HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-29 90-61 RESOLVEDate 1-29!90 11
1
1
1 Item No. 90-61
RESOLVE, Stating Position of the City of Bangor
Regarding LO 2189, An Act Amending the Charter of
Item/subject: the Bangor Water District
Responsible Department: City Manager'
Commentary:
Representative Duffy of Bangor has introduced legislation which
would amend the Charter of the Bangor Water District. The Act
has two provisions. First, it requires the City Council of the
City of Bangor to approve contracts to sell water outside the
District. Second, it establishes a referenda procedure] on
District decisions.
Under State law, municipalities which are'within -a water district
must comment in writing to the Legislature on proposals to amend
the District's Charter. This must be done before the
Legislature takes action. This bill is scheduled for a hearing
early in February.
Both the Water District and Rep. Duffy have been notified of
this meeting..
Attached are several resolutions which take a variety of
positions on the is
aG.
Depnmew Hxd
Manager's Comments:
Asociated Information:
Resolves, LD 2189
Budget Approval: N,
K D;m
Legal Approval:
C
Ciry SWi u
InPagFor
e
❑ First Pestling Page — of
❑ Rommel
90-61
Assigned to Councilor Sosnaud, January 29, 1990
CITY OF BANGOR
(TITLUMol rs......Supp ting the Provisions _ ns of LD 2189, An Act
to Amend the Charter of the Bangor Water District
BY a. "IF cawed Of as Day AUSaaw.:
xssoLvan,
WHEREAS;
The City of Bangor was instrumental in the
creation of the Bangor Water District as anentity
charged with providing safe and sufficient
drinking water for the citizens of Bangor; and
WHEREAS;
It is essential that the best interests of the
citizens of Bangor guide the operations and
activities of the District; and
WHEREAS;
The formal involvement of the City Council of the
City of Bangor in the process of approving
contracts for the sale of water outside of the
District will further safeguard the interests of
the citizens of Bangor; and
WHEREAS;
It is appropriate for the citizens of Bangor to
exercise the referenda process on certain
decisions of the District which direclty affect
them;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BANGOR, THAT the City Council supports LD 2189,
An Act to Amend the Charter of the Bangor Water
District, and calls upon the Utilities Committee
of the Legislature and the Legislature as a whole
to approve this measure.
.. Amended oopy
90-61
CITY OF BANGOR
(TITLE.) �RESD1iTB,.. Qpp ai.Hg..tne...PFAV$giQBS..............
W Amend the Charter of the Bangor Water District
Eyµ City Coaa.-0 ofdw Cih ofBanynr
RESOLVED,
WHEREAS, The City Of Bangor was instrumental in the
creation of the Bangor water District as an entity
charged with providing safe and sufficient
drinking water for the citizens of Bangor, and
WHEREAS, The City of Bangor continues to appoint the
members of the Water District's Board of Trustees;
and
WHEREAS, The Water District is currently regulated bythe
State Public Utilities Commission; and
WHEREAS, Additional controls beyond those already.
established in the District's Charter, the PUC's
rulings and procedures, and the City Council's -
appointing autirority, are unnecessary;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BANGOR, THAT the City Councildoes not suppomt
LD 2189, An Act to Amend the Charter Of the Bangor
Water District, and calls upon the Utilitles
Commission of the Legislature as a whole W defeat
this measure.
In City Couocil January 29,1990
Passed as attended
vote 5 res 4 No
90-61
R E S O L V E
N City Council January 29,1990 Supporti ] M Pro isiw of M 2189
vote to-Ivre 1 by Substitution
resoles= = N d the Cberter of the
OpEvsing sProv siona
en of w g� or Water O'%erict
2189 an act to amend the
Ghetto of the Bangor Weyer Dist.
w 5 yes 4 No
wring yes
�,4gl ,Ssw ,Stone
Sullivan
wtin9 No
Baldaxi,Blancbette,Sa#,
sosriaud
wte for [ Saw as artendsi
5 yes 4 no
wtin9 yes CobenrBngland,SawYer,
Stone,Sullivan
Voting No
Baldacci,Blarchei[e,Sa#, Sosr�aud
I
J-
114th MAINE LEGISLATURE
SECOND REGULAR SESSION -1990
Legislative Document - No. 2189
H.P. 1580 House of Representatives, January 12, 1990
Approved for introduction by a majority of the Legislative Council pursuant to
Joint Rule 26.
Reference to the Committee on Utilities suggested and ordered printed.
5W 6?�
EDWIN H. PERT, Clerk
Presented by Representative DUFFY of Bangor.
STATE OF MAINE
IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD
NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY
An Act to Amend the Charter of the Bangor Water District.
15
2
4
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
20
30
32
34
36
36
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. P&SL 1957, c. 39, ¢3 is emended by adding at the end a
new sentence to ream
A 3diDtrinc decision to r into. renegotiate. mend or renew a
c Drnyj6.11 ^ii�e4A� 1U. district ad
Peapribad in section I is subject
Council.
Sec.2. P&SL 1957,c.39,§15 is enacted to read:
Sv". ._Ratere_nds a QjySNcL lcisknbxqtirinn n
JbInAqt 51 2f thein the
1p62y'd`y f 1 _
wlg9d Lt d to ne special
t + r^e r to U.11 192 11L2 h,,,Se,
agagEsting to the Ing relation to municipal elections. excnpt toet
jbe bee eaic v is pot regajred [o pygpn[e £or postiva
war the �ity elerk to Pont. a new list 2f m2taxa. Egg he
S aimtKatign shall he in session the : wider dayqgNt weea'na
theIgumi,ed
4ollot t�arkBppl] i Better of
the decicio hcshelf questnn
=AiDat
Led Qgda --XaE-- or "No' their opinion of can fact ion.
*ne a.e3 s ten knk=,—ftar•w1fiat'ly upon acceptance By a
msigrity of tins legal voters 14'. .1 11.
that the total number of motes Cost for and aminst ell
p££E¢t nr a tM6�gL,gadla or ev cede 204 of the total not,
�or Governor cast in the district at the las
oubern,carial election.
TJSSes. Sa_mY4t h red M the mu9iy}pal
be filed by the city Clark wi th the Secretary of state,
o£f ieeia_s£_Sb.
STATEMEW OF FACT
This bill amends the charter of the Bangor Nater District to
require Bangor City Council approval of any district decisions to
enter lots, renegotiate, mend or
renew contracts to provide o
¢
sell w outside the district. This bill adds referendum
clause to the charter, whereby if 54 of the district's voters
sign a petition, the decision may be put to referendum.
Page 1-LB3250(l)
/ BAMGOR CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
January 29, 1990
Tape 51. Side A
Re: Council Resolve 90-61 - Supporting the Provisions of M 2189,
an Act to Mend the Charter of the Bangor Water District
Councilor Sosnaud: I see that the author of this bill,
Representative Duffy, is here with us and if the Chair deems it i
order I would certainly like to hear from Representative Duffy
about the bill and his stated claim for the need of it.
chairman sawyer: Councilor Sosnaud, if you'd be willing, let me
see ve got two actual, okay, would you rather move and have
seconded a Resolve and then debate, or since you have the floor
would you rather hear discussion and then see what mood the Council
is in?
Councilor Sosnaud: Either way I'm happy to. I'll just follow our
traditional format. I'll move the Resolve.
Councilor England: Point of order.
Chairman Sawyer: Yes.
Councilor Enaland: What, we have two Resolves here, one 90-61 and
one 90-62.
Edward Barrett: They're both really the same number and you just
have to pick one.
Councilor Sullivan: No, 62 is the homestead ---
Chairman Sawveri Homestead.
Edward Barrett: There are two, there are two resolves on the Water
District --
Councilor Enoland: well, you got two 90-61. What are you going to
call it?
Chairman Sawver: To cut the baby in half on this how about if the
motion was to move Council Resolve 90-61, then in the course of
debate I guess legally by, we would amend to pick which of the two
resolves before us we want. So did I hear you. Is that right?
Councilor Coheni Point of information Mr. Barrett.
_2_
Robert Miller: I think you ought to pick one or the other, and
that should be, your motion should be in support of either one or
the ether.
(several people talking)
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Cohen.
Councilor Cohen: we're debating. Mr. Mayor, just a point of
information. We need to know what we're debating, either in favor
of the resolve or against the resolve, so I would suggest you know,
just for the record, maybe Jeff would just pick one or decide what
he wants to put on the floor for debate.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Sosnaud, you have the floor.
Councilor Sosnaud: Well I have to confess I've just seen the one
n the table in front of me. Could some, I can read it myself
quickly, can
somebody point out the chief distinctions between the
new one and---
Councilor England: Yeah, that one's opposed the District's in
favor.
Councilor Sosnaud: Okay, I.11 move the original one then please.
Councilor Sullivan: I have a question.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Sullivan.
Councilor Sullivan: Why do we have them both the same number?
Edward Barrett: Cause the resolve will be 90-61. Cause there has
to be an action taken on every resolve, if we didn't act on,
otherwise you have to act on both. Pass one and ---
Councilor Blanchette: Yeah, I'll second it.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Blanchette seconds it. So we have
moved and seconded, now a debate. Would anyone from the audience
like to speak? Representative Duffy.
Representative Duffv: Thank you Chairman Sawyer, members of the
City Council.
Councilor Blanchette: Tom, would you check and see that the
microphone is on please.
Representative Duffv: it's there. I'm just not speaking into it
right.
Councilor Blanchette: Thank you.
_3_
Representative Duffvz I believe the motion before the Council
right now is in favor of the bill to amend the Bangor Charter. I
came here today naturally because I believe in the bill that's as
presented and will be presented February 7th to the Public
Utilities Committee. Interestingly enough, by the way I have 9
copies of the Bangor Water District original Charter if you'd like
to have them in front of you.
Certainly.
Representative Duffy: And I want to touch upon the Charter as it
is now. Certainly appropriate because we're amending it.
Apparently the Bangor City Charter was accepted in 5, the May 6,
1957 almost 32 years and a half ago I guess. And that would make
me a young man and so Chairman Sawyer a young man if we go back
there and just talk about 32 years ago. But 32 years ago
apparently we had a problem in the City of Bangor.
Edward Barrett: There were copies of that also included in Bob
Miller's Memo that went out.
Councilor Sullivan: We've got copies here.
Edward Barrett: Dated January 26th.
Representative Duffy: May, so you're well prepared then.
Apparently 32 years ago we had a problem with the public water
supply in Bangor. It came out of Penobscot River and I guess we
all knoand remember what that was like. Interestingly enough
w
shortly before that the City of Brewer of fatted to go in with the
Bangor, and share their water with them and create a Bangor -Brewer
Water District. Apparently we turned that request down and decided
that we wanted to create our own water source, and to have our own
Water District.
One of the vital reasons that we went to a water district was to
alleviate the Town of, City of Bangor from a bond indebtedness that
it would have taken to create a new water source. So weceated
the Bangor Water District. And why did we create it? In the
first, the very first thing we did in Section 1 was, the purposes
of the District shall be to supply the inhabitants of the District
with pure water for fire protection purposes and also for domestic,
sanitary, commercial, industrial and other lawful pux - take over
control manage and operate the water system now owned by the said
City of Bangor.
Intent and purpose you go on a little bit, is to provide a water
system for proper purposes and for the health comfort and
convenience of the inhabitants of said District. They go on to
define the District as to be in the boundaries of the City of
Bangor. So when we talk about what water is delivered, it's
delivered either within the District or without of the District
_4_
and that means in or out of Bangor.
I'll go on a little further that they allowed a take over, they
allowed that there may be the situation to arise that we may want
to sell water, give water, provide water outside the City of
Bangor. They allowed that but they said consistent with the needs
of the iMabitants of the District hereby created. Bo therefore we
went, and a little further on In the Charter, we allowed that we
should appoint the members of the Bangor Water District. And x
contend that that appointment was the day-to-day operations of the
Bangor Water District - to serve the City of Bangor and its
inhabitants of which I must say they've done an extremely good
job. I think that we're lucky to have a company that has done as
well as it has to serve water and the quality of the water we have
In Bangor.
But since 1957 and when it was created the citizens of Bangor, by
through their rate paying and by taxes, have bought paid for
expanded created the resource of Flood's Pond and all of the piping
to it and to Bangor and throughout the District, throughout the
City of Bangor. It wasn't cheap. It wasn't inexpensive. But we
bought and paid for it. Not anybody outside the District, but
everybody inside Bangor.
I guess everybody read the Bangor Daily News today, and part of
that what they had to say I agree with. Question is if we really
made a case for emending the Bangor Water District. Well
interestingly enough I believe, i believe that we haven't been able
to get the case out. I don't think that we've been able to get the
tremendous public scrutiny that's, that is needed to make people
understand that there is indeed a case out there for the scrutiny
that I've, that I've proposed in this legislative act. I think we
only have to go back 30 years ago to start looking at what
happened, and what's happening to the Bangor Water District. Ten
years ago, and my numbers are plus or minus, I don't have exact
numbers, but I've been, this is what I've been told that we drew 3
1/2 million gallons a day out of Flood's Pond. I think as we've
been told it's up around a peak period of 6.6, 6.7 million gallons
per day now. Well I asked the question of how many gallons it's
increased for the City of Bangor? What's Bangor taken over the
last 10 years? They said Bangor's increased approximately a
million gallons a day since 19 -- say 78 or 79. That means that 2
million gallons per day has gone outside the District as a
increase.
