Federal mandates that order the city to spend well over $1 million — but don't come with any money to help pay the bills — eventually could fall on the backs of Haverhill taxpayers.
They include requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce pollution entering the Merrimack River as storm run-off and an engineering study and possible repair of the city's downtown flood wall ordered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Public Works Director Michael Stankovich in March proposed an annual "storm water tax" of $30 to $40 per household to cover costs associated with EPA regulations to reduce the amount of run-off pollution, including toxins, cooking grease and machine oil, that seeps into area rivers through a city's storm drain system.
Stankovich proposed a city ordinance requiring yearly catch basin cleaning and an increased frequency in street sweeping as a way to reduce runoff into the Merrimack River. The cost would be about $580,000 a year for twice-annual street sweeping and to clean all 4,316 catch basins in the city. The storm water tax would cover the cost, Stankovich had said, as well as repairs and maintenance to the wastewater system. In total, the bill would approach $1,083,000, Stankovich said.
The City Council tabled Stankovich's proposal and asked Mayor James Fiorentini to create a Storm Water Management Committee to investigate the EPA regulations.
Neither the council nor the mayor has taken action since, and councilors said they have not re-examined the issue recently.
"I can't imagine the government being upset if we're two to three weeks late," council Vice President Robert Scatamacchia said.
Robert Ward, deputy Public Works director, said the city filed its yearly compliance report