based on the benchmark missed and the specific reasons for failing to meet such benchmark.
Submittal of completed loan package May 3, 2011
Submittal of construction plans and specification for May 3, 2011 by TDEC
Approval from TDEC to advertise project for bids July 1, 2011
Receive bids August 10, 2011
Review of bids by Engineer with recommendation August 22, 2011 of award
Council approval award subject to approval of TDEC September 1, 2011
TDEC approval of “Authority to Award” construction October 17, 2011 contract
Pre-Construction Conference November 7, 2011
Contract execution for construction with Notice December 1, 2011 to Proceed
Construction complete/system operational August 1, 2012
As just stated, the City shall meet all deadlines listed above. A progress report shall be submitted to this Court within five days of each date listed. Any failure to meet the deadline will subject the City to penalties in an amount to be determined.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the City’s oral motion to reconsider document 328 is DENIED. The motion to alter or amend Order number 307 and the Judgment, [], regarding rehabilitation of the Witt sewer line is GRANTED.
The Order and the Judgment shall be amended as set forth above. So ordered.
ENTER:
s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Showing posts with label Lamar Dunn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lamar Dunn. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2011
Thursday, January 28, 2010
January 29, 2010 And the Sewer Rates Are Going Up AGAIN
Another bad budget bites the dust.
In June 2009, the Morristown City Council adopted a deficit Fiscal Year 2010 sewer fund budget against the advice of its paid consultant Lamar Dunn. [Dunn presented a rate study to council in June 2009 and told council that the FY 10 sewer rate increase should be 14% to cover sewer fund expenses. Council ignored the recommendation and instead raised rates by 8% in FY 10, adopting a deficit sewer budget] For more on adoption of the current deficit sewer budget, click here and here.
Now just seven months later, the Mayor and Council called Dunn to come to the Finance Committee meeting yesterday and give them a sewer "update." Without saying "I told you so," Dunn's update reminded the Mayor and councilmembers that they adopted a deficit budget (which they already knew) and that the city's sewer fund is in the hole as result (exactly what he told them would happen).
Solution. Pay Dunn for another rate study--since you ignored the last one you paid for.
Industries and residences better start socking away money--if they have any--for yet another big sewer rate increase.
Sewer costs are a major factor in the budgets of many existing Morristown industries and of industries that might consider locating here. With large sewer rate increases year after year, the City and Industrial Development Board (IDB)/Jack Fishman may at some point realize that spiraling sewer rates are one reason that it so hard to get new industry to locate in Morristown (without tax incentives) and that spiraling sewer rates have a negative impact on existing industries (that get no tax breaks).
And it goes without saying that skyrocketing sewer rates have a major impact on hard-pressed family budgets as well.
The new increase could be adopted right after Dunn's study is complete or it may be included as part of the adoption of the FY 2010-2011 sewer fund budget in May or June 2010.
[Dunn also told the Mayor and Council that the "unknown" regulatory cost that he mentioned in his June 2009 rate review is now a huge "known" regulatory sewer cost. Morristown is under a Commissioner's regulatory ORDER to fix sewer problems that were ignored for years and years, to develop and actually implement a maintenance plan, and to provide reports to the state for the next several years of compliance with the Commissioner's ORDER. This known regulatory cost will be a factor in Dunn's new study.]
In June 2009, the Morristown City Council adopted a deficit Fiscal Year 2010 sewer fund budget against the advice of its paid consultant Lamar Dunn. [Dunn presented a rate study to council in June 2009 and told council that the FY 10 sewer rate increase should be 14% to cover sewer fund expenses. Council ignored the recommendation and instead raised rates by 8% in FY 10, adopting a deficit sewer budget] For more on adoption of the current deficit sewer budget, click here and here.
Now just seven months later, the Mayor and Council called Dunn to come to the Finance Committee meeting yesterday and give them a sewer "update." Without saying "I told you so," Dunn's update reminded the Mayor and councilmembers that they adopted a deficit budget (which they already knew) and that the city's sewer fund is in the hole as result (exactly what he told them would happen).
Solution. Pay Dunn for another rate study--since you ignored the last one you paid for.
Industries and residences better start socking away money--if they have any--for yet another big sewer rate increase.
Sewer costs are a major factor in the budgets of many existing Morristown industries and of industries that might consider locating here. With large sewer rate increases year after year, the City and Industrial Development Board (IDB)/Jack Fishman may at some point realize that spiraling sewer rates are one reason that it so hard to get new industry to locate in Morristown (without tax incentives) and that spiraling sewer rates have a negative impact on existing industries (that get no tax breaks).
And it goes without saying that skyrocketing sewer rates have a major impact on hard-pressed family budgets as well.
The new increase could be adopted right after Dunn's study is complete or it may be included as part of the adoption of the FY 2010-2011 sewer fund budget in May or June 2010.
[Dunn also told the Mayor and Council that the "unknown" regulatory cost that he mentioned in his June 2009 rate review is now a huge "known" regulatory sewer cost. Morristown is under a Commissioner's regulatory ORDER to fix sewer problems that were ignored for years and years, to develop and actually implement a maintenance plan, and to provide reports to the state for the next several years of compliance with the Commissioner's ORDER. This known regulatory cost will be a factor in Dunn's new study.]
