by Hank Brockett
12/6/02
The issue concerns an ordinance requiring residents to pay sewer charges based on above-normal water usage during the summer months. Water Commissioner James Hutton said he noticed earlier this year that the ordinance wasn’t being enforced, and made sure the oversight didn’t happen this year.
That change hasn’t faded with the suntans, however. On the latest bi-monthly water bills, residents can find a rebate ranging anywhere from $20 to $50. The amount marks the sewer charge accrued over the summer.
The savings won’t last, though. After heated debate, the City Council on Nov. 26 voted 4-1 to rescind the rebates and add the amount to next month’s water bill.
At that meeting, it was alleged Hutton told city hall employees to factor in the rebate, without the knowledge of City Clerk Sue Grygiel or council members.
“It’s just a messed up mess,” said Mayor Harvey Taylor to Hutton. “I think you opened up a Pandora’s box and I hope you can close it.”
Commissioner Earl Baker brought up the issue after looking at the latest water bill. The debate escalated, in part because Baker and Taylor said they defended the move earlier this summer, only to see another change without the council knowing about it.
Hutton avoided questions about the rebates at the meeting, claiming only that selective ordinance enforcement provoked the move.
“If you want to deal with what’s on the book, then let’s deal with what’s on the book,” said Hutton.
For example, Hutton said, the lack of enforcement on the previous police residency ordinance set a poor precedent for other city ordinances.
“How can I enforce an ordinance when other ordinances in the city aren’t enforced?” said Hutton.
The ordinance in question is at least four years old, although the exact date of passage is unknown. In fact, Taylor said Monday city staff still has not tracked down a copy of the ordinance.
“I can’t tell you the last time it was billed,” said Hutton at the meeting.
Baker alleges city hall employees were told to factor in the rebates without telling Grygiel, who oversees the employees. He questioned how something like that could happen without her knowledge.
“If you’re not aware of it, how can you be accountable for it?” asked Grygiel.
The nature of the rebates helped in not drawing any attention. Because the amounts were deducted from the monthly water bills, no checks were issued. Thus, the matter never appeared on the monthly bills list for the city.
“It was a big, 007 secret,” said Taylor.
City attorney Mike Cainkar, when asked at the meeting about the issue, said the decision to give rebates probably should have been brought before the council.
“This is like saying, ‘I’m going to do whatever I want,’” said Baker of Hutton.
The problem with the rebates, Baker added, was that they flew in the face of summer water conservation. While some residents, including Baker, cut back on water to save on the sewer costs, the cost of replacing unwatered grass or extra swimming chemicals escalated. With rebates, the residents who used water normally would benefit while the more frugal water users still paid.
“I think we need to take all of the money back that was rebated and decide on it,” said Baker.
Hutton was the lone dissenting vote in taking back the rebates.
The issue will be brought up again at the Dec. 10 meeting, Taylor said. Also expected is a report from consultant Richard Benson, who was asked to examine Braidwood’s code of ethics. He is expected to detail anything that needed tweaking in the wake of the water controversy.
Also, city hall employees have since been told to run all changes through Grygiel before implementation.