I've got a (legal) question for you all.

Here in Maryville, IL, our subdivision is facing a little problem. Late
in 2004 (around October give or take a month), there was a proposal to
install a sewer system in the neighborhood. Currently, we're all using
septic tanks or aeration systems. The mayor / town council sent out a
questionnaire to see if a) we desired a sewer, and b) if we would
provide the necessary easements to allow for it. All of this was based
on a preliminary proposal by the town's engineering consultant and
included rough estimates on costs, etc. Unbeknownst to us, this
questionnaire was considered by the town council and mayor to be our
final say on the issue, i.e. official vote, when, in reality, most of us
just wanted further information (more accurate cost figures, easement
requirements, and the like).

During a town meeting several months later, we were informed that the
sewer proposal had passed (again, based on the aforementioned
questionnaire), but that the original plan had changed based on the
responses to the questionnaire. Basically, I believe houses along one
of the streets was left off the second proposal. We never voted on the
second proposal nor signed anything regarding it. Furthermore, we were
told that the only way to repeal the sewer project would be to get 51%
of the registered voters and 51% of the home/land owners to sign a
petition, a so-called backdoor referendum. A petition was started,
signed, and delivered by the required date, but it wasn't until two
months later that we discovered the petition was deemed invalid. The
mayor will not provide any details regarding why the petition was
rejected claiming lawyer / client confidentiality. So, as of right now,
we're stuck with this sewer project proceeding.


Now, you may be asking why we would be so concerned about having sewers
installed. Primarily, it is because we are expected to foot the entire
bill, which will result in upfront costs upwards of $3,000 to $4,000, as
well as a real estate tax increase of several hundred dollars a year or
more (depends on the assessed value of the individual homes) for twenty
years. Many of those living in the neighborhood are on a fixed income,
so such costs cannot easily be absorbed. Never mind the actual
easements which, in some cases, cut right through residents' yards (as
is my case).


The way the mayor is handling this seems awfully fishy to me. He claims
not to care one way or the other, and yet he won't divulge any details
regarding the petition. Not to mention the fact that the proposal
changed after the initial questionnaire was sent out and that the
questionnaire was considered an official vote (for which there was
little if any indication per my memory). Do you have any suggestions on
how we could proceed (short of hiring a lawyer for which we are still
trying to determine where to get the funding)? Legally, does the
approach taken by the mayor and council sound appropriate to you? I
appreciate any response, but I'll understand if you wish not to.

Thanks and take care!
Kevin

Kevin Dressel writes:

I've got a (legal) question for you all.

I'm not a lawyer so I can't give legal advice to anyone. But I can
say what I might do as an ordinary citizen to check into things.

rejected claiming lawyer / client confidentiality. So, as of right
now, we're stuck with this sewer project proceeding.

Oy.

Now, you may be asking why we would be so concerned about having
sewers installed. Primarily, it is because we are expected to foot
the entire bill, which will result in upfront costs upwards of $3,000
to $4,000, as well as a real estate tax increase of several hundred
dollars a year or more (depends on the assessed value of the
individual homes) for twenty years. Many of those living in the
neighborhood are on a fixed income, so such costs cannot easily be
absorbed. Never mind the actual easements which, in some cases, cut
right through residents' yards (as is my case).

Finance wise, I think that's the usual way it's done. Surely one
shouldn't expect others in their municipality to pay for a sewer that
doesn't benefit them.

And yeah, that's the usual argument -- for/against the tax referendum
for such projects are those who have feel the increased property value
sewers will ultimately bring and who can afford it, vs those who feel
the increase in proprety value won't offset the tax burden.

The way the mayor is handling this seems awfully fishy to me.

It does seem odd to me that a questionairre became the last piece of
input y'all got before seeing hard numbers and bids. I know I'd be
****ed if things didn't go to an actual vote. Some folks in Boston
threw a ****load of tea into a harbor over a very similar issue if
memory serves. :-)

Do you have any suggestions on how we could proceed (short of hiring
a lawyer for which we are still trying to determine where to get the
funding)? Legally, does the approach taken by the mayor and council
sound appropriate to you? I appreciate any response, but I'll
understand if you wish not to.