Sunday, January 03, 2010
January 3, 2010 Sewer Neglect Catches Up with City--Expensive Testing, Expensive Repairs, and More Sewer Rate Increases Are Coming
Bad news about the city's sewer continued to unfold at last month's Finance Committee meeting on 12/10/09. While the exact dollar amount of testing and repair is not known, what is known is that more increases for ratepayers are just around the corner. Finance and council meetings really should be televised--then the public might actually know at least a little bit about what's going on in the City of Morristown.
In December, Lamar Dunn of Lamar Dunn & Associates presented his "Engineer Review." In the Review, Dunn addressed the state's fines, multiple directives to the City, and state timelines/deadlines for corrective action on a long list of sewer deficiencies. Dunn discussed sewer overflows, development and implementation of a capacity, collection, and treatment program for new sewer connections, development of a Comprehensive Management, Operations, and Maintenance Program, a CAP/ER action plan (including an analysis of the reliability of each pump station and a hydraulic model of the collection system) and annual progress reports to the state that begin in 2011 and continue until 2017.
Dunn's plan involves lengthy and expensive investigative testing of manholes and sewer lines as well as an action plan to address the findings and state concerns. Dunn's plan only addresses the Turkey Creek plant. Lowland was not discussed in December.
At the conclusion of his power-point presentation, Dunn mentioned that these state directives were the "unknown" regulatory issue and future "unknown" costs that he spoke to council about in June 2009 when sewer rates were hiked by 8% a year for the next three years. Dunn, apparently referring to his proposal to hike sewer rates by 14% the first year (click here), said that council adopted a "deficit" (sewer) budget in June 2009. Click here for that 11:00 am sewer rate meeting.
Dunn estimates that $828,000 would be required for manhole testing over a period of 467 days. The smoke testing is estimated at $1,007,424 over a period of 475 days. To pay for at least some of the testing, Dunn thinks some money can be pulled from an already existing SRF (state revolving fund) loan.
A lot of these problems were apparently known back in 2006 and 2007. Dunn mentioned a 2006 contract he had with the city where he outlined much of this work years ago. Councilmember Bob Garrett asked Bryan Fowler, head of wastewater for the city, why Dunn's study had been ignored. Fowler had no answer except to say that the 2007 plan was "too costly" to implement so the city did nothing. Fowler never said what the cost to fix the problems in 2007 would have been, and no one asked.
The testing is expensive, but it is only the tip of the sewer iceberg of neglect. It is likely that there will be major costs associated with addressing the problems that are found through testing. Dunn predicted that the city will not know the full costs of the sewer problems or the full impact of those costs--another round of sewer rate increases--until 2012. The city will then have to perform corrective work from 2012-2017.
The costs to take care of problems that were known but not addressed in 2007 was apparently HUGE. Now after additional years of neglect, sewer customers (residential and industrial) can get ready for another round of sewer rate increases--on top of the large increases just approved 6 months ago.
And woe be the customer who lives outside the city but is hooked to the sewer. Outside customers will automatically pay twice every increase that is voted. In this case, automatically=arbitrarily and capriciously. And illegally according to councilmember Bob Garrett and according to my research of this issue over a period of several years.
See Bob Garrett's comments here. Garrett, former head of the water department, knows that water and sewer rates have to be based on the cost of providing service, not just on some arbitrary "policy" of charging some customers twice as much as others. Water and sewer are fee-based services to customers. Taxpaying and non-taxpaying customers are to be treated alike unless there are specific cost differences for providing services to one group.
If it costs twice as much to serve outside customers, then a double fee is justified. The City, however, doesn't even attempt to provide a cost justification for double outside sewer rates because of these facts about its 140+ outside customers: 1) The sewer lines for the largest group of outside customers--about 50--were given to the city by the county as part of the county's Russellville Sewer project. No cost to the city to extend lines there but those double fees are charged. 2) Many other outside customers simply hooked onto existing city lines. No cost to the city to extend lines there but those double fees are charged. 3) Many outside customers are actually closer to the treatment plant than a lot of inside customers. No or few additional costs to get outside sewage to the treatment plant but those double fees are charged.
Council's failure to provide any cost justification for double outside rates and council's failure to answer questions about its automatic double increases for outside customers were documented at the council meeting on July 7, 2009. Click here for a summary.
This is another of those issues that the local "news"paper (Citizen Tribune) will not tackle. Why? Well, the local reporter for the Tribune is Robert Moore. Moore's employer is R. Jack Fishman, president of Lakeway Publishers, which owns the Tribune. Fishman, wearing his City Industrial Board hat, recently asked the city council to provide money for the acquisition of additional land at the ETPC (East Tennessee Progress Center) at I-81. Fishman has also asked that the city use eminent domain to force the sale of any land that is not willingly sold by the owner.
Moore and the Trib can't and won't investigate the issue of arbitrary and illegal sewer rates and other city issues (like the transfer of $2.5 Million dollars from the sewer fund to the general fund without the required local or state authorization) because the end result would be to expose years and years of arbitrary and unjustified double sewer rates charged to outside customers by the Mayor and City Council. Moore and Fishman and the Trib are more concerned with getting what THEY want than with a search for the truth about those 140+ "outside" sewer customers who automatically get charged double sewer rates by the city month after month, year after year.
I don't recall Moore and the Trib never reporting Bob Garrett's statements on the illegality of automatic double sewer rates. Wonder why? Apparently, personal conflicts of interest and political agendas cloud and compromise whatever journalistic integrity may exist at the Trib.
