20 Herald & Lantern 31 October '84

Sewerage District No. 1: A Presentment

(From Page 18 1 capacity to handle additional inflow . That could have meant that the Commissioners may have been able to satisfy the public's demand for additional sewers in the area. • That would have increased revenues and thereby providing funds either to update the system or to prevent additional rate increases. Thus, the Commissioners' lack of interest injured sewer users and non-users alike. Recently the licensed operator started attending the Commissioners meetings The Grand Jury recommends that this practice continue. The operator would then be in a position to advise all the Commissioners, not just Michael Vistenzo, as to the status of the plant. It is also recommended that the Commissioners review at a minimum the monthly reports and records prepared by the operator. That would keep them informed not only about the amount of sewerage flow, but also about the quality of the effluent. Thus, they could be in a better position to determine what adaptions or corrections may be necessary to the plant and its lines. It is also recommended that the operators' reports be maintained by the Sewerage District in a safe, accessible office. The operators prior to 1982 maintained the reports personally. The Commissioners were unfamiliar with those reports and had never seen them. Again the Granc Jury is of the opinion that the Commis sioners can only be effective and fulfill their elected duties by keeping informed. (2) The Grand Jury finds that the Sewerage Commission has not beer operated in a professional or business-like manner. (a) There are no formal or even informal procedural guidelines established or maintained by the Sewerage District relating to any phase of its operation or business. The duties and responsibilities of the operator of the plant have not been established. He does what he feels is necessary and what his training and experience have taught him to do. However, it must be the Commissioners as the ones who have ultimate responsibility for the slatus of the plant. The present system does not give them the supervision necessary for them to be kept informed of the status of the plant. Even the Clerk and Secretary have no guidelines to follow . Nor are their duties set forth. An obvious problem is illustrated by the fact that the Secretary takes the Minutes, types them up, but the Clerk signs them. The Clerk does not have any knowledge of the Minutes except to sign them. He is not serving any useful purpose in that capacity. The Secretary had to be questioned in order to explain the Minutes. A serious issue arose relating to the important meeting of September 1, 1983 in that there were two sets of Minutes for that meeting One had obviously been prepared months after the meeting Although the Secretary prepared the Minutes, she could not explain why there were two sets of Minutes The records show no other time when two separate sets of Minutes for one meeting were prepared. (b) The Minutes of the meetings were found to be totally inadequate. The Minutes contained only brief and general statements of the subjects that were discussed. The absence of a more complete record of the meetings prohibits an effective review and understanding of the Commissioners' work. Succinctly stated, the present practice enabled the Commissioners to consider public business without subjecting their reasoning to public scrutiny. The Minutes even failed to reflect compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act. The Grand Jury' recommends that the Commission maintain a more complete record of open and closed meetings. The record should be in sufficient detail to enable the public to understand what occurs at these meetings. Serious consideration should be given to the tape recording of the meetings The Grand Jury also recommends that the Minutes, records and all other documents of the Sewerage District be properly and safely maintained in a more appropriate and publicly accessible place than the Secretary's home. (c) There is no procedure for the acceptance and review of applications for sewer ( ■ connections. All applications should be reviewed by the full Commission at i regular, open public meetings . There is not even a procedure for filing or maintaining i applications. In the past, individual home owners received an application from the i Secretary who, after a phone call to < ■

Michael Vistenzo, either approved or re- [ jected it. There is no procedure for respon- ; ding or replying to letters or telephone i calls regarding hookups. Dr. Judson's letter of October 7, 1983 requesting an apI plication has never been replied to. Many residents interested in obtaining sewer service were merely told by Michael Vistenzo that there was no capacity, thus they should not apply. This manner of operating caused an apparent inequity and injustice when it was determined by the Commissioners that there was capacity at the plant. They did not review their records to determine who had sought hookup to the sewers in the past; i.e., first-come first-serve basis; or review whether any existing unserviced homes or businesseertjad a present health need for sewer service; i.e., the septic problems at the Jamesway shopping center complex that the Health Department recommended be given priority consideration. Instead, they gave consideration and approval to two new proposed projects. The Grand Jury recommends that cedure be established for the review and\ filing of applications Persons requesting information regarding sewer service should be replied to promptly. It is further recommended that consideration for approval of sewerage service first be given to

