Alderman vote to pen CSJ water agreement
Toolbox
By STEPHANIE M. PETERS Herald Staff - Published: December 2, 2008
Bolstered by the testimony of three individuals with recollection of a gentleman's agreement between the city and the town, College of St. Joseph won its bid Monday to convince the Board of Aldermen to vote down a committee recommendation that would begin charging the college water and sewer fees on three buildings that have never incurred those expenses.
The board voted 6-3 in opposition of the motion, its opponents noting that it appeared obvious to them that a quid pro quo must have existed between the city and college — in which the city was granted an easement that allowed for the installation of a pumping station on the college's front yard, and in turn the college was guaranteed it would not pay water and sewer expenses on the three buildings that comprised the campus in the early 1970s.
It was one of two heavily debated issues during a meeting that lasted three hours, the other being the $4.4 million correction that the board has for weeks grappled with the idea of removing from the balance of the general fund. While the discussion on that issue centered more on clarification of what the adjustment means in layman's terms, with the water and sewer issue nearly every alderman took the opportunity to state how he or she would be voting and why.
First, however, Alderman William Notte, chairman of the Public Works Committee, recounted the minutes of the Nov. 18 meeting out of which a motion to monitor the college for a year to determine water usage — and subsequently begin charging the school no later than July 1, 2010 — was unanimously approved.
He was followed by CSJ President Frank Miglorie, who reiterated the college's belief that the institution did the city an enormous favor by allowing this infrastructure on its front lawn, limiting in at least one direction how the campus can grow.
"It's a quid pro quo that kind of represents a long-term rental or lease agreement," he said. "If we look at what's right and what's fair … if the city began charging us for those buildings what would we get in return for the operation of a pumping station on our front lawn?"
Miglore then introduced Arthur Crowley, former city attorney, who served for Mayor Harold Nichols from 1965 to 1967, Sister Mary Frances, who worked at the college at the time, and Joseph Giancola, an abutting property owner. All three spoke about what they remember from the time this agreement, which never made it into writing, with Giancola speaking in particular to the propensity of city officials to make this type of not-so-well-popularized agreement back then and today. He recalled speaking with city officials about the installment of the pump and thinking it "was the ugliest damn thing you ever saw. I'm surprised they even let them put it there, and the shrubbery they had at the time was awful."
The city was not the only benefactor in that original deal, however. At the time the college was struggling with failing leach fields that needed to be replaced. The installation of the pumping station allowed the college to tap into both water and sewer.
"I think this agreement was made in good faith and you need to find the courage (to uphold it)," Giancola said in an impassioned charge to the board. "Nothing's fair in this world, but I know damn well that we need to take care of that college. It's not a second-class citizen, and it's the only (college) we've got."
Afterward, the aldermen essentially went around the room explaining their positions.
"I grew up in this community and I chose to stay in this community because we took care of each other," said Alderwoman Sharon Davis. Her views were echoed by Alderwomen Karen Bossi and Joanne Slattery, the latter of whom said she was swayed by the night's testimony.
"I trust the words of the people behind me," she said.
Alderman David Dress and Alderwoman Madeline Sherman were the motion's most vocal supporters, with both noting that as elected members of the board they represented not just the college, but ratepayers who, as rates rise, have grown increasingly concerned that everyone pay their fair share.
"The city has paid roughly $245,000 (in services) for this easement over the years," Dress said. "I believe the city's obligation is fulfilled."
In a roll call vote, Dress and Sherman were joined by Notte in support of the motion, while Bossi, Davis, Slattery and Aldermen Paul Barbagallo, Tom DePoy and Christopher Robinson voted in opposition. Alderman Roy Thomas was absent from the meeting. The issue was referred back to committee to put an agreement between the city and college into writing.
On the issue of what the finance committee decided to refer to last week as a $4.4 million error in previous financial statements, the board unanimously voted to make the correction. That decision will remove $4.4 million from the balance of the general fund and the same amount of debt from the enterprise funds.
With both Treasurer Wendy Wilton and Randall Northrop, the external city auditor, present at the meeting, the board repeatedly called on Northrop to explain the accounting rationale behind his recommendation.
Northrop explained that in 2006 a $5 million expense note was borrowed to satisfy the aggregate debt that the enterprise funds owed the general fund. At that time, the enterprise fund's obligation to the general fund was repaid, but "that is not how it was presented in the financial statements," he said.
"It seems to me that we're just correcting that presentation," Northrop said. "There's no change in rates … but the change in fund balances will be helpful in budgeting for the future."
Without this correction, Northrop went on to say, it would appear to any taxpayer or the bond bank that the city was sitting on a balance of $5 million — if that were the case, the city would be looking at lowering tax rates.
Contact Stephanie M. Peters at stephanie.peters@rutlandherald.com.
11