Some of my neighbors on Lake Herman have advocated building a central sewer system and pumping our poop to Madison for the city to process in its wastewater treatment plant. The Spearfish Valley Sanitary District has an arrangement like that with the City of Spearfish... and the action the city will consider tonight against the sanitary district shows a really good reason not to hook Lake Herman up to Madison.
At tonight's meeting, the Spearfish City Council will consider Resolution 2012-42, to condemn the Spearfish Valley Sanitary District. Under the contract the two entities had in 2009, the district paid 16.6% of the treatment costs incurred by the city. In response to tighter EPA regulations, the city upgraded its wastewater treatment plant, increased its rates for all users, and asked the district to cover 20% of the costs. The district has declined to accept a contract under those terms. With no new contract, the district obstinately continues to pay what the old contract specifies, which means its residents pay $5 less than what I do for the privilege of pooping into Spearfish's plant.
The city thus wants to put an end to these unsuccessful negotiations by taking over the sanitary district. According to Heather Murschel's report in Friday's Black Hills Pioneer, condemnation would give the city ownership of the entire system as well as direct taxation power over Spearfish Valley Sanitary District residents.
Read that again: by condemnation, Spearfish would gain direct taxation power over non-residents with no representation.
Hey, Tea Party, are you guys busy? If you're done crying with Ann Romney and clicking on everyone's secession petitions, Spearfish Valley has a real nuts-and-bolts policy issue for you to way in on. But since the Republican entertainment complex doesn't provide the local Tea Partiers with talking points on real local issues, I'll have to fill in.
City attorney Dick Pluimer justifies the city's condemnation move under South Dakota Codified Law 9-29-1:
Territorial jurisdiction of municipalities. Every municipality shall have power to exercise jurisdiction for all authorized purposes over all territory within the corporate limits and over any public ground or park belonging to the municipality, whether within or without the corporate limits, and in and over all places, except within the corporate limits of another municipality, within one mile of the corporate limits or of any public ground or park belonging to the municipality outside the corporate limits, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, and of enforcing its ordinances and resolutions relating thereto.
The city will need to demonstrate that the district's sewer infrastructure threatens the "health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community." There does not seem to be evidence that the district is failing to maintain a safe system. Perhaps the city can sue to force the district to pay higher rates, but condemnation doesn't seem to be a contract dispute resolution tool.
But back up in that statute: see the line that says "except within the corporate limits of another municipality"? Sanitary districts operate with authority similar to that of regular municipalities. The city is claiming that it can take over the governing and taxing authority of another elected public entity. That's essentially annexation without the consent of the neighboring governing body and without the enfranchisement of the residents affected.
Spearfish has a legitimate claim that Spearfish Valley residents should pay their fair share of costs for sewer service. But the unilateral usurpation of Spearfish Valley's property and taxing authority goes too far.
Lake Herman residents, take note: when the engineers finish the feasibility study we've commissioned, they will likely recommend hooking a new local sewer up to the city of Madison's treatment plant. That may be the cheapest option on the ledger, but it will place Lake Herman under the billing authority of the Madison City Commission. It will also open the door for disputes and power grabs like we're seeing here in Spearfish. Consider that cost when you decide what wastewater system you want.
I would argue that Spearfish can condemn the Spearfish Valley Sanitary District under that law Cory cited. The Sanitary District is not a stand-alone entity as it is entirely dependent on the City to treat all of its waste. With no contract in place, the city of Spearfish is under no contractual obligation to provide services to the Sanitary District. Should the city decide to cease providing those services it would create an immediate health, safety, public welfare, and environmental danger within 1 mile of city limits. Even without cutting off services, the city's argument is that the Sanitary District is not treating its own waste, not entering into a contract, and not paying its fair share of costs - therefore threatening health, safety or at the very least public welfare.
Reading Heather Murschel's article, the solution ought to be clear. The sanitary district and the city are one sewer system, not 2. Why should there be 2 different governments (suing each other)? Should a sanitary district that is not self-sufficient be able to set its own price that it will pay thus burdening the city of Spearfish with its expenses and forcing others not in that sanitary district (city residents) to subsidize the sanitary district? This lawsuit is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard - fighting simply because residents of the sanitary district don't want to pay the same rate for the same service as city residents. And suing over $5/month?! Nonsense. Condemn it and get it over with!
Response to Cory's comment:
"But back up in that statute: see the line that says "except within the corporate limits of another municipality"? Sanitary districts operate with authority similar to that of regular municipalities."
Courts presume that the legislature said what it means. They will not read into the laws something that is not there. Words are given their ordinary meanings. A sanitary district is not a "municipality," and therefore the legislature (at least in this law) did not prohibit Spearfish from taking jurisdiction over the sanitary district's infrastructure, which falls into the catchall provision in the law: "and in and over all places".
Cory - FYI - annexation does NOT require the consent of the property owners being annexed. Forced annexation is somethingt that can be referred to a public vote - but those votoing are not only the people being annexed. The people in the town annexing the property also have a vote. For example, a town of 5,000 wants to annex land owned by 40-50 people. The 40-50 people don';t want to be annexed and get the annexation referred. All of the registered voters in the town of 5,000 AND the 40-50 people get to vote. Who you thinlk is gonna win - if it's un the best (economic) interests of the town of 5,000.
The "condemnation" approac being used here is a sloppy and more diffivcult road - IMO - to simply annexing the entire valley district.
Incompetent city officials have too much power in South Dakota. Also, city sales taxes that force non-residents to pay are a classic example of taxation without representation. The more sales taxes cities get from non-residents, the more money they waste.
