Click here to subscribe today or Login.
The Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority must decide what, if any, penalty will be imposed for property owners who did not pay the new stormwater fee by the March 15 deadline.
Several authority representatives said after their monthly meeting that they don’t want to penalize property owners still adjusting to the new requirement but also must be fair to those who did pay on time.
The board voted Tuesday to authorize board member Gerald Cross to work on a plan that will be publicly released when it is finalized.
Cross said he wants to reach a decision before the next quarterly bills are issued April 1.
Thirty-two municipalities signed up to participate in a regional stormwater plan managed by the authority, which imposed the fee to fund projects that bring the municipalities in compliance with a federal pollution reduction mandate so they won’t face fines.
There are two categories of stormwater bill recipients: those who receive the bills with ones for wastewater treatment because they are existing authority customers, and those who receive only stormwater bills because they don’t rely on the authority for sewage services.
As of Tuesday, 50,954 stormwater bills were paid of the 71,152 bills for customers already receiving authority wastewater treatment — or 71.6 percent, said Donna Gillis, the authority’s public relations/regulatory liaison.
For the stormwater-only customers, a total 10,252 of 19,288 bills were paid, or around 53 percent, Gillis said.
With authority wastewater treatment bills, a 10 percent penalty is imposed on delinquent bills after a five-day grace period following a payment deadline, authority representatives said, noting this procedure is stated on the back of its bills.
That five-day grace period would end Wednesday for the bills that were due March 15.
Unlike stormwater bills, there is tangible way to stop service for wastewater customers who refuse to pay for an extended period because their water can be turned off.
‘Something not right’
During public comment, Kingston resident Brian Shiner told the authority he receives the combined bill and wanted an explanation on a situation he encountered when he paid.
Shiner said he did not realize the due dates on both the stormwater and wastewater were extended to March 15 and tried to pay the wastewater portion on Feb. 19 so it would not be late. He said the authority clerk insisted his payment had to first be applied to the stormwater portion.
“There’s something not right with this,” Shiner said.
Cross said authority officials consciously decided to apply stormwater payments first because they made a commitment to municipalities to fulfill mandate requirements so they would not be fined.
The authority did not want to be accused of putting its own collection of wastewater fees above the need to generate sufficient revenue for stormwater compliance, he said.
Shiner also asked how the authority had been funding stormwater expenses without fee revenue.
Cross said the authority’s wastewater division loaned the stormwater division $3 million from its capital reserve, with the understanding that loan eventually would be repaid to the wastewater side.
This loan has allowed the authority to get started on mapping and engineering requirements for the stormwater mandate, he said.
Mandate requirements
Shiner said he supports a regional approach and lives in a municipality that had been fined for noncompliance of a previous stormwater mandate requirement. However, he said he and many others are frustrated that the Susquehanna River they are trying to clean through the fee is polluted by waste and chemicals from New York and local acid mine drainage.
Authority Executive Director James Tomaine said the current pollution-reduction mandate that must be met within five years includes the documenting of all acid mine outfalls. That could be a sign that addressing acid mine pollution will be part of a future mandate, he said.
Jenkins Township Supervisor Robert Linskey, who serves on the authority board, said he wholeheartedly approved participation in the regional plan because solo compliance would have cost his municipality an estimated $500,000 and forced the township to double its real estate taxes.
“So this was the right thing to do,” Linskey said.
James Conahan, also an authority board member, also highlighted the board’s approval of refunds to stormwater payers who received reductions through technical reviews or fee formula alterations after they had paid their bills.
In addition to delaying the fee payment date to March 15, the authority had eliminated all appeal fees for those contesting the authority’s calculations, increased some bill discounts and reduced the charge for properties with 7,000 square feet or more of nonabsorbent impervious area, or IA.
Authority officials said they expect to mail stormwater bills soon to commercial property owners.