Do Moore and the Trib care about double sewer charges? Do Moore and the Trib care that many of these double-charged customers are low-income households? If the Trib didn't put its own agenda in front of the needs of others, it would have Moore out making calls and investigating and getting information about this situation on behalf of a paper seeking to become a part of the solution instead of simply parroting those who make false statements or tell half-truths.
In December, Lamar Dunn of Lamar Dunn & Associates presented his "Engineer Review." In the Review, Dunn addressed the state's fines, multiple directives to the City, and state timelines/deadlines for corrective action on a long list of sewer deficiencies. Dunn discussed sewer overflows, development and implementation of a capacity, collection, and treatment program for new sewer connections, development of a Comprehensive Management, Operations, and Maintenance Program, a CAP/ER action plan (including an analysis of the reliability of each pump station and a hydraulic model of the collection system) and annual progress reports to the state that begin in 2011 and continue until 2017.
Dunn's plan involves lengthy and expensive investigative testing of manholes and sewer lines as well as an action plan to address the findings and state concerns. Dunn's plan only addresses the Turkey Creek plant. Lowland was not discussed in December.
At the conclusion of his power-point presentation, Dunn mentioned that these state directives were the "unknown" regulatory issue and future "unknown" costs that he spoke to council about in June 2009 when sewer rates were hiked by 8% a year for the next three years. Dunn, apparently referring to his proposal to hike sewer rates by 14% the first year (click here), said that council adopted a "deficit" (sewer) budget in June 2009. Click here for that 11:00 am sewer rate meeting.
Dunn estimates that $828,000 would be required for manhole testing over a period of 467 days. The smoke testing is estimated at $1,007,424 over a period of 475 days. To pay for at least some of the testing, Dunn thinks some money can be pulled from an already existing SRF (state revolving fund) loan.
A lot of these problems were apparently known back in 2006 and 2007. Dunn mentioned a 2006 contract he had with the city where he outlined much of this work years ago. Councilmember Bob Garrett asked Bryan Fowler, head of wastewater for the city, why Dunn's study had been ignored. Fowler had no answer except to say that the 2007 plan was "too costly" to implement so the city did nothing. Fowler never said what the cost to fix the problems in 2007 would have been, and no one asked.
The testing is expensive, but it is only the tip of the sewer iceberg of neglect. It is likely that there will be major costs associated with addressing the problems that are found through testing. Dunn predicted that the city will not know the full costs of the sewer problems or the full impact of those costs--another round of sewer rate increases--until 2012. The city will then have to perform corrective work from 2012-2017.
The costs to take care of problems that were known but not addressed in 2007 was apparently HUGE. Now after additional years of neglect, sewer customers (residential and industrial) can get ready for another round of sewer rate increases--on top of the large increases just approved 6 months ago.
And woe be the customer who lives outside the city but is hooked to the sewer. Outside customers will automatically pay twice every increase that is voted. In this case, automatically=arbitrarily and capriciously. And illegally according to councilmember Bob Garrett and according to my research of this issue over a period of several years.
See Bob Garrett's comments here. Garrett, former head of the water department, knows that water and sewer rates have to be based on the cost of providing service, not just on some arbitrary "policy" of charging some customers twice as much as others. Water and sewer are fee-based services to customers. Taxpaying and non-taxpaying customers are to be treated alike unless there are specific cost differences for providing services to one group.
If it costs twice as much to serve outside customers, then a double fee is justified. The City, however, doesn't even attempt to provide a cost justification for double outside sewer rates because of these facts about its 140+ outside customers: 1) The sewer lines for the largest group of outside customers--about 50--were given to the city by the county as part of the county's Russellville Sewer project. No cost to the city to extend lines there but those double fees are charged. 2) Many other outside customers simply hooked onto existing city lines. No cost to the city to extend lines there but those double fees are charged. 3) Many outside customers are actually closer to the treatment plant than a lot of inside customers. No or few additional costs to get outside sewage to the treatment plant but those double fees are charged.
Council's failure to provide any cost justification for double outside rates and council's failure to answer questions about its automatic double increases for outside customers were documented at the council meeting on July 7, 2009. Click here for a summary.
This is another of those issues that the local "news"paper (Citizen Tribune) will not tackle. Why? Well, the local reporter for the Tribune is Robert Moore. Moore's employer is R. Jack Fishman, president of Lakeway Publishers, which owns the Tribune. Fishman, wearing his City Industrial Board hat, recently asked the city council to provide money for the acquisition of additional land at the ETPC (East Tennessee Progress Center) at I-81. Fishman has also asked that the city use eminent domain to force the sale of any land that is not willingly sold by the owner.
Moore and the Trib can't and won't investigate the issue of arbitrary and illegal sewer rates and other city issues (like the transfer of $2.5 Million dollars from the sewer fund to the general fund without the required local or state authorization) because the end result would be to expose years and years of arbitrary and unjustified double sewer rates charged to outside customers by the Mayor and City Council. Moore and Fishman and the Trib are more concerned with getting what THEY want than with a search for the truth about those 140+ "outside" sewer customers who automatically get charged double sewer rates by the city month after month, year after year.
I don't recall Moore and the Trib never reporting Bob Garrett's statements on the illegality of automatic double sewer rates. Wonder why? Apparently, personal conflicts of interest and political agendas cloud and compromise whatever journalistic integrity may exist at the Trib.
