OK…let’s get the whole story from the beginning.

First, Let’s not forget the first study we received from an engineering firm Gove and Associates that had numbers which supported that building this pipeline was going to be a tremendous cost savings. Now there were supposed to be like 6 recommendations followed before that pipeline was built….so what happened with that. I mean How about it folks….has this felt like a savings to any of you folks?

Secondly, let’s not forget this is NOT the first increase. Go back and check when TR told us their equipment was long past its service life shortly after we turned on the pipeline. That was 5 consecutive years of rate increases (some of them double digit increases). If you want my news archives to help refresh some memories I can provide that also. These increases were to help pay for a $7 million plant overhaul (I have the memo from the WWTP director to our village outlining those reasons..and the age of that equipment). The good news is that the plant name was changed from wastewater treatment plant to cleanwater plant….so we got that going for us.

Also, the document between the village and the City says that the 1.12 rate should be reduced to 1.10 after 10 years of operation…we have been past that point for 5 years….and it has not happened.

That should be in effect even though we are not handing over the pipeline ownership. Why? because part of that last pipeline redesign included a very expensive equalization basin that TR insisted on to help protect their plant. We paid for that to protect the plant….we should in return get that 1.12 at the very least reduced to the 1.10 as spelled out in that original document. Handing over $3 million in assets (ie the pipeline) or a $1.3 million hook up fee when we are funding our share as the City’s largest single customer on approximately $9 million worth of the capitol improvements to the plant for the past decade is ludicrous.

Thirdly, we do NOT have to give 4 years notice. You can check with the attorneys again if you wish but they agreed with me years ago when the TR WWTP manager sent a reminder letter to this provision but since TR never took ownership of the pipeline, and we never got our multiplier reduction….you can’t cherry pick the provisions of the document. If the interpretation is that the 10 yr clock for us to get the multiplier reduced to 1.10 didn’t start because TR didn’t take ownership of the pipeline…well then the other provision about the 4 year notice didn’t start yet either….you don’t get it both ways. Go read the document.

And do NOT call that document a contract–folks in the know on this know it is NOT a contract.

Here’s the BIG question. So where’s plan B? I thought there was a study to be conducted on investigating some other options like doing our own plant…we paid with taxpayer money for a study to present those options as part of the study right? So where are they?

So are ya telling me that’s it? Negotiate the multiplier and take over more operations ourselves and adjust the frequency of testing? Seriously? Aside from the change in the frequency of the testing there’s nothing new there…..BTW we gave up our lab equipment. So you gotta buy lab equipment, you gotta have someone trained (and pray that once you train them they don’t leave…or contract hire that ). Either way it costs.

Switching gears now to water……The water issue has me a little irked. Why? Because if memory serves me correctly, Mr. Moxey did a rate study and helped us set up that rate change not all that long ago…that was supposed to help address this. I was on that committee but was on a leave of absence for a serious illness but I was back in time for the final product to be reviewed and approved by the Council. As part of that roll out, so we added new meters at alot of residences, implemented new measures for more accurate meter reading (instead of guesstimating usage), fixed known leaks, paid for new billing software, paid dearly because we set it up wrong and undercharged for quite awhile….All this was at a cost . This was supposed to help us operate in the black on that fund….all that and we are still not in the black….then why is that? Did we not complete the study recommendations or did we complete the action items and the study was flawed….check the notes from the utility billing committee to see if there’s something we missed.

Secondly, since we are having to brace for a rate increase then one would then have to assume that the other Plan B options were cost prohibitive…or we’d be going that direction.

Since we are not pursuing plan B or C options, and those options were paid for via taxpayer dollars they should be available for public disclosure. I don’t believe there is litigation, collective bargaining, or real property acquisition which are some of the provisions that allow for closed session. Since one of the recommendations noted in the article was a quote indicating the agreement needs to be negotiated means that to date it is not being negotiated. Therefore I don’t see how it is protected under any of the 8 provisions for closed session under the Michigan open meetings act. I mean when I had to chair a committee to look in to re-opening the plant it wasn’t protected under such provisions…in fact I remember getting publicly raked over the coals and a quote from the former village manager accusing me of fuzzy math in recommending we re-open our plant 10 years ago. Now these options 10 years later are closed session material??? I don’t think so.

And for the water billing issue (not the sewer portion) first, make sure we did all the recommendations that were suggested when we did the last water rate study to make sure we did everything that was recommended.

If those things were done and we are still losing money, then why is that….where is the gap coming from. Did costs go up from the assumptions in the previous study and if so, where and why. It’s not like wastewater where you have to treat it to remove wastes though we do have and iron/manganese removal operation for one of the aquifers. Did operating costs at the iron/manganese removal station increase? Did other capital improvement projects get initiated without adequate funding? Where there other O&M costs that were different from the assumptions of the earlier study. And I hate to even ask this one, but I know we set up the new software with the wrong formula and underbilled for a long time….did we not set it up right again?

Before we just apply a band aid and say raise the rates, we need to really pull out the last study, determine if we did all we were supposed to do and if so, then REALLY understand where the cost drivers are to understand the problem(s).

And folks may think water is the least of the problems insofar as billing but I can assure you that we need to get the water rate correct to help you with sewer billing also. Why? Because your sewer rates are calculated in part as a function of your water usage….so if we build on a flawed foundation for water billing, your sewer billing gets plagued with that same flaw–and you get hosed two for the price of one flaw.

dang it.. We’ve got the highest rates around already.. what the hell is wrong with everybody anyhow? I’m sorry somebody thought to raise the rates but I’m glad somebody put this on the internet and I plan to go complain to the Council!!!!!

You just can’t raise a family in Constantine anymore! Look at all the foreclosures anyhow. I’m really upset.

If you want to be upset…be upset at the so called geniuses that told you that voters were voting to fix our treatment plant only to have the map of this pipeline dated days before that vote and then after the money was approved they switched and went to a pipeline and were allowed to because the wording of what the voters approved was vague and generic….So be upset with those folks….those were the same folks that said oh what a saving this would be and that the village was getting out of the sewer business. They said this was the wave of the future….but in the end these geniuses caught the next wave leaving town. But hey, if you read the news archives I’ll show you the quote from the former village manager that said we wouldn’t have been able to build that nice high dollar housing development across from our sewer plant if we’d have left it open (and BTW the same former mayor that championed this pipeline championed and supported giving that development a free sewer hook up…I believe it was a $26,000 free-bee). So if you wanna be upset, be upset at them…this is the cost of apathy and not getting involved in what goes on in your city halls until its too late.

…..all of the suggestions for the sewer cost saves are actually directionally correct….but are analagous to the little boy putting fingers and toes in the holes in the dam. Its just a bit frustrating that some of these suggestions have been on the table for years and not acted on. I was hoping for more solutions that weren’t considered. These will help some but still prolong the inevitable….because these are dealing with what is right in front of us and paints the picture of the trend over the life of this pipeline (which to me is an 8 mile long hole that we keep trying to fill with money)….So that’s all the ghost of Christmas past and the ghost of Christmas present……….HOWEVER, this too pales in comparison for what I feel is to come from the ghost of Christmas future if we don’t wake up soon and change direction. Here’s the bigger problems ahead of us in my opinion.