Question becomes is that, is that in the best interest of the city
of people of Bangor? It's not an
unlimited water resource.
There's only so many gallons per day at the best in the best
conditions that you can take out of it. Now we'd been inprudent
with a water resource for the residents of the City of Bangor.
-5 -
Well the next question is, is, what have they tried to do in those
10 years to improve the situation? well, first of all, they went
and contracted with the chemical group in Orrington. and they
contracted to them for a million gallons a year forever. That's
what they contracted to them for, a million gallons a year
forever. well, they at least built a dam at Flood's Pond to raise
the level of the water level so that if indeed they had to give a
million gallons a year they'd have a million gallons extra.
Well the next thing they did was in the contract, they said you
guys got to pay us ahead of time for this piping. But we'll Pay
you back. We'll pay you back through credits of water. So we used
nor water to credit back - the chemical company forgetting the pipe
to get to the chemical plant. But who, so who paid the payback?
City residents of Bangor. Is that a subsidy? If you pay 858 of
the bill that's a subsidy.
So we have a contract with Hampden, the contract with Hampden was
in existence 10 years ago, called for us to be either a back-up
water system or an alternate water system. Since 1982 we've
supplied every drop of water to Hampden. What's interesting about
Hampden is that they used to serve the water to the chemical
company. There's still a 6" line from Hampden to the chemical
group, but they've capped it well which is capable of producing
500,000 gallons a day which is adequate for the chemical group.
But we supply all the water to Hampden.
Next we have a Contract with Orono-Veazie Water Company which had
to be amended because the original Water District, which was
private, went out of business and so therefore they formed the
Orono-Veazie Water District who also have capped wells, who also
don't have the quality of water We have, so they, buy it from us.
So what's happened in 10 years with Orono-Veazie? Well I discussed
some figures from the University of Heine. The University of Maine
tells me that they buy approximately 20 million gallons of water
from Orono-Veazie a year, they pay a $100,000 for that water. My
figures are that Orono-Veazie doesn't pay the City of Bangor who
supplies them the water for that and for their own needs, much more
than a $100,000. In other words, Orono-Veazie pays about 2 1/2
cents a gallon, or at least it did before the rate, and that's a
cubic gallon, you divide that by ? to get an actual gallon, or in
other Words there's ? gallons to a cubic gallon. Md they buy it
at 2 1/2 cents and sell it to the University of Maine for 9 1/2
cents a gallon. Wow the same, what welve heard is it doesn't coat
you anything to deliver water once the system's in. We've heard
that because we've heard about excess water. But Orono-Veazie
seams to think there's a value to it and they double the price to
sell to the University of Maine. Okay.
What else has happened in the last 10 "are? We have a contract
with PEBC. Bangor Water District again comes to them and says,
well we'll supply you water but you're going to have to give us
-6 -
some money up front, but we'll pay you back. That a good deal?
Yeah it's a goad deal for PRRC. who's paying 058 of the water
bill? City of Bangor. The increased water goes out of the
district up to 408 now in 1989, yet we're getting 608 of the water
and we're still paying 858 of the bill.
I believe that's d subsidy of PARC that isn't shared by our
community, as tipping fees are so called, shared amongst the
communities but I think we're subsidising that. I don't think
there's any question about it. i think what's interesting about
that is in a complaint that I have to the PUC there's a law that
says that if there's no investment in a service line outside a
district, no investment, no dollars up, that the council, city
council, the city fathers, municipal officers, have to vote whether
that's to be allowed or not. But if they put 10 cents into the
line going wherever it may go, they can avoid bringing the issue
before the Council. In fact, the PUC says that you can invest no
more than 558. They want you to scrutinize the PRRC contract and
see what total amounts of money they promised to pay back. But in
actuality, PRRC doesn't say even that they can invest 558, they say
they can
only invest 508. Bangor Water District had to go, get a
waiver from the PDC, so they could expand their investment or
payback from 50 to 558. We're not only wanting to give it away, we
want to give a little bit more away.
Do I think there's enough case to question and have more scrutiny
over the Bangor Water District than we've had? I absolutely do. I
think that we should know that there's alternate ways to expand
water supplies to districts. I think that we should have the
informed critical scrutiny as elected officials. i think to say
that we can, we're going to politicize the system because the
Bangor City Council would have a vote as to whether to accept the
long-range plans of a Bangor Water District that may not include
Bangor as a prime user is wrong. I think that if you look at
numbers that you're talking about some time in the future we're
going to spend $40 million because we're going to need that kind of
money to service the area, then I think there should be public
informed critical scrutiny of those decisions.
I do believe that appointed trustees taking care of the day-to-day
business is appropriate. I think it's appropriate. I think that
when you ask who's to judge what the considerable needs of the
District are, I think the question becomes, is that public policy
as well as good business sense, or just good business sense? I
think you have to say it's public policy.Md I thick as elected
officials, we are elected to make those decisions on public
policy. I don't thick we have to fear the public when we make
decisions that have, in the beat interest of the community. And I
don't think that when you tell your constituents why you voted one
way or another on a bill as long as you had the sufficient facts
and the complete and informed facts that they'll disagree with you.
-7 -
I've been told that there's enough scrutiny over the public, over
the Bangor Water District. We don't need another one.
I think we have to understand the role of the Public Utilities
Commission concerning water districts. They oversee the technical
installation of pipes. They oversee, through Department of Human
Resources, the quality of water. They oversee that there's uniform
rates developed that everybody's being treated fairly and not
discriminately. What they do not oversee is local judgments on how
much water should be taken from a resource to another. How much
water arrce should have. Where that water goes. They don't
have any particular, and they want to leave it up to local control
under public policy. They don't care if we sell all our water
off. They don't care who we sell it to. Bud they don't care, it's
non-profit so they're not worried about whether we make a profit or
not as long as they send them year-end statements and let them know
what we're paying. They don't want to know if we're digging up
holes and putting up towers just as long as we state how much money
we're spending, how much revenues are coming in. And that's it.
The public control and the public, the decisions of the District
are left to local control. New that's exactly why I put this bill
in to let the City Council of Bangor have a right to have a vote to
know what's going on. I question how many of us knew until about 6
months, I didn't, of all these contracts and the ins and outs of
the contracts and the amount of the water that's going out of the
City of Bangor. I don't think they voluntarily came and informed
I think everybody in this room knows they didn't come in
voluntarily and inform us. We might have had something to say.
Curiously enough I want to go to the lawbcok which is Title 35-e,
Chapter 63, which I hate to say it they might have made a mistake
when they called the City Manager the other day which I'd like to,
which will bring a point to you. Chapter 63 pretty much has some
oversight of water districts, issuance of bonds and notes, voters
approval or disapproval of debt, liens, conformity with private and
special laws, long term indebtedness of water districts, who has,
when they have to make a public hearing on bonds, and so on and so
forth. What's interestingly enough it also calls for the acting
upon any proposed water district charter the joint standing
committee, having jurisdiction shall obtain written comments from
the municipalities that lie in whole or in part within the
district. Well i read that after I read 6306 subchapter which i
just before that. The chapter governs all water districts formed
on or after January 1, 1982. This chapter does not apply to water
districts formed before January 1, 1982, except for some
subsections on retirement basically.
You can understand ladies and gentlemen that there is no oversight
of the Bangor Water District either at the State level to the
voters or to the local level of the voters. I'm asking that we
have local checks and balances. It's our system. It's not
-8 -
political. It's our syntax of checks and balances. It's our
system that the Legislature recognised that people have a right to
referendum. This Council recognises that the City people have a
right to referendum. what I can't understand is the trustees of
the Bangor Water District do not understand that the people ought
to have a right to referendum.
Why should you be afraid of oversight unless you're afraid that you
may not be going in the name direction with the rest of the crowd?
I don't know what else to say, but I do urge you to accept the
Resolve before You. Thank you.
Chairman Sawyer: Before you sit down, any Councilor questions of
Representative Duffy? Tam I guess, or, Mary? Councilor Sullivan.
Councilor Sullivan: Tnank you Mr. Chairman. Yee, Representative
Duffy. I received the, you know, your open letter.
Representative Duffv: Yen. I wish the rest of the District had.
It still bulk mail and it will be out tomorrow.
Councilor Sullivan: Oh, that's what I was going to ask you, how
wide the circulation was.
Representative Duffy: Basically that's anewsletter to my District
which is what, one-foubth of the City.
Councilor Sullivan: Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Soenaud, did you have a question?
Councilor Sosnaud: Yee, Representative Duffy, I've not been able
to get an answer to this so presumably you'll be able to tell me.
Is this bill going to provide for referenda on all District
decisions or only on decisions to enter into or negotiate contracts
to provider or sell water outside the District?
Representative Duffy: There's two parte to the bill. One part of
the bill is that the Bangor City Council would have the right of
approval over amended or new or whatever contracts of water sold
outside the District. It would not change the contracts that are
now in existence. Okay. Unless they either wanted more or less or
Whatever. Which gives me an opportunity to add just one thing.
These contracts outside the City of Bangor total almost 4 million
gallons if they, if they took all the water that they were
contracted to have forever, they'd take 4 million gallons a day -
if they were completely fulfilled, which is half the existing
resource. The other half of it gets the same referenda rights that
the people of the City of Bangor enjoy with the City Council to any
decisions made by the Bangor Water District.
Councilor Sosnaud: So it's any decision not just these decisions
to buy or to sell ---
_9_
Beoresentative Duffy: That's correct. Any decision just as any
decision that this City Council makes is subject to petition.
Chairman Sewer: Councilor Saxl.
Councilor Saxl: The City of Bangor's petition, right to referendum
petition, usually is a larger number of than What is in your bill
which your bill is asking for 5% of 500 voters. Is there room to
move on that, to amend those figures so we bring it into line with
the rest of the initiative, or is that something that you feel
strongly about]
Reoresentative Buffy: No. To be honest with you research In
Augusta made that numbers of petitioners from what other districts
had to have right of petition. I certainly have no problem to
conform it with the same one that the City of Bangor has.
One subject I didn't touch on and, that not only does the Bangor
Water District affect water rate payers. It affects the Bangor
taxpayer. Bangor taxpayer I believe pays now close to $400,000
Worth of fire protection which is an extremely great amount of
money considering that if you take last year's budget of $2 million
dollars and the taxpayer, we're not talking about the Bangor rate
Payer now, we're talking about the taxpayer,. pays 208 I guess would
be of the revenues enjoyed by this, by this Water District. And
its rate payers pay 12, what, $1 million, $200-350,000 of the
bill. And $250,000 comes outside to the District. That means both
the rate payers, and this is one of the reasons Why I thought it
was appropriate for the Council to have the approval over the water
sold out, because you would not only represent the rate payer. You
represent the taxpayer. And I think when you represent the
taxpayer, especially $400,000 or 20% of the, you ought to have some
direct voting approval incorporated in the Charter.
It is one of the other pointe, and It's on the last page of the
Charter, and I was told by one of the Commissioners that we
couldn't sell water for more than we could sell it anywhere else,
but the Charter reserved, restricted us to charge more water than
we charge our large volume customers within Bangor. But if you
see, we're only restricted, I think it's on the last page, maybe
next to the last page of this Charter, yeah, Section 30. Water
rates shall be uniform for all classes of customer, conaumer
rather, within the district. I mean as long as we weren't
discriminatory we could charge a fair rate that's commensurate with
the amount of water they use outside the district as long as
everybody was charged a fair price.
Fire rates in the City of Bangor were the highest, second highest
In the State. I'm not sure what Portland Is but it's, we're darn
close to Portland I believe for the city our size. I'm not the
first one to complain about it. I believe that this Council's
complained about it. I believe that former Manager, City Manager
-10 -
Sohn Flynn, wrote the PDC, a complaint as of 6 or 8 years ago,
about the high cost of water rates. The fact that we're giving
them the hydrants and they're charging us a hydrant rate for it. I
thought was pretty fantastic. But explained it to the PUC that
water rate has nothing to do with the fact you don't or do or don't
own the hydrants, just a division of number of hydrants into the
water that they, have to retain and you have to pay for it and keep
in reserve.
It Is interesting for me to hear that the Bangor Water District
thinks, geese maybe it's about time that we spread that out amongst
all the rate payers so that the taxpayer could alleviate the
burden. What's interesting about that is that they could have done
this 8 years ago. Why do they complain about it now? Because of
being closely scrutinised, i.e., a black cloud hangs over them
apparently. Why are they moving to make these things to be done?