Do Moore and the Trib care about double sewer charges? Do Moore and the Trib care that many of these double-charged customers are low-income households? If the Trib didn't put its own agenda in front of the needs of others, it would have Moore out making calls and investigating and getting information about this situation on behalf of a paper seeking to become a part of the solution instead of simply parroting those who make false statements or tell half-truths.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
November 14, 2009 City Finance Meeting: New Administrator and Sewer Mess
This 'n that:
SELECTION OF NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
Interim Administrator Lynn Wampler went over the qualifications of the four candidates for city administrator. He stated that he and MTAS representative Pat Hardy did phone interviews during the previous week. Wampler said that the four on the final list are "all qualified people." Wampler expects that after the candidates complete one-on-one interviews with councilmembers, the council will be able to find a candidate who is a good match for the city and who is up to the task of putting the city on the path to financial stability.
The four include candidates, none of whom are from Morristown, are: Jody Baltz, Angie Carrier, Anthony Cox, and James Payne.
One of the local candidates who was interviewed, Rusty Smith, was present at the Finance meeting. During the discussion of the candidates, former councilmember Rick Trent asked that the council put city employee Jay Moore's name back into consideration and interview him. There were several favorable comments about Mr. Moore's performance as a department head, but in the end the council decided only to interview the four as selected by Wampler and Hardy.
CITY SEWER
The sewer situation (another city mess) and the fines and mandate that TDEC has put to the city to straighten out overflows and numerous other problems came up. The cost is going to be enormous. Brian Fowler, who is over the city sewer system, was not present at the Finance meeting.
Fowler and city employee Lester Turner have proposed that city employees handle much of the work that has to be done, including the work that TDEC has mandated. Councilmember Bob Garrett questioned (1) whether the city employees could actually do the work cheaper than a contractor who is experienced in the work and (2) whether city employees could complete all the mandated work within the time frames set by the state.
Turner pointed out that city workers have gradually become more proficient in using the required equipment and performing the work themselves.
Garrett added that if city workers do the work, the state will come in and audit the records (perhaps monthly) to verify that it is really cheaper for city employees to handle the work.
Previously, Turner and perhaps Fowler as well did not realize that they had to include city benefits (insurance costs, retirement costs, matching social security, etc.) in the city's costs for city employees to do the work. As Garrett said, the city's true and full costs have to be included so that these costs can be accurately compared to the costs that would be incurred by hiring a contractor to do the work. Of concern to Garrett is that even if the costs are slightly lower for city employees to perform the work, he does not think that city employees can get all the work done by the state-mandated deadlines.
Fowler was not at the meeting to discuss the sewer issue. Fowler testified this week in federal court in Greeneville in the case brought by residents of Witt and Roe Junction against Koch Foods over sewer odors that began in early 2005 at the same time that the Koch Foods plant in the East Tennessee Progress Center opened. The City was brought into the suit as an additional defendant after the lawsuit was initially filed.
Lamar Dunn, the city's consultant on sewer system problems and sewer rates, has also testified at the federal trial.
David Wilds of Koch Foods has testified. Cindy Krebs, who works for Veolia, has testified. Barry Calfee, who used to work for Veolia but who now works for Koch Foods, has testified. Veolia is the company with whom the City has contracted for management and operation of the city's wastewater treatment plant.
Several of the area residents have testified, including County Commissioner Guy Collins.
Except for one article that announced that the trial was starting, the Tribune has had no reports about the trial or testimony from any of the witnesses. The trial has been going on for two weeks now and is expected to wind up next week.
SELECTION OF NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
Interim Administrator Lynn Wampler went over the qualifications of the four candidates for city administrator. He stated that he and MTAS representative Pat Hardy did phone interviews during the previous week. Wampler said that the four on the final list are "all qualified people." Wampler expects that after the candidates complete one-on-one interviews with councilmembers, the council will be able to find a candidate who is a good match for the city and who is up to the task of putting the city on the path to financial stability.
The four include candidates, none of whom are from Morristown, are: Jody Baltz, Angie Carrier, Anthony Cox, and James Payne.
One of the local candidates who was interviewed, Rusty Smith, was present at the Finance meeting. During the discussion of the candidates, former councilmember Rick Trent asked that the council put city employee Jay Moore's name back into consideration and interview him. There were several favorable comments about Mr. Moore's performance as a department head, but in the end the council decided only to interview the four as selected by Wampler and Hardy.
CITY SEWER
The sewer situation (another city mess) and the fines and mandate that TDEC has put to the city to straighten out overflows and numerous other problems came up. The cost is going to be enormous. Brian Fowler, who is over the city sewer system, was not present at the Finance meeting.
Fowler and city employee Lester Turner have proposed that city employees handle much of the work that has to be done, including the work that TDEC has mandated. Councilmember Bob Garrett questioned (1) whether the city employees could actually do the work cheaper than a contractor who is experienced in the work and (2) whether city employees could complete all the mandated work within the time frames set by the state.
Turner pointed out that city workers have gradually become more proficient in using the required equipment and performing the work themselves.
Garrett added that if city workers do the work, the state will come in and audit the records (perhaps monthly) to verify that it is really cheaper for city employees to handle the work.