John L. Ludlam Dortt ttord

an entity that has a health problem as established by the County and Township Health Departments, and second to property owners who have been on the waiting list the longest. Otherwise, apparent favoritism can exist. (d) Although there was a moratorium on additional hookups, effectively since 1970, it was the Commisioners' policy and practice that if anything had been hooked up and was then subsequently torn down, expanded or someway modified, whatever took its place could continue use of that sewer tap. This, they viewed, was not a new hookup. Thus, when a single-family home and a take-out ice cream stand was demolished and a McDonald's restaurant built on that site, no new hookup resulted. i Therefore, no application was even re- i quired. This procedure prevented the Commissioners from even being able to consider whether the new building would < increase the sewer discharge or in some j other fashion affect the sewer system. i When a large bank and office complex was i built on the site of an old store, despite the < store being closed for at least ten years i and thus not contributing to the sewerage < flow, the Commissioner viewed that no ] new hookup was involved. Therefore, no s application was filed, no review was made by the Commissioners and no considera- i tion was given to the effect of the increase t to the sewer plant. s The Grand Jury finds that this policy £ and practice is improper and ill-advised. r This policy prevents the Commissioner I from properly and completely reviewing 1 the effect of a change to the use of its sewer r lines and plant. The quantity and quality of f the discharge from a new customer could r affect the system adversely to the rest of the customers. Moreover, the Commis- n sioners are losing their ability to monitor s the system. t] (e) The Grand Jury finds that there are ti guidelines or procedures for the N establishing of rates to be charged for the tl

sewer service. Although single-family homes are all charged one flat rate, approximately $75.00 per year, it is the business and major users that need structure in the setting of their rates. When an owner converts an old home or building into a business, the Commission sets a newrate. However, they have no system or procedure for setting the rate. They just arrive at a figure using guesswork and common sense. Michael Vistenzo admitted that the fee structure does not make sense. Naturally, depending on the type of operation, i.e. restaurant, store, laundromat, usage would vary and therefore rates should vary'. But that apparently is not the case. Rates set 30-40 years ago would not be reviewed when the type of user changed. Rates were raised but only. a percentage basis, the same as everyone else. This became a problem in reviewing the K & E plant situation. The plant was deemed a-majoiu«r Jn fact, the closing of K & E is the basis all the Commissioners and others use arriving at the opinion that in mi(M963 the sewerage treatment plant Vcouw handle additional flow. However, everyone admits that their opinion was formed on the basis of information and figures supplied by Michael Vistenzo. They all relied upon Michael Vistenzo as they did for practically all other informa^ti&i regarding the Sewerage District. But there are serious questions regarding the accuracy of Michael Vistenzo 's information. Michael Vistenzo states that there was a sudden drop in gallonage flowwhen the plant closed. However, the plant closed in September 1980. Why did it take three years to determine there was room for additional sewer hookups? Furthermore, the flow charts do not indicate a change in flow during that time period. Michael Vistenzo claims that the K & E plant was using 60,000 gallons per day. over half the design capacity for the plant. Michael Vistenzo admits the treatment plant was overloaded then, but does not say to what degree. He based the sewerage flow estimate on the water usage meter, set by the Water Company to measure water consumption. Thus, what is taken into the plant must equal what is discharged by the plant. But. when confronted with the figures from the Water Company that showed the plant was using approximately only 2,000 gallons per day, he then asserts that the plant had its own well in addition. He then based his water estimate on information from a former K & E plant employee. The Grand Jury is of the opinion that using the above K & E plant story as a basis for determining that there was plant capacity in September 1983 is fjy-fetched and unsupported. For the other Commissioners to blindly accept Michael Vistenzo as authority for the K & E plant's sewer usage was irresponsible. Returning to the rate setting problems, the rates charged the major users are apparently not consistent with their own usage in view of the Commissioners' understanding of the K & E usage. The K & E plant, supposedly using 60,000 gallons per day, was charged approximately $2,000 per year. At the same time the Hospital was being charged approximately $5,000 per year. The Water Company estimated the Hospital's water usage averaged approximately 32,000 gallons per day. The Hospital yas charged twice what the K & E plant was charged but the Hospital only discharged half the flow. Yet, Michael Vistenzo claimed he examined the Hospital's water bills and thus was of their water consumption. The other major users; the County buildings and the Murphy Mart shopping center complex^ were charged-$4,800 and $4,600 respectiyelyrMichael Vistenzo was aware of the gross underbilling of the K & E plant yet took no steps toward correcting the (f) The Grand Jury finds that the Commission has not conducted proper, organized meetings. In the past, the Commissioners have met on an erratic schedule and at no specified location. They have met at the Secretary's home, the Building office and the Township Hall was no agenda utilized at the meetings. The Commissioners were not inof the subject matter of the meetings beforehand. Therefore, again examining the crucial meeting of September l, 1983, CommisWestcott had no information as to purpose of the meeting or the matters be reviewed. This was so even though Vistenzo set up this meeting for " specific purpose of reviewing and con-