You're not gonna like this answer, but y'all need a lawyer.

Now the good news is that there might be someone willing to work on
contingency or pro bono. You'll have to beat the bushes and find
someone in your area that a) has the sort of legal background to deal
with government issues or looking to make aname for themselves in such
issues, or b) might have a score to settle with your municipality.
Wont' be easy either way. Where's a good government watchdog group
when ya need em? There may be one out there. Get the press
involved, get your story out there, perhaps someone who can help will
hear your story and join the cause.

Another option is to call up the state attorney general's office and
see if someone there might be able to help. That's a wild guess, but
I wonder if there are any laws in any states that prohibit
municipalities from imposing taxes for a project like this without a
proper vote and disclosure of estimate increases. Again, a wild
guess, but something I'd perhaps investigate if I was in your
situation.

Good luck!

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

It could be worse. My old boss paid to have a new septic system installed
in his older house. A few years later, the city decided to install sewers.
Residents were mandated to connect to the new sewer system and there was
no provision to opt out. The typical cost was in the range of $7-10K,
which the city would finance over 20 or 30 years if necessary. However, my
boss' house happened to be at a lower elevation than much of the town
and his neighborhood required a pumping station to pump sewage up to the
treatment plant. Each house in that area of mostly larger estate homes
(and thus low density) had to share the cost of the new pumping plant.
In the end, the city presented him a bill for $40K just a couple years
after he spent about $10K on the new septic system. Several of his kids are
lawyers and he fought to the bitter end, but did not prevail.


Look at the bright side: You could be out $50K!


Dimitri

Kevin Dressel wrote:
I've got a (legal) question for you all.

Here in Maryville, IL, our subdivision is facing a little problem. Late
in 2004 (around October give or take a month), there was a proposal to
install a sewer system in the neighborhood. Currently, we're all using
septic tanks or aeration systems. The mayor / town council sent out a
questionnaire to see if a) we desired a sewer, and b) if we would
provide the necessary easements to allow for it. All of this was based
on a preliminary proposal by the town's engineering consultant and
included rough estimates on costs, etc. Unbeknownst to us, this
questionnaire was considered by the town council and mayor to be our
final say on the issue, i.e. official vote, when, in reality, most of us
just wanted further information (more accurate cost figures, easement
requirements, and the like).

During a town meeting several months later, we were informed that the
sewer proposal had passed (again, based on the aforementioned
questionnaire), but that the original plan had changed based on the
responses to the questionnaire. Basically, I believe houses along one
of the streets was left off the second proposal. We never voted on the
second proposal nor signed anything regarding it. Furthermore, we were
told that the only way to repeal the sewer project would be to get 51%
of the registered voters and 51% of the home/land owners to sign a
petition, a so-called backdoor referendum. A petition was started,
signed, and delivered by the required date, but it wasn't until two
months later that we discovered the petition was deemed invalid. The
mayor will not provide any details regarding why the petition was
rejected claiming lawyer / client confidentiality. So, as of right now,
we're stuck with this sewer project proceeding.


Now, you may be asking why we would be so concerned about having sewers
installed. Primarily, it is because we are expected to foot the entire
bill, which will result in upfront costs upwards of $3,000 to $4,000, as
well as a real estate tax increase of several hundred dollars a year or
more (depends on the assessed value of the individual homes) for twenty
years. Many of those living in the neighborhood are on a fixed income,
so such costs cannot easily be absorbed. Never mind the actual
easements which, in some cases, cut right through residents' yards (as
is my case).


The way the mayor is handling this seems awfully fishy to me. He claims
not to care one way or the other, and yet he won't divulge any details
regarding the petition. Not to mention the fact that the proposal
changed after the initial questionnaire was sent out and that the
questionnaire was considered an official vote (for which there was
little if any indication per my memory). Do you have any suggestions on
how we could proceed (short of hiring a lawyer for which we are still
trying to determine where to get the funding)? Legally, does the
approach taken by the mayor and council sound appropriate to you? I
appreciate any response, but I'll understand if you wish not to.

