June 10, 2009
Your Sewer Rates Go Up; Hopefully, Some Overflow Flooding To Be Abated
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Within about 45 days, subject to what appears a rubber stamp Public Service Commission approval, the first of a two-phase sewer rate increase takes effect. Huntington City Council meeting in special session on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 overwhelmingly approved the measure with only Chairman Jim Insco dissenting.
Council members had varying perceptions and reasons for voting for an average of $2.62 per month increase (15%) now and another $1.63 by year’s end. Some wanted to prevent the horrendous overflows during heavy rains which our antiquated system cannot accommodate. Some believe these projects will spur economic development. Others believe we have to protect the environment for future generations.
Actually, tensions from past administration’s impacted those voting, too. In order to vote for the proposal, you had to look more at the present and future. Previously the Huntington Sanitary Board has faced circumstances of alleged poor money management such as when Mayor Jean Dean drained an eleven million dollar balance from the board’s account.
The overall selling point appeared to be --- you’re not going to get the money at a better interest rate than now, and, you MIGHT get some stimulus funds as a bonus.
Ed Burdette, an engineer from the West Virginia DEP's Division of Water and Waste Management, took on the challenge of answering previously ambiguous questions that had been raised by one or more council members.
The Obama Administration sent the State of West Virginia about $61 million dollars. That’s not enough to fund all shovel ready projects in the state. The Infrastructure Job and Development Council (IJDC) adopted some rules for municipality qualification.
READY TO FOLLOW STATE ADMINISTERED STIMULUS RULES
Bond counsel John Stump, Steptoe & Johnson, called it a race at readiness. “The Sanitary Board jumped on the train when the rules became available to get the city project in line [for stimulus funding].” However, the rates too low to qualify circumstance was deemed a “public policy issue that’s coming from the governor’s office,” Stump admitted. “We are putting the city in position for the best possible funding mix, stimulus or otherwise.”
Attorneys and the engineer then explained the quandary about stimulus, loans and grants, which at the maximum result in 50% loan forgiveness. Thus, the City of Huntington and Sanitary Board can raise rates, apply through the revolving fund, and likely qualify for three percent interest over twenty years, or, be faced , like a town near Wheeling that had too low rates, with borrowing on the public market which is “the least desirable alternative because the interest will be in the five or six percent range for a term of 20 or 30 years,” Stump said.
Robert Rodecker, the attorney representing the Sanitary Board in the rate proceeding, added, “ For the PSC to approve the project, they have to determine there are funds to pay for the project. We cannot assume we will have 100% grant funds. We know we will not. We have prepared rates that assume there will be borrowed money [at the] interest rate we believe will likely be available.”
STATE PLAN DOES NOT PROHIBIT COMMUNITY FROM GETTING IN LINE
Burdette told council that the state Water Waste Management office had developed a “specific plan to administer the spending of the funds. Under that plan, it does not exempt any community from becoming in-line to get stimulus money. It’s all based on readiness to proceed. Huntington has submitted several ready to proceed projects.”
Councilman Insco asked, “If we do not pass the increase tonight, does that eliminate us from getting stimulus money?”
Burdette paused then stated, “probably not. But you would not be able to proceed with the number of projects that have been presented to us… the Hal Greer Boulevard, pump station rehabilitation…"
INSCO: Are you referring to the $785 million dollars [for all projects]?
BURDETTE: No, just the eight million. The four projects on the table right now. Without the increase, you could not proceed with all those projects.
INSCO: But we could proceed with some of them [based on] what stimulus monies we get?
BURDETTE: I’m not sure. I think [you] would have to have a rate increase to cover… the best you could qualify for under the stimulus money is a fifty percent debt forgiveness. You’ll have to have some way to come up with the other fifty percent of the money to pay for the projects, whatever project(s) that may be.
INSCO: Who formulated that plan?
BURDETTE: It’s been formulated by our state revolving [loan] fund program.
INSCO: The state did and not the federal government?
BURDETTE: Yes and approved by them [federal government] . It needs to pass through [the IJDC] before it comes to us to get to our funding scenario.
IRONICLY NONE OF THE FOUR PROJECTS ELIMINATE FLOODING ….
Prior to the discourse with Burdette, Chairman Insco explained his opposition: “I do fit it ironic that we sell the rate increase on separation of storm and sewer lines , eliminate the flooding, to help with the flow and none of the projects in this rate increase are included [for] that. I find it insulting that the West Virginia IJDC that has the stimulus money can say that our rates are too low to qualify. We have heard about the legal responsibilities of council to make sure [the sanitary board] has enough money . Really, the only time we see [members of ] the Sanitary Board is if something is broke or they need more money. I’m not sure how to correct that, Mr. Mayor, except one of two ways --- that’s turn it into a PSD or bring it back under city hall control. One of those would take the politics out of any rate increase that they have. We’ve heard this evening about [council] not having the courage to increase fees, in my eight years, we have increase fees about twelve times. It’s not about courage; it’s about doing what’s right.