r sidering two major applications, the first ones in over twelve years. How were the » Commissioners expected to be able to decide such an important issue without j having the time to review and evaluate the materials? However, the Commissioners were not the only ones kept in the dark about the [ meetings, in particular the September l. 1 1983 meeting. The Commission has not I complied with the Open Public Meetings Act. No annual notice was given to the newspapers in 19R3. Hie records do not reflect notice being provided the previous j years. Only notices were sent regarding . special meetings for rate increases or receipt of bids. The Minutes themselves do • not state that notice was given, a violation itself." » A serious problem arises with special meetings, which the August 10 and September 1. 1983 were. Though Michael Vistenzo states he told the Secretary to send the notices, no notice was published Reviewing the time frame in that the meeting was scheduled on only approximately one week's notice, and the papers printing schedule, a weekly paper at that, Michael Vistenzo knew that published notice would not have been given. Furthermore. the matter was not urgent and of such importance that a special meeting had to be called. Michael Vistenzo stated the meeting was scheduled for the convenience of the one applicant. Furthermore, no notice was provided following the meeting. The Grand Jury finds that the violations of the Open Public Meetings Act were not done knowingly and intentionally. The lack of organization and professionalism appears to be the cause of the violations. The Solicitor did continuously advise the Commission to comply with the notification provisions of the Act, but no one acted further in determining that there was compliance. The failure of the Commission to comply with the public notice provisions raises the public's suspicion about the integrity of the Commission. Such behavior undermines the public's faith in the ability of such a public authority to operate legitimately and effectively. Therefore, the Grand Jury publicly criticizes the Commissioners and its Solicitor for their failure to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act. ' B PROPOSED .EXPANSION OF THE SEWERAGE DISTRICT From all the testimony and evidence received, the Grand Jury finds that the Sewerage District Commissioners lack appreciation for the problems created when they reverse their long-standing position of not permitting additional hookups to the sewer system and grant approval for two substantial proposed projects. As set forth previously, many others had been seeking permission for years without success. A shopping center was spending thousands to alleviate its overflowing septic problems and was requested to be given priority consideration by the Health Department. Yet, for unclear reasons, two unconstructed projects received approval. Irrespective of the operational problems set forth in the previous section, the Commissioners' recent actions have raised unnecessarily the aura of favoritism and impropriety. It must be noted that the Grand Jury finds no criminality involved with any of the parties involved in this matter. Nor does there appear to be any impropriety involved in so far as the applicants are involved. It is the manner of operation and behavior of the Commissioners that brought forth the aforesaid aura. The coincidental relationship of the various applicants does, by hpman nature, add to the aura. The only private hookup permitted for ten years was Dr. Chandry's medical complex. That was previously owned by William Tozpur and David Kenas Tozour-Kerr Custom Builders. Apparently they filled the land to make it buildable. It then obtains a connection into the sewer system. Magnolia Associates is the owner of the land on Magnolia Drive. TTus land, ideallysituated in downtown Cape May Court House, has been undeveloped for years; one reason being the low lying nature of the ground as it fronted on Crooked Creek. Magnolia Associates entered into/an agreement to purchase the land on r„ebrua.7 18' 1983 and se'Ued on Jjne 3, 1983. Magnolia Associates thereupon (Page 22 Please) ^ J