“Overall goal of SB 11: Enable a municipality to establish a water and sewer district within a specific area to attract and sustain commercial development”
So, Monday morning, May 6, I’m on the radio talking about upcoming legislation and bring up SB 11 and that, in my opinion, it was a real Trojan horse disguising a long-wished for entre for cities and towns and the state of NH to tax private well and septic owners to pay for the mistakes and mismanagement of municipally-owned and operated water and sewer systems.
Next day, out of the blue, I get this email from Senator Nancy Stiles – how in the world she got my email address I have no idea:
Susan,
An email was forward to me and I’m not sure you understand why SB11 was put forward. It didn’t come out of a study. One of my selectmen group was in need of services and didn’t want to put them through the whole community but to provide business with nee[sic] for water and sewerage. One town has the water supply and the other has the septic in place. SB11 ENABLES two communities to share resources through an MOU. No one cares how they set up who pays for what as long as the two communities agree. Included in the legislation is a requirement that if they hate each other 5 years down the road it is predetermined and agreed on how the break up will occur and who has what responsibilities. TOTAL local control to solve a problem. Instead of drafting legislation for one/two particular towns I made it ENABLING legislation for any community that saw a need. NO mandate to do anything. Hope this helps. Stop in my office sometime to say hello.
Nancy F. Stiles
Senate District 24
603 271-6933
So, I write back:
Senator,
You are very kind to take the time to respond to me directly and as little as I care whether Exeter and Stratham like each other, this legislation affects all NH cities and towns. When I was first a researcher at NHMA and then as an orange-badged NHMA lobbyist, I spent several years sitting in on the [SB60 2009] water infrastructure committee hearings as the plan to tax private well and septic owners was crafted as one means of funding municipalities who failed to maintain their own systems [Note: the really good stuff is in the handouts to the study committee’s meetings]. Populated by muni public works directors and staffed by Sarah Pillsbury of DES, the committee, relying heavily on other states’ work, settled on a not-to-exceed (for the time being) 4% of adjusted gross income as the “fair” share private well and septic owners should be forced to pay so “all” may have “access” to water. I personally opposed it then; NHMA, as you might imagine, was fully in support. Just one of the many reasons we parted ways….
I also clearly understand the concept of enabling legislation, as does DES, as does the NHMA. Fact is, municipalities may already join together for any number of reasons and activities through statutorily allowed inter-municipal agreements; water districts can also be formed under the stormwater utilities’ RSAs. I do not know who wrote this bill for you but if it wasn’t DES, I will send you a large check for your next campaign.
And thank you for the invitation to drop by…
Susan
Well, I thought that was that but, the Senator writes back:
Thanks for responding. It wasn’t DES. It was the Admin. in Stratham working with someone from Pennachuck (sp) Water. Originally it included stormwater but that was removed after 10 stakeholder groups met 3 times. Still stop in and say Hi.
Hmm. I reply:
With all due respect, Senator, if it were dusted for prints, I am sure DES’ are all over it and it’s still bad legislation. Where do I send the check? [Of course, the Senator graciously declines the check]
Today, a little birdie drops a document in my email that lays out two pages of talking points in support of SB 11. It starts out with “Overall goal of SB 11: Enable a municipality to establish a water and sewer district within a specific area to attract and sustain commercial development.” Huh…so it’s not to serve citizens or taxpayers; rather, it’s a variation on “build it and they will come” to benefit commercial real estate development. Oh, now I get it but cui bono? (I suspect that’s another story.)
The taking points go on: “Its additional goals:
- Enable a municipality, as an alternative to constructing its own water and sewer facilities, to form a district with a neighboring town that already has the infrastructure.” – Municipalities may already do this.
- “Authorize the district to pay for the facilities through assessments only on the properties that are benefitted.” – Er, no, the bills says “…the owners or users, or both, of properties in the water and/or sewer utility district AS DEFINED BY THE INTERMUNICIPAL AGREEMENT.’ While I’ve been accused of being a bit pedantic on grammar and punctuation, any 8th grader diagramming the parenthetical phrase “as defined by the intermunicipal agreement” knows it is an adjunctive clause to “properties”; meaning the so-called district gets to define WHICH properties will be assessed. It absolutely DOES NOT restrict assessment ONLY ON PROPERTIES THAT ARE BENEFITTED.
- “Provide clear bonding authority.” – Municipalities already have the authority.
Aha! The author of the talking points then cleverly points out that yes, statutory authority for intermunicipal agreements, municipal utilities and bonding authority exists but says gee whiz, rather than go through all the trouble and bother of the multiple checks and balances taxpayers get by requiring each piece be examined, each agreement approved, each bond carefully considered, the author says it makes more sense to just “codify the necessary authority in one place.” Why not repeal the disparate statutes at the same time then?
Then the talking points lay out “Responses to objections”:
- The bill takes away property rights….”This is nothing but paranoia.”
- The bill allows a district to assess fees on property-owned by non-profits …”Nonprofit[s} are never exempt from paying water and sewer bills.” Huh? What do paying bills and assessing fees on property have to do with one another?
- Similar districts have been established under existing laws….’There is no such thing as a water and sewer district established under existing statutes.”
Er, here are five I found during a cursory internet Google:
- The Warner Village Water District ByLaws: Section 1: The District was duly laid out and the boundaries set by the Selectmen of the Town of Warner according to law for the following purposes: to furnish water and sewer service to the inhabitants of the District (Precinct).
- Plymouth Village Water & Sewer District
- The two water districts in the Town of Plainfield are run independently of the town government, each with its own governing body.
The Meriden Village Water District provides water and sewer service to the Village of Meriden.
The Plainfield Village Water District provides water service to the Village of Plainfield. - Newfields Water & Sewer District
“No such thing”? Oops…
Bad bill. Even worse BS.