Problem 1) Didn’t you read the part above where the current document between the City and the village expires in 2016. So do you think rates will get cheaper without any form of documented arrangement compared to how we have done with such a document to date for the past 16 years? Do you think the new deal 4 years from now will be cheaper than the current deal? Yeh, that’s what I thought.

Problem 2) Look at the age of the system….the switch was turned on I believe end of 1996. You know how it is with a new car? Right now we are dealing with what is analagous to car payments, insurance rate increases, expensive oil changes, gas prices out of control and regular tune ups, brakes, and maintainence and the occasional flat tire. We can shop for other insurance, do our own oil changes and maintenance and all to save money …BUT…….You know the part where that new car gets to the point where the years and mileage start costing you a new tranny, new engine, body starts rusting out, etc??? Yeh, I think we are approaching that phase.

Problem 3….MDOT says they are building the bypass around Constantine. You know all that commercial truck traffic that goes 25-35 mph through town that supposedly shakes the bejesus out of our downtown buildings. Look at your bypass route…those same trucks with a bypass will go 55+ mph OVER (not next to, but over) a cement lined sewer pipeline (on an already very mature system). Anyone wanna wager on how that’ll all play out and who owns the outcome….it won’t be MDOT. And anyone that says the bypass won’t cross the pipeline isn’t facing facts. You cannot build a bypass on the West side of town and not have it come back to the current US131 where they plan on doing it without it crossing the pipeline. Oh so we make it deeper where the highway is. OK….but go back to the engineering concerns by the firm that designed the system and the problems with air pockets going with low and high spots.

Problem 4) Unlike TR residents we pay more to treat a gallon of waste than a TR resident does. If it costs a TR resident $1.00 to treat a gallon of waste, we pay $1.12 to treat a gallon of waste–AND–TR has direct voting power to put those in office that change these rates….we do not have that power. Oh sure we elect our board and they can choose to not pass on the rate increase that TR charges the village and bankrupt the village….I’m sorry, but that’s not a real choice….that’s a choice analagous of do you want the bullet in the head or chest.

That’s why I am interested in plan B or plan C, but unless the options are much different than when it was explored nearly 10 years ago it will NOT be cheap.

The water portion is something we do control and the current board should be accountable for….however, the current board did NOT create the sewer mess, they inherited a bad situation that was predicted years ago and was told in many articles written…but I could chop off a few fingers and still have enough fingers to count the number of folks that cared enough to get even remotely involved. That being said, these folks on our current board are tasked with the direction of how we are going to deal with wastewater for years to come. Direct your anger at the folks that created the mess…direct solutions and suggestion on how you’d like to see us move forward to the current board–not anger. And think a bit beyond your own household….tough as that is. We have two industries that heavily use water and sewer….As bad as it effects your bills, imaging how it effects theirs…..it effects jobs, it effects whether these businesses stay here and invest further to help pay the lions share for alot of services we all take for granted. It also could effect other businesses that may want to locate here.

When you think it through and the impacts and ripple effects, this has been THE most important issue that will effect the future of our little town.

I really think the Council welcomes constructive citizen input, but the word on a proposed increase in our monthly water-sewer bill needs to get out there… so I just penned a “Letter to the Editor” and e’d it to the TRC-News & SJ. I outlined a few things here, but mainly I want people to consider coming to Council meetings..ask questions and investigate things themselves. Be informed. We’ve a Village website which tells you how to contact Council members (tel. no’s. and e-mail addresses.) I know Council members get contacted on issues. They’ve mentioned it. I’ve hear a lot of grumbling about the current high water/sewer bill and it’s better to inform everyone now what’s going on, let them react.. than have someone storm the Council meeting later. Actually, both Rick Cordes and I took shots of the 8 or 9 screens in the Moxey Power Point presentation. I was very interested in the second PP presentation, but it went to closed session. (I wonder why?) I believe someone made the comment one option in the second one discussed “reopening the old Village WWTP” and I was curious. Scott, why don’t you write a letter to the TRC-N or SJ?

Angie….don’t take my comments on your article as criticism…I’m glad you are taking an interest and writing about it. It was a good article…Folks need to be aware….this isn’t going to go away.

I was trying to fill in some of the history but not all. If everyone went through my archives and pieced together what I have amassed, they’d be as upset as I was and still am at what the leaders of the past Councils did. Plenty of blame on both sides of the pipeline to go around. I have the history that goes all the way back to 1994….this pipeline idea didn’t actually start with us……

I wrote a number of articles to TR and to Sturgis paper years ago when it could have mattered. And the result??? Lots of neosporin needed for the holes thru the hands. Nobody listened. Any time you want to look at my books and the news archives and documents you are more than welcome aside from any stuff that was deemed closed session stuff. You won’t like what you find as to how and why this came to pass.

Well, suffice to say what happened then was we started down a path that was going to be a $200,000 fix and by the time it was done we voted on I believe another $1.7 million.

Depending on the Councils intentions, closed session for other options might be in the villages best interests for now (for reasons I cannot get in to). It all kinda depends.

And insofar as writing letters and such……one can either write about it or what can do something about it………stay tuned.

My recollection is that Scott raised a lot of these issues at the time and that others tried to hush him up and I don’t doubt from his previous comments, threatened him. Concerns were expressed prior to the building of the pipeline that TR’s plant would not be able to handle the extra sewage, and I also recall the problems when they admitted as much AFTER the pipeline had been connected. Wasn’t there also and issue with the pipeline having to have some kind of extra booster put in because the hill outside TR was proving too much for the system to cope with?

The biggest problem is that there are NO qualifications for locally elected officials, who often have egos bigger than their understanding. They also tend to hire someone they know, rather than seeking advice from their professional bodies which is why we end up with expensive engineering studies that don’t cover the actual need. Look at the debacle over the proposed sewer systems in Park and Fabius townships at different times.
If people would GO to meetings, take the time to understand HOW the boards propose to spend their money BEFORE the event, and say the word RECALL a bit louder, maybe we’d get some quality work done and not mish-mashes that constantly need revisiting.

And Angie, you asked….I believe someone made the comment one option in the second one discussed “reopening the old Village WWTP” and I was curious. Scott, why don’t you write a letter to the TRC-N or SJ?.

Since you asked Angie, here’s your answer since it is VERY easy but long–in two parts. I could wallpaper my wall with letters to the editor and guest feature articles on this subject over the years in both papers, but I found two things happened.

1) Nearly nobody gave a crap enough to do anything about it. One of the persons responsible was up for recall on a different topic but for the same kinda crap where he and another would kinda go do things on their own and beg for forgiveness later. Folks could have ended the direction then with the recall. I found it very odd that in that recall initiative there were a couple of editorials in the papers in support of this person…..if memory serves me correctly, one was the previous landowner whose land became that high dollar housing development across the river from the treatment plant…the one that our village manager was quoted in the paper saying likely wouldn’t have happened if we’d have fixed our treatment plant. The same one that I believe got like a $26,000 free water/sewer hook up waived (I believe that vote was in my first council meeting ever). This person attacked my character in her article like she knew me, when in fact she never even met me. The second person was the Mayor of TR then…which I found quite odd also…well, not really when I really thought about it.