Because of close scrutiny. It wasn't, it isn't even suggested for
the last 6 to 8 years. It is not a judgment of mine to know, and
I'm not going to say that I should tell you and that I know should,
beat interest of the City of Bangor, whether we should go in a
regional water system, whether we should pay $40 million dollars to
incorporate all the water and try to sell it out all over the
district. I know that if I had a car and I let my buddy use it 408
of the time, and I filled the water tank up, or the gas tank up,
and he kept bringing it back empty and he put all the miles on it
so I needed a new car, I don't believe he's going to come back and
help me pay for half the car. But being aside that, I think that
the judgment ought to be done carefully and formally and with the
greatest amount of oversight that we can have for the people in
Bangor. (tape change)
Tape #1. Side B
Robert Miller: Tom, just a couple of drafting issues. If, I sent
a note to the Council relative to some of these things. As I
understand it, there are two issues in this bill. One is the
question of Council approval for contracts to sell outside the
City. And secondly, is a referendum provision which would permit a
referendum on any decision of the District, not just decisions to
extend service outside. Right?
Representative Duffyt Yes.
Robert Miller: Okay. Just as a comment. We have similar
provisions in our Charter, and we've been going through this
recently. Generally, on a referendum provision, at least as far as
a municipality IB concerned, they distinguish between
administrative or an executive decisions and legislative decisions
or policy-making decisions. Those decisions which are
administrative or executive in nature, decisions to carry out a
policy, are normally not subject to a referendum process.
Legislative decisions are and I just point that out because this
-11 -
seems to go further than our normal municipal referendum
procedure. The, and you might want to consider that as far as the
current language is concerned.
The other thing is that this proposal does not contain a date
specifically, or an outside date, when the election could be held.
And you might want to consider adding somewhere towards the end of
it a date that requires that it either be held at a special
election or the next regular municipal election which is held
within a certain time frame. Cause theoretically you could require
referendum and the election could never be called under the
current provision, it's totally discretionary. dust a minor, you
know --
Representative Duffy: Yeah I didn't say we did it alright down in
Augusta.
Robert Miller: Okay, the other thing is you might want to consider
is facing the issue of whether these, the item is stayed pending
the election. in other words, while you're going throughthis
petition process and whatever, and if it is, these are things,
these issues always come up and if the language isn't clear it puts
same of us, at least from a municipal charter point of view, i
a
position of having to make a judgment whether it is or not. And
think it would be easier for everybody if you indicate, if the item
is to be stayed, the decision is to be stayed, during the process.
Representative Duffv: I thought about that just when you were
bringing up the other and I standing here that I hadn't included a
staying provision while the referendum was being.
Robert Miller: Another item that's mentioned in the note, and I'll
get you a copy of this, is that the municipal home rule petition
process provides, has a similar provision as far as the petition
process is concerned, only it requires a number equal to 208 of the
last, people voting at the last gubernatorial election, in order to
get the referendum on the ballot and allows, requires an election
where the yes and no votes equal at least 308 of the last
gubernatorial vote. And I, where the Council's now
considering
that issue as far as their own Garter is concerned, and it might
be helpful. You might consider that. And I think that's what Jane
was alluding to earlier in her comments.
Representative Duffvx Yeah. And I agree. I didn't want to set
the standards so low it was frivolous nor does the Council want to
set frivolous petition or referendum to motion.
Robert Miller: Okay, one other ---
Representative Duffy: I agree with that.
Robert Miller: Okay, couple of other things. These, couple other
points and that is that you might, because the issue of whether
-12 -
petitions are freely circulated or aren't is an issue right now
because of some legislation that the Legislature passed regarding
initiative petitions. Iwould suggest that you might want to
clarify that as far as this is c rned. Also from an
administrative point of view, and I'm talking about the person
who's going to have to administer these petitions, might be helpful
if you establish a standard by which the form of the petition would
be prepared. in other words, have either, provide for the form in
the legislation itself, or establish a, somebody who is responsible
for preparing a form.
Representative Duf fv: I know what I can do fairly easily and that
is to conform to the same referendum rules and promulgations that
the Council has for their own ---
Robert Miller: we are going through that process right now to deal
with those issues, but that's ---
Representative Duffy: I think, I do believe that even if you're
not through with that process I can write this bill so that when
yours comes into effect so does this bill in exactly the same
accordance.
Chairman Sawver: Thank you. Councilor Cohen.
Councilor Cohen: Tom just answered my question ---
Chairman Sawver: Oh, okay. Any other Council questions? Thank
you Representative Duffy.
Representative Duffv: Thank you.
Chairman Sawyer: anyone else wishing to speak?
Hugh Morrison: Hugh Morrison, speaking on behalf of the Trustees.
Ihad a hand up.. Councilor. It is the position of the Trustees of
the Bangor Water District that LD 2189 should increase, would
increase costs to the rate payer within Bangor by unnecessarily
subjecting the day-to-day business decisions of the District to the
immediate veto of the Bangor City Council or to local -initiative.
We take this position for three reasons.
Number 1, it duplicates the decision-making process which is
already in place with the PUC. The decision-making process for
this affair for the District was originally decided by the Maine
Legislature and by the residents of Bangor when the District was
Bated. No factor since the creation of the District have
intervened, to cause a reconsideration of that judgment.
Number 2, the District is subject to PUC review of major policy
decision upon petition of customers to the District. Indeed,
Representative Duffy recently utilised this process. In any
instance where the PUC receives a complaint, the PUC generally
conducts an investigation of the matter. That is the subject of
the petition.
-13 -
Number 3, it would provide a negative incentive to regional
solutions to a cost sharing approach to water service issues. And
In response to Representative Duffy, I would like to also quote
from the Charter Section 3. Contracts for supplying water. Said
district is hereby authorized and empowered to make contracts for
the supply of pure water with the City of Bangor, the inhabitants
thereof and/or other towns, cities, corporations or districts and
the inhabitants thereof as may consistent with the needs of the
inhabitants of the District hereby created wish to purchase water.
Continuing on. Pricing of water service is based upon the
following. As a regulated utility, the Public Utilities COYmi6eien
has historically allowed water districts to charge for the cost of
production and distribution not for the fair market value of the
commodity, for water as a commodity. Production is the coat of
producing the water. The production cost is limited to any
treatment of the water supply. Unlike electricity the water
already exists and the right to that water are granted by special
act of the Legislature when a water district is incorporated
pursuant to special legislation.
Distribution is the coat of delivering the water from the source of
the supply to the customer's tap. Generally for water districts
with the existing source of potable water, a major cost of water
service is in the distribution cost. Since the major cost of water
is the distribution costs, rates to individual customers within the
City of Bangor are higher than the cost charged by the Bangor Water
District to the Hampden Water District and the Orono-Veazie Water
District. This is so because the Bangor Water District provides
individual distribution services to each customer within the
corporate limits of the City of Bangor. It does not provide
individual distribution a. s to rate payers in the Town of
Orono, Veazie or Hampden.And those towns beyond the cost of
obtaining raw water from the Bangor Water District, the Hampden
water District and Orono-Veazie Water District charged their rate
payers an additional distribution coat. it is essentially true
that the Bangor customer Paye 858 of the r of the Bangor
Water District while receiving 658 of the water. That statement is
only true as far as it goes.
Again, the major cost of water service for Maine water customers is
the cost of distribution by the water utility. Because residents
within the City of Bangor receive individual distribution services
free the Bangor Water District, they pay a greater percentage of
the revenues to the Bangor Water District. But put simply, the
fact that Bangor customers pay B58 of the revenue to the District
for 658 of the water cannot be used as the comparative statement to
suggest that outside customers lay lees for water distribution
distributed to their homes. To do so is to mix apples and
oranges. The 158 of revenue that outside customers pay to the
Water District does not take into consideration the distribution
costs that those rate payers pay to their own utility. To
-14 -
illustrate this point is used to look at so of the cost
comparisons for water rates within your municipalities of Bangor,
Hampden, Orono and Veazie. Average water user quarterly rate for
the City of Bangor $25.96. Hampden is projected to be $36.19.
Orono-Veazie is projected to be $40.00. And just as an aside,
Brewer currently pays $35.36. And that's for 2,000 cubic feet of
water. Comparing these rates one begins to be more fully
appreciative of customers of the Bangor Water District who reside
within the City of Bangor pay less Overall for their water than do
customers of Orono, gestic and Hampden Water Districts who reside
outside the City Of Bangor.
Moreover, in the future, with the increased costs of producing
water outside customers will have to bear a greater share of the
burden for producing that water. This deed to share expanding
costa has analogies in the area of sanitary sewage treatment and
solid waste recycling and disposal. indeed, as part of the late,
last rate proceeding, rates for customers outside the Bangor Water
District increased by a greater percentage for than those customers
within the water Disrict.
There are two ways to limit rate increases to Bangor customers.
One is to reduce production and distribution costs which are
Improbable because of expanded regulatory requirements. Or, two to
maintain the rate base for the Bangor Water District including
outside customers. Of these options, the second is more
realistic. It is not probable that the District can
significantly
reduce the production or distribution costa. Costs of production
will increase as the Federal regulatory requirements are expanded
under the Federal Safe Drinking water Act. Furthermore, if the
Bangor Water District is forced to find a n of supply, it
is likely that filtration and treatment requirements would be
expanded. Thus, the only option for keeping costs to individual
City of Bangor water customers stable is to maintain the rate base
of the Bangor water District. That rate base includes the outside
customers to the Bangor Water District. These customers will be
virtually Imported in two ways. Due, they provide a net income to
the District and two, they are sharing in rapidly expanding future
costa.
The incentive to outside customers to contract with the District is
reduced if the operation of the Bangor Water District are subject
to immediate veto of the Bangor City Council to local initiative.
The Trustees of the Bangor Water District are of the opinion that
the existing coat of producing and distributing water to
residential customers must be offset by net income presently
generated by service to outside customers. In 1988 there was
$311,000 in revenue against a $60,000 cost for service. More
importantly, the State of, the City of Bangor has encouraged, the
State and the City of Bangor have encouraged and pursued regional
solutions to share the expanding costs of meeting regulatory
requirements in the area of solid waste management and sanitary
-15 -
sewage treatment. Facing requirements under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and new State legislation, the Trustees of the District
support coat sharing over a broad base, rate base. For these
we strongly urge the Council to reject a new
decision-making process proposed in LD 2189.
Bud in closing I'd like to refer the Bangor Daily News today just a
couple of sentences. Number one, perhaps the best reason to turn
down this proposal is that it isn't needed. Number two, proponents
of the bill have failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient
problem with the management or decisions of the Water District to
warrant such extreme alterations to the Charter. Thank you.
Chairman Sawver: Before you sit down, Councilor Baldacci.
Councilor Baldacci: Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Morrison,
haven't you just said that you recognised that there hag been a
problem with the distribution and the contracts to the towns and
inhabitants outside the District? I mean, it seems to me you just
got done saying that you have to take steps to correct the fact
that towns and cities outside the District who you now supply water
to must at some point share the cost of the distribution.
Hugh Morrison: No. That doesn't say that at all Gerry
Councilor Baldacci: You haven't said that.
Such Morrison: No.
Councilor Baldacci: Do you feel that they should?
Hugh Morrison:
They, not the distribution. The distribution is
not, that belongs to the individual water district. Orono-Veaaie
has its own distribution system. Hampden has its own distribution
system. we only provide it to the tap for example, through a pipe.
Councilor Baldacci: So you provide a pipe.
Hugh Morrison: we do not provide ---
Councilor Baldacci: Do you provide the pipes?
Hugh Morrison: The pipes are - , yes we do. The pipes are already
in place and if you look at the handout that's where the $60,000
comes from.
Councilor Baldacci: Are some of the new standpipes there holding
water for for Hampden and Veaaie.
Hugh Morrison: No way. The new standpipes are holding water for
the use of the people of the City of Bangor. Basically, the newest
standpipe is for pressure up on, up in the Bomarc area and Burleigh
Road area. It's a pressure problem.
-16 -
Councilor
Baldacci,
Oh. A
couple
more
questions.
Chairman
Sawyer: It's
your
floor.
Councilor Baldacci: Okay. You mentioned the possibility of the
new filtration system. At the present, if we, and you also
mentioned that one
of the possibilities of keeping rates low was
they I guess it'sa no -growth maintaining the present distribution
system?
Such Morrison No. Keeping the rates low?
Councilor Baldacci, Yeah. Or maintaining the present rate.
Hugh Morrisons One of the reasons we need to maintain it is
because we do need those people outside currently paying us the
$250,000 extra, which is indeed returned to the Bangor rate payer,
in a lower rate. Otherwise we'd. if for example we shut them off,
the rate payers in the City of Bangor would have an immediate 12
1/2§ rate increase.
Councilor Baldacci, I guess my question becomes that in making
these contracts with outside towns, wouldn't it be possible to
factor in at some point the projected, if there is a cost of
distribution, that cost into the rate that they pay? when you
engage or you begin contract negotiations with towns that want to
hook up to Bangor water?
Hugh Morrison: in the future we might look at a different way of
doing it, but currently we don't because those contracts are
already in place and we do not, Gerry, own their distribution
system.