Previously, Turner and perhaps Fowler as well did not realize that they had to include city benefits (insurance costs, retirement costs, matching social security, etc.) in the city's costs for city employees to do the work. As Garrett said, the city's true and full costs have to be included so that these costs can be accurately compared to the costs that would be incurred by hiring a contractor to do the work. Of concern to Garrett is that even if the costs are slightly lower for city employees to perform the work, he does not think that city employees can get all the work done by the state-mandated deadlines.
Fowler was not at the meeting to discuss the sewer issue. Fowler testified this week in federal court in Greeneville in the case brought by residents of Witt and Roe Junction against Koch Foods over sewer odors that began in early 2005 at the same time that the Koch Foods plant in the East Tennessee Progress Center opened. The City was brought into the suit as an additional defendant after the lawsuit was initially filed.
Lamar Dunn, the city's consultant on sewer system problems and sewer rates, has also testified at the federal trial.
David Wilds of Koch Foods has testified. Cindy Krebs, who works for Veolia, has testified. Barry Calfee, who used to work for Veolia but who now works for Koch Foods, has testified. Veolia is the company with whom the City has contracted for management and operation of the city's wastewater treatment plant.
Several of the area residents have testified, including County Commissioner Guy Collins.
Except for one article that announced that the trial was starting, the Tribune has had no reports about the trial or testimony from any of the witnesses. The trial has been going on for two weeks now and is expected to wind up next week.
Friday, October 02, 2009
October 2, 2009 Crumley and Wastewater Head Bryan Fowler Apparently Kept Sewer Problems and Repair Costs from the Mayor and Council
At yesterday's regular meeting of Morristown City Council's Finance Committee, several councilmembers grilled Wastewater Head Bryan Fowler about potential fines of up to $175,000 that have been levied against the City by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Water Pollution Control.
Fowler provided the council with copies of the TDEC Commissioner's Order. The Order cites and alleges numerous violations by the City of the Water Quality Control Act (T.C.A. 69-3-101 et seq) which, among other requirements, limits the volume or strength of wastes discharged into waters of the state.
The Order apparently stems from a December 17, 2008, Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the Morristown Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Here are some excerpts from the Order:
Self-reported violations showed "numerous" overflows of the collection system.
During the monitoring period of January 1, 2008-February 28, 2009, the City reported violations of its wastewater permit, "including 56 self-reported overflow events. The overflows constitute unpermitted discharges of untreated wastewater."
In addition, the City reported that the influent flow meter was "out of service" during that entire period. "Failure to have an operational flow meter is a violation of the permit."
The City provided explanations for the discharge violations citing "mechanical failures, blockages in the lines, and grease as the primary causes of the dry weather overflows. Inflow and infiltration of storm water... (were) cited as the primary causes of wet weather overflows."
"To date the (inflow) meter is still not functioning."
Fowler stated that some of the findings were not accurate and would be appealed. Fowler said that the $175,000 in fines can be avoided if the City spends a lot of money to address the list of problems and comes into compliance in a timely manner.
Councilmember Bob Garrett commented: "They don't fine you $175,000 if you're doing a good job."
Fowler said that he needs more manpower and equipment in his budget.
Councilmember Kay Senter said that council doesn't control his budget and that rates (revenues) are supposed to be set to cover costs (expenditures).
Fowler said that he presents a budget but sometimes things get cut.
Senter said that we (council) don't cut anything and asked who made cuts.
Fowler said "People over me."
Who was "over" Fowler? Former City Administrator Jim Crumley.
When were sewer rates and the sewer budget set? In June 2009 after a cost and rate study and presentation by Lamar Dunn & Associates of Knoxville. Click here. That rate study provided for a 3-year rate increase. Now the question is whether rates will have to go up even more.
Frank McGuffin and Bob Garrett asked that City Attorney Dick Jessee work with Lamar Dunn in handling the appeal of the TDEC Order. McGuffin and Garrett also want Dunn to look at the TDEC Order, estimate the cost of rehabbing the system to come into compliance, and then inform the council about any additional rate increase that might be needed--over and above the rate increases that passed less than four months ago.
Some Councilmembers then peppered Fowler with variations of the famous two-part Watergate question: What did you know and when did you know it?
Fowler said that "we" had been anticipating this Order. No doubt this anticipation stemmed from the fact that Fowler and his boss Crumley knew of the self-reported violations from January 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009, and they knew about the deterioration of the sewer system downtown and on the west end with aging and crumbling concrete and clay pipe.
Why were problems cited in the TDEC Order not reported to council in a timely manner? Fowler said he was following the directions of the lawyers. Kay asked, what attorneys? City attorney Dick Jessee? Fowler said "we" have several lawyers due to lawsuits.
Crumley's legacy of keeping information from the Mayor and Council is gradually being exposed. Those who worked under Crumley and kept information from council have no cover. Hopefully, the new council will continue to be assertive, ask for information and reports on a regular basis, and watch out for the ratepayers who are the victims of this mess.
The recent (June 2009) three-year sewer increases were hard to take. If yesterday's predictions by councilmembers are accurate, it looks like even higher sewer fees are just around the corner as the real condition of the sewer system and its operations are revealed.
Fowler provided the council with copies of the TDEC Commissioner's Order. The Order cites and alleges numerous violations by the City of the Water Quality Control Act (T.C.A. 69-3-101 et seq) which, among other requirements, limits the volume or strength of wastes discharged into waters of the state.