Thanks and take care!
Kevin

Sounds to me they have violated whatever open meeting laws exist there.
Looks like they did all kind a things in closed meetings. Something
to check into as that could send the entire thing back to square one.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sounds to me they have violated whatever open meeting laws exist there.
Looks like they did all kind a things in closed meetings. Something
to check into as that could send the entire thing back to square one.

It could have been an issue with regards to the Board of Health where they
could have determined:
1) Sub-par soil conditions for septic systems
2) Several houses may have failing systems or systems that may likely fail
in the near future
3) Homeowner remediation efforts would not adequately solve the problem
(i.e. a newly engineered system requires more square footage than is
available on the property)

In short, they may have come to the conclusion that there is a public health
hazard and the fix is for a public sewer system. A vote is not necessary to
correct a public health hazard. I would make a visit to city hall and check
with the Board of Health to see what their data says for your neighborhood.

While you're there, you might as well check the Planning Board or Building
Dept to see if there are any proposed housing or commercial developments
that would benefit from this public sewer system.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA

Alan Sung wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sounds to me they have violated whatever open meeting laws exist there.
Looks like they did all kind a things in closed meetings. Something
to check into as that could send the entire thing back to square one.


It could have been an issue with regards to the Board of Health where they
could have determined:
1) Sub-par soil conditions for septic systems
2) Several houses may have failing systems or systems that may likely fail
in the near future
3) Homeowner remediation efforts would not adequately solve the problem
(i.e. a newly engineered system requires more square footage than is
available on the property)

In short, they may have come to the conclusion that there is a public health
hazard and the fix is for a public sewer system. A vote is not necessary to
correct a public health hazard. I would make a visit to city hall and check
with the Board of Health to see what their data says for your neighborhood.

While you're there, you might as well check the Planning Board or Building
Dept to see if there are any proposed housing or commercial developments
that would benefit from this public sewer system.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA


According to the mayor, it was our choice, i.e. no city / county / state
mandated project. However, he (incorrectly) assumed that the
questionnaire represented our final decision on the matter when, in
reality, most of us really only wanted more info like solid cost
figures, etc. as I mentioned in my original post.

Now, we're stuck fight something that should never have gotten this far.

Of course, no one to my knowledge has officially agreed to any
particular easements. I would just as well refuse to sign any requests
by the city.


On the flip side, assuming we are forced into this, what sort of
property value increases could we expect to see? Historically, how much
have sewers helped raise the price of a house / land? As a point of
interest, Maryville is growing (seems to me it's at a rather rapid
pace), with a bunch of $250K and up priced houses (which is pretty
expensive in this part of the midwest).

Thanks all!

Kevin

Todd H. wrote:
Kevin Dressel writes:


I've got a (legal) question for you all.


I'm not a lawyer so I can't give legal advice to anyone. But I can
say what I might do as an ordinary citizen to check into things.


rejected claiming lawyer / client confidentiality. So, as of right
now, we're stuck with this sewer project proceeding.


Oy.


Now, you may be asking why we would be so concerned about having
sewers installed. Primarily, it is because we are expected to foot
the entire bill, which will result in upfront costs upwards of $3,000
to $4,000, as well as a real estate tax increase of several hundred
dollars a year or more (depends on the assessed value of the
individual homes) for twenty years. Many of those living in the
neighborhood are on a fixed income, so such costs cannot easily be
absorbed. Never mind the actual easements which, in some cases, cut
right through residents' yards (as is my case).


Finance wise, I think that's the usual way it's done. Surely one
shouldn't expect others in their municipality to pay for a sewer that
doesn't benefit them.

And yeah, that's the usual argument -- for/against the tax referendum
for such projects are those who have feel the increased property value
sewers will ultimately bring and who can afford it, vs those who feel
the increase in proprety value won't offset the tax burden.


The way the mayor is handling this seems awfully fishy to me.