Councilor Baldacci, well I'm not saying that, and I don't think
from what I've read as far as Representative Duffy's bill goes,
those, his bill does not affect the existing contracts.
Hugh MorrThat's correct. And we will not enter into any
outside contracts unless we have sufficient water to do that.
Currently we are re -assessing all of that based upon the Sunapee
Char Study etc. We may not have additional water to sell outside
of the City. In all probability, we will not.
Councilor Baldacci: And last, one last question, do you have,
you've heard Representative Duffy's speech or presentation. Do you
have any problem with the figures that he presented? Do you have
any arguments?
Hugh Morrison, He presented so many I would have to go back and
sit down and do some work with all of the different ones he
presented. If you have a specific one ---
-1? -
Councilor Baldacci: As far as the contracts, outside contracts,
the amount that the University of Orono is paying. Are you aware
of what they are paying?
Hugh Morrison: Would you repeat that?
Councilor Baldaccf: The University of Orono. The Town of Orono is
Paying something for ---
Hugh Morrison: That's correct.
Councilor Baldacci: Okay. Do you have that figure? What
Representative Duffy gave, was that correct?
Hugh Morrison: I can get the answer for you, but I will give you a
quick off -the -top -of -the -head answer. He said 2 cents a gallon and
selling it for 4 1/2. That is up to them. They furnish the
distribution system for, from the point where they. take water from
e through their whole system to the University. That's their
profit margin so to speak but it isn't really profit. They're a
nonprofit organization.
Councilor Baldacci: Nothing further.
Chairman Sewer: Any other Council questions? Mr. Morrison, I
have a couple questions for you. During the debate it was
suggested that the Water District has proposed having the costs of
maintaining hydrants borne by the rate payer as opposed to the
taxpayer. Is that something you are working on?
Hugh Morrison: That is something We are working on and this did
not come out of the woodwork as a result of Representative Duffy's
Initiative. This came out of discussions with the new Manager Rd
Barrett, almost from the day he arrived.
Chairman Sawyer: Since we ve been talking about property tax
relief, would you hazard an estimate of how much time that might
take to change?
Hugh Morrison: I'll defer that to Peter.
Chairman Sewer: Alright I can wait. You want to come up and make
some overall comments. Why don't you hold off and make a note to
yourself. Second question. Representative Duffy I suspect implied
that if the, if the City only used 65% of the water that is farmed
out, 35% of it I understand your comment about at the tap if you
will, but would the POC limit you from charging contract
communities when the contracts come back up for 35% of our total
costs - if they are consuming 35% of our total water?
Ruch Morrisons I could not answer that. That's another one you
probably better refer.
-18 -
Chairman Sawver: Write that one down
Hush Morrison: That has to do with POC rage and I'm not that up
PUC rage.
Chairman Savvier: Thank you very much. My other councilor
questions of Mr. Morrison? Thank you. Anyone else from the
audience wishing to speak?
Peter Caldwell: Chairman Sawyer, members of the Council, Pd. My
name is Pater Caldwell and I'm General Manager of the Bangor Water
District and I'd like to respond to some of the figures that
Representative Duffy had brought up, and maybe shed a little bit
re light on them. Due of the first things that he brought up IS
that the citizens of Bangor bought and paid for the District, and
I'm here to tell you that it's not paid for yet. in fact, we owe
$5.2 million dollars because of things that we've done for the
system, most of which are inside the City of Bangor and also
including our main transmission line and our new, well our 30 year
old pumping station at Flood's Pond and so forth.
So I'd also like to make you aware of the fact that the people
outside of Bangor are helping us pay for what's inside Bangor, to
the tune of an additional $250,000 over and above what it's costing
s to provide the service to them for. Md actually this money
represents about half of what our annual debt service is for
principal and interest on the money that we owe outside the City.
And that's significant I think.
Ten years, it was
reported that ten years ago we a pumping 3 1/2
million gallonsa day. Ten years ago We were pumping 9.8 million
gallons a day and this year we're pumping 5, well actually 1989
that is, we pumped an average of 5.91 million gallons a day, not
the 6.6 that was reported.
It is true that million gallons a day, or roughly 2 million
gallons a day, are going outside the City. When we made our
contract with IMC in 1978, I can tell you that these things were
not entered into lightly. It took many, many months to negotiate
that. in fact, I think ? to 8 months to negotiate that out. And
the District at that time told them they could take on occasion n
more than up to 900,000 gallons a day. We did not contract forever
to give them a million gallons a day. In fact, that contract is
now null and void. It's over with. It's done. It was a 10 -year
contract and now we treat them like any other customer, and if we
don't, you know, for whatever reason we have to shut them down
temporarily we can shut them down. And they understand that. In
fact, in 1988 they needed to take a few more, a little more water
on a daily basis because they had some problems. They called u
and asked us if they could. They just don't go ahead and do these
things cause they understand the situation that, you know, we have
to monitor water supply and make sure that we have enough water for
-19 -
everyone in the system. That also, the, as far as water credits
go, the citizens of Bangor actually, well I should say the District
in that system, invested $1]],000. In return for that, the then
International Minerals a Chemicals paid for an additional $235,000
worth of improvements to our system, including a new, a dam at
Flood's Pend. We never did have one? so that protected our safe
yield and nullified any impact that they were going to make on us.
They've also helped to install a number of things to our system for
improvements.
The, and these, by the way, all these rebates, all these contracts
that welve entered into with these outside, like PERC and IMC, have
been approved by the Maine Public Utilities Commission. They've
scrutinized these things, asked us questions about them, and they
required us to get into a rebate process. Essentially what's
happened with the, with the District is that the, in providing
water to them if you look at the contracts, is that they are paying
all extra costs to get water to them. And this includes chemicals,
power, any extra labor involved in providing this service to them.
And that's all. These are in the PERC contract and also in the now
defunct IMC contract which Linden Chemicals A Plastics took over.
And the Trustees were very careful to protect the citizens of
Bangor. They did not want the citizens of Bangor being impacted by
people outside of Bangor. There's no reason why, nor did the
citizens a subsidise FERC or LCP. What happened was. we've
got Water which is a God given substance and wevadded chemicals
to it and we've pumped it to them. They've paid all the extra
costs. We don't require that of any other customers and especially
in the City of Bangor. That's all built into the rates. So
essentially you could may that we're surcharging them, and they
were paying the price.
As fax as Hampden goes, the District is supplying moat of the water
to them. They used to take about 350,000 gallons a day and they're
now taking about 250,000 gallons a day. They were serving the WP
plant and now they're not doing that anymore.
As far as the Orono-Veazie Water District goes, they do not have
capped wells. Their system, they do have problems with their
system, they've got high iron and maganese problems. They do have
wells and I've been talking with those folks up there and they can
run their system, but it's extremely expensive and very troublesome
for them. It was
reported that Orono-Veazie Pays us a $100,000 a
year. They pay us in fact about $190,000 a year roughly. PERC, on
the PERC contract, the District again, the Trustees and management,
worked extremely hard on that contract and they worked with the, we
worked with the Public utilties Commission. in fact, we felt that
we didn't, we should not have any obligation to these folks at all
in terms of investing any money. And we subsequently lost that
fight with the POC but essentially what we're doing, if you read
the contract closely, is that they're getting, they're getting
their water again like INC, they're paying for all extra costs of
-a0 -
pumping it to them with power of any extra work and so forth. in
fact they put all the money up front to build, to do the studies
and build the booster pumping stations that were required to get
water to them, and in return, we're getting -- instead of having to
invest any money which we didn't have in the project as is normally
required by the Maine Public Utilities Comnission, we negotiated a
contract whereby PARC put all the money up front and we are
essentially tradingchecks if you will. They're getting the raw
product of water for nothing and they're paying for everything
else. And essentially, that's no money out of our pocket at all.
That's not one, I say trading checks, that's a matter, it's an
expression, we don't give than anything in fact. And in turn,
they're paying again for all the extra costs of getting that water
to them. 'There's no impact on the citizens of Bangor for that.
I don't, I'm not sure, I still don't understand what our normal
investment contract is but completely, but I think it's a situation
whereby if you, if the District does not elect to invest in a main
extension, on a main extension and accepts that as a policy, we
have to than, before we can institute that sort of thing have to
come to the Council to get permission to do that per the
legislation, enabling legislation on that.
Bo we're being dictated to. I'd like to underline the fact that
we're very heavily regulated and a lot of things that we do we
don't like to do but we have to because of PUC regulations. That's
just a fact of life, and will continue to be and is getting more so
in the future. As I think Tom reported in one of his letters, in
fact it was the open letter to his constituents, that i
Representative Duffy in the open letter to his constituents, noted
that the Commission was allowing districts more freedom. Well, I
fail to see that. There's more and more regulation all the tine
ming out. The one place where we did receive some freedom was to
institute rates on our own without having to go directly to the
PUC, and believe me that's a blessing because if you remember back
to the 70's and early 80's that they were holding our rates up to 9
months and when we needed than, you know, probably 6 to 9 months
previous to even submitting the case to than and so it's a, it's
sally asavings to the people In Bangor in terms of improved
operating system and having a system that whereby we can plow money
back into it and keep the level of service up.
AS far as reporting of financial statements and so forth, that's
another area where there's ongoing increased scrutiny of water
utilities and power utilities and so forth. That's a fact of life
and we can document that by the number of pages in our Annual'
Report to the Maine Public Utilities Commission. It's, you know,
nothing's getting any simpler. I don't think in your lives and
certainly not in ours either. The (end of tape)
_21_
Tape 42, Side A
. goes into the rate structure inside the City of Bangor. I'm
in hopes that it probably will take in the vicinity of 4 months or
so to prepare the case and that's all, but once you start dealing
with the PUC and we're talking about an alteration of PUC policy
and What we're going to have to do is sell this program to them,
and that might take a little time. So, but we will certainly put
r best efforts into it and we will be working with Pd and his
staff on that to build up, you know, background justification on
our case here. The Trustees are behind this move a 1008 and we are
moving forward on it.
The, I forget what your other question was. I Was busy Writing
this one down at the time you asked.
Chairman Sawvery would the, would the PBC, I understand your
argument but Would the PUC allow you to bill abutting communities
or other users a pro rata share of the total coat. That is, if
outside communities are in fact using approximately 351 of the
total Water would the PUC allow you to bill then for 35% of your
total cost?
Peter Caldwell: I think, Well let me answer it this way. we have
met with the Chair, the Trustees and the management of the District
met with both the Orono-Veasie Water District and Hampden Water
District and we Informed them that they will have to be paying in
the future an
increased share of the operating cost of the utility
over and above what they paid before on a pro rata basis. They in
fact, in our latest rate increase which is effective October filth,
1989, the average home, average customer in Bangor proper Said a
22.78 increase and the, and our increase to Orono-Veasie and to
Hampden was 29.58. And we're going to continue to do that sort of
thing. The fact is if they're going to, I think the philosophy is
if they're going to continue to depend on the District, the Bangor
Water District, then they're going to have to pay an increase, an
incremental share in the cost of operations. That's all I have.
I'd be glad to try to answer any questions.
Chairman Sawyer: Any councilor questions of Mr. Caldwell? Thank
you. Anyone else wishing to speak from the audience?
Robert Baldaccf: Well, good everting. Thank you Mr. Chairman and
City Councilors. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. I hope
I have the opportunity to ask some questions of the General Manager
of the District while I'm here, to give, to back up information. I
think when the Manager was just saying that we pay lower rates than
they do in Orono-Veazie, he's right. And, but he doesn't say that
about Hampden which has been paying less than we do and they're
buying it secondhand. Now it's only been recently that they plan
to go up.
-22 -
The other thing that's forgotten in this whole, it looks like the
shell game and it doesn't look too different than the S&L game that
Congress is playing, that they've got the bail-out fund out of the
budget so it doesn't reflect the budget or deficits or whatever.
And this is what's happening here in the District. They want to
take it off the tax rolls which is $900,000, which is 20%, added to
the rate payers, you've got to, if you're going to switch that over
to the rate payers you're adding 208 to the rates. Now I know that
this seems great, it's off the City budget, and you don't have to
deal with $900,000 because then all the Control is at the District
Charging you the citizens your 208 or 22.9 plus the 208 because
somebody, and it's only in Bangor, that's going to be picking that
UP.
We're paying 85 cents of every dollar and its interesting with a
utility Man on the Council who should be aware of rate cases,
should be expert as you are Tom in your field, and I'm Sure when
the Bangor Hydro goes for a rate case the Bangor water District
doesn't know what it is to talk about scrutiny. And the fact that
the Bangor Hydra has to develop their infrastructure to the point
that it, they need the rate increase. and that rate increase is
charged to power used. Unlike our Bangor Water District with
outside of Bangor. I don't mind being a good neighbor, and I want
to continue to serve the outside areas, but it bothers me when
they're not being neighborly and participating with the actual
coat.