Angie, I was in that meeting when we were having all the problems with the pipeline and one of our Trustees had the engineers ears pinned back with some sharp questions when that engineer finally snapped and looked at our mayor and village manager and said we told you that you needed that 2nd lift station to begin with but you didn’t have the money….I asked the question “is that true” of my mayor and city manager. They were pretty red faced and squirmy and all they would tell me repeatedly is “that it was never in the budget”…they wouldn’t answer the question which was did they know they needed the 2nd lift station to begin with. Good luck finding that level of detail in any meeting minutes…it happened and I take a polygraph stating that very thing and pass with flying colors because it happened.

Why is that important? Because like so many other steps that got missed or done inadequately each one of those steps should have put us on a different path.
The issue of that first lift station being needed was that if they had to do it right to begin with guess what?—with a second lift station they’d have had to come back to the voters they already duped with generic wording on that first vote and ask for more money and then they’d have to have fixed our plant. It never should have happened–how and why it got built with one anyway simply is amazing but pales in comparison to other findings.

So the short story Angie is it was all right there and I printed quite a few articles….there wasn’t a whole heckuva lot of interest enough for anyone to do anything about it. The folks kept their jobs until they were ready to depart and others covered and supported them and I was labeled a troublemaker. Some even conspired for my resignation…and they sent the vice mayor to ask for it….and they didn’t get it.

Reason #2: As one of the local reporters told me that he was taking alot of heat for printing alot of my quotes and the paper was taking heat for printing my guest feature articles. He claimed that some of the folks paying advertising dollars were calling and threatening to cancel their ads. Another paper that I submitted and had printed articles of mine actually made similar claims and actually did go under. It was the same publication that a TR city commissioner accused me of libel for, and then turned around and declined my invitation to back up everything page by page their own City commission back when it could have made a difference.

Angie, as much blame as there was on this side of the pipeline…you really don’t think all the blame is on this side of the pipeline do you? Check the archives to find out what treatment plant was operating in the red and really needed another customer (its all in the news archives). Ask if there was a report when the city of Mendon considered building a pipeline and what they really did and why (I have a copy of that report and talked to the former village prez years ago). They knew the condition of the equipment in 1994 and picked another direction….which begs the question, with the 6 recommended steps by our engineers addressed to both the City and the Village….why is it know one considered the equipment state a year later when we had a larger residential base and two industries that were a nightmare then to treat where it was all over the papers that these industries and the village were fined by the MDEQ for violating and failing to enforce their discharge permit limits for waste……how is it fricken possible that that much problematic waste was allowed to be piped 8 miles, up a 138 foot hill to become even more septic where it hit a plant with the equipment the age that it was in. And do you want me to pull out the news archive where that waste hit the TR plant and killed it…sending a black ooze down the St. Joe….its all in the news archives, and they even named the source of the waste that did it. I mean how is it even possible that with so many minds that should have been checking this allow this to even be built especially with 6 recommendations telling them to do so and all the problems already public?

So did others know? Ask why there was a closed TR city commission meeting when all the stink that was once here transferred to TR, and why the City soon after had a new City manager. Ask if ALL decision makers had the last page of that report with the 6 recommendations that needed to be done. Good luck getting an answer but go ahead and ask.

That’s the mess that others dumped on this village and then left town….

No one listened Angie, not when I presented numbers that offered this village a way out 10 years ago and presented all this other stuff…..and those that did print my articles took more than a little heat for doing so. It wasn’t just this side of the pipeline that got shortchanged. No one did anything when it could have mattered, so why on earth would I put an editorial that would repeat all the same things 10 years later when all those key folks (at least the ones this side of the pipeline) are gone.

And Angie…..I apologize for not listing problem number 5 in staying with the current pipeline as follows:

Problem 5) The original Gove & Associates report from the mid 90′s recommending the building of the 8 mile pipeline included in that cost model the demolition costs of the villages current WWTP (contingent on the outcome of completing 6 recommendations of course). The cost estimate in was $300,000 nearly 17 years ago. It never got done (thus illustrating again the project overrun from the original estimates) and to date still hasn’t been done. It needs to be done still and I don’t think it got any cheaper. I could be wrong…. I mean sure, some things get better with age like wine….other things age more like milk.

Grace, I agree with what you said…BUT…there were steps that both the City and
Village received that needed to be completed BEFORE the pipeline was built. The initial engineering feasibility report was addressed to two people…the village manager and the City manager and it included in the last page those 6 recommendations.

And it’s not like there weren’t folks in office that thought it didn’t pass the sniff test. There were objections from a few lone officials on both sides of the pipeline and they got ignored.

Like I said, when it’s in the papers about the fines and what kinda waste we were putting out, and the state the equipment was in based on the Mendon Study done just a year before, and then 6 steps our own engineer said to do….how does this stuff happen?.

I mean where do you think the idea of the pipeline came from? It said in the news archives it came from a local business owner. My reliable source tells me it came from a phone call to our former village manager from a former TR commissioner that moved his business from TR to Constantine that had the pipeline idea based on the previous review and study done with Mendon. So since it was based on that study, wouldn’t you think someone would have reviewed that study to understand WHY Mendon said no?

…to me its simply unbefricknlievable

LOL

I agree with Tod……;)

wowzers…!
(haha)

What happened in Constantine, is systematic of almost the entire governance of St. Joseph County, which inevitably seems to be surrounded by incompetence and controversy, mostly because those with the power, will not listen to those with the knowledge. Until the county voters smarten up, choose candidates who know about local government, and ensure that they keep oversight of what their hirees are doing, nothing will change.

In the particular example I might have to disagree that this was due to incompetence having been on the inside with the knowledge of the make up of the board when we were at a crossroads of continuing down a bad path at continuing the pipeline or putting us on a different path.

There was NOT a lack of competence in key spots, in my opinion. In some areas we had a few weak links on this topic but by in large I think there were enough folks that knew what they were doing. They sure as heck knew how slip out of the tough questions that were raised, and come away unscathed. On the first vote for the pipeline, people were told they were voting to fix their own treatment plant. I have the actual map of the route of the pipeline and it is dated BEFORE that vote of the people. They knew to leave the wording loose. They knew to get a legal opinion to validate that the wording was loose so they could do what they intended to do with the money before the vote, after the voters got snookered. These are not mindless acts of incompetence by unintelligent people. I contend these were very deliberate calculated actions.

This is not like having the final results being a little off from an initial estimate…..the actual results are so far off compared to the initial assumptions to catastrophic proportions. And all the conditions of the TR WWTP were out there as was the problems and fines created with our wast ( I can show you a binder 3 inches thick from the MDEQ from violations going back quite awhile…which cost me $75 and a FOIA request to the regional office in Plainwell). I was actually living across state the time in the mid 90′s when all this went down and I could piece it together a few years after the fact just reading the news archives and public records. So if it was that obvious that someone could figure this out years after the fact reading the same publications you folks had access …there’s no way that the decision makers in the know when it was happening–I’m sorry, these folks may have been alot of things….but the one’s primarily responsible for this debacle were not incompetent.