It does seem odd to me that a questionairre became the last piece of
input y'all got before seeing hard numbers and bids. I know I'd be
****ed if things didn't go to an actual vote. Some folks in Boston
threw a ****load of tea into a harbor over a very similar issue if
memory serves. :-)


Do you have any suggestions on how we could proceed (short of hiring
a lawyer for which we are still trying to determine where to get the
funding)? Legally, does the approach taken by the mayor and council
sound appropriate to you? I appreciate any response, but I'll
understand if you wish not to.


You're not gonna like this answer, but y'all need a lawyer.

Now the good news is that there might be someone willing to work on
contingency or pro bono. You'll have to beat the bushes and find
someone in your area that a) has the sort of legal background to deal
with government issues or looking to make aname for themselves in such
issues, or b) might have a score to settle with your municipality.
Wont' be easy either way. Where's a good government watchdog group
when ya need em? There may be one out there. Get the press
involved, get your story out there, perhaps someone who can help will
hear your story and join the cause.

Another option is to call up the state attorney general's office and
see if someone there might be able to help. That's a wild guess, but
I wonder if there are any laws in any states that prohibit
municipalities from imposing taxes for a project like this without a
proper vote and disclosure of estimate increases. Again, a wild
guess, but something I'd perhaps investigate if I was in your
situation.

Good luck!

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/


We do have a local television station (well, they're in St.Louis, but
it's local enough) that does these investigative reports quite
frequently. Maybe I can get them to help out...

Thanks for the suggestions!

Kevin

In article ,
Kevin Dressel wrote:

[snip!]
?
On the flip side, assuming we are forced into this, what sort of
property value increases could we expect to see? Historically, how much
have sewers helped raise the price of a house / land?


I'm going to guess they help the price of the house / land about as much
as it costs to install an alternate septic system. In the case of my
boss' house, which was worth more than $1 million, I don't think it
mattered at all. All else being equal, if I was comparing two identical
houses and one was on sewer and one was not I'd buy the one on the sewer.
However, I wouldn't pay much of a premium for it. Vacant land is a little
different story and I'd pay a premium for vacant land with sewer hookups
just because so many things can go wrong (e.g. percolation tests) when
installing a septic system on raw land and having the sewer there means
one less thing to worry about.


Dimitri

On 11 Jan 2006 07:43:27 -0800, someone wrote:

Sounds to me they have violated whatever open meeting laws exist there.
Looks like they did all kind a things in closed meetings. Something
to check into as that could send the entire thing back to square one.

??? Where is your evidence of that?

They gathered some info. They discussed the info at a meeting that
may very well have been open - probably their usual regularly
scheduled meeting. (Hardly seems importsant enough to the whole city
to bother having a special meeting.)

Folks on this block were not paying attention.

The "City" probably was under no legal requirement to even send out a
questionnaire or survey to begin with.

So where is their City Councilperson, Alderperson, Selectperson, or
whatever form of office they have in that municipality?


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:57:38 -0600, someone wrote:


particular easements. I would just as well refuse to sign any requests
by the city.

Then they will just condemn them and take them by eminent domain.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

"They gathered some info. They discussed the info at a meeting that
may very well have been open - probably their usual regularly
scheduled meeting. (Hardly seems importsant enough to the whole city
to bother having a special meeting.)

Folks on this block were not paying attention.

The "City" probably was under no legal requirement to even send out a
questionnaire or survey to begin with.

So where is their City Councilperson, Alderperson, Selectperson, or
whatever form of office they have in that municipality? "

I agree with all of that. In most cases like this, there is no
requirement for a survey or vote by the affected homeowners. It's
called a representative democracy form of govt and why we elect
officials. Sounds like they did a survey to get input, and the OP
thinks this means they had to be bound by the survey results or give
more consideration to the input of the residents before proceeding.
It's typical to take some input, then proceed with whatever they decide
to do whether it agrees with the input or not, passing it a public
meetings so it;s legal.

The best case the OP may have is if some form of a sunshine law was
violated. What does sound suspect is that the petition was ruled
invalid and they refuse to give a reason. To try to reverse this the
best course of action is to get those affected to chip in to hire a
lawyer. To do that, I would draw up a simple agreement that obligates
all those that sign up to split the costs, up to a specified maximum,
for legal fees. See how many you get to sign, then you will have a
better idea if it's worth pursuing.

wrote:
"They gathered some info. They discussed the info at a meeting that
may very well have been open - probably their usual regularly
scheduled meeting. (Hardly seems importsant enough to the whole city
to bother having a special meeting.)