Bow aside from that, I did want to come up and just say this - that
we've gotten away, it's almost like going before the PUC at a rate
hearing here and I'm sure you've heard enough about everything to
do about nothing on the agenda as Councilor Sosnaud, and the
question is, does the City Council want to add to its public and
political responsibility as an elected body, to take on this task.
That's all it is. It isn't how much Hampden is getting, or Veazie,
or who wants to grow. And all the people want is some elected body
like yourselves, the Political end, the safeguard, and the
accountability seat that the public has for guarantees that look it
has the accountability, it should be good. If it didn't have
accountability and I read in the Bangor News; Editorial surprised at
the fact that here's the Bangor Daily News who spent thousands of
dollars in the District Court to get the doors open at the Brewer
City Hall because the public's right to know. It surprised me to
see that they opposed it on the fact that we Ire Putting in another
layer of government. Well the layer of government we're putting in
is there for the people. Now, if that's uncumbersome, then somebody
ought to look at the evening news and see what's happened in Prog
and Hast Germany because if you don't keep these things open, and
then you just make it easier and it looks even worse than it, than
it should. Open the doors. ' Don't be afraid of the public. We're
all part of this. We're on the same team. You know, we're not
fighting, I don't want a job at the Bangor water District. I've
got enough to do. And I'm sure Peter does a great job. I think
-23 -
that they did get a little carried away only because of tradition,
only because in the past they've never bad to come to the Council.
We've had instances of the City Manager just to find out that the
PUC, you know they have a graph on how to determine the cost of
fire protection. Several months ago I asked the City Manager if he
could, understood the graph and could explain it to me. He said he
was going to meet with Peter Caldwell and find out. Well,
apparently, I called the Manager since. This was several months
ago. And we still don't know today how that graph is used for fire
protection, how to estimate the cost of fire protection. And it's
very important because this ease graph is the PUC graph that's used
throughout the State. Now keep that in mind and then why wouldn't
I ask the question, why does the City of Lewiston twice our sive
pay $200,000 for fire protection a year and Bangor pays $400,000.
1 just look at it and say, you know, I know what 2 and 2 is, and I
know Lewiston is bigger. And they've got the same graph. What are
they talking about? Maybe Mr. Caldwell could straighten us out an
this. Thank you very much for your time, but I did want to get
back to the issue was Representative Duffy's thing, and I hope that
you do support it because it is in the. public interest.
Chairman Sawver: excuse me before you sit down, please. Any
Council questions of Mr. Baldacci? I have one.
Robert Baldacoi: Sure Tom.
Chairman Sawyer, I understand your concern on the hydrants being
taken from the taxpayer to the rate payer.
Robert Baldacci: Right.
Chairman sawyer: My suspicion is and I don't have the answer to
this, it's my suspicion that the rate payers include a larger body
than the taxpayer. That Eastern Maine Medical Center pays for its
water, St. Joe's does. ---
Robert Baldacci: Exactly Imm. Exactly Tom. I'm sorry you're not
through.
Chairman sawyer[ No, no I just, do you have any sense for what
percentage of non -taxpayers are in fact ---
Robert Baldaccie I definitely do and this brings up another
Point. Is there's 508 non-taxable property which in my mind is a
smokescreen okay. The thing is what are these places doing.
They're providing a service, right, to the community. Do you want
to do without the Eastern Maine? Don't they pay taxes on
commercial properties that they own? I just think that they're off
base going, using this 5080 well how the hell you going to change
the State and Federal laws? I mean it's all fine and good. It's
just spinning the wheels here you know. I don't see any, you know,
the thing is that the eastern Maine General, St. Joe's, the
-2a-
schools, the City of Bangor is probably 60% of that 508. T'he
Bangor Airport, the schools, the public buildings, and I think this
if anything is a witch hunt. That one there is to get you quYS
volved ina lot of time that doesn't mean anything to the
taxpayer. I think what we should do, I mean we are a service
center. We've got a regional airport. I me we've got the
hospital, it has doctors, nurses, it employanthe largest employer.,
as I read it was 2,200 people. Well it's a great opportunity for
the City to just recognize those things, and we just can't, you
can't throw money at every problem and that's been one of the
District's problems that I see. I mean, for the sake of growth,
well let's pass another bond issue, let's go.
Now, all these pipelines, R.H. Poster, Hampden; Bangor Daily News,
which in my mind has a little bit of conflict of interest, pays
taxes in Hampden and gets Bangor Water and they're still in
Hampden. Now does that go through? Do they pay the water bill in
Hampden, or does Bangor get it? I'd like to ask the question. So
Bangor bills than and they're still in Hampden. Well, that's a
real growth. I think a government that's beyond reasonableness.
What we've got is fluoridated water. There's another, I don't want
to keep boring you Tom, but fluoridated water was never voted on in
Hampden, Orono, veaz£e, Orrington, Bddington, Hermon. I know we
voted it out and then We voted it back in here, but apparently the
people that live outside these thinge, this district, in those
cities and towns, didn't have that right. You're going to get the
fluoridated water, that's the only water we got.
This, the public, and that 'a why I'm so much in favor of Tom's
bill. At least the Council has a body of elected officials that
are accountable to the public. That's all I want. I don't want to
run the District, or do a damn thing. I just don't like it when.
people feel it's cumbersome. I couldn't believe the Bangor Deily
News editorial. I thought they'd be, after going through using the
public right-to-know and costing them thousands of dollars, write
an article that says well the public just makes it cumbersome, a
lot of noisy people there, well that's what people are all about.
Get in the real World. Okay. Tom. Peter had a question I think,
unless you have another one.
Chairman Sawyer: No I'm all set.
Robert Baldacci: Peter, did you have a question to me, or ---
Chairman Sawver: Should we set up two mikes?
Peter Caldwell: I'll get the Kiss 99. I'd like to try to respond
to, Peter Caldwell again, Bangor Water District. I'd like to try
to respond to some of Bob's questions and so forth. Regarding the
Lewiston situation, Bob brought that up earlier on and we checked
that out and I'd say two things. First of all, we can back up
anything we've done in terms of why we charge what we charge for
-25 -
hydrants in Bangor, and it'll meet the closest scrutiny of the
Public Utilities Commission without question. We follow the,
what's called the Wisconsin curve, that's the graph that Bob Spoke
of a few minutes ago. And we're paying, we're Charging about 179
of the groes revenues fox public fire protection, and that's at
roughly $400#000 that was brought up. earlier on. And so far as
Lewiston is concerned, my second point is that they are heavily
subsidised by the taxpayers, that i , the water utility. The water
utility actually exists as a sub -department of the Public Works
Department and they utilize a lot of the same people, like
dispatchers and financial people and so forth, and those, so
they're not really adequately reflecting the cost for providing
service, water service, 1n Lewiston. And I think if you check with
than, you'll £Intl that this is a fact. I will not comment on the
numbers that they come up with. We did talk to their
Superintendent and we found that they're, well, they're not quite
right okay. That's all I can say. Bud that's essentially the way
this thing went.
Insofar as the District, insofar as Bangor Water District's
operations are concerned, we poet the notices of all our meetings,
they've always been open to the public and they will continue to
be. And the only time they're not Is when we're in executive
session in accordance with the Maine statutes on executive
sessions, and that doesn't happen that often. Essentially I guess
that's it. I'll try to answer any other question.
Oh, the service in Hampden by the way is, I got a surprise when
the, for example, the Bangor Daily News came to us for service when
they Were building their new plant down inmHampden, and I sent them
two lettere telling them they couldn't have service. And then I
said, well wait a minute, when I came to work for the District i
1974 we were all reserving the Carr Brad in Hampden, so I said well
in order to have done that we would have had to go to the Public
Utilities Commission for the okay to go ahead to serve outside our
territory, what was then our outside territory, and I found out
that the PUC issued an Order of Decree that the Bangor Water
District could serve the area above the Maine Central Railroad
tracks in Hampden. net'a kind of a curved area and it amounts to,
I don't know, 250 acres of land or something, some figure like
that, and to and behold part of that area was where the Bangor
Daily New building was proposed to be built. And my face was
red. Than I had to go back and apologize to them, and say well,
that is part of our service area and we really can't deny you
service. That's the way this thing fell, came down, so just wanted
to clarify that.
Chairman Sawyer: Any questions of Mr. Caldwell from the Council?
Councilor Baldacci.
Councilor Baldacci: Yeah. Mr. Caldwell, you have hired a public
relations firm, haven't you? The Bangor, I mean, the Bangor Water
-26 -
District has hired a public relations
Peter CaldwellI We've hired a firm, that's right, to help us
communicate with the public. That's correct.
Councilor Baldaccit So you do recognize that there has been a
problem with communicating with the public in the past?
Peter Caldwell: No, no. I think we've had a problem in our
backflow and getting the word out on the backflow situation. We're
a little bit behind a power c n that aspect. But I don't
think, no, I don't think we have a public relations problem. We
need to communicate well. We're going through a lot of change due
to regulation, due to the Sunapee Fish Char problem and so forth,
and We want people to know what's going on firathamd. and as it
is, our staff spends most of the time trying to keep up with the
new regulations and everything that's going on and we're just not
geared up to do those things on a first class basis on our own. So
we have to have outside help and that's why we're going forward the
way we are.
Councilor Baldaccit Now, let's see. You mentioned the PUC a
number of times. It is the regulating body. But you were at the
same hearing that I attended regarding that backflow issue weren't
you? Last rear.
Peter Caldwell: Here
Councilor ealdacci: In this room.
Peter Caldwell: Yes I was
Councilor Baldaccit And you, did you hear the PUC mention that
their policy issues such as that were a matter of local control?
And therefore pretty much ended the investigation? Do you recall
that?
Peter Caldwell No 1 don't recall it happening that way
necessarily. I don't know, I don't necessarily agree with that but
I would like to point out that we held hearings in this very room
on the backflow program and I think we had a total of 4 people come
to 2 different hearings. Bud these were all in the paper and so
forth and we have tapes of than and so forth.
Councilor Baldacci: I guess my question is, it's basically you
keep mentioning the PUC as the regulatory body. I'm not denying
that but I'm, what I'm saying is there were some aspects and the
PUC admitted that and my understanding of that hearing that there
are some aspects of the Bangor Water District, or water districts
in general for that matter, that do not fall under PUC regulation.
That fall somewhere in the cracks. Usually in most water districts
that becomes a matter of local political control. Antl in this
situation it doesn't. wouldn't you agree?
Peter Caldwell: No I don't agree. I agree to the extent that it
doesn't come under the PDC. It comes under the Division of Health
Engineering and they are the ones that said you've got to have a
public hearing on this. And that's why we want forward with it.
Now we're regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, the
Division of Health Engineering, and depending what we're doing, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the DEP, Inland Fisheries s
Wildlife. I can go on naming them. We just can't go out and Willy
Billy do What we want to.
Chairman Sawver: Any more questions of Mr. Caldwell by the
Council? I have a question on a slightly related issue. Do you
have, could you hazard a guess on what percent of your rate payers
are not taxpayers? Including the Airport, City property?
Peter Caldwell: well, it's going to have to be something a little
less than what the City's figures are because of the out, people in
the outlying areas that We don't provide service to. So I would
guess maybe, what is it 51% Pd, I would say that probably 49 to 504
are non -taxpayers.
Chairman Sawver: In order t0 get an accurate number, would you
need to work with the Assessing Department to find out which
properties do and don't pay?
Peter Caldwell: Well yeah I think the answer ---
Chairman Sawyer: Do and don't pay taxes?
Peter Caldwell: To answer your question yes. I'm not, I think
that what we're going to try to do, i might go one step further, is
try to integrate into the rate structure into the City the charge
for public fire protection. And if wesuccessful in doing that,
we're going to spread the rates out and somewhere, I would guess
that probably it willreduce the coat of public fire protection to
each of us taxpayers, by some figure of around 30 to 504. And I
don't know what that exact figure is yet. But. You know, what
you're doing is you take a given cost, a fixed cost, and dividing
it, spreading it out by over twice as many people if you will so
you're halving your coats of the process.
Chairman Sawyer: Thank you.
Peter Caldwell: I wouldn't Bay exactly 508 because there's a
factor in there which I can't quite account for. We haven't
studied it out.
airman Sawver: Thank you. Mr. Barrett?
-28 -
Edward Barrett: Council Chair Sawyer, I think clearly what we need
to do in regard to that study is we need to take a look and
determine what our average taxpayer currently pays as his tax bill
toward fire protection charge, and try to compare that as much as
we can with what he Would pay in addition to his water bill. and
that depends upon a number of factors. Obviously depends on water
sage. I think the concern that I have, and have had since I've
been here, is that some major institutions in town which represent
a substantial investment in our part in terms of fire service and
fire protectionare not helping to pay that bill. That would
include obviously the main institutions such as Beason College,
Eastern Maine, the SMMI, those kinds of institutions. And part of
this is going to depend on water utilisation, and how much water is
used by those tax-exempt institutions, and an analysts of what the
rate Impact Would be and how that would affect the individual
taxpayer. So I think when we go through this, we'll clearly be
analyzing it and trying to determine the impact of a rate increase
on the average homeowner versus
s the impact of the continuation of
this charge in the tax rate Once we get those numbers, we'll have
much better handle on it and I understand that's what we'll be
doing in working with the Water District.