The real problem is the same then as it is now. First, no one goes to a meeting and asks questions and listens and keeps those they put in office accountable or give them input on key issues. And if you don’t have folks that care enough to do even that much then you sure as heck aren’t going to get folks that 1) care enough to and 2) are knowledgeable enough to be effective to even run for pubic office. Look how many offices run unopposed.

Here are a couple of additional cost saves that the village should consider. These are not the long term fixes but are items that will help us immediately at stopping the bleeding.

1) Re-initiate the study I conducted several years ago to verify we are not pumping ground water/river water infiltration in the pipeline. This is THE most opportunistic time to study this. Why is this important?…because TR bills us in part by the gallons they treat….if we have ground water or river water infiltration (from a number of various potential sources) then the village is essentially paying for treating groundwater to TR and are not billing anyone for it (thus money going out to treat rainwater with no money coming in). That would then have to be factored in everyone’s rates to get the fund back in the black. What you do is compare gallons of metered water that we can account for would/should end up in the pipeline and compare that with what TR’s meters say they receive. If they are billing us for more gallons than we can account for in our internal billing, that means we have infiltration or some other forms of unbilled/unmetered water in to the system. This sounds easy….trust me…..its alot harder than it sounds when you delve in to the details. This exercise was done a few years ago and was the basis for the village targeting some high risk areas for infiltration and fixing those areas. I did a quick study on an isolated rain even a few months ago and suggested that we had addressed this but it was not as meaningful a rain event as the one I used 3 years ago when we had 6 inches of rain in less than 2 days. Now is the time to look at this because data shows over the past 5 years Dec thru May-June timeframe are typically the highest volume for usage and also because of snow melt and spring rains, high river levels are your best opportunities for groundwater infiltration and your best chance to find any discrepancies in what we can account for vs what TR says they get at the end of the pipeline.

2) I’m all for us doing the bioxide metering but I think we need to take this a step further, go back again and ask the tough questions. I know our “current” engineers said we cannot eliminate bioxide altogether and that to me begs the question “why” for several reasons.
a) The engineer that designed the system claimed that the revised system (that cost us another $1.7 million to redesign) should provide adequate velocities of our waste to TR to the effect we should no longer need bioxide because it wouldn’t spend enough time in the pipeline to go septic.

b) The assumption in a) above was made BEFORE two key industries that create the most challenges to our waste water for treating both added pretreatment. So if these two biggest contributors went to considerable expense to pre-treat their waste before it hits the pipeline….then it should make the claims made in a) above all the more likely to come to fruition.

So with all due respect to the current engineers that gave the opinion that we still need bioxide, I would feel more comfortable having the reason why that is answered by the engineer that built this thing for us. To me if this was built the way it was claimed to be designed to and it is operated in a fashion consistent with what the designer said to do, then someone needs to explain why the promise made on the front end of needing no bioxide hasn’t come to reality. The last meeting I sat in with the engineer that designed this system still contended that it should be able to operate without bioxide. Maybe there’s a problem with the system, or maybe its not being operated as the engineer intended. Considering we (the village) had to pay $28,000 for operating and maintenance manuals years after the system redesign was implemented, I’m not sure how anyone can operate a system to the designers specification when no one could produce such a manual and we paid $28,000 for them.

Let’s remember folks when we were in litigation with the previous engineers for an alleged faulty design. We had to consult with our new engineers on who we could retain as an expert witness regarding the design. Beside the engineer that we had working on the redesign there were supposedly only 4 or 5 other engineers in North America that had the credentials, and we had to get one all the way from Missouri. So with all due respect to our current engineers this supposedly is not an off the shelf system. I chaired the committee that recommended F&B for normal village stuff..and they are very good competent engineers, but I said this years ago when I begged and pleaded for us to not go with the pipeline redesign, I said that we would be relying on these same for decades for any issues or service issues with this unique system. OK, so maybe asking the original engineer may cost more money? I’ll grant you that assumption….but pull up the bills for what we spend a year in bioxide (I’m betting if its not 6 figures a year, its pretty close to it). Betcha a milkshake at whatever the engineer charges you to figure out out to eliminate bioxide, if he figures out how to do it that the payback for that investment would be less than a year.

If you want suggestions on how to address some of the rest of this mess…well that’ll probably have to be rolled out via different means and I’ll need to see the balance of your options as they currently stand.

I see a lot of tip-toes, I suppose the flip-flops are busted! Still LOL

Perhaps you have some solutions you’d like to share with everyone on how to fix this mess?

I called enough folks out on both of these issues, (131 and Pipe Lines), I would start over at the local level By electing a new council so things were not barried in secret meetings, (July 31 07). And I see some of the ideas you sharred came from my tool box. I cant help but giggle now! Snickers also!

….and Grace, I retract my earlier statement. Given the benefit of some unpleasant reminders in some recent posts above has me more in agreement with your earlier post — clearly now I remember there were some such contributors along the lines of your assertion……. My apologies.

So lemme get this straight…. given the chance to post your ideas, your solution is to defer to others to fix the problem, yet again? Seriously? That’s what your are going with?

Last time I checked, we have a new prez, and 3 different Trustees on the board since either of us were in office…that’s 4 out of 7 seats…..clearly a majority vote in turnover in seats. So with 4 different board members since you were in office, are they also suppressing your solutions to this crisis?

First, there is nothing reflected in any of my posts above that came from your toy box. Clearly there were tons of contributions from concerned citizens, village officials, village staff and constructive input from some commissioners in TR…I don’t see anything above that came from your contributions……but if you wanna take credit for someone else’s hard work and thoughts, then OK….go for it. I mean it wouldn’t be true, but I don’t really care who takes the credit for fixing things so long as they get fixed, but last time I checked we are still in a bit of a pickle.

Secondly, yours truly stepped aside from all these committee years ago and even left the council and suggested that you and your minions take the lead on this.
So you were left with every opportunity to step up and bring solutions. And as you assert, you apparently had all the answers to solve this, but I can’t help but notice that the problems aren’t solved yet.

Its easy to tear things apart and find fault Tod….putting things together takes alot more careful thought and effort. Folks I guess get confused in assuming that since someone can mimic and parrot back all the problems of the world that they know how to fix them. To me that’s analogous of saying that just because someone knows how to enjoy good meal time and time again, that must mean they are qualified to be a chef. It doesn’t take genius to be a parrot and mimic the problems of our town that we hear chatted about in all the local restaurants. The real work is trying to fix them and building consensus on how to fix them.

Here’s your chance once again Todd…why don’ t you take the spot on the sewer ad hoc committee and show us all how its done with all your ideas and team building skills. I mean if you think you can do a better job then step up. Some folks have asked for my help and I’m certainly willing to give it a try, but if you truly are the person with all the ideas and abilities, why don’t you give it a shot instead. I mean I’d like to help, but I have plenty on my plate to work on and you apparently seem to have all the answers and folks apparently have been holding you back. My sewer bills are in the upper quartile of the village and getting worse so I would really like some real solutions and I’m sure others are too rather than rhetoric about tip toeing, flip flops, and giggles.

For one—It was my idea that the truck lanes were going to pound vibration and possible frost in the pipe line at the top of the hill! I suspect it is a toy box, I know how you play!