The Order apparently stems from a December 17, 2008, Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the Morristown Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Here are some excerpts from the Order:
Self-reported violations showed "numerous" overflows of the collection system.
During the monitoring period of January 1, 2008-February 28, 2009, the City reported violations of its wastewater permit, "including 56 self-reported overflow events. The overflows constitute unpermitted discharges of untreated wastewater."
In addition, the City reported that the influent flow meter was "out of service" during that entire period. "Failure to have an operational flow meter is a violation of the permit."
The City provided explanations for the discharge violations citing "mechanical failures, blockages in the lines, and grease as the primary causes of the dry weather overflows. Inflow and infiltration of storm water... (were) cited as the primary causes of wet weather overflows."
"To date the (inflow) meter is still not functioning."
Fowler stated that some of the findings were not accurate and would be appealed. Fowler said that the $175,000 in fines can be avoided if the City spends a lot of money to address the list of problems and comes into compliance in a timely manner.
Councilmember Bob Garrett commented: "They don't fine you $175,000 if you're doing a good job."
Fowler said that he needs more manpower and equipment in his budget.
Councilmember Kay Senter said that council doesn't control his budget and that rates (revenues) are supposed to be set to cover costs (expenditures).
Fowler said that he presents a budget but sometimes things get cut.
Senter said that we (council) don't cut anything and asked who made cuts.
Fowler said "People over me."
Who was "over" Fowler? Former City Administrator Jim Crumley.
When were sewer rates and the sewer budget set? In June 2009 after a cost and rate study and presentation by Lamar Dunn & Associates of Knoxville. Click here. That rate study provided for a 3-year rate increase. Now the question is whether rates will have to go up even more.
Frank McGuffin and Bob Garrett asked that City Attorney Dick Jessee work with Lamar Dunn in handling the appeal of the TDEC Order. McGuffin and Garrett also want Dunn to look at the TDEC Order, estimate the cost of rehabbing the system to come into compliance, and then inform the council about any additional rate increase that might be needed--over and above the rate increases that passed less than four months ago.
Some Councilmembers then peppered Fowler with variations of the famous two-part Watergate question: What did you know and when did you know it?
Fowler said that "we" had been anticipating this Order. No doubt this anticipation stemmed from the fact that Fowler and his boss Crumley knew of the self-reported violations from January 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009, and they knew about the deterioration of the sewer system downtown and on the west end with aging and crumbling concrete and clay pipe.
Why were problems cited in the TDEC Order not reported to council in a timely manner? Fowler said he was following the directions of the lawyers. Kay asked, what attorneys? City attorney Dick Jessee? Fowler said "we" have several lawyers due to lawsuits.
Crumley's legacy of keeping information from the Mayor and Council is gradually being exposed. Those who worked under Crumley and kept information from council have no cover. Hopefully, the new council will continue to be assertive, ask for information and reports on a regular basis, and watch out for the ratepayers who are the victims of this mess.
The recent (June 2009) three-year sewer increases were hard to take. If yesterday's predictions by councilmembers are accurate, it looks like even higher sewer fees are just around the corner as the real condition of the sewer system and its operations are revealed.
Friday, June 19, 2009
June 4, 2009 The "news"paper, the City, and Sewer Rates
I have held off on this blog post for nearly six months. Now that belated testing of the city sewer and multimillion dollars repairs are again before the Mayor and City Council, it is time to review the city's arbitrary policy of charging double sewer rates to outside customers.
When sewer rates were discussed by City Council on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Bob Moore of the Citizen Tribune was present. The next day, Moore wrote a front-page article on council's delay in making a sewer rate decision. [Bob missed several budget meetings during the weeks leading up to the June 16 meeting. He did not attend the previous meeting on June 9 when sewer rates were discussed.]
When sewer rates were discussed by City Council on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Bob Moore of the Citizen Tribune was present. The next day, Moore wrote a front-page article on council's delay in making a sewer rate decision. [Bob missed several budget meetings during the weeks leading up to the June 16 meeting. He did not attend the previous meeting on June 9 when sewer rates were discussed.]
Bob's June 17th report had some truth in it and several half-truths.
Bob's truths: 1) There was significant discontent from many individuals regarding sewer rate increases. 2) Outside customers pay twice as much for sewer service as inside customers.
Crumley's half-truth as reported by Bob: State law provides that municipalities can charge up to double the rate to sewer customers who live outside the city limits in situations where no rate study has been conducted.
TRUTH: State law provides that a municipality must submit its cost study to the state when it charges more than twice as much to outside customers. The new law is solely about providing the city's cost study to the state when the proposed rate is more than double the inside rate. The new law does not say that no rate study has to be performed if the city is charging is double or less. Whether a city provides its cost study to the state or not, a municipality can not just pull an outside rate "out of the air" even when that rate is double or less.
Crumley's comment, quoted without any fact-checking by Moore, was a half-truth that implied that state law says the city does not have to have a cost study or cost justification if it wants to charge double rates to outside customers. Crumley's comment conveniently ignored case law and CTAS/MTAS opinions that say a cost study is a "practical necessity" in order to provide a cost justification for charging more to different classes of customers (e.g. inside v. outside customers).
CTAS/MTAS opinions on the "practical necessity" of a cost study apply in all situations. MTAS is Municipal Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to cities across the state. CTAS is County Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to counties across the state.