Chairman Sawyer: Thank you. Any more comments from the audience?
Let's, someone who hasn't spoken yet please.
Joe Dauphine: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Council.
I'm Joe Dauphine. I live at 191 Grove Street in Bangor. I've
Dean listening to this conversation and the debate and how it's
been going, and I've been kind of hearing some of the Council
saying yeah we want some control over the Water District. I think
they've been doing a Pine job of what they've been doing as far as
supplying water for my house. If they're truly interested in
saving money and cost of operations, the only way I can reckon it
to is one that we've done in the area where I work. we've gone
Into the area
of direct depositing of prisoners arrested to the
County Jail.and that's a savings to the citizens of Bangor and
Orono, Old Town, State Police, the State budgets. But if they're
truly Were trying to save money in operational coats, then why
don't they liken themselves, like Lewiston did, and you folks, as
true taxpayers and representatives of the taxpayers, take the Water
District and bring it, not only bring the oversight back to you a
far as where they go to proposal, but Peter Caldwell himself said,
they save money by dual purposes - by dispatching two different
types of dispatchers, they're paying for that. Two types of
computer systema, you're paying this computer system here and
you're paying a computer system up there. Why can't you link your
computer systems together and save us some money? All that will
all do is bring down the rate payers rate of operating costa of
water for the citizens of Bangor. And if you can do that then that
will be a real savings. I mean we're talking pennies and nickels
and dimea for a foot of water. Maybe we can get it down to half a
penny for the foot of water and be able to do some expansion for
-29-
the citizens of Bangor. sr. mayor, yourself, you've gone through
the citizens of Bangor and helped to expand Hayford Field with a
nice arena out there. And it's very nice to go skating on it. You
take great pride in this City by doing that. You should lead the
way and help no keep the control of the Water District under the
people that voted you in office and you also should help us look at
ways in making the Water District more feasible in working with the
City because we have dispatching and trucks and this public works,
that they could probably use, and backhoes and front-end loaders
and why we buying front-end loaders for the citizens of Banger's
Water District then buying a front-end loader for Public Works? I
mean, you know, that's a lot of money of, $200,000 for one
of those
riga. An $80,000 dump truck. You got to buy one for the citizens
of Bangor and then you got to buy one for the water District, then
you pay your water bill. These things have all got to come under
line. We got to get more accountability of what we're doing and
how we're spending our money.
Every day I go through the purchasing of the Sheriff's Department
and I go through great lengths to buy a toothbrush for an inmate.
You know, it's a lot of money being spent and we got to be marre
accountable and I think, I appreciate your thoughts on maybe doing
this for the citizens of Bangor. Thank you.
Chairman Sawyer: Any Council questions of Br. Dauphine? Thank
you. I'll get back to you. Anyone else that hasn't Spoken yet?
Year air. If you'd please identify yourself.
John Bean: Yeah, my name's John Bean. I live on Ohio Street in
Bangor. I was just thinking in the future if the Water District
wants to expand the whole system to cover more areas, where is the
accountability for that? Say they want another $20 or $30 million
dollars, how is the taxpayer in Bangor going to have any say on
that? That's my main question.
Chairman Sawyer: Well, if you can wait a minute I thick Hr.
Caldwell's writing down his response.
John Bean: That's my concern right there.
Chairman Sawyer: Anything else?
John Bean: No that's it right there.
Chairman Sawver: Any Council questions of Br. Bean? Thank you.
(tape change)
Tape 92, Side B
Representative Peterson: Good morning, good evening Chairman
Sawyer, and members of the Council. I'm Representative Peterson,
District 119, and I felt the due to represent my people and the
people that I represent have told me that they would like to have
-30 -
accountability for the Water District and this is the response that
I have got from my constituents. And I felt that it was only due
that I report this to you.
Chairman Sawyer: Thank you. Any questions of Representative
Peterson? Councilor England.
Councilor Bnala,dx Yeah, did you take a poll of your district?
Representative Peterson: No, these are people that I come in
contact with.
Councilor England, It's just an informal way that you, you haven't
taken any formal vote?
Representative Peterson: No, I have not taken a formal vote.
Chairman Sawyer: Thank You.
Thank You.
Chairman Sawvsr% Anyone also that hasn't spoken yet?
Brian Ames: My name is Brian Ames. I'm a member of the Board of
Trustees and I'm speaking here for myself only. I'm not authorized
to speak for the entire Board in this particular statement.
Basically, I'd like to bring a little bit of focus back on what
we're talking about. You're being asked to support a piece of
legislation that was introduced by Representative Duffy. As far as
I know, this Council or the Manager did not have a part in the
drafting of that bill, which is why we're here discussing it
tonight. If that's not correct, I'd like to have some
acknowledgement. But basically, it's a result of some perceived
malfeasance or misuse of power that has been alleged to have
occurred over the past few years on the part of the Trustees or
their management. And I'd like to mention that all this flies in
the face of history because what we see is that in fact the Bangor
Nater District enjoys same of the best water, antl some of the
lowest rates in the State of Raine. So it's really difficult to
understand what the basic problems are here when in fact everyone
admits that the management is doing a good job.
There have been many statements made about the history of the Water
District and why it should or should not operate under public
scrutiny, but the basic fact is that very early on in American
history there was found to be a need for authorities to be
responsible for the management of public resources, independent
from partisan politics. Rod that is precisely what we have here -
a quasi -municipal board which is responsible to manage the
resources of this community and do it in a good managerial
responsible way. Bow does the Council get responsiveness from that
group? It does it by appointing the various trustees that act for
-31 -
the water District. You appoint people like myself or Mr. Friedman
or the other members of the Board. That's how you get
responsiveness. You're not going to get it by creating another
piece of legislation that introduces another layer of referenda
process, or puts more burden on your shoulders to look over
decisions that have been already made by people appointed by you.
This legislation will not undo the previous things that have been
alleged to have been wrong.
I thick it needs to be recognised that many of these issues have
already been addressed, and are already being discussed by the
people on the Board, and probably are working their way onto a
reasonable solution. And I think that all of these issues need to
be kept in mind because what you're asking here to do tonight Is to
support legislation that will be brought to the Legislature which
will impose further regulations net have already been pointed out
unnecessaryor are even by your own City Solicitor. It is not
necessary to have a referendum of administrative policies and so I
therefore conclude that I would suggest you do not support this
legislation, but in fact move to support the alternate legislation
that you have before you. Are there any question$?
Chairman Sawver: Councilor Baldacci.
Councilor Baldacciz Mr. Ames, you are aware of the structure of
the School Committee?
Brian Ames: Somewhat.
Councilor Baldacci: You know that the members of the School
Committee are elected.
Councilor Baldacciz Do you know also that their budget is reviewed
by this Council?
Brian Ames• Yes.
Councilor Baldacci: Do you feel that this is like, that also is an
unnecessary burden for this Council?
Brian Amesz Tbat's up to you to decide.
Chairman Sawyer: Any other questions of Mr. Ames? I have my
question for you. Do you, if we assumed that the City exports 35%
of its water, do you think it's either legal or ethical to bill
outside customers for 358 of the cost to the District?
Brian Amesz I'm sure that if you're speaking to the past practices
of the Nater District, you'll find that those are entirely legal
but whether or not they're in the best interests of the long-term
viewpoint of the City is another question. I think that you'll
-32 -
find that the Board is looking at those particular issues now and I
thick you'll also find that this legislation will not help you
resolve those issues.
Chairman Sawver: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience that
hasn't spoken yet? Okay. Second time around. Representative
Duffy.
Representative Duffy: Since you opened a door and allowed persons
to speak twice, I wasn't surprised to see that happen and i wasn't
really prepared to take a bunch of notes to rebut. But I did want
to bring up a couple of comments. To Mr. Bean - I go back again to
Chapter 63, Title 35-A, Subsection 6306, 6306 says that any water
district incorporated chartered before January 1, 1982 is excluded
from most oversight. But particular is bonds issuance of bonds and
notes. Ordinarily any bond of $150,000 would besubject to public
hearing. But since Bangor Water District was incorporated before
1981, they have no accountability by bonds by public, because of
public law.
Councilor Encland: Mr. Chair, could I raise a point of order. I
think if a number of Councilors are leaving the room indicating
courtesy to the speaker, then we maybe ought to take a 5 minute
break . . .
Representative Duffv: I'll be brief. I'll be brief and then you
can make a decision.
Councilor Sullivan: That was the point x was going to make. It's
the first time we ve been here at a Council meeting, we haven't
been provided water. Everybody's talking about water. I'm dying
of thirst. I'd like to get a drink of water.
Chairman Sawyer: Should have brought samples. Tell you what, Mr.,
Representative Duffy indicated that he'd be brief. Why don't we
take a break for our own debate as soon as he finishes.
Councilor Sullivan: Alright. Thank you.
ReDreeantative Duffy: Okay. To that extent that there's n
requirement for them to be accounted for. It's amazingtome to
know that the facts and figures are that, I know when we met in
February or I guess I've lost track of time, last November,
whenever we met, I guess December, time goes by fast - the, Mr.
Caldwell told us that if we had to pay for the whole district it'd
be about an 88 increase. I think if we remember that because it
was brought up quite a few times. Now it's increased to 12 1/29.
This is one of the problems I have with the Bangor Water District
by the way, we get different numbers per week out of them.
It was interesting to note in the letter sent to you Chairman
Sawyer that they do admit now that it'd probably be $39 million
-33 -
dollars to install a filtration plant that they kept telling me and
telling everybody else it was $12 to $14 million. And in the notes
of the minutes of the Bangor Water District, Mr. Caldwell said
months ago that it could be $40 million dollars for a new
filtration plant. And yet his figures keep coming out $12 to $15
million. And I can document what he said in the Minutes to his own
Board. And I can document in the Minutes he said to his own Board
that there are members of the Board that didn't agree with only 158
revenues from outside the district, but the answer to the Board at
that time was something's better than nothing.
The question, the other question I have here, we're talking about
the wise use of the resource. It is not unlimited. You can't go
around contracting 4 million gallons a day out of an 8 million
gallon day resource without breaking the back of the people paying
for it. And it's going to happen. And if you double and triple up
those costa, you get into a pricing situation and I believe that
the Bangor Water District wants to operate in a crisis situation so
therefore we have no other decision. That crisis is not coming for
the next year or two. That crisis is down the road about 4 am 5
years from now. I would rather not operate in a crisis situation.
I think if we understand how government works and bureaucracies
work, they bring you to the point and sometimes they tell you you
can't do what you've got to do with the crisis. And sometimes you
get away with being able to get through because it is a crisis.
But if we operate at the rink of crisis we have no choice. And
that's why I brought the bill today for accountability and your
accountability. Not because this decision's going to be made this
year or next year, but because if we have the scrutiny that
decision will be made in a reasonable time before it becomes
critical. And it's a shell game right. You lower rates and
everybody also on the water. But how much are we paying in taxes?
As you've asked Chairman Sawyer, I. asked the same thing. Are we
being getting double-whammied, 208 over here and I believe that
they increased, I don't know what the increase for the water, I
know we're paying close to $380 some odd thousand for fire
protection. I don't know what that increase is but I would guess
it's close to 208. So if they increase the water outside the
district 29, they increase the water to the rate payer 22 and they
increase the taxes on the water, or the fire rate 228, now wait a
minute. Doesn't that add up to same 40 odd percent that the
Bangor, if you happen to be a Bangor rate payer and a Bangor
taxpayer, aren't you paying 40 some odd percent? And everybody
outside the district's paying 297 It's a shell game. It's shell
game. Take the Water District's money if they spread it out all
over, take the rate and say they spread it over the rate payer,
then are we going to be one of the few lowest rate payers in the
area? I doubt 1t.
-34 -
you know, ft's just operating, public accountability's brought us
to this. You can shuffle numbers. You can come up and say well
whatever we've done before we can't do anything about, so let's
just keep right on going in the same direction. We don't need this
accountability. If we've made mistakes in the past, we'll fix them
in the future. You know. I've loaned your car out. I filled it
up with gas. You run it 40% of the time. You bring it back empty
and I say hey, go take the car again. That's what, you know,
that 'a basic stuff. And i an through Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sawver: Any council questions of Representative Duffy]
Then I will rule a 30 minute recess.
Councilor Sullivan: Thank you.
Chairman Sawyer: Frankly I'm not so
sure there's much from the
audience that we haven't heard. Doss anyone have a dire need?
Well, everyone, everybody who has raised their hand at the moment
has spoken at least twice. net I'd like to do is to refer the
Council for debate and if they have any question, certainly
they'll feel free to ask. Councilor England.
Councilor England: Yeah, Fir. Chairman, so that we might consider
both of the Resolutions, I'm going to move at this time to amend by
substitution, and substituting for 98-61 the one that's been passed
out that doesn't, that isn't neutered, that begins Resolve Opposing
the Provisions of M 2189.