And why are you trying to convert the world, when if you say, is true here, there was you and I, and all we needed was 2 more votes when we were on the council, were not you odds much better then? So I suppose I will have to go with Grace also!
Then lets face it—was it not you which said, “We do not have bad decisions, we have bad people making decisions.”?
Finally, Please Scott, Lets not make this personal. Remember, Tim ran to knock me out! lol

Personal? I’m sorry, perhaps my suggesting that if you have all the answers then step up and show us how to get it fixed makes you feel victimized–If so then my apologies. I suppose in your previous unsolicited posts which include such gems as, snickers. LOL, tip-toes and busted flip flops…that was all meant in a wonderfully constructive fashion? Seriously?

Nothing’s changed Tod…you’re still content to torpedo others willing to do the work and then play the victim and blame others when push comes to shove rather than step up to show us how you’d do it better.

Tod if you want to take the credit for the trucks pounding the pipeline…go for it. Several others that mentioned it also…but I guess you want to make this all about you. So since you claim this issue was your idea, so do you have a plan mapped out with MDOT how they plan to deal with that –I guess I missed that solution for what you claim to be YOUR idea.

While you’re at it….how about the rest of those issues above–got any solutions for those?. I mean I did step down from the committees leaving you in charge of 131 and invited you to take the lead on the pipeline issues rather than sit and torpedo. So did you come up with the solutions for all the other points mentioned? No? I said this before so this time I’ll type it slower for you I DON’T CARE WHO TAKES CREDIT FOR FIXING THIS MESS SO LONG AS IT GETS FIXED.

The last time I checked they aren’t fixed. All you wanna talk about how you called out folks, and references to snickers, LOL, tip toeing and flip flops….good luck with that in fixing the problems with everyone’s bills…Maybe you see some sort of weird humor in the water and sewer bills everyone is dealing with so funny–I don’t.

I’m at least willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help. However, since you want to make this all about you …like I said , if you have all the answers then maybe you are the more qualified person for the job (I mean from your posts above, that’s what you keep telling us). Maybe you’re right, and here’s your chance to step up and do something about it….how about you take all your ideas and solutions and you get appointed to this committee instead.

Gentlemen, thank you for your kind words. I only wish I was still in a position to help resolve the issue. I do, however, think it opens up a wider issue about why we have so many smaller entities trying to solve these problems instead of a county-wide, facilitated and integrated program. As the cities and villages expand, and as the lakes become more and more crowded, it would seem that an overall plan, and not isolated and independent ones might be more cost effective? However I’m well aware that the parochial will shoot this down.

Grace,

It would be nice if we had more folks with your insight and interest back when it could have made a difference in changing the course of this. Hopefully I have provided some sense of a more complete history….unfortunately, those responsible for the initial cause are for the most part departed. Thus, it truly is just that–history

Now if we can only dispense with those that, as you described, have more ego than understanding. There are those that lead, those that follow and those that get out of the way….but I think you may have seen a textbook example from the posts above of the 4th kind–those that obstruct. I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers but I think I have sufficient knowledge, background, and pieces of the puzzle that I can help and I think we have a pretty decent group in office at the moment also…I do have a plan of attack mapped out on the key items, and hopefully I can assist and contribute with what I have and I can pick up where I left off on some paths towards resolution and fill in any gaps in any solutions currently on the table. As you said, bad things are allowed to happen when good folks do nothing. I think I gave the naysayers their opportunity to show us how they would do it….and not alot happened…..and its just dumped in some pretty good folks laps. I don’t think anyone in office today are the cause of any of this…I just hope I can help.

As far as a county wide authority on this particular matter….be careful what you wish for. Once upon a time such a solution was being considered by some and and TR actually conducted a feasibility study for such a critter, and actually I think in some respects there are facets of this pipeline that have to be handled quite delicately as I’m sure if ownership ever went outside of the village you may see just that (just my opinion based on review of the documents and studies, and the economics as they stand exacerbated by some policies forced on local municipalities by the state to consolidate wherever possible. I say be careful because it has been my experience that such consolidations tend to favor the big fish in the pond.

I’m not saying such a regional strategy can’t be successful. There are models in other areas where it does work…but there isn’t really a one size fits all. If you saw the cost models that this pipeline was sold to us on, vs how this actually has played out it would be self explanatory.

Scott,I will have to go with the one guy who called northbarn1 a failed leader! I was only on one of those Comm. as you know–it was for one purpose, the history of 131—-went to more meetings then you put together, Started in 99, so with this being said, You left that comm. so there was no longer a need, so the vote was 6 to 1 to get rid of it. The Pounding of the pipe line came when the other 6 to 1 vote to approve the 131 MESS and the standards that Gary had written were approved. The following meeting was when I suggested There might be a problem with the truck lanes! You your self, said that it was a good point. It does not surprise me that you take this kinda of Position today. My feeling of the flip-flops you wear! I like your shot gun affect—-you might hit a target once in a while!

As for your talent Scott, There is no one better then digesting Data and putting it context for the majority to follow, You have a skill! Mine is memory, so you keep maskerating that you are going to save Constantine, and remember this ( YOU TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE) I think it is time you come clean with these folks you are trying to SAVE, and use it!

OK….so I guess I take from your post that means that I’m going to help out to come up hopefully with some answers for this and you are content with talking about your great memory, all your conquests, and pounding pipe. I’m OK with that.

And I have failed at things, Tod. not at any of the things you babbled about but everyone fails at things. I failed to get enough people to wake up and change the direction on this pipeline when it could have made a difference. It was not from lack of trying but failure nonetheless. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid to try to help.

…and again Tod, not one single solution to any of the problems in all your tirades.. Just attack, criticize and torpedo, and tell everyone all that YOU have apparently done…and not one single flippin solution……don’t sell yourself short on what you are great at….you demonstrate it well to this day.

Shotgun approach….OK sharpshooter, so show us your precision target shooting approach. I’ll make it easy for you and we’ll use YOUR idea. Show all again how you would approach assuring the robustness of the pipeline of the bypass going over the pipeline. Let’s see some of that surgical precision. I’ll give you 3 hours from this post to post your answer, then I’m gonna post mine from my draft proposal.

OK, Tod, I didn’t see a post with the approach to dealing with your “pounding of the pipe” issue that you came up with. Here’s my first pass at a suggested approach. Borrowed this from my outline…it kinda goes like this.

IV.Bypass intersecting the pipeline

A. Assumptions: There are two approaches one might consider—one approach is to eliminate the bypass. If that is a parallel path officials want to pursue, short of an eminent large asteroid collision with the earth or budgetary reasons cancelling this project, I wish you much luck in putting a lot of energy in that path. The other reality based approach is to plan under the assumption of the bypass coming to fruition until we are told by MDOT otherwise.

The steps outlined below assume that the US-131 bypass is going to be built as planned and thus the suggestions below are based on that reality and not that of a utopian based woulda, shoulda, coulda mentality regarding the bypass. Of course the bypass plan may get changed (ie: from lack of funding), but this is to plan for the current direction. This rough outline is in draft form and should be considered a starting point for discussion to plan for the current bypass direction of record and its potential impacts.