Speaking in regard to the broken incinerator, Insco continued: “ I think it cost us about two million dollars. The only expert in America came down out of Connecticut that knew how to put it in. He was a genius and it was a [monetary] savior for the Sanitary Board. We could burn the sludge, increase our flow, possibly burn trash and create electricity… it was sold to council like this increase is being sold and it did NOT work. So now we have a $2.5-$3 million dollar incinerator that does not sound like it will be fixed and probably not be used again.
Responding to historic perspectives, Insco continued, “about some of the older politicians, I’m reminded of what Gov. Arch Moore said about the City of Huntington. He could come down and pass out $50 bills and their council would debate which corner to stand. If we don’t pass it, where do we go, what do we do? Do we file bankruptcy and say , we can’t afford it? I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but [the sanitary board] has automatically assumed that the increase will pass and there is no alternative.”
OPPORTUNITY TO ‘DO SOMETHING’ DESPITE ‘INEFFICIENCIES’
At large councilman, Steve Williams had earlier recalled flooded viaducts and roads during his tenure working for the city. Instead of complaining, he realized, he sat in a position --- not someone else --- to help find a solution. “This is the [newly elected] council’s first opportunity to do something,” Williams said, cautiously adding, the “inefficiencies” stated bring reasons to “pause” decision making.
Williams referred to former council member Tom McCalister’s reminders that “no one wants dirty polluted water,” as he spoke of earlier inefficiencies --- such as allegedly $13 million, $2 million and $3 million “disappearing,” McCalister said.
Actually, the suspense ended (for most) when council woman , Frances Jackson uttered, her constituents are “tired of flooding. They’re in favor of it.”
Co-sponsor Nate Randolph, who had thoroughly examined the proposals and plans, acknowledged that “unfunded mandates make him mad too… but we cannot continue to kick this can down the road hoping someone else will pick it up.”
MORE CALLS ON TETHERING THAN INCREASE?
Although several council members spoke about the impact of the eventual $4.25 per month hike for those on fixed incomes, few constituents turned out to voice objections. Council chambers had more Sanitary Board representatives and their associates, than gallery onlookers.
Bottom line: Prior to the meeting, one councilman told HNN that he had NOT had a call about the Sanitary Board. Yet, his phone had been ringing off the hook concerning the debate on the dog tethering proposal.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Your Sewer Rates Go Up; Hopefully, Some Overflow Flooding To Be Abated
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Within about 45 days, subject to what appears a rubber stamp Public Service Commission approval, the first of a two-phase sewer rate increase takes effect. Huntington City Council meeting in special session on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 overwhelmingly approved the measure with only Chairman Jim Insco dissenting.
Council members had varying perceptions and reasons for voting for an average of $2.62 per month increase (15%) now and another $1.63 by year’s end. Some wanted to prevent the horrendous overflows during heavy rains which our antiquated system cannot accommodate. Some believe these projects will spur economic development. Others believe we have to protect the environment for future generations.
Actually, tensions from past administration’s impacted those voting, too. In order to vote for the proposal, you had to look more at the present and future. Previously the Huntington Sanitary Board has faced circumstances of alleged poor money management such as when Mayor Jean Dean drained an eleven million dollar balance from the board’s account.
The overall selling point appeared to be --- you’re not going to get the money at a better interest rate than now, and, you MIGHT get some stimulus funds as a bonus.
Ed Burdette, an engineer from the West Virginia DEP's Division of Water and Waste Management, took on the challenge of answering previously ambiguous questions that had been raised by one or more council members.
The Obama Administration sent the State of West Virginia about $61 million dollars. That’s not enough to fund all shovel ready projects in the state. The Infrastructure Job and Development Council (IJDC) adopted some rules for municipality qualification.
READY TO FOLLOW STATE ADMINISTERED STIMULUS RULES
Bond counsel John Stump, Steptoe & Johnson, called it a race at readiness. “The Sanitary Board jumped on the train when the rules became available to get the city project in line [for stimulus funding].” However, the rates too low to qualify circumstance was deemed a “public policy issue that’s coming from the governor’s office,” Stump admitted. “We are putting the city in position for the best possible funding mix, stimulus or otherwise.”
Attorneys and the engineer then explained the quandary about stimulus, loans and grants, which at the maximum result in 50% loan forgiveness. Thus, the City of Huntington and Sanitary Board can raise rates, apply through the revolving fund, and likely qualify for three percent interest over twenty years, or, be faced , like a town near Wheeling that had too low rates, with borrowing on the public market which is “the least desirable alternative because the interest will be in the five or six percent range for a term of 20 or 30 years,” Stump said.
