Jump to content



Photo

I feel another hit to my wallet coming!!

Sewer tax rates again

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#21 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:08 AM

The old Colgate sewer plant is in Clarksville.  Maybe someone should check into purchasing it for Jeffersonville's needs.

It sure is in Clarksville that I won't argue but we also run our line under the ground through Clarksville as well. It might be a simple solution to a huge problem that plagues the city. It also be a cheaper solution as well.



#22 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:30 AM

Read something not too long ago about the old Colgate sewer plant. It was either sold or was being razed. This may have been in the story about converting the old plant.

#23 Councilman 2

Councilman 2

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:00 PM

Sewer bills increased because of the EPA mandate and the city officials at the time negotiated the best deal possible and had the guts to start solving the problem.

 

At that time Jeff could have fought the federal government for more years, spent more money on attorneys and consultants, could have been assessed more fines and could have wasted more time kicking the overflow "can" down the road to future administrations as previous politicians did but the city officials at the time negotiated the best deal possible and decided to started solving the problem. 

 

If Jeff had held out longer there would be have been more fees and fines to pay and no approved plan.  Could the city have negotiated a better deal?  I guess we'll never know but we do know what has happened to some other cities that did not agree to an EPA mandate. 

 

Big winner in Unalaska's EPA wastewater tussle? Lawyers.

The city of Unalaska paid more than a half-million dollars in legal fees fighting the federal lawsuit requiring the construction of a new sewage treatment plant, water treatment plant and the towering new leachate tank on Summers Bay Road adjacent to the landfill.

The city released the legal expenditures last week in response to a written request from the Bristol Bay Times – Dutch Harbor Fisherman, under the terms of the Alaska Public Records Act.

The city paid two law firms a total of $525,000. The city’s regular Anchorage law firm, Brooks, Chandler, Falconer, earned $133,923.

The larger amount went to the Washington, D.C., firm of Beveridge and Diamond, at $392,03... 

 

The city instead paid a fine of $340,000 for multiple violations of the federal Clean Water Act, under the terms of a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice, representing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  The consent decree, which avoids a trial, requires the city to spend tens of millions of dollars on new water and sewer facilities, and will require a steep increase in utility rates paid by property owners. 

 

Evansville is another example of what happens when you delay and fight the EPA.  Evansville has spent millions on attorneys, engineers, and consultants fighting the EPA.  Years pass, money spent and no improvements done and with the EPA requiring a 20 year plan to correct their flooding and sewer overflow problem Evansville finally submitted a 28 year plan that raised the sewer rates from an average of about $33 a month in 2013 to about $55 a month in 2016.  

 

The EPA rejected the plan and now Evansville has more lawyers, engineers, and money wasted and no agreed to plan.   In the mean time Evansville sewer has implemented their "unapproved plan" including the large rate increases.  The EPA continues to push...

 

 http://city-countyob...-and-approval/ 

 

Jun 3, 2013

Evansville Water and Sewer Utility submits final sewer overflow control plan to EPA Mandated sewer improvement plan now awaits federal feedback and approval

EVANSVILLE, Ind. – On Friday, May 31, 2013, the Evansville Water and Sewer Utility (EWSU) submitted the City of Evansville’s comprehensive, federally mandated integrated overflow control plan (IOCP) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Justice and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

http://www.courierpr...d-sewer-overflo

EPA disapproves Evansville's proposed sewer overflow control plan | PDFs

Jessie Higgins
4:00 PM, Jun 20, 2014
The Environmental Protection Agency has rejected Evansville's proposed $540 million plan to upgrade its sewer overflow control plan citing technical issues with the design and suggesting the plan was too low cost, the city announced Friday.
 

http://www.14news.co...harges-on-bills

 

 

Evansville residents will soon be receiving their utility bills in the mail, but they will notice a new charge on the statement that could be a steep increase. 

 

Officials have been talking about the water and sewer rate hikes for a long time and they are finally here. Customers are billed for water, sewer, trash and now there's a line that says mandate. That is the fee customers are being charged that now goes toward upgrading our current sewer systems. 


Edited by Councilman 2, 21 April 2015 - 10:05 PM.


#24 Councilman 2

Councilman 2

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:40 PM

The canal was a good idea that was politicized beyond recognition.     