Crumley's comment, quoted without any fact-checking by Moore, was a half-truth that implied that state law says the city does not have to have a cost study or cost justification if it wants to charge double rates to outside customers. Crumley's comment conveniently ignored case law and CTAS/MTAS opinions that say a cost study is a "practical necessity" in order to provide a cost justification for charging more to different classes of customers (e.g. inside v. outside customers).
CTAS/MTAS opinions on the "practical necessity" of a cost study apply in all situations. MTAS is Municipal Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to cities across the state. CTAS is County Technical Advisory Services, which is connected to U-T and provides advice, support, and legal research to counties across the state.
Bob's truth: Moore notes that Lamar Dunn performed a rate/cost study for the City. Yes, he did and his rate study was an average of all customers--both inside and outside. What Moore left out: Dunn did not do a separate study for setting inside costs/rates and one for setting outside costs/rates. State law says you have to relate your water or sewer rates to your costs. That means that if you are going to charge higher rates to one set of customers (outside customers), then you have to be able to justify those higher rates through a cost study. That's where the City conveniently drops the ball and just arbitrarily charges outside customers twice as much (by "policy") instead of doing a cost study to see if the cost of providing sewer service to outside customers is really twice the cost of providing sewer service to inside customers.
While one might expect that costs of outside sewer service would be higher than inside, that is not necessarily the case. The costs of outside sewer service are not "automatically" twice that of inside sewer service. Why? According to documents I received from the city, there are approximately 140+ or - outside sewer customers. 1) There was no cost to the city for extending sewer lines to 50 or so of these "outside" customers because the sewer extension to these customers was paid for by the county with county money and CDBG grant money ("Russellville Sewer Project"). 2) Other outside customers were allowed to tap onto existing city lines with no additional cost to the city for new lines. 3) There are numerous "inside" sewer customers who are much farther from the treatment plant than many "outside" customers, so distance from the treatment plant is not a factor for all outside customers.
It's time for an honest, independent cost study--not one that is designed to come up with a pre-determined result to justify the existing double rates. An independent cost study would determine if there are any additional costs to the city in providing sewer service to outside customers as a group (additional costs would be unusual or extraordinary costs beyond those standard costs that all customers must bear); if there are additional costs, the amount of those costs; and, finally, determine the proper and fair rate for outside customers.
Bob's half-truth: "Linda Noe...renewed her call for city government to charge a uniform rate to sewer customers living inside and outside the city limits." Moore conveniently left off the last part of my request. The TRUTH: I asked the city to charge the same rate for inside and outside customers until and unless they conduct a cost study showing what, if any, additional costs are incurred to provide sewer service to outside customers. When there is an independent cost study, then one can examine it and see if higher sewer rates for outside customers are justified and, if so, what the outside rates should be.
According to CTAS attorneys (see above) a cost study such as the one that I asked the city to perform is a "practical necessity to properly and fairly determine and support the rate structure." All I have ever asked is that the city "properly and fairly" determine the outside sewer rate without resorting to an arbitrary policy of automatically charging outside customers twice what is charged to the inside customer. That is not only reasonable and logical, but, according to MTAS/CTAS, Councilman Garrett, and my own research, it is the proper way to set a fair and equitable rate for outside customers. The CTAS attorney's letter was given to Bob Moore and I cited it in my comments to council, but Moore apparently forgot to mention this part of the CTAS opinion in his article.
The City by its own admission and by its consultant's admission has no cost study "to properly and fairly determine and support the outside rate structure." [Moore wasn't at the meeting with the consultant but IF he wants the information, I have it. I also have the city's admission that it has no cost study relative to any additional costs for providing outside sewer service IF Bob wants that.
Bob's truth: Noe characterized the city's two-tier rate structure as "arbitrary." Why? Because it is. Because there is NO cost-basis or justification for charging twice as much to outside customers. That's about as arbitrary as you can get. You live outside...you get charged twice as much. If you ask "why?" the response from the City is "no particular reason but we have this special 'policy' that says we are going to charge you twice as much." That's arbitrary!
Bob's slightly irrelevant half-truth: Noe provided information to council indicating that the burden is on the property owner challenging the (sewer) rate. MTAS says that this burden is a "difficult" burden because courts start with the presumption that the rate is valid. It is true that a sewer customer who challenges the fairness and setting of sewer rates in court bears the burden of proof in the matter, and I presented the various court cases to the Council---along with all the information that says you have to have some kind of cost justification for setting a double rate (or any rate). Bob again ignored the fact that the court cases and CTAS/MTAS opinions say you have to have a cost justification for setting a double rate (or any rate). Bob jumped the gun in talking about the burden of proof in court. This should never end up in court. There should be a cost-study. The City should be fair to ALL its ratepayers. The Mayor and City Council should not say to outside customers "sue me" over the city's arbitrary sewer rates. But, sadly, that is the typical political reaction when facts are put before the council.
Bob missed the meeting with the sewer consultant, but he knows that the City commissioned and paid for a sewer rate study. If Bob had been at the meeting with the consultant, he would have known that the consultant was specifically asked if he separated costs into inside and outside costs to set inside and outside rates. The consultant said that there was no separation of costs. He just lumped all residential customers together and came up with an average.
Why no separation of costs so rates could be fairly and properly set? My guess is that the City either does not have or chose NOT to provide the consultant with inside and outside costs so he could determine inside and outside rates. Bob also forgot to add that the sewer lines for a large number of outside customers were donated to the city by the county as a result of the Russellville sewer grant. Other outside customers tapped onto an existing line with little or no additional cost to the city.