Robert Rodecker, the attorney representing the Sanitary Board in the rate proceeding, added, “ For the PSC to approve the project, they have to determine there are funds to pay for the project. We cannot assume we will have 100% grant funds. We know we will not. We have prepared rates that assume there will be borrowed money [at the] interest rate we believe will likely be available.”
STATE PLAN DOES NOT PROHIBIT COMMUNITY FROM GETTING IN LINE
Burdette told council that the state Water Waste Management office had developed a “specific plan to administer the spending of the funds. Under that plan, it does not exempt any community from becoming in-line to get stimulus money. It’s all based on readiness to proceed. Huntington has submitted several ready to proceed projects.”
Councilman Insco asked, “If we do not pass the increase tonight, does that eliminate us from getting stimulus money?”
Burdette paused then stated, “probably not. But you would not be able to proceed with the number of projects that have been presented to us… the Hal Greer Boulevard, pump station rehabilitation…"
INSCO: Are you referring to the $785 million dollars [for all projects]?
BURDETTE: No, just the eight million. The four projects on the table right now. Without the increase, you could not proceed with all those projects.
INSCO: But we could proceed with some of them [based on] what stimulus monies we get?
BURDETTE: I’m not sure. I think [you] would have to have a rate increase to cover… the best you could qualify for under the stimulus money is a fifty percent debt forgiveness. You’ll have to have some way to come up with the other fifty percent of the money to pay for the projects, whatever project(s) that may be.
INSCO: Who formulated that plan?
BURDETTE: It’s been formulated by our state revolving [loan] fund program.
INSCO: The state did and not the federal government?
BURDETTE: Yes and approved by them [federal government] . It needs to pass through [the IJDC] before it comes to us to get to our funding scenario.
IRONICLY NONE OF THE FOUR PROJECTS ELIMINATE FLOODING ….
Prior to the discourse with Burdette, Chairman Insco explained his opposition: “I do fit it ironic that we sell the rate increase on separation of storm and sewer lines , eliminate the flooding, to help with the flow and none of the projects in this rate increase are included [for] that. I find it insulting that the West Virginia IJDC that has the stimulus money can say that our rates are too low to qualify. We have heard about the legal responsibilities of council to make sure [the sanitary board] has enough money . Really, the only time we see [members of ] the Sanitary Board is if something is broke or they need more money. I’m not sure how to correct that, Mr. Mayor, except one of two ways --- that’s turn it into a PSD or bring it back under city hall control. One of those would take the politics out of any rate increase that they have. We’ve heard this evening about [council] not having the courage to increase fees, in my eight years, we have increase fees about twelve times. It’s not about courage; it’s about doing what’s right.
Speaking in regard to the broken incinerator, Insco continued: “ I think it cost us about two million dollars. The only expert in America came down out of Connecticut that knew how to put it in. He was a genius and it was a [monetary] savior for the Sanitary Board. We could burn the sludge, increase our flow, possibly burn trash and create electricity… it was sold to council like this increase is being sold and it did NOT work. So now we have a $2.5-$3 million dollar incinerator that does not sound like it will be fixed and probably not be used again.
Responding to historic perspectives, Insco continued, “about some of the older politicians, I’m reminded of what Gov. Arch Moore said about the City of Huntington. He could come down and pass out $50 bills and their council would debate which corner to stand. If we don’t pass it, where do we go, what do we do? Do we file bankruptcy and say , we can’t afford it? I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but [the sanitary board] has automatically assumed that the increase will pass and there is no alternative.”
OPPORTUNITY TO ‘DO SOMETHING’ DESPITE ‘INEFFICIENCIES’
At large councilman, Steve Williams had earlier recalled flooded viaducts and roads during his tenure working for the city. Instead of complaining, he realized, he sat in a position --- not someone else --- to help find a solution. “This is the [newly elected] council’s first opportunity to do something,” Williams said, cautiously adding, the “inefficiencies” stated bring reasons to “pause” decision making.
Williams referred to former council member Tom McCalister’s reminders that “no one wants dirty polluted water,” as he spoke of earlier inefficiencies --- such as allegedly $13 million, $2 million and $3 million “disappearing,” McCalister said.
Actually, the suspense ended (for most) when council woman , Frances Jackson uttered, her constituents are “tired of flooding. They’re in favor of it.”
Co-sponsor Nate Randolph, who had thoroughly examined the proposals and plans, acknowledged that “unfunded mandates make him mad too… but we cannot continue to kick this can down the road hoping someone else will pick it up.”
MORE CALLS ON TETHERING THAN INCREASE?
Although several council members spoke about the impact of the eventual $4.25 per month hike for those on fixed incomes, few constituents turned out to voice objections. Council chambers had more Sanitary Board representatives and their associates, than gallery onlookers.
Bottom line: Prior to the meeting, one councilman told HNN that he had NOT had a call about the Sanitary Board. Yet, his phone had been ringing off the hook concerning the debate on the dog tethering proposal.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