 

The canal could have used a pool of money from sewer fees, redevelopment TIF dollars, drainage fees, flood control district taxes and private investments to solve the Jeff flooding problem, help pay for the sewer interceptor contruction, create a downtown amenity for our citizens to enjoy  and create an economic development district for private investment. 

 

The canal and the sewer interceptor could have been built at the same time basically in the same trench saving the construction costs of each.  

 

There is a flood control district that has old pumps that push water into Clarksville.  That district alone will need to spend about $15 million dollars on upgrades that will improve but NOT solve flooding problems. 

 

The sewer department will need to pay an estimated $45 million to complete the interceptor project on their own.  This cost would have been less if costs were shared with redevelopment and built at the same time as the canal. 

 

Mayor Moore plans to spend over $57 million of redevelopment money from 2013 until 2018.  None of this TIF money solves flooding problems, increases assessed values and to date none of the TIF spending has resulted in outside private investment. (10th & Spring project does have potential to do this).

 

$15 Million + $45 Million + $57 million + new private investment = The Canal would have been an excellent flooding solution AND reduced cost sewer interceptor solution. 

 

Hey if we can renegotiate with the EPA and get the Mandate reduced I'm all for it.   If the Mandate is not changed all we did was waste time and money on more attorneys, engineers and consultants. When you look at history as our guide the chances are slim on getting a changed Mandate but the chances of paying "experts" in the process are absolute.


Edited by Councilman 2, 21 April 2015 - 10:43 PM.

  • Not Super But Honest Mike likes this

#25 Greg Clark

Greg Clark

    ACCOUNT CLOSED

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 21 April 2015 - 11:33 PM

The canal was a good idea that was politicized beyond recognition.

The canal could have used a pool of money from sewer fees, redevelopment TIF dollars, drainage fees, flood control district taxes and private investments to solve the Jeff flooding problem, help pay for the sewer interceptor contruction, create a downtown amenity for our citizens to enjoy and create an economic development district for private investment.

The canal and the sewer interceptor could have been built at the same time basically in the same trench saving the construction costs of each.

There is a flood control district that has old pumps that push water into Clarksville. That district alone will need to spend about $15 million dollars on upgrades that will improve but NOT solve flooding problems.

The sewer department will need to pay an estimated $45 million to complete the interceptor project on their own. This cost would have been less if costs were shared with redevelopment and built at the same time as the canal.

Mayor Moore plans to spend over $57 million of redevelopment money from 2013 until 2018. None of this TIF money solves flooding problems, increases assessed values and to date none of the TIF spending has resulted in outside private investment. (10th & Spring project does have potential to do this).

$15 Million + $45 Million + $57 million + new private investment = The Canal would have been an excellent flooding solution AND reduced cost sewer interceptor solution.

Hey if we can renegotiate with the EPA and get the Mandate reduced I'm all for it. If the Mandate is not changed all we did was waste time and money on more attorneys, engineers and consultants. When you look at history as our guide the chances are slim on getting a changed Mandate but the chances of paying "experts" in the process are absolute.


Folks, this guy knows what he's talking about. This is a spot on critique and summary of the facts and challenges the city has faced and continues to face with its sewage works infrastructure and program. People need to stop focusing on the canal and Galligan or who said bury some pipe with a lagoon that a canal deposits sewer water into. None of that is helpful, talking about it and sensationalizing your own personal or political agendas does nothing to solve the issue. At best, it just prolongs the status quo and continues the same miserable conversation.

All the while, poor Len Ashack is caught in the middle of a political firestorm that long ago lost any relevance in moving the sewer department forward. He's just trying to keep the toilet from overflowing in a house that has refused to accept that it needs to buy a plunger while it argues which brand/style of plunger is best....not because of any results-based findings on the particular plunger model, but because we don't like the proponents of the opposite model or disagree with their politics.

Ed, I applaud you for trying to get the conversation back on topic. It's really this simple: the city has committed or has needs to fulfill projects and programs that cost $x. You currently have $v. $w is what it is needed to get to $x. Figure out the best way to raise/fund $w and get it done.
  • Not Super But Honest Mike and Kruger87 like this

#26 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 04:54 AM

The canal was a good idea

While that's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, others may disagree.

Having an open ditch, with stagnant water running through the middle of town is nothing resembling progress.

It is a solution that one would expect in a third world country.

 

Maybe if our elected officials had not ignored this issue, we could have fixed it over time.

 

Tell me, what is the council doing to remedy this problem?