It's easy to "report" what you are spoon-fed. It's much harder to think about the situation and ask the "why?" and follow-up questions. But that is what a reporter is supposed to do.
Sewer rates--both inside and outside--affect a huge number of people. I would love to see Bob do a probing "series" of articles on sewer rates. Compare the detail of the last (1998?) cost study to the current cost study. Detail the $40M of improvements that Bryan Fowler says is planned. Look in-depth into the legality of rate-setting. Don't just take everything you are spoon-fed as gospel.
The series doesn't need to serve as a press release for quoting half-truths from elected and appointed officials and the editing of comments by others. Bob is savvy when he wants to be. He could (if allowed to) search for and report the truth himself or at least discuss the situation more fully with those who have expressed concerns about the legality of the situation. It wouldn't kill Bob to talk to me. I'll tell him what I know and he is more than welcome to verify it. He can talk to Crumley and then he needs to verify that as well.
I have been concerned about the City's arbitrary sewer rates since I first became aware of them during the time I served on county commission. During the Russellville low-income sewer grant process, several individuals came to county commission and informed us that outside sewer customers were charged twice as much as inside sewer customers. That meant that the Russellville sewer grant recipients would get a "free" sewer hook-up but they would then be stuck with "arbitrary" DOUBLE monthly sewer rates from the City of Morristown. Sort of like being given a free Hummer and then being told that you have to provide the gas every month. But at least with the Hummer, you could sell it.
And there are other outside customers--though not all that many--scattered throughout the county. The extra that these outside customers pay in DOUBLE charges to the city is a drop in the bucket in relation to the millions spent through the sewer fund. But sewer increases and DOUBLE charges have a huge impact on each individual or family budget.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
June 10, 2009 Morristown Sewer Rate Increases
The City of Morristown continues the pattern of large increases in sewer fees.
Yesterday, the Mayor and City Council heard a presentation by Lamar Dunn and Associates regarding sewer costs and rate increases for the next three years for sewer customers.
Dunn is recommending that the city increase its sewer rates by just slightly more than 14% in the upcoming fiscal year (7/1/09-6/30/10) and then increase rates by 6.2% the next year (7/1/10-6/30/11) and 2.0% in the 3rd year (7/1/11-6/30/12).
NOTE: Sewer customers who live outside the city limits are "automatically" charged twice as much as customers who live inside the city limits so the dollar amount of these rate increases is automatically twice as much for outside customers. At yesterday's meeting, recently elected Councilman Bob Garrett stated that automatically charging outside customers double the inside rate---without a specific cost basis---is illegal. I will have more on this in a future post as I stated the same thing to the former Mayor and Council in 2005 (no action) and again to Mayor Barile and the previous council in early 2009 (no action). According to Bryan Fowler, the City has a "policy" of automatically charging outside customers twice as much. Well, as I have said before, you just might have an illegal "policy."
Dunn indicated that it would be difficult to accurately project what the rates should be beyond that. He suggested that the City start looking again at its rates in year two (7/1/10-6/30/11) of the increase--with the hope that the economy is on the rebound at that point.
Jim Crumley added that sewer rates had increased 57% in the previous 10 years and that he expects a similar increase in the next 10 years. [With a hefty 22% increase in the next three years alone, it is certainly possible that the next 10-year increase could easily exceed Crumley's 57% prediction.]
Bryan Fowler, who is over the city sewer, stated that he has a $40 Million capital improvements plan for the next 10 years.
Purchase and operation of the Lowland treatment plant is included in the projected sewer rate increases.
Yesterday, the Mayor and City Council heard a presentation by Lamar Dunn and Associates regarding sewer costs and rate increases for the next three years for sewer customers.
Dunn is recommending that the city increase its sewer rates by just slightly more than 14% in the upcoming fiscal year (7/1/09-6/30/10) and then increase rates by 6.2% the next year (7/1/10-6/30/11) and 2.0% in the 3rd year (7/1/11-6/30/12).
NOTE: Sewer customers who live outside the city limits are "automatically" charged twice as much as customers who live inside the city limits so the dollar amount of these rate increases is automatically twice as much for outside customers. At yesterday's meeting, recently elected Councilman Bob Garrett stated that automatically charging outside customers double the inside rate---without a specific cost basis---is illegal. I will have more on this in a future post as I stated the same thing to the former Mayor and Council in 2005 (no action) and again to Mayor Barile and the previous council in early 2009 (no action). According to Bryan Fowler, the City has a "policy" of automatically charging outside customers twice as much. Well, as I have said before, you just might have an illegal "policy."
Dunn indicated that it would be difficult to accurately project what the rates should be beyond that. He suggested that the City start looking again at its rates in year two (7/1/10-6/30/11) of the increase--with the hope that the economy is on the rebound at that point.
Jim Crumley added that sewer rates had increased 57% in the previous 10 years and that he expects a similar increase in the next 10 years. [With a hefty 22% increase in the next three years alone, it is certainly possible that the next 10-year increase could easily exceed Crumley's 57% prediction.]
Bryan Fowler, who is over the city sewer, stated that he has a $40 Million capital improvements plan for the next 10 years.
Purchase and operation of the Lowland treatment plant is included in the projected sewer rate increases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)