Chairman Sewer: One issue at a time. Is there a second to the
move to amend?
Councilor Cohen: I'll second it.
Chairman Sawyer: It's moved and seconded.
onded. I'll look to the
Solicitor. In your mind do we have an A and a E to choose one, or
what we have is an amended motion and we need to debate the
amendment?
Robert Miller:
well,
I'm not sure
I understand your
question. You
can. This is a
motion to amend.
You can debate the
amendment.
Chairman Sawyer:
Why
would I ---
: Alright.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Soenaud.
Councilor Sasnud: I guess I need same direction from Councilor
England what he's hoping to accomplish here. If, the item that
he's hoping to substitute is as of this point simply a piece of
paper on our desk. That's my understanding. It hasn't been in any
way introduced as a motion for this body. If we, I think if we
-35 -
vote down or vote up the matter before us, we have in sense the
Council's feeling on this issue. I'm not a , perhaps he can
enlighten me as to what he's attempting to accomplish.
Councilor England: I thick my reasoning for doing this was that,
so that if for instance 9D-61 is voted down, then we don't have
anything. If we take this as an amendment and for instance, if it
were to pass, then the Resolution would pass in a changed form. If
it were to fail, we would go ahead and vote on 90-61 as printed and
as presented. and so we would get through. It's really as
much as
anything as a way to handle both of them so that the Council has an
opportunity to vote on the one that it chooses.
Chairman Sawyer: I guess the Chair would observe that we literally
have 3 choices. Due, we approve the amendment gets to, would be
against the proposed legislation. If the amendment fails and we
vote in favor of the original document, then we then support
Council, Representative Duffy, and possibly neither the amendment
nor the original order would receive passage, in which case we
maintain a status quo. The Council would have taken no stance.
Whether you agree --
Councilor.Sosnaud: Are we --
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Scanned.
Councilor Sosnaud: I guess, maybe a question for the City
Solicitor. what Is our legal requirement here? Are we required to
vote one way or the other on this? If we fail to, if we fail to
endorse this LD, does that mean then that that Resolve gets
transmitted to the Legislature? What's the procedure?
Robert Miller: The item before you is a Resolve in favor of this
proposed bill. If you pass it, somebody may choose, if you pass it
then I assume that somebody will communicate that decision to the
Legislature. If you fail to pass it, I assume that will be
communicated by somebody to the Legislature. I don't think on its
face that it does, that it directs anybody to do anything as far as
who c cates your action is concerned, but it's an item that
obviously the sponsors felt affected the citizens of Bangor and
they were asking the Council to take a position on the issue.
Councilor Sosnauds I thought there was some, isn't there, my
understanding Representative Duffy, is that there is a legal
requirement that this Council indicate its position for or against
a measure of this kind.
Chairman Savverz while he's looking it up I think Mr. Barrett has
a comment.
Edward Barrett: I think I can answer that question. It appears
from what Representative Duffy said earlier that the Council, that
in regard to the Bangor Water District we would not have to
-36 -
communicate it because it was created before 1902.
Councilor Sosnaud: Okay.
Edward Barrett: So I think you realistically do have three
choices. You can, probably 4 or 5 wecan cup with. You could
support the legislation. You could oppose the legislation. You
could simply not take a position on the legislation. Or you could
come up with some combination thereof on Section A and Section,
cause there are two sections to the proposal. You could support
onepart of it and oppose another part of it. So I think you have
a variety of choices before you. I don't think based on what
Representative Duffy read of the law today that you are required
to. Even if you were required to comment, your comment could be no
comment. I suspect.
Chairman Sewer: Councilor Baldacci.
Councilor Baldaccl: I guess it's, and maybe the City Solicitor can
help me out on this, I, would not a negative vote on 90-61 as it
stands n would that have a negative vote, would that negative
Implications or no implications?
Chairman Sawver: Mr. Miller?
Robert Millerz This is a proposed resolve. It's a piece of
legislation that's been presented to the Legislature. You can
choose to take a position in favor of it. You can choose to take
an affirmative position opposing it. You can choose to take no
position at all on it. And that's, your vote reflects that. How
the Legislature interprets your vote on any of theme issues, you'll
have to ask the Legislature. There's no, to my knowledge, there's
no legal requirement you take a position on this one way or the
other.
Chairman Sawyer: again, i guess the Chair's interpretation is if
the amendment passes, that's the end of the conversation. We would
oppose Representative Duffy's bill. If the amendment fails and we
pass the original order, then we would formally support
Representative Duffy's bill and if the original order fails then we
would have officially taken no stance. Councilor England?
Councilor England: I was just going to refer back, it's a waste of
time. I don't want to go back.
Chairman Sawver: Okay. Then the amendment before us, and I would
encourage you to speak to the amendment to the degree that you can,
is in, my understanding is it is in opposition to Representative
Duffy's bill. I look to the Clerk to help keep me honest on my
vernacular. Yeah, well, down everyone have a copy of what is the
amended version. Does the Council have a copy of the amended
version, which opposes Representative Duffy's bill? If you have a
-37 -
copy, Would you like to debate it as a Council? Councilor
Sullivan.
Councilor Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, just again a point of
Information. The Resolve that we have here that was sitting on the
table when we came out here tonight is a Resolve opposing the
provisions of LD 2189. The original one was supporting ID 2189.
And the amendment is to, by substitution, right? Substituting the
one opposing for the one supporting. Is that all we're doing?
Chairman Sawverz Correct. And if, it's my understanding,
parliamentarily that ifwe vote in the affirmative on the amendment
we are opposing the bill. .
That's what I said.
Chairman Sawverz I really wish, I wish I could think of a way to
make this a little more clearer cause that would be debating the
bill not the, not the vote. That would be the amended, correct,
that would require 2 votes. But if the amendment passes, I can't
imagine anything but an approved amended motion. Yeah. It's clear
to me. Maybe I'll make the rules and take my ball with me, but the
discussion that we should be having right now ---
Councilor Earl: is on the amendment.
Chairman Sawver: -- is whether or not to oppose LD 2189.
Councilor Becloud: No.
Chairman Sawyer: Which is the amended.
Councilor Sullivan: To amend.
Councilor Scanaud: I think the discussion we should be having, Mr.
Chair, is whether or not we should be substituting by amendment.
Whether we want to go that route. I think we've been having that
discussion.
Chairman Sewer: Well frankly, we could spend all night ever the
parliamentary rules. What we're trying to do is, are we here to
oppose thebill, support the bill or take no stance. I don't care
how you call it. I believe what we have before us is a formula by
amending the original document that you proposed, your bill, your
resolve was to support the bill. Councilor England has submitted,
and duly seconded, an amendment that would call for the opposition
of the bill. My opinion, if we vote in the affirmative on the
amendment then we have an amended main motion which then I suspect
we would vote to approve in its amended form which would be to
oppose the bill.
MO
Councilor Saxl: what parliamentary question?
Chairman Sawver: Councilor Saxl.
Councilor Saxl: My parliamentary question is that if we decided
that we didn't want to take any action, how would we accomplish
that?
Chairman Sawyer: vote no 3 times. Correct. vote no twice.
You wouldn't amend it and we wouldn't pass it.
Chairmen Sawver: Vote no on the amendment, vote no on the main
motion, than we would take no stance at all. Councilor Cohen.
Councilor Cohen: ---
Chairman Sawyer: Can we, should we invite Sohn Martin down. He
does this real well
Councilor Cohen: I think I'm now. i was going to say I'm confused
but i think I'm not confused any more. Let me speak to the
amendment for just one second so that wean get this thing going.
In giving some thought over, you know, the weekend and hearing the
thoughts of the people that I've, that have come tonight. Md I
thick that we'vespent a great deal of time in our recent retreat
and in the Economic Development Advisory Committee and the
Community and Economic Development Committee, talking about the
sed for Bangor to be a regional resource. And everyone of the
members of this Council at some point in time have talked about our
need to be a leader in the region. 'we've talked about it in regard
to solid waste. We've talked about it in terms of purchasing and
Penobscot valley Council of Governments and so on. In 1999, we've
made a priority i believe Ed, I don't remember which number it was,
but one of our priorities was to work with the other communities
around us for cooperative arrangements, the tax sharing and some of
those other issues, not particularly water but a of those other
Issues. and I guess I an going to interpret Representative Duffy's
bill in my own way that it's a signal that we're not so sure that
we want to be in that regional role.
The arguments brought forth by Representative Duffy and other
members of the audience are goad ones, but I don't believe we need
to have this bill put in place in order to force other communities
around us to pay more. I think that's something that we can do
when we appoint people. I think that's a clear message we can send
to the Water District. And I think we need to be a consistent and
constant reminder of the region and its leadership, and I guess I
would have to say that I would be opposed to Representative Duffy's
bill.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Saxl.
-39 -
Councilor Saxix Yee. I likewise have given some thought to this,
of the last while and I agree with you in thinking, in wanting to
promote Bangor's regional efforts in there, in many ways. But as I
think about this, I don't see any provision that's in this
legislation which speaks to regionalization, pro or con. To me
this bill speaks simply about giving the Council some oversight
provision over the Water District in their decisions. The District
and the Council have talked over the last two years about
developing a closer relationship and sharing of information. In
fact, we've moved along that track in order to, in terms of having
some meetings. But that has not been institutionalized at all and
really is a matter of the personalities of the people who are
currently involved on the Council and the water District.
The portion of the bill that really concerned me was the referenda
portion because it seemed to me that the provision of 54 of the
citizens Would lead to bills which Representative Duffy termed
••frivolous" and he has assured me that he Would follow the
referendum procedures that are established in the City of Bangor.
So if I'm in favor of institutionalizing a closer relationship
between the Water District and I no longer have to worry about the
provision for the referendum, i see no reason to oppose this and
don't think that it at all affects the regional nature of our
relationship in terms of water, in terms of tax sharing. Ithink
that those are extraneous issues and in some ways cloud the debate
that was here tonight.
Chairman Sewers Councilor Sullivan.
Councilor Sullivan: Yes Mr. Chairman. I've been listening and
reading and mulling and so forth the whole gamut, and a couple of
comments that Were made tonight. i think all of us have at least
sat at the meetings with the Water District. We've heard this. We
all received tons of communications from various sources and in
many cases duplicates and triplicates of some things that we
already had, but the paint is that in regard to the tax axempt
property, I really don't see it a smoke screen. It is something
that when the real property tax relief questions were raised here
n this Council Chambers by the Commission on Property Tax Relief
and Property Tax Reform, they looked at all aspects of property tax
relief. And one of those was the problem that Bangor faces of the
tax exempt property, the approximately 504, and the question was
raised. And we had some Representatives on the Commission who were
officers in those tax exempt properties. The question sea raised
what can we do. We can't do anything right now. We're not, we do
not have the authority to do anything. However, what we are
looking for and wenow have are tax exempt property steering
committee and again there is representation from the tax exempt
properties. We're looking for some kind of cooperation and in
listening and talking to them, they recognize our problems and we
have to recognize theirs. They have to realize that the property
tax cannot support the City much longer at the rate we're going.
-40 -
They also know that they contribute a great deal to our economy,
and that's a point they make and one that we recognise. However,
one of the things that we recognise and this again was through Mr.
Barrett, the City Manager, from the very beginning, I think from
almost day one when he arrived in the City of Bangor. One of the
things he talked about was being able to get some kind of, maybe
fee, in lieu of taxes, some kind of payments from the -- (tape
change)
Tape 43, Side A
was the hydrant costs, fire protection costa and that is what
is being looked at right now. So far as the Airport, yes, the
Airport is about i guess 40% of 50% of the tax exempt property.
But we already have taken measures, and we are getting more from
the Airport for the citizens. So these are some of the things that
we are addressing and I'm not saying that we're close to solution,
but at least we're looking at them.
The other issue that was raised was the problem if we call it, if
we want to call it a problem and I did see it as a problem, the
Door communications between the water District and the citizens at
large. That came to a head at the time of the backflow problem.
And i think you'll have to recognize that the City Council jumped
at that one, and the communication was very strong going towards
the Water District. Then we had a meeting. We had an
explanation. We encouraged the water District to make sure they
got their ms sage out, their explanation, that they met with people
in the City.And since that time, I know myself and other
Councilors have indicated to me that they feel that there has been
a great deal of improvement so far as the communications between
the Water District and the City Council. When we ask questions we
get answers.
me
When we ask to et with them, we have a meeting with
them. They have been responsive to us.
Now, we do have the only ability I guess to have any control, if
you want to call it control, in what do we call them, quotations,
that we do appoint members to the Commission. And in that way we
can certainly make sure that those linea of communication are
continued to improve.
Now my concern is that sending a message to communities outside us,
outside the City of Bangor, that okay, guys, we've been giving you
this water, not giving it to you, but we've been supplying you and
now we're going to be much more careful about anybody else that we
let in. And when we're talking development we're talking about
region, regional, cooperation. When we start talking about if
there's any possibility of cost sharing or tax sharing, we
looking to those same communities. We're not looking to Augusta.