Edited by woo, 22 April 2015 - 05:12 AM.


#27 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 05:41 AM

History and our pocketbooks will show that Galligan and Ashack were correct in proposing the canal. I do not have any faith that Moore will pull a rabbit out of a hat and negotiate anything that is economically worth while. We may get a few years extension at a very high cost, but it will still be an extension. 

All we have done in the last four years is spend money to kick the can down the road and the Moore administration has not come up with any answers. 



#28 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 05:45 AM

stagnant water running through

 

What?
 

 


  • Kruger87 likes this

#29 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 05:46 AM

Steve,

How does a 70 million dollar solution help taxpayers more that a 45 million dollar solution?



#30 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 05:48 AM

What?
 

The canal was not planned as a source of moving water, the water was to be stagnant unless there was a rain event.

 

"Running through it" was not the best choice of words, sorry.



#31 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:40 AM

The canal was not planned as a source of moving water, the water was to be stagnant unless there was a rain event.
 
"Running through it" was not the best choice of words, sorry.


The only thing stagnant is the minds of the people that don't want to understand the benefits of the canal.

Fact is the canal was planned to have running water at all times. The water would be completely changed every 3 days. This was done by having the outflow gate into the river open a little at all times. As water went into the canal the same amount would exit on the river end. In periods of heavy rain the outflow gate could be opened a little more to control the water flow and to control the flooding. The city did receive a permit from the Corps to have the outflow pipe empty into the river. Much thought, much planning, and much engineering went into the canal to make it a success. And the construction costs were estimated to be much less than 70 million.

Woo, I attended EVERY canal meeting and workshop that was open to the public to get a better understanding of the proposed canal, how many did you attend?

#32 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:51 AM

 And the construction costs were estimated to be much less than 70 million.

Woo, I attended EVERY canal meeting and workshop that was open to the public to get a better understanding of the proposed canal, how many did you attend?

The last published estimates were at 70 million without amenities.

 

There was not a reason to attend the meetings, because just like annexation, they were held to tell lies.


  • kelley likes this

#33 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,123 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:58 AM

The canal was a good idea that was politicized beyond recognition.

The canal could have used a pool of money from sewer fees, redevelopment TIF dollars, drainage fees, flood control district taxes and private investments to solve the Jeff flooding problem, help pay for the sewer interceptor contruction, create a downtown amenity for our citizens to enjoy and create an economic development district for private investment.

The canal and the sewer interceptor could have been built at the same time basically in the same trench saving the construction costs of each.

There is a flood control district that has old pumps that push water into Clarksville. That district alone will need to spend about $15 million dollars on upgrades that will improve but NOT solve flooding problems.

The sewer department will need to pay an estimated $45 million to complete the interceptor project on their own. This cost would have been less if costs were shared with redevelopment and built at the same time as the canal.

Mayor Moore plans to spend over $57 million of redevelopment money from 2013 until 2018. None of this TIF money solves flooding problems, increases assessed values and to date none of the TIF spending has resulted in outside private investment. (10th & Spring project does have potential to do this).

$15 Million + $45 Million + $57 million + new private investment = The Canal would have been an excellent flooding solution AND reduced cost sewer interceptor solution.

Hey if we can renegotiate with the EPA and get the Mandate reduced I'm all for it. If the Mandate is not changed all we did was waste time and money on more attorneys, engineers and consultants. When you look at history as our guide the chances are slim on getting a changed Mandate but the chances of paying "experts" in the process are absolute.


Politicized beyond recognition...

Property owners were treated shabbily at best. Affordable housing was eliminated. Home owners became renters.

So, so many lies were told in the process, to property owners and to the public.

If it was such a great idea, the truth should have been sufficient.

Regardless of the value of the proposal, people shouldn't be taken advantage of in pursuit of it.
  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny, Kruger87 and 1 other like this

#34 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:07 AM

A quick google search finds references to 65 million.

http://archives.wfpl...sonville-canal/

http://www.newsandtr...bdd502cdf3.html

 

And then there is this gem from the wayback machine...

http://clarkcountych...onight/?p=49779



#35 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:19 AM

There were several published reports on the cost of building the canal. The basic canal, the bottom and walls, was 17 million. The outflow pipe into the river and the pump stations added a other 10 to 12 million. The rest of the expense was for the concrete walks, the art work,construction of three parks, the Court Ave.bridge,utility lines, streets, etc. The most widely published cost estimate for everything was 52 million. This included everything from 10th Street to the river and included the cost of property and engineering costs. This was the complete package with all amenities.

