GEORGE KENNEDY: Conversation about sewer bond is slow to start

Thursday, October 31, 2013 | 4:18 p.m. CDT

For months now, Bill Weitkemper has been waging a one-man struggle to start a public conversation about how best to repair and pay for our sewers. It’s too late for much conversation before next Tuesday’s vote on that $32 million sewer bond issue, but it seems to me that Bill’s argument deserves at least a last-minute hearing.

You remember Bill, don’t you? He ran a valiant but losing race last year for the Columbia City Council from my ward, the fourth. His most memorable campaign talking point was an insistence that the city is giving owners of major apartment complexes and office buildings an undeserved break on their water and sewer charges. I thought, and still think, that he makes a lot of sense.

He certainly has the credentials, having retired about a year ago as supervisor of sewer maintenance for the city.

If the bad news is that his critique hasn’t gained much traction, either in the council campaign or the run-up to our bond issue election, the good news is that he has attracted the attention of a couple of our most active council members, Barbara Hoppe and the guy who beat him last year, Ian Thomas.

I spent some time with Bill on Tuesday, including — in the spirit of full disclosure — a free lunch as a guest of the Cosmopolitan Luncheon Club, a congenial group that meets in the club room of the Hy-Vee supermarket on Nifong Boulevard.

Bill worries that we’re getting ahead of ourselves with this bond issue, which is projected to raise a typical household’s sewer charge by $3 a month over the next five years. He doubts that the work to be paid for will achieve the goal of satisfying the state Department of Natural Resources.

The DNR has ordered the city to reduce substantially the amount of groundwater that infiltrates the sanitary sewers and overwhelms the treatment plant in periods of really wet weather.

The problem Bill sees is that much of groundwater — 65 percent by his estimate; 50 percent in a Public Works Department study — gets in through cracked pipes on private property in the oldest sections of the city. The bond issue money will pay for upgrades to the city-owned pipes but not those on private property.

Bill argues that the DNR issue should have been resolved before the bond issue vote. David Shorr, who used to head the DNR, is handling negotiations for the city.

David Sorrell, engineering manager for Public Works, gave me the results of the city groundwater study and pointed out that the department already has a program underway to replace old sewer lines on private property by reimbursing property owners for the work. He expressed optimism that the groundwater problem will be reduced significantly.

I also asked Mr. Sorrell about a $4 million piece of the bond issue that gives me pause. That’s to pay for extensions of sewer lines out to Midway and to the new Battle High School to accommodate future growth. Are we going to recapture that money from the developers of that future growth, I asked. His answer boiled down to “maybe.” History offers no ground for optimism.

Bill argues that passage of the bond issue will preclude the critical examination of policy that we need. Ian Thomas, who favors the bond issue, assured me that on that score at least, optimism is warranted.

He and Ms. Hoppe intend to raise with city staff the questions Bill is asking, he said. “I am open to some of his points of view.”

He added, “There hasn’t been enough time to get the conversation up to speed before the vote, but I’m intent on having that conversation.”

Ian’s position is that the problems of an aging sewer system in a rapidly growing city are so severe that they must be addressed. He also thinks that the language of the bond issue is broad enough to allow some flexibility in case some of Bill’s argument proves persuasive. Defeating the bond issue, he believes, would mean delay and higher cost.

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Cosmopolitan Club, former Fourth Ward Councilman Jim Loveless, a club member, made the pitch for the bond issue. Sewer repair is “a public health issue,” he said.

He pointed out that there is no organized opposition to the bond issue.

Bill responded, “I’m not very well organized.”

Maybe not, but his persistence serves us well.

George Kennedy is a former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism. He writes a weekly column for the Missourian.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Michael Williams October 31, 2013 | 5:40 p.m.

George: Karl Scala wishes that all new developments pay for their own infrastructure even though someone else had already paid for HIS infrastructure when he bought HIS house.

I've decided to support him on this issue.

Hence, if the problem is mainly in the older sections of Columbia, the affected citizens should pay for this upgrade in the entirety.

And their next road surfacing, too.

Leave everyone else out of it.

After all, what's good for the newer goose is good for the older one...........or somesuch.

PS: Which means, of course, we don't need a bond issue unless the affected folks wish to float one on their own. Works for me!

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin October 31, 2013 | 7:03 p.m.

MISSOURIAN REPORTER SAYS: Local issues are "mundane crap"

"Questions about costly city sewer billing problems...are 'mundane crap' according to a Columbia Missourian reporter with 12 local news stories under his journalistic belt."

(For those who might wonder why the conversation about the sewer bond is "slow to start".)

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 1, 2013 | 7:44 a.m.

@ Mike Martin:

Good point. This "highly experienced" young journalist and his opinions serve to remind us, regardless of our chosen occupation, of an old and very true saying:

"First you need to know something before you are able to realize how little you really do know."

I can't think of any situation or occupation where that would't apply.

(Report Comment)
Bill Weitkemper November 1, 2013 | 9:42 a.m.

“David Sorrell, engineering manager for Public Works, pointed out that the department already has a program underway to replace old sewer lines on private property by reimbursing property owners for the work.”

I was not aware of that program. I was aware of the program where the city will enter into financial assistance agreements with responsible parties that have been served with a notice of violation. Under these agreements, the city will abate the violations and the responsible parties will reimburse the city for the cost of abatement plus interest at four percent (4%) per annum.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.