B. History: This issue was discussed with MDOT Project Manager Jason Latham quite some time ago. At that time Jason indicated that he doesn’t see this as being a problem. In fact this is not even close to the first time a highway with commercial truck traffic has had to go over a pipeline. The most recent reference he used was US 31 over some pipelines I believe in Niles. OK, that being said I do believe that those are water mains and not sewer mains. BIG difference, some of which include;

1) For one, water mains usually are pressurized and they are not conveying corrosive “stuff” that requires environmental clean up should there be a breach.
2) A breach in a water main may be more apparent (since its pressurized)…whereas a breach in our pipeline may be less apparent.
a. One could have the waste escaping to the surrounding soil/ground water.
b. We could have a larger problem like what happened with the leak of the first pipeline design and it washed out a section of Gleason Rd (or maybe it was King Rd). If memory serves me correctly (cost us like $8,000 to fix in the late 90’s).
c. Or we could have groundwater infiltration in to the pipeline at which point we get charged from TR for treating rainwater.

C. Supposedly a lot of the design assumptions for our original design of the pipeline was based freshwater assumptions which apparently were inadequate for design in conveying wastewater, especially the mix we are sending —which those assumptions contributed to a result of a $1.7 million fix (at our cost plus interest) vs a $460,000 settlement. Therefore. having been bitten once on such assumptions, I am not completely comfortable with assumptions for highways over freshwater pipes as benchmarks for our system…. So some suggested next steps should include the items listed below.

D. Village should procure its own engineers to verify if any changes in design are needed to accommodate the commercial trucks traffic which may induce varying vibration (ie varying in frequency in amplitude) on the the pipeline, If such vibration will have a deleterious effect on the integrity and longevity of the conveyance system as a whole.

E. Why should the village pay for its own engineering assessment? It’s simple…do you want to rely on MDOT’s engineers to get this right? Remember, we own the pipeline—so who is impacted if this pipeline goes wrong—our village or MDOT? which position would you rather be in?

1. Spending a little money upfront to make sure the design and construction is right –or
2. Have it go wrong based on flawed design and or/construction and
a. try to fix it AFTER all the highway is build over it and commercial traffic is going over it,
b. litigate against the state for all the costs involved (BTW—it costs us money for lawyers…and I think it took like 3-4 years for the last pipeline settlement…..and the settlement we got was roughly 1/4 of the cost to fix the design
c. having to shut down the conveyance system or cause an environmental disaster if you consider industrial and residential waste being dumped in farmland and residential.
d) It costs a lot to truck waste to TR for weeks at a time as we have proven
e) Shut down two key industries (and jobs) heavily dependent on the operation of the conveyance system

So either “pay a little now” as insurance against paying a lot later and avoid catastrophe.

F. Such items/expenses need to be included in village budget year(s) based on the timeline of the bypass design/construction phase for this area….suggest we get involved in this facet at the design level of the bypass—not construction level.

G. If the current conveyance design is in need of modification to accommodate highway vibration, such changes should be have input and sign off from the village based on engineering review and sign off by the village’s engineers (possibly township also as any disaster or resultant breach would occur in township)

H. Depending on specific location of highway relative to its intersection of the pipeline, the design needs to not only be robust for the current 2 lane bypass, but also have provisions to withstand traffic from the longer term direction which is a 4 lane bypass at some point in the future.

I. Suggest that the material get changed in the section of pipeline in the area it intersects the highway. The majority of the pipeline consists of cement lined ductile cast iron…Cement lining is used because it resists the corrosive effects of the contents of wastewater (and this mix can be very corrosive at times) that would eat away at ductile cast iron. I said much of the conveyance system is ductile cast iron…this is true..EXCEPT in the area that goes under the St. Joe River….that uses High Density Polyethelene (HDPE) pipe. HDPE is relatively chemically inert when exposed to the chemical mix in the wastewater we convey—it’s worked thus far since 1995 under the river.

J. The current joints/couplings used to connect the sections pipeline should also need to be located far enough away from the source vibration as to not impact those joints. Current joints used in the existing design I do believe are designed to hold even when moving +/-4 ft from their current position (yes, supposedly they can move within like an 8 foot window and still hold). Also joints need to accommodate connection between ductile cast iron and HDPE (including effects of differential CLTE ..or thermal expansion)

K. Evaluate for any high spots/low spots and vent accordingly (to avoid gas trap situations that would impede the flow of wastewater and make the pumps work harder than they need to. Locate this such that they won’t get damaged by snow plows as has happened in years past in other locations of the pipeline. Also note the type used as there were some types that were less problematic for failure.

L. Highway vibration is typically a random vibration profile, but this section may need to be evaluated for any potential sources of harmonics/swept sinusoidal vibration as to not induce and degradation from any primary, secondary or tertiary order resonant frequencies Not likely since the pipeline is buried and surrounded ….but need to run this by the engineers.

M. Need to understand the timeline for when this MDOT plans to start construction in this area and have a contingency plan in place to immediately implement in the event construction or excavation causes a breach or shutdown of the pipeline. Assuming that any redesign will require some finite window of time to shut down the conveyance system this needs to be coordinated with the village and its large users to minimize lapses in using the conveyance system for normal day to day operations (ie: particularly 2 key industries that can contribute to large peaks in use of the system). This timeline should also include the time for trial and debug of any design modifications and any necessary contingencies. Again, contingency plans for conveying waste need to be on stand-by in the event this construction/tryout/debug phase goes astray and takes longer than planned.

N. There needs to be an inspection plan, check off list for construction to verify compliance to the design requirements along with a process designed for tryout and acceptance of the system modification. This again needs to include the village ‘s engineers all through this process (and again possibly township) in that walk through for these stages.

…..and for those that think HDPE pipe wouldn’t stand up to highway vibration, I do believe the Barry Historical Society may have access to the VHS tape taken by the late Dr. Marvin Vercler (wonderful man!!). Find the tape where he recorded the section of HDPE pipeline going under the river via drive/pound/hammer the pipeline thru the ground under the river…..one would think if you can hammer the pipe through several hundred feet under the ground like a big flippen nail, it should be able to take the abuse of overhead commercial truck traffic.

Don’t just take my word for it….it’s on tape for Pete’s sake.

And just for clarification Tod….as I said before in earlier posts above,

1) There was more than one person that suggested the pipeline and bypass issue.
2) I said there clearly was a TON of input from others.

Yes you mentioned this bypass vs pipeline issue…..BUT….the same good idea was provided a week or so earlier by a township representative to US 131 to yours truly. The same person that did a TON of legwork in research in news archives for me on the subject of the sewer pipeline. And based on that persons very active role in both the bypass and his large contributions to research on the sewer pipeline and based on his mentioning this well before you, and since I think HE actually had the wherewithal to put 2 and 2 together, my guess is HE is the one who thought of it and you were simply parroting his idea. If you want to take credit for that or he wants to concede that idea to you,…I really don’t care. Like I said, I am more interested in seeing this problem fixed than who takes credit.

And like I said Tod…..it doesn’t take genius to parrot back the problems of our town…the challenge is trying to bring solutions and building concensus on how to bring solutions, (which to date I haven’t seen any from you)

And as for assertions of my trying to save the town…that is setting me up for failure and our citizens for disappointment. If you think even the best case outcome for this cumulative mess has a happy ending you are dead wrong and only amplifies further your lack of understanding about the issues or my intentions to offer my help. We are long past the point of great options…we are dealing now with what is the best available or what is least damaging to the community. And yes, I hope I’m wrong, because I’ve always maintained that being right is highly over-rated.