In meetings held after Moore was elected the cost of a working canal without all the amenities was set at 40 million. This out was to be split 50/50 with the private developer. The city had already spent half of their share of the costs, 10 million, in engineering and property acquisition costs.

#36 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:24 AM

When tg first spoke about the canal he stated he would build it without tax dollars and is quoted in the paper saying that during a council meeting. That was about $7,000,000 TIF dollars ago.

Peggy Duffy said the basic canal would only cost $17,000,000.

The CJ carried a story in the spring saying the canal would cost $140,000,000

During the Jeffhigh debate I believe tg said it would cost $65,000,000

Tonight tg said it would cost ONLY $63,000,000

Does this include all the bridges? All the art work? All the public park areas? All the signs? Canal police? Canal boats? Canal sanitation services? All engineering costs? Permit costs? (I hope he gets permits this time) Flood protection costs? Convention center costs? Will there be a canal taxing district?

Bottom line, does anyone know what the total cost of everything will be? No, I don't think they do know the total cost, nor do they care. Whatever the total cost comes to we, the taxpayer, will have to pay for it.

But what scares me the most is lack of concern. When the 10th Street median project was announced the budget was set at $250,000. The total cost, the true cost, will be close to $700,000.

I hope the estimates on the canal costs are closer than the median project. If not, the canal might end up costing $175,000,000!

Sadly, the taxpayers will be on the hook for every cent of the cost.....

 

Tonight (10-12-2011) during the redevelopment meeting a typed canal report prepared by Peggy duffy was read into the record.

It stated the canal project to be a $64,000,000 project. I get worried when they start missing the projected cost by millions.


Peggy also stated the first part of the canal, the outfall, should be ready for bid in January. So that leaves time for a new mayor to stop it.

Your own words......


  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny, kelley and 2 others like this

#37 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:47 AM

Some of you complained about the treated sewer water running through the proposed canal and here is a community drinking the same water. And they say it is good! Once again other communities advance while Jeffersonville lags behind.

 

so, why did we need a canal?  just pump that treated water right back in to the water supply.



#38 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:53 AM

Politicized beyond recognition...
Property owners were treated shabbily at best. Affordable housing was eliminated. Home owners became renters.
So, so many lies were told in the process, to property owners and to the public.
If it was such a great idea, the truth should have been sufficient.
Regardless of the value of the proposal, people shouldn't be taken advantage of in pursuit of it.


Everything in Jeff is politicized beyond recognition. Current administration is paying Promedia to politicize everything. How many press releases and TV stations does it take to announce a project?

Yes, low cost housing was eliminated,but is it any different with the 10th Street project? Almost any economic development project will happen in the oldest part of any community. Hardly ever see new homes being purchased by government with the intent of razing them for development projects.

under Moore we have seen our low cost boat docks destroyed. Residents have had to move their boats, some of them being their only home, so a politician can achieve his dream.

As long as we have politicians lies will be told. The current administration is just as bad as any when it comes to stretching the truth and hiding the truth. Can't believe any of them. They all lie.

No matter the project, no matter the location, people will always be upset when they are forced to sell their home and move.
  • Kruger87 likes this

#39 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:55 AM

Whether it is a canal or underground pipes, its gonna cost the taxpayers a butt load of cash! How can a resident on a fixed income survive anymore in this city. Every time we turn around they are finding new ways to screw over the residents. I still have not recovered from the 2009 flood where the city of Louisville had FEMA there that afternoon and our useless governor waited 19 days before sending down an Arson inspector from Homeland Security to inspect the flood damage. Then  the city was given $1.2 million to help with the damage to the residents that sustained massive losses. The last three mayors cared about the flooding of the city only three times, when it was election time. After they won or loss they forgot about it. I will have to say out of the last three at least Galligan had a clue. Tom knew about drainage from running his own excavating company. Moore and Waiz knew nothing about it and still don't.



#40 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:59 AM


No matter the project, no matter the location, people will always be upset when they are forced to sell their home and move.

I saw an entire neighborhood taken for pennies on the dollar by this administration. For what? Still can't decide. But property that was forced to be sold by the owners was able to be used for other purposes by the city. Lies and Moore lies is all we have seen in this administration.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users