Guest Post by Ken Eyring - a conversation on SB11 - Granite Grok

Guest Post by Ken Eyring – a conversation on SB11

[Emphasis mine – Skip]

I wanted to share the conversation that I had with Rep. Abrami via email over the past few days regarding SB-11. I am concerned about some of the unintended consequences in the language of the Bill. These concerns are listed below.  If you agree with me, please share your concerns with your representatives.

———————————————————————————————-

From: Ken Eyring
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:08 PM
To: Abrami, Patrick
Cc: ~All Representatives
Subject: Re: Senate Bill 11 — Please consider these concerns/potential unintended consequences

Dear Honorable Representative Abrami,

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and share your thoughts.  Per your advice, I read Mr. Johnston’s summary of the bill (which you sent to me).  With sincere respect, I believe that both you and Mr. Johnson misunderstand the concerns that I and others have raised.  I am concerned that SB-11’s language may not be interpreted in the manner which you (as a sponsor) intended.  Please give me a moment to explain.

In my previous letter, I referred to some of the text in SB-11 as amended (e.g. “waters of New Hampshire”) that I felt could be broadly interpreted to mean ALL waters of New Hampshire, regardless of source or location.  I appreciate that you agree with me that the Bill’s current statement of purpose does not focus on the true purpose — and I want to thank you in advance for amending this section on Wednesday on the House floor.

There are other areas of the Bill that I am also concerned about, and perhaps it is due to a lack of understanding on my part.  I would appreciate if you would help clarify the following concerns related to this excerpt from 31:141:

“the municipality may levy assessments or fees, or both, in an amount not greater than the net appropriation to a water and/or sewer utility district fund. The assessments and fees shall be made against the owners or users, or both, of properties in the water and/or sewer utility district and shall be based upon a formula determined by the municipality to be in relative proportion to benefits received by each property owner or user, or both, in the water and/or sewer utility district.

———————————————————————————————-

On 05/20/13 07:40 PM, Abrami, Patrick wrote:

Ken,

Thank you for your response. In any water or sewer district that exist today in NH those in the district, and only in the district (meaning there are pipes coming down your street that you can hook up to) can you be charged for that service. If you live outside the district you may not be assessed fees. Now the language in current statute and in SB11 give the people of that district through a vote at town meeting whether the assessment will be an additional tax assessment on your property tax (that would mean owners) or to charge it by the amount of use via a water meter (that would mean users) . The prime sponsor of this bill is Nancy Stiles lives in Hampton. In Hampton she tells me the voters chose an assessment on property years ago. Nancy says she prefers a user fee based upon the amount of water she uses. The point is this was decided by a local vote. This issue can be brought up any time to change it to a use fee. In the case of Stratham only those in our proposed water/sewer district would be assessed one way or the other. People like me will not be subject to this fee because we live outside the proposed district.

Ken remember we all love local control, but New Hampshire is not a Home Rule State. The legislature must pass enabling legislation like this for towns or cities to proceed with just about any thing they may want to do (that is why the legislation must explicitly say the municipality may levy assessments or fees-if that was not there in statute the municipalities do not have the authority to charge for the service). The current stautes do not fit what Stratham wants to do so we proposed this enabling legislation. This is legislation that some day you folks in Windham might need to place water and sewer just in a portion of your town to promote more commercial growth. This is growth in your property tax base without adding more children to increase the school budget and thus school taxes. That is Stratham’s motivation. This bill is not partisan or ideological.  I hope this helps.

Rep Pat Abrami
Stratham

———————————————————————————————-

Subject:     Re: Senate Bill 11 — Please consider these concerns/potential unintended consequences
Date:     Tue, 21 May 2013 20:41:09 -0400
From:     Ken Eyring <ken@intrinetsystems.com>
To:     Abrami, Patrick <Patrick.Abrami@leg.state.nh.us>
CC:     ~All Representatives <HReps@leg.state.nh.us>

Dear Honorable Representative Abrami,

I know from your emails that you share my concerns regarding local control and that towns should be enabled to meet their needs.  However, there is language in SB-11 that I feel may be misinterpreted and therefore create unintended consequences.

I sent some of these to you yesterday, but don’t believe they were addressed in your response.  I have included a few more.  I respectfully ask that you please take a moment to review these in the context of your Bill — to make sure that SB-11 will provide your stated goals and no more.

  • The stated purpose of SB-11 is to enable the creation of a joint municipal water and sewer district – and that existing legislation enables one or the other, but not both.  Respectfully, I still don’t understand why it is not easier to modify the existing legislation so that both utilities can be created.
  • I am concerned about the language in section 31:139, which has language that is left open for broad interpretation.

  I. The services provided by a water and/or sewer utility district under this subdivision may include property-related services, including but not limited to providing public drinking water and water for domestic uses; water for fire suppression; and wastewater management; related construction, operation, and maintenance of capital facilities needed in the performance of these services; and other business development services and activities related to the maintenance of an attractive, useful, and economically viable business environment within the district. These services and activities may be either those of a routine nature provided for all properties,  or may be particular to those in the water and/or sewer utility district.

What is meant by “other business development services and activities related to the maintenance of an attractive, useful and economically viable business environment within the district.”  This could be broadly interpreted to mean just about anything.  It leads me to ask why taxpayers of a town should be required to pay for developing private property that others (the owners of the developed property) will profit from?

The section goes on to say “These services and activities may be either those of a routine nature provided for all properties or may be particular to those in the water and/or sewer utility district.  Does this mean that a water/sewer district can provide services and activities for ALL properties (including those properties outside the district) – and/or “be particular to those in the water and/or sewer utility district”.  If services are provided outside the district, who will pay for them?

  • The Bill appears to change the traditional definition of a utility.  Currently, users pay for what they consume regarding their utility services (e.g. for phone or electric services).  SB-11 enables “assessments or fees, or both” that may be based on other criteria and charge non-users, e.g. property owners.
  • I understand a need to fund each utility, but the source of revenues includes property owners – not just users — “assessments or fees, or both”, against each “property owner or user, or both” in a water and/or sewer utility district.  As stated above, this goes against the traditional concept of utilities charging customers for their usage.

I would like to better understand the justification for charging property owners and/or users, instead of just the users of the services.

  • Will each individual property owner have the choice to opt in or out of a water and/or sewer utility district at any time?  It is my understanding that there will be no choice if the property is in the defined district — and they will be subjected to the tax assessments and fees.

Shouldn’t each property owner have the option to choose whether or not to participate in a water/sewer district?   With the way the legislation is written, it appears that a majority of voters will define who will be forced into a water/sewer district and subsequently forced to pay for services they may not want nor need.

  • Will each property in a water and/or sewer utility district have access to all of the services that are provided by the district?
  • If religious organizations have property that falls within the water and/or sewer district — but they are not users of any service — they still be charged for assessments and fees.
  • It is my understanding that ~60% of NH properties rely on inexpensive water through the use of wells on their personal properties.  If any of these properties were required to hook up to a water district utility (via SB-11), that there would be at least two immediate drawbacks…

1. Access to well water on personal property is typically very inexpensive.  The cost of water via a water utility would most likely be substantially more expensive.
2. All properties within a water district would be reliant on a single source for clean water.  This would exasperate the problem in the event a utility’s water source became contaminated — as all users in the water district would be affected.  Conversely, if property owners have access to the wells on their personal property — any affects of contamination would be limited to one or a relatively few homes (as in the recent contamination problem in Atkinson).

Thank you again for taking the time to review these concerns.

Sincerely,

>