Thanks for you input and have a great weekend.

I think another means of getting answers and vision to the direction of this system is soliciting more community involvement in the vision and solution.

Perhaps some committee members could provide their email addresses or other contact information in publications such as this to get the word out there and encourage folks that may have constructive answers or even identify issues not even considered to come forward and do so. Some folks don’t have time to come to meetings, and studies have shown that people fear public speaking more than even death ( I used to be one of them), and some people feel more comfortable talking one on one.

If you think one person can’t make a difference, just remember, it took just one citizen in Township to un-earth alot of archives on this pipeline topic and to make the comment about good luck finding a way to put a bypass around the west side of town without it going over the pipeline.

LOl, Scott you think I am the enemy, hey I think the only social skill you have is intimidation and that no longer works for me pal—come to think of it, It never did. Scott you are part of the problem, You sat on all those comm. And now you are the only one that has the answer? Are you running on Obama’s ticket? I tried to give you credit where it was do, just use it for the majority of the citizens of Constantine, NOT THE VOTERS! there is a difference. Remember, I keep ok records too, and when I made a stand,{ (one you wanted credit for also) lol }, I had billing through the front office where my account was credited three times for poor performance, was this an effort to quell me, I THINK SO. So how do you think those folks that Voted me in feel how they will be treated. Any data provided if needed Scott!

Now for 131—–the MESS. This is poor design, the real 131 is LUTZ rd for any readers needing History—Now we are on the west side of the river, (needs 3 brides at 20 million per) That’s why, you were part of the problem here also, Why are you maskerating as a hero, did you miss something in Childhood? Hint—It is make believe, and of course as Gracy said St Joe County also!

And Todd,

Lemme help you out with your closing paragraph a bit in your last post because the aluminum foil hat musta been on too tight again for ya when you were typing…here’s the quote from your post;

“….Now for 131—–the MESS. This is poor design, the real 131 is LUTZ rd for any readers needing History—Now we are on the west side of the river, (needs 3 brides at 20 million per) That’s why, you were part of the problem here also,….”

Wow….really, Yes, part of what is Lutz road used to be part of US131…big fricken deal. .Why don’t you also throw in the fact that before the Mackinac Bridge was built they used to ferry folks across….because that’s about as equally historic and useless insofar as present day. Keep going back far enough Todd and you can tell everyone how you invented the wheel too.

Let’s get back to your elequent quote now……First, the bypass is not designed to go on the West Side of the RIVER…its designed to be built on the West side of TOWN (you do realize US 131 is a North South highway right?)

And you say NOW its going on the West Side like its some new surprise. Dude, its been designed to be on the West Side of town for quite a few years….are you fricken losing it or what…? But if YOUR bypass is on Lutz Road and you wanna use that, I think you’ll be just fine….it’ll be your own private li’l bypass route so you can stick it to da man……your secret is safe with me.

And “3 brides at $20 million per”…..all I can say is those must be some wedding dresses…and a big fricken cake…..by chance were those 3 brides the Kardashian sisters?

Oh I think you must have meant bridges……Yes Todd, the bypass is planned to go on the West side of Town because of all the additional bridges (and associated costs). MDOT was very open about that as were several guest feature articles I authored in the TR commercial and Sturgis journal on this which included criticism that the bypass would be better served for us on the East Side for a number of reasons including it would serve our industrial park much better. Equally, a bad design is planning a concept that doesn’t have adequate funding to support design or construction.

So thanks for once again parroting about three $20million “brides” and how we are apparently NOW building a North/South highway bypass on West side of the river…… As a constructive criticism….if your gonna be a parrot, could you at least get one facet of either the what, where or the timeframe (the when) in some sense of correctness. Your not even a good parrot…. maybe you should stick to being a seagull (ya know, another bird that really contributes not whole lot except for all the squawking and flapping and crapping on everything….seems alot more natural for ya.

All these facets of the bypass route were concluded quite awhile ago….and yes a bypass around the East side of town (in a perfect world with infinite money) would have been alot better for alot of reasons (including making crossing the pipeline a non-issue). I don’t see anyone with any kinda financial sense (or common sense for that matter) spending another $60 million to go around a $3 million system when there’s probably a more cost effective solution…but that’s just me. All very interesting, and debated, and concluded along time ago…… but you keep holding on to that woulda coulda shoulda …..meanwhile some of us others gotta kinda get our arms around the real problems of today.

….and yet another sad and tragic tirade of self praise, lacking answers and an over abundence of self-flattery and self ego-stroke from the bipolar express…..sad–very sad kinda like a broken record of a sad country song (complete with a banjo). You continue to make my point time and time again every time you post. You don’t have answers and you continue to compensate for your inadequacy in trying to find fault in something or someone as a distraction. Thanks once again for telling us how brilliant you are…..I never knew a plastic spork could be so sharp–I mean who knew?…but thanks for sharing.

Me, I’m not nearly so brilliant as you keep telling us you are, I know enough to know that there is much I still need to learn. I just hope I can help and contribute. If I can’t be of any help, then so be it…I’m at least willing to give it a try.

I don’t mind a civil disagreement or sometimes even a heated one, but its kinda hard to have rational dialogue with an irrational ninkumpoop content on being nothing but indignant. Its kinda like I told you Todd years ago that trying to have a rational conversation with you was kinda like dealing with my hormonal irrational teen age daughters. There’s at least some good news in all that…5 years later they are now in their 20′s and at least they grew up and found some maturity and common sense –I guess 2 out of 3 aint bad….I’m still holding out for a little hope for ya Todd.

In the meantime please everyone make sure to tell Todd, nice job, well done, atta boy…I think he’s perhaps feeling a bit under appreciated, and still stinging a bit from those mean folks at the US 131 area development corporation meetings years ago giving him the nickname of Trustee ding-ding (those meanies!!!). You da man Tod– You…..da……man!!! ……….There…do ya feel better now?

sounds to me like first grade playground you put sand down my shirt so you put sand in my drink type of crap. Grow up ! Get a clue don’t like how something’s do something don’t just sit here and cry on a web page that gets maybe 10 vew’s a mth make some noise start testing your own water like i have and i am sending it to a lab in Ohio to be tested from the PtP test and see what all is in the water here in Three Rivers wee have a right to know where the cash is going we pay for it the testing and the new stuff they do and if we was paying for upkeep of it why when they want to fix it it cost more we pay to keep it up and running and clean they give us dirty water rase the prices and think no one should get upset i meen the water come out of my pipes orange 3 to 4 times a week so i started calling the water comp and will till it stops i have the wife beaters that was new never wore first wash come out rust orange new hot water tank washer and dishwasher and all the have rust orange stains now less then a year old

Point well taken …but to answer your question mytwocents about doing something about it….that’s EXACTLY what I was proposing to do. Its an even more formiddable task to take on simultaneously with all of the backbiting and attacks. Never have I seen so much negative attention for someone wanting to help, on their own time and free of charge at no cost to you or anyone else for that matter.. So yes, its very easy to lose that message amongst the noise above (and I apologize for my participation in it). If you check out this mornings headlines, I have been given the Council’s blessing on doing something about it to help. Whether or not I can assist remains to be seen.

