Excused: N. Shinagawa, Vice Chair
Staff: K. Fuller, Deputy Clerk of the Legislature; A. Cole,
J. Andersson, Health Department; S. Whicher, County Administrator; M. Hertzerg,
Deputy County Attorney; T. Joseph, Legislature
Guests: P. Tunison, S. Lipinski, Bolton Point
Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at 10:36 a.m. by Mr. Proto, Chairman. Introductions of members and guests occurred.
Additions/Changes to the Agenda
There were no additions or changes to the agenda.
Discussion Regarding Water Supply Fee
Mr. Proto, Chairman, explained the purpose of calling the meeting was to enable discussion and review of additional information relating to the water supply fee charged by the Tompkins County Department of Health. He reported having sent a letter to Mr. Newman, Director of Bolton Point, extending an invitation to have representation at the meeting. Mr. Proto turned to Mr. Joseph who asked to address the Committee regarding the subject matter.
Mr. Joseph wanted to clarify that the Committee task was not to review the legal case, but rather, to discuss and review the manner in which the County Health Department set the fee. He noted statute does not allow for collection of more fees than the cost; however it is on a collective, not individual basis. He said there would always be individuals not using particular services that bear the cost of a portion of fees for regulatory purposes. He believes the County’s legal case is good and that the County will stand behind its decisions; however, he does not want individuals to think the County is not willing to listen to suggestions and/or review fees. Mr. Joseph asked the Committee to determine whether the County has a good public policy; what is a fair and legitimate manner of setting fees. He said Mr. John Barney, attorney for Bolton Point, believes what is fair is the actual cost to regulate individual systems; the Health Department Board of Health believes it to be assuring safe water is a public good and the cost should be shared more broadly.
Mr. Joseph said an important fact is to remember that eighty percent of the cost is through taxpayers generally, with a majority who are not on water systems. In addition, he said public money is spent for aquifer studies serving serves individuals with well water, with this being done as a pubic good.
Mr. Joseph asked the Committee think about public good and fairness and make a decision regarding the fee structure; he will back what decision comes out of Committee.
Mr. Proto said all information has been provided, including Mr. Barney’s suggested alternate fee structure. He reported that Mr. Andersson had requested survey information from other counties to assist in review of the fee. Mr. Andersson reported that to date no information has been received from other counties.
Mr. Andersson reviewed the spreadsheet that showed the community public water supply inventory sorted by population and one that showed the type of system/time spent at each.
Members reviewed Mr. Barney’s suggestion that apartment houses and mobile homes be charged in a different manner than they presently are. It was felt that there are many ways to calculate fees and it is important to develop a formula that is fair to all. The suggested fee scale Mr. Barney presented was not thought to be equitable as mobile home parks were charged more for the same population base. Ms. Robertson inquired whether it is legal to charge a mobile home park different than an apartment building and was informed by Ms. Hertzberg that it is legal, the scope of the law is to find an equitable manner to charge. It was pointed out Mr. Barney’s fee was based on direct-service costs with the belief that larger mobile home parks require more direct services than apartment buildings. Mr. Andersson did not agree with this thought and said the need for assistance from Environmental Health could change from year to year. One year there may be apartment buildings in need of more attention, another year it could be a mobile home park. Ms. Hertzberg said the fees do not have to be directly related to specific hours spent at facilities, and that the cost of overhead is allowed as well.
Mr. Hattery noted that the present fee is based upon a base fee that is then adjusted for the population served. He believes that Mr. Barney’s formula, while another manner to calculate a fee, does not provide a rationale for why the County should amend its present fee structure.
Ms. Robertson felt that the logic that works for her is a “cost per citizen”. She said eighty percent of the cost is spread out among individuals who may or may not use the public water systems. She said if the fee were to be solely billed for services rendered, the full cost of the public water system program should be paid for by the individuals using it. She continued by saying that if Mr. Barney’s proposal were broken out to a per person fee, assuming 2-3 individuals per unit, the cost for a mobile home park would be $24/$31 per person, with the comparable cost for Bolton Point users of $.06/$.31. She feels that since the majority of individuals residing in a mobile home park are lower-income individuals and should not have to pay a significantly higher fee simply due to the water system size and type.
Mr. Proto noted that the fees are based upon the net cost after the New York State grant has been applied. This amount is approximately $42,000. He asked if the fee were changed would it have any effect on the grant and was informed that it would not, the grant is applied to the maintenance of effort portion of the budget.
Mr. Hattery inquired about the system fee within Mr. Andersson’s schedule that did not have any income. Mr. Andersson said it was a part of the fee progression, however no present system fell into the category. It will be maintained as a “placeholder”.
Mr. Joseph felt that Mr. Hattery’s comments were the most significant, that the County Health Department did not just set a fee, but had logic behind it. He then offered the Bolton Point representatives the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Lipinski stated his attendance at the meeting was not to address Mr. Barney’s documents, but rather to hear the Committee’s thought process. He expressed his gratitude for this opportunity. Mr. Lipinski said the Commission feels their position could be defended, but also indicated that he personally believes there are also other ways to provide a logical rationale for changes. He said he had not come prepared to do so; had he been aware that there might be a way to work something out others would be present to discuss the matter. Mr. Proto noted that there is not a right or wrong methodically, but rather different approaches as to how to develop the fee.
Mr. Tunison said the Commission’s contention is that the fees should be based on a service provided basis. He noted that Mr. Joseph had indicated it was collectively charged, but said that while it was noted that Mr. Barney’s recommendation would require the mobile home parks to pay a larger percentage it was not fair to expect Bolton Point customers to subsidize the other systems either.
Mr. Joseph clarified that the fee for service is a valid legal argument. He said Mr. Barney’s formula does have logic behind it that says a fee for service is a fair method for calculating the fee, however, it does not have the structure to implement the logic.
The Committee spoke briefly again about the differences in viewpoints. Ms. Robertson then asked what the overall budget for Bolton Point is and was informed $2.5 million. She then asked on behalf of a constituent the cost of the lawsuit. This information will be provided.
Mr. Lipinski said as a director he feels a fiduciary responsibility to the clients; when the increase occurred it was necessary to look at the matter, and take legal steps if felt necessary. He does not believe the issue of legal fees is germane to the conversation. He said if everyone’s fee was increased the same the viewpoint could have been different.
Ms. Robertson said others questioned the increase, yet paid. She also noted that Ms. Cathy Valentino, secretary to Bolton Point has also said percentages are not always the salient number. Ms. Robertson feels an appropriate amount of time and consideration has taken place.
Mr. Proto asked if Mr. Shinagawa had provided information or questions and was informed none was received.
It was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Hattery, and unanimously approved by voice vote by members present, to reaffirm the existing Tompkins County Health Department Fee structure. FEE REAFFIRMED.
Adjournment: On motion, the Committee adjourned at 11:21 a.m.
Tompkins
County Legislature Homepage
Tompkins County Homepage
E-mail Comments about this
page