"Taxation without representation". So that's what I call it when I visit Minneapolis & pay their taxes on everything from hotel rooms, to gasoline, to clothing (oops they don't charge that one), to groceries (oops they don't charge that one), to ... well all the taxes they charge in Minneapolis?
Douglas, you are talking about voluntary taxes people pay when they are away from home. Must we have political representation, i.e. a vote, wherever we choose to go, whenever we choose to go there? Or is it enough that we have elected to go somewhere knowing they charge taxes there?
All taxes are voluntary if one does not know the meaning of coercion. I don't pay city sales taxes voluntarily. If I need to eat or buy clothes, I pay them or I don't get what I need. Non-residents of cities should get ID cards exempting them from the taxes. There should in fact be no city sales taxes. Let the states collect all of them and then turn back the taxes with the approval of all voters for the refund policies.
Richard is exactly right. They are employing their "divide and conquer" study in their overall plan to annex all of Upper and Lower Valley residents. This latest strategy (condemnation) is just another lump they want to throw on the pile.
The so-called study (that mega dollars of taxes paid for) supposedly showed that it would be a net positive for the city to annex Lower/Upper Valley. Fine, then. Why didn't they just move to do it, rather than doing attempting to do it in three different phases? "Chunking out" the Lower/Upper Valley folks into three different segments? Points to what Richard says - because of how it would be voted on, when only one third of proposed folks are able to vote on it - versus - the rest of the city residents, who have been told that the Upper/Lower Valley folks are stealing their services. Yep, we know who will win.
If it makes sense, per your precious expensive study, to annex Upper/Lower Valley, then just do it. Rather than attempting these shenanigans. And now this "condemnation" strategy? City officials see the writing on the wall. In the last Mayoral election held, Mr Krambeck barely eeked out a win, due to his two opponents splitting the vote. They know that their decision making is not that popular and they need to make their annexation moves, while they can.
R, I would suggest there's a difference between our paying sales tax in the cities and Valley residents' pay sewer tax to the city that condemns their sewer. The more apt analogy would be if Minnesota somehow condemned Minnehaha County and sent everyone there a monthly bill to pay for the Minnesota roads that we South Dakotans tear up with our big trucks and reckless driving.
I do appreciate R's analysis of the municipality question and Richard's look at the annexation analogy. It looks like the Valley sewer district had better get a better lawyer than me!
I wasn't analogizing paying Minnesota taxes to the Valley people's sewer issue. I was just responding to Douglas Wiken's taxation without representation statement which really has nothing to do with this thread.
Actually your analogy of Minnesota condemning Minnehaha County and sending everyone there a monthly bill for Minnesota roads is a faulty analogy to the sewer issue. Unless of course the people in Minnehaha county couldn't drive on their own Minnehaha County roads without Minnesota's help.
The Valley residents need to build their own sewer treatment plant if they don't want to pay their fair share for their use of the Spearfish sewer treatment plant. Either carry their own weight in the joint system, or carry their own weight in their own system. If they want to continue being part of the city sewer system, then their extra level of government is completely unnecessary. What's with all of the big government, sue happy, free-rider Republicans in Spearfish Valley?
R, the analogy remains useful for understanding the shades of taxation without representation. But yes, the fact that the Valley residents have tied themselves inextricably to city services reduces the outrage one can feel at the impending taxation without representation.
Here is the website for the Spearfish Valley Sanitation District.
http://svsdistrict.com/
There is a response written by the President of the SVSD, specifically to the December 1, article written in the Black Hills Pioneer. And as expected, the statistics that the city is noting, are incorrect. SVSD customers have no problem paying their fair share, they just don't want to be gouged. Reading through the Pres Hayes' response, it becomes very clear what the game is all about.
Side Note: The city really should hire an outside attorney to handle this "dispute" between SVSD and The City. That atty Plummer has represented both sides at one point? Isn't that a clear conflict of interest?
I read the response, Dana P. It looks to me like the contours of the issue remain the same. Here are the facts as the sanitary district sets out with my observations added:
The valley residents pay the same $14.25/month for waste treatment as city people pay. City people pay an additional $14.75 for sewer line maintenance, while valley people pay $9.75 to maintain their own sewer line system. That accounts for the $5/month difference between city and valley rates. This would be fine and dandy if the valley folks didn't need to use any part of the city sewer lines. But if they do use city sewer lines to get their waste at least part way to the treatment plant then they should have to pay some amount for the city's line maintenance fee - which they don't pay now and apparently don't want to pay. They essentially want to use the city's lines without paying to maintain the city's lines as city people must.
But all of this reinforces my conclusion. Condemn the valley lines, which are really only an extension on the city line anyway - not a separate system. Eliminate the second governing body and charge everybody the same fee. P***ing match over.
I, personally am in the sewer maintnance industry and have to say that there should be at least a 5.00 more a month fee for city residents versus a small entity or valley sewer maintenance program. The fact of the matter is, any time you have a large sewer system you are going to have more cost in keeping the system up to date. Being a sewer contractor, I see the countless dollars spent on brand new pickups and sewer trucks ect. If you compare apples, a small town ship or district is accually saving alot of money by hiring private contractors, instead of the 9-5 overpaid lackies. As for the sewer lines the district is using without paying is nonsense. Its called a outfall line which is a main trunk of sewer to the treatment plant. Any city of large scale has these outfalls. It is a shares expense. If they want 20% for treatment, then the outfall upkeep cost should be 20% cost to the district. It only costs so much to treat sanitary sewer. Its the same everywhere you go. So if the city is struggling at the treatment plant, maybe they should find someone who can run it. Like a private company. Even EAFB does this.