I have a silly question to ask….it’s a story problem that I think folks on both sides of the pipeline may want to follow along.

I want to refer to an August 8th 2001 TR Commercial Article by Lynn Gardner entitled Sewer Rate Hikes Approved…..

In that article it talks about the TR City Commission’s 6-1 vote to approve a $7 million TR WWTP renovation resulting in an 82% rate increase to TR and Constantine…I have other related articles from a similar timeframe (from TR commercial and the Sturgis Journal) that goes in to detail how the rate hikes in 2001 were stepped over several years.

Here’s my silly question…. I believe of the 3 phases of the latest TR plant improvement, 2 of these were confirmed for Constantine to participate, to the tune of like $2.5 million ish. The third phase was completely for line infrastructure improvements to TR and Constantine is not on the hook for.

OK, so if a $ 7 million improvement translate o 82% rate hike, then how is it that $2.5 million translates to 55% rate hike?…..seems to me the ratio work out more like a 29.3% rate hike for a 2.5 ish capitol improvement?

As a percent increase of the base rate its really even more confusing because a 55% increase on today’s rates (which are 82% higher than in 2001) is a helluva lot more in real dollars compared to a 55% increase to our rates in 2001.

I don’t think it tracks for TR rate payers either even if you tack on the additional dollars in phase 3…..

Someone please help me out if my math and assumptions are in error, but the way I see it using the 2001 capital investment translated to rate increase as the benchmark, today’s rate increase seems waaaaay excessive in respect to the capital investment.

Anyone???????

Bruce,

You may want to set up a link to the related story you put in the RCJ date Jan 6th, 2011….because its where I derived my assumptions to the post above. [See Three Rivers City Commission okays engineering design services contract for CWP improvements (http://www.rivercountryjournal.info/2011/01/06/three-rivers-city-commission-okays-engineering-design-services-contract-for-cwp-improvements/)] Here’s one passage from that article:

” The phase 1 CWP improvements will cost an estimated $2,777,400 to be financed at 2.5 percent over a 20-year period. The improvements will focus on solids handling, odor control, dewatering capacity, disinfection system automation, and other projects as summarized in the Project Plan.”

OK, so poster unbefrickenlieveable was asking questions related to was Constantine on the hook for phases 2 and 3 or just phase 1, and here’s the post from Bruce Snook based on information provided to him by TR CWP director James Baker….please take a look at item 7) below.

________________

“James Baker, Director of the Clean Water Plant, has provided the following information in response to the comments and questions posed by ‘unbefrickenlievable’ relative to the impact of the wastewater system improvements in the City of Three Rivers on users in Constantine.

1. Constantine is NOT the CWP’s largest user; by hydraulic breakdown the Village of Constantine residential usage is 8 percent.
2. The largest financial contributors to the CWP are TR citizens and TR industries.
3. The national average sewerage rate increase is 4.4 percent per year (continuous since 1982).
4. Constantine still pays 112 percent of the City rates.
5. Constantine is free to charge its citizens and industries whatever rate it deems appropriate. TR has no control over this.
6. The $5.00 per month increase is an illustration to show how the required debt service fee increase of 23 percent would impact the residential use customers.
7. Constantine will not pay for phase 2 and 3 improvements.
8. TR does not make money off the sewer system or CWP and improvements are required to continue to provide the required treatment.

Bruce Snook
River Country Journal
_______________________

OK, so as it says we are NOT on the hook for phase 2 and 3….and phase 1 is $2.8 million. So please tell me, if in 2001 if $7 million = 82% increase on 2001′s base rate, how does $2.8 million today = 55% increase on today’s base rate especially when we already incurred the 82% increase in 2001?

Please…..some one help me with the math or the assumptions because the village has apparently been paying on this since June and soon we (citizens and industry) are all about to start paying for a rate increase that (by the math and assumptions above) appears to be waaaaaay too high a % rate increase vs the capital expense we should be paying on using the 2001 model as a benchmark.

Additionally, these sewer rates should not be static (fixed) over the 20 year period of the loan for such infrastructure. Why? Because as you add additional users (especially larger users such as apartment/housing developments and add or expand key industries (ie: such as the American Axle expansion, the MMPA expansion last year, and the pending Nature’s Fuel expansion in the old Rexam building), you add the number of users and gallons used whereas the amount of the loan stays fixed….thus you have more users and more gallons to paydown that fixed debt thus you have more users to spread that debt load across. Thus the rates should be reviewed at least annually (perhaps bi annually) to evaluate the net expansion or contraction of the collective user base and adjust the rates up or down accordingly.

These are not just questions that Constantine folks should be asking….the math doesn’t seem to track well based on the aforementioned assumptions for TR residents either.

Additionally, we (TR rate users and Constantine’s) should revisit that 82% rate increase in 2001. If there was a net increase in users from housing development projects, manufacturing plant expansions or new plants, as well as retail developments like WalMart, (and the pending Menards addition)..those add to the number of users contributing to the rates to pay off that $7 million expansion. So if you add users and the loan rates and payments stay fixed, then the cost per user should go down as we add users (conversely if the net effect is less users, the rate goes up). This needs to be looked at too….not just this new rate increase but it would seem the basis for the last 82% rate increase needs to be evaluated also retroactive back to 2001.

Also worth noting in the math that doesn’t quite track look at note 6 from James Baker the WWTP manager of TR from the aforementioned article a year ago and post above. In that response let’s look at also item 6 in his list in conjunction with item 7)

6. The $5.00 per month increase is an illustration to show how the required debt service fee increase of 23 percent would impact the residential use customers

7. Constantine will not pay for phase 2 and 3 improvements

The 23% noted in item 6 above is in reference to TR’s rate increase for phase 1.. Constantine should only be on the hook for phase 1 also, yet our rate is 55% (compared to TR’s 23% for the same phase 1)…why is that?

Anyone?????

Here’s kinda where my math is coming out.

OK, Total bill for the infrastructure project was approx $3.99 million, of which $2,78 million is phase 1 which per Mr. Bakers reply to the RCJ over a year ago equates to a 23% increase for phase 1. Constantine is only on the hook for that phase 1. OK, so if $2.78 million = 23% rate increase for TR for phase 1 Constantine’s rate (for phase 1 only) would seem to be more along the lines of the following calculation;

(23% ) x 1.12 (multiplier) = 25.76% rate increase.–not 55%

Incidentally that aligns within a few percentage points using the 2001 $7 million plant improvement translating to 82% benchmark.

Maybe there’s something I’m missing here….I just wanna understand how we ended up with a 55% increase when so many ways this gets sliced comes up with an answer far less than 55%. I am using TR’s own data, and their own statements and I have clearly stated my sources for reference points. I mean the village has been absorbing this since June and now the village has to come up with an interim rate increase to business and residents as a band aid…. seems to me we may have been planning for a bigger bandaid than what was needed unless someone can fill in the blanks for me to help me understand where in my assumptions I went astray. If the assumptions noted above are sound and this is an honest clerical error, can we kindly get this corrected? (and then can we go back and look at the 82% increase since 2001 and dissect that a bit too).