Folks on this block were not paying attention.

The "City" probably was under no legal requirement to even send out a
questionnaire or survey to begin with.

So where is their City Councilperson, Alderperson, Selectperson, or
whatever form of office they have in that municipality? "

I agree with all of that. In most cases like this, there is no
requirement for a survey or vote by the affected homeowners. It's
called a representative democracy form of govt and why we elect
officials. Sounds like they did a survey to get input, and the OP
thinks this means they had to be bound by the survey results or give
more consideration to the input of the residents before proceeding.
It's typical to take some input, then proceed with whatever they decide
to do whether it agrees with the input or not, passing it a public
meetings so it;s legal.

The best case the OP may have is if some form of a sunshine law was
violated. What does sound suspect is that the petition was ruled
invalid and they refuse to give a reason. To try to reverse this the
best course of action is to get those affected to chip in to hire a
lawyer. To do that, I would draw up a simple agreement that obligates
all those that sign up to split the costs, up to a specified maximum,
for legal fees. See how many you get to sign, then you will have a
better idea if it's worth pursuing.

They discussed the original proposal in an open forum. However, even if
the original questionnaire sent out was considered the final go ahead by
the neighborhood, we did not agree to the follow-up (and final) proposal
/ plan. The latter was never discussed in an open forum. We heard
nothing about it until the option for the petition was raised.

Besides, the mayor and city council continue to claim they have no care
one way or the other if the sewers are put in (yes, I know this is BS
since it will likely promote growth). So, why would they be playing
such infantile games with us? If we are to be paying the full cost of
the sewer project, then we sure as hell ought to have more of a say!

In any case, we are likely going to pursue hiring a lawyer to contest
the petition rejection.

The easements may be the only way you can fight it. If the town requires an
easement over your land to install the sewer main, this is a legal issue and
will require you to sign to authorize the easement, unless the town has the
power to expropriate the easement, then you have no choice.

In my town the town has the power to expropriate only in extreme conditions,
not in normal business, however, they own the streets and land on each side
of the street, up to the property owners property line. They can install
anything they want on their land, and don't need an easement to do it. They
are still supposed to inform the property owners of any changes being made
or installed.


"Kevin Dressel" wrote in message
...
Alan Sung wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sounds to me they have violated whatever open meeting laws exist there.
Looks like they did all kind a things in closed meetings. Something
to check into as that could send the entire thing back to square one.


It could have been an issue with regards to the Board of Health where
they
could have determined:
1) Sub-par soil conditions for septic systems
2) Several houses may have failing systems or systems that may likely
fail
in the near future
3) Homeowner remediation efforts would not adequately solve the problem
(i.e. a newly engineered system requires more square footage than is
available on the property)

In short, they may have come to the conclusion that there is a public
health
hazard and the fix is for a public sewer system. A vote is not necessary
to
correct a public health hazard. I would make a visit to city hall and
check
with the Board of Health to see what their data says for your
neighborhood.

While you're there, you might as well check the Planning Board or
Building
Dept to see if there are any proposed housing or commercial developments
that would benefit from this public sewer system.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA


According to the mayor, it was our choice, i.e. no city / county / state
mandated project. However, he (incorrectly) assumed that the
questionnaire represented our final decision on the matter when, in
reality, most of us really only wanted more info like solid cost
figures, etc. as I mentioned in my original post.

Now, we're stuck fight something that should never have gotten this far.

Of course, no one to my knowledge has officially agreed to any
particular easements. I would just as well refuse to sign any requests
by the city.


On the flip side, assuming we are forced into this, what sort of
property value increases could we expect to see? Historically, how much
have sewers helped raise the price of a house / land? As a point of
interest, Maryville is growing (seems to me it's at a rather rapid
pace), with a bunch of $250K and up priced houses (which is pretty
expensive in this part of the midwest).

Thanks all!

Kevin