We're not looking to anyone away from Bangor. We're talking about
those neighbors that we are dealing with in the water issue. I'd
-91 -
like to make aura that we don't send a message out that says we
going to get heavy-handed, but on the other hand, when it's going
to be a matter of a huge investment, huge expense in the future,
I'd like those communities to know that we are concerned and we
want to make sure they are concerned with the additional costs.
And I think they're going to get this message. I think they
already have the message from u So in that sense, I don't think
that we have to really institutionalize the relationship between
the Water District and the City any further at this point.
We can look at it again in the future if we find that it isn't
working or continuing in the way it is going right now. So I will
be supporting the amendment. Thank you.
Chairman Sawyer, Councilor Blanchette.
Councilor Blanchette, Yes, Chairman Sawyer. I'm really concerned
with this amendment for a number of reasons. I'm looking down
through this and it said the Water District is currently regulated
by the Public Utilities Commission. The Public Utilities
Commission has very blatantly and plainly stated that they are
not
going to get involved in local politica. They set the rates the
water rates. But if we have a disagreement, if the Water District
Trustees decide that they in fact want to contract water to another
town, they're not going to step in and say that they can't do that.
I heard the question asked by Chairman Sawyer twice tonight that if
358 of the water is going out of the City of Bangor, are in fact
the inhabitants of the outlying towns that are receiving 35% paying
their full cost. I've heard a lot of evasive answers, but I
haven't heard a direct answer to Chairman Sawyer's question as,
year they are paying that cost, what it coat them to go out.
I thick we do, we do have the privilege of appointing the Trustees
at the Bangor water District, but that's as far as it goes.
Shortly after I was seated on the Council two years ago, we had a
meeting with the Bangor Water District. Big hurry meeting. we
have problems. We are going to run out of water. We're going to
have to look at alternative sources of water. We're talking about
Beech Hill, someplace where we've got to go through miles and miles
and miles of ledge. This is going to coat a lot of money. Then
shortly after, I guess a year had gone by, we came back. Well they
had the wrong figures. They were using the wrong graphs. I'm net
at all sure that the communication is there, even though we appoint
the Trustees. I think it is a safeguard measure for the citizens
of Bangor.
I have a problem with the philosophy of the majority of this
Council to regionalize every dam thing in this City. We have a
city that we can't take care of as it stands in 1990 because w
don't have the money. Now what makes you think that these little
bitty dinky towns that are around us are going to be able to give
_¢2_
us enough money, not only to maintain our city the way it should
be, but to help maintain theirs? It's not going to happen. We
have a city that's in dire need of repair the way it stands right
I defy any one of you to go out here and drive on the road
and not fall into a pothole. Tell me we don't have problems. We
do have problems. And spreading our expense all over the area is
not going to help us solve our problems. We have a beautiful
city. Let's focus on taking care of Bangor. Bangor taxpayers. I
don't want ten years from now us to have to say to our c£tizes,
well we're in that position again. We're running
ing out of water
because we've had too many industries come in and we're going to
have to go to Beech Hill, or some other place ten miles down the
road through solid ledge. We have enough water to support our
citizens up through a good many years in the year 2000. Leta
retain that control. A little bit of control oversight over the
Trustees is not going to hurt them or hinder their operation. I
don't believe. And everyone on this Council knows that I a r
opposed toe controversial item going out to the public. We've
spending the public's money. We're only trustees of the public's
money. If it's a large bond issue that has to go out, ask the
people, do they want it. Do Iwant to go to Glenburn? Do i want
to supply water to Hampden? Ask them. It's their tax dollars that
are paying it and we re only the guardians of that money. Thank
YOU.
Chairman Sawver: Councilor Sosnaud.
Councilor Sosnaud: Yes. Hr. Chair. Let me just make very clear
what I think this Resolve and this bill before us is not. it is
not an examination of the District's past policies on pricing for
waterservice. it is not any kind of judgment on past management
decisions by the District or current ability to manage our water
needs. It's not in my view an endorsement for or against
regionalism. Rather what I think it is very shortly and sweetly is
simply whether there should be a new avenue of accountability for
an appointed, or and I need to say this very strongly, or a
non -elected body. And I believe if you break down the bill before
us, if you look at the two aspects of it. First of all, the
Council approval aspect of the bill. I think we have many
instances where we have semi-automonous Council bodies. I'm
thinking of the Planning Board now, which has a number of its
decisions which comes before the Council for review. The Housing
Authority, another semi-automonous body that just a few months ago
was before us for approval as to their desire to begin construction
of 25 new units and also earlier referred to - the School Committee
- an elected body which still has to have its bottom line budget
approved by this group. So we have precedent for semi -autonomous
bodies, to having certain aspects of their business come before
this Council. I believe that the kinds of matters that would come
before the Council are not the everyday business of the Water
District, but simply what the bill specifically mentions, namely
contracts to sell water to areae outside of Bangor, which is a
-43 -
major, major issue that I'm not troubled by having the Council with
a review power over that kind of decision.
The second aspect of the bill, the referendum aspect, When we're
talking about a body with the kind of financial control that the
Water District does, I have no problems with a referendum on those
decisions, especially when I'm informed by Representative Duffy
that the referendum provisions will be the same after he's amended
his bill as those which apply to decisions of the Bangor City
Council.
So based on what I have just said, I will support the original
Resolve that I introduced which is in favor of the measure
introduced by Representative Duffy.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Stone.
Councilor Stone: Thank you. I believe ft's a fine thing that the
Bangor Water District has hired s public realtions firm. It's
quite obvious from this evening's proceeding that you need one. A
couple thoughts. First of all, I believe that the Bangor water
District is making a very large error by not, you know, by
Operating in avacuum
and by not getting out in the trenches and
finding out what the citizens and the people are really thinking
about. You can't isolate yourself. That's quite obvious. You
know we all learn and what is happening here tonight and perhaps
you folks should do on your sem, not necessarily with the City
Council, just amongst the citizens of Bangor. If a gentleman makes
a point about a backhoe and why you don't use the same one that the
Public Works Department uses, I think he should have an answer to
his question at some point in time. So he'll know what your
thoughts am. But taking all that under consideration, I still do
not believe that we need another layer of management to hinder the
long-term process of, the planning process, and I will vote in
favor of the amendment to change this order. Thank You.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor Baldacci.
Councilor Balaccio Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just
like to echo what has been said to same degree here, and I do think
it is important and just a small sacrifice to ask that there be
some form of public accountability in the decisions that the Water
District engages in. I, whether it ie, I thick it is not valid to
say that it is cumbersome and time consuming. i think it's
important to realise that these decisions impact greatly on the
Bangor citizen, the rate payer, the taxpayer. i think those types
of decisions, to have some sort of public accountability which I do
think Representative Duffy's bill does provide, is Important.
We're dealing as has been said a resource that is not unlimited.
There are limits to it. And once we use up those limits we are
going to have to look for other resources, other water supplies.
Will our expenses be shared by other comnunities) I think the
Bangor rate payer in this situation has paid enough, and I'm tired
-44 -
of the excuse just for the Bangor rate payer to shut up and pay. I
think he needs a voice in what goes on at some point with the Water
District. It's been an attitude of just be quiet and pay, accept
it. I. think at some point, and I do think it becomes our
responsibility to take that on. We're elected by the people of the
City of Bangor. We're not elected by the people of Hampden, Orono,
yeasts, although I'm not saying that we shouldn't be good
neighbors. But we shouldn't be good neighbors at the expense of
our own citizens. I mean that's where, that's where our
representation lies. And I think Representative Duffy's bill
addresses those, and I would urge other Councilors to support it.
Thank you.
Chairman Sawyer: Councilor England
Councilor Enaland: Yes. I have two. I want to address my concern
about this bill. But first of all, I should like to ask the
Manager a question. I think it's misrepresentation to suggest that
there'S Onee primary Resolve. At the Finance Committee meeting last
meek you said to us, that you would prepare several resolves
representing other pointe of view. I didn't write this particular
resolve. You wrote it.
Edward Barrett: That's correct. I wrote ---
Councilor England: There isn't one resolve that is the resolve of
the Finance Committee and the other is not. They were both, you
said to us that you Would supply us with at least two positions.
Edward Barrett: That's correct.
Councilor England: And that's all we have here tonight. I'm sorry
that the one that doesn't have anything written on it was not
mailed out at the same time ---
Edward Barrett: It was intended to. There was an oversight ---
Councilor England: --- Finance Committe as far as I understand it
was not to take apposition on this. It was to give the Council the
opportunity to take one position g re
another. So there's nosense
in what this is particularly written by me, this was prepared by
the Finance Committee through the Manager so that we would have
this opportunity. i just wanted that to be very clear, that that's
the way the Finance Committee decided last week at its meeting. I
guess I would want to say, I think I agree with Councilor Saxl. I
don't come down to the final conclusion that she does but I do
agree that the issues are two. The issues are one, whether or not
there is sufficient oversight of the Water District, and whether or
not there is a sufficient way to review their day-to-day decisions
and it seems to me in the first case, we haveanopportunity as we
select members of the Board of Trustees of the Water District to
exercise our oversight. And secondly, it seems to me their
declaims are being reviewed by a number of regulatory agencies on
-45-
a regular basis. And therefore I will support the amendment to the
motion.
Chairman. Suavest If there's no more debate by the Council, I'll
ask the Clerk to call the roll. By the say, it's my interpretation
of this vote, is that if you vote yes on the amendment, this
Council would take an opposing position with the bill. If you vote
no n the amendment, then we'll debate the main motion. Please.
We are now voting on the amendment.
Clerk McKenna: Councilor Baldacci.
Councilor Baldaccl: Just to be clear. I vote no opposing, on the
amendment, opposing Representative Duffy's bill.
Clerk McKenna: Blanchette.
Councilor Blanchette: No.
Clerk McKenna: Cohen.
Councilor Cohen: Yes.
Clerk McKenna: England.
Councilor Bnaland: Yes.
Clerk McKenna: Sawyer.
Chairman Sawyer; Yes.
Clerk McKenna: Saxl.
Councilor Saxl: No.
Clerk McKenna: Saennud.
Councilor Sosnaudt No.
Clerk McKenna: Stone.
Councilor Stone: Yea.
Clerk McKenna: Sullivan. -
Councilor Sullivan: Yes.
Clerk McKenna: 5 yes, 4 no.
Chairman Sawyer: By a vote of 5 yes and 4 no, the Council, I'm
entry, the amendment passage. Do the, any debate of now the
amended ma motion? Seeing none, I'll ask the Clerk to call the
roll. I'm sorry. Let Me suggest. If you vote yes, you are voting
-46 -
the amendment, the amended main motion. if you vote no, the
Council will have taken no action.
Councilor Sullivan: This was moved and seconded?
Chairman Sawver: Yes. Councilor Sosnaud made the original motion.
Councilor Blanchette: Run that by again please Chairman Sawyer.
Chairman Sawver: My Interpretation, subject to Mr. Miller, is that
if you vote yes on the amended main motion, You are ---
. . . been moved and seconded.
Councilor Knoland: It isn't been moved and seconded.
Chairman Sawyer: Well Councilor Sosnaud made the original motion
and it was seconded. Councilor England moved an amended,
amendment, and that was seconded. My interpretation we now have an
amended main. motion.
Councilor Blanchette: Which is opposing Representative Duffy's
bill?
Chairman Sawyer: Correct. And my interpretation, unless there is
another motion that c n the floor after this, a Yee is that
You support the amended motion which opposes the bill. A no is
that the Council would take no formal action. Would the Clerk
please call the roll.
Clerk McRenna: Councilor Sullivan.
Chairman Bouvet: Would You like me to go through it again?
Councilor Sullivan: I'm voting yes to the amended motion.
Clerk McKenna: Stone.
Councilor Stone: Yee.
-Clerk McKenna, Sosnaud.
Councilor Sosnaud: No.
Clerk McKenna: Saml.
Councilor Saxl: No.
Clerk McKenna: Sawyer
Chairman Sawyer: Yes.
_47_
Clerk McKenna: England.
Councilor England: Yea.
Clerk McKenna: Cohen.
Councilor Cohen: Yes.
Clerk McKenna: Blanchette.
Councilor Blanchette: No.
Clerk McKenna: Baldacci.
Councilor BaldaccL No.
Clerk McKenna: 5 yes, 4 no.
Chairman Sawyer, By a vote of 5 Yea and 4 no, the Council has
voted the, voted the Resolve which opposes provisions of LD 2189.
Let me ask, before the Council gets too antay, we had two other
items to talk about. . .
February 6, 1990
TO: Russell McKenna, City Clerk
FROM: Terri Corey, Legal Department
RE: Council Resolve #90-61 - Mater District
At Councilor Baldacci's request, I have prepared a verbatim
transcript of the special Council Meeting conducted an January 29,
1990 regarding the above -indicated matter. Enclosed for your file
is the original copy of the Transcript. Copies are being
distributed to all members of the City Council and the City
Manager.
T.C.
Enclosure