John, thanks for explaining the surplus in this forum. The executive leadership of the MUA is suspect to put it mildly. Mr. Becht was one of the highest paid people in the Healy administration and the most political, not to mention the least competent. Its dissapointing that Mayor Fulop, has forgotten his reformer roots when it comes to the MUA and Mr. Becht. Clearly we can do some much better in the Executive Director position of the MUA.

It looks like there is already work to separate sewer from storm water, certainly by Hamilton Park. Not sure whether the storm water goes into a separate link to the river or just to storm bassins under the park but at least, there is some work being done.

So what to do with the surplus? One idea that surfaced last night would be to begin separating the combined sewer system in areas where storm-related flooding is most severe (to enable rainwater to be dumped straight into the river.) Another would be to accelerate replacement, repair and compliance-related projects for which EIT funding is not available. And yes, some sort of rate cut - at a minimum we should be talking about eliminating rate increases for the near term.


Any discussion about underground storage for storm surge or additional pumping capacity?

Even though I am not in a low lying area, the street in front of me turns into a lake during heavy rain.. with water shooting out of the manhole covers.

Actually, the surplus is due almost entirely to an increase in sewer rates in 2010. Prior to then, the sewer fund ran at a loss and the water fund ran at a surplus and the two more or less balanced each other out.

With the large 2010 increase and subsequent 3.75% annual (automatic) rate increases, the MUA is generating very large surpluses - cumulatively in the neighborhood of $60 million, currently. While the MUA does fund some capital improvements internally (i.e. without borrowing), much of its capital spending qualifies under NJEIT programs that provide loans at 1%, sometimes less - even interest free at times. These programs also occasionally come with partial principal forgiveness. From a capital efficiency standpoint, it makes sense to utilize the NJEIT money when available. So spending the surplus indiscriminately on capital projects might not be the best way to go.

I voted against the increased franchise fee (along with Commissioners Matthias and, initially, Balmir) for several reasons. First, while there is ready acknowledgement among all involved that there is a substantial and growing surplus, there is no immediate plan to curtail it. Grabbing a larger franchise fee with a promise to do a rate study "next year" doesn't cut it, in my book. I felt the rate study should have preceded any change to the franchise fee because by doing it the way being proposed, the higher franchise fee gets baked in to the rate study and it becomes an artificial layer in the rate structure (a "backdoor tax", as the late Councilman Fulop would have declared.)

Second, what was discussed in terms of future rates wasn't a rate reduction but a reduction in the future rate increase. (from 3.75% to 2%.) Without an identified plan for the surplus and absent an imminent rate study, I couldn't support a franchise fee increase.

Finally, as with many things at the MUA, the proposal was presented with little advance notice and a false urgency that it needed to be done at that meeting (October) "so council could vote on it and it would be done before year-end." There is no reason that I know of why it needs to be done by year end. The city budget doesn't get done until well into the second half of the year each year. An informed debate would have benefitted everyone rather than jamming something through in a grab by the city.

So what to do with the surplus? One idea that surfaced last night would be to begin separating the combined sewer system in areas where storm-related flooding is most severe (to enable rainwater to be dumped straight into the river.) Another would be to accelerate replacement, repair and compliance-related projects for which EIT funding is not available. And yes, some sort of rate cut - at a minimum we should be talking about eliminating rate increases for the near term.

There is a surplus because we have more customers. More kitchens and bathroom with the development.

Quote:

Thanks, I had looked but not hard enough...

Looked again and found the numbers in the budgets here:
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/officialdocuments/

If anyone is interested, on top of the surplus money that is now probably going to be paid to the city, JCMUA already pays the city $13 million per year.

This is surplus from JCMUA operations - i.e. the difference between what we pay in water bills compared to the cost of providing the water and sewer service.

One would have thought that some of that money could go into improving the crumbling combined sewer/overflow system and/or water supply.

I don't think it's clear if it's overpayments or if they have just been under-utilizing what they have. This cash should go towards sewer improvements, not a temporary refund.

Is the surplus due to an "overcharge" or just better management?

How do our rates compare with other municipalities?

If they are reasonable, do we want to charge lower rates and possibly encourage overconsumption or leave the rates as is and give a break to the taxpayer?

I think Mr. Thieroff raised a reasonable point, but the people who are categorically insisting that none of this can be used to lower taxes are making a lot of assumptions. It seems that they are more interested in impeding the administration's ability to lower taxes for political purposes.

Quote:

It would be listed in the budget. The 2014 budget should be on the city's website.

Does anyone know where to find the actual figures of how much JCMUA pays the city each year in franchise fees?

The surplus that is now going to be paid to the city is on top of the fees that are already paid every year.

me, falsely accuse someone? no way, no how, the first and last definitions from wikipedia - a slush fund, colloquially, is an auxiliary monetary account or a reserve fund and the term slush fund is used in accounting to describe a general ledger account in which all manner of transactions can be posted to commingled funds and "loose" monies by debits and credits cancelling each other out.

sorry, not returning the overpayment to the rate payers is wrong.

anyway, so, most people have moved on, why not you?



Quote:

Quote:

These constant rate water increases and tax increases have also done wonders for the foreclosure crisis in JC.

The rate is going up another 3.75%, why? The money does not belong to the city, it belongs to the people who overpaid. By the way, the 2,300 people in tax lien also owes water liens. This is wrong. You are trying to demonize people who people up, rescue but then that is the trait of a bully.

Quote:

So you are making the accusation that the City Council members plan to use this money in an illicit/fraudulent manner? Correct my if I am mistaken, but does a "slush fund" in the governmental/political context not imply an illegal use of funds?

Now I know you are sorely hurt after a number of failed campaigns for office, but what is your basis of making the claim that the Council members are going to use this money for illegal matters? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Really sad bunch, you/Yvonne/Fletcher/et als.

agree that the over billing/payment should be returned to those who paid it. the city council is treating the monies like it is their own personal slush fund. even if they were to use the funds to reduce taxes by the same about (which they won't), its not going (back) to those who paid it.

How about using that money to re-line some of our deteriorating sewers? Another would to use it to maybe help pay for a storm surge storage, so we don't get fined to death by the EPA for dumping untreated sewage into the bay during heavy rain storms.

Sewer fees should be used to maintain and upgrade the sewer system.

At yesterday caucus, only Michael Yun and Rich Boggiano spoke in favor of returning the money to the people. Candice asked if tax abated properties pay water, she was told yes. So she said that is good. She is in favor of the city keeping the money. Actually, the information she was given is wrong. Some agreements allow water (utilities) to be deducted from their fees before the city receive any taxes. Public housing has this agreement and it is the reason they pay nothing to the city.

Jersey City council to vote on controversial MUA franchise fee changes

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
November 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Jersey City Mayor will be one step closer to grabbing some of the Municipal Utilities Authority's surplus tomorrow, when the City Council is scheduled to vote on a measure approving the move.

The autonomous MUA, which operates the city's sewer and water systems, is sitting on surplus of at least $44 million, and Fulop wants some of it in the form of increased franchise fees.

The MUA pays the city more than $10 million in annual franchise fees to run the two city systems. Under an agreement approved by the MUA Board of Commissioners last month, the fees, last amended in 2010, would be increased to give the city some extra cash.

Read more:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... chise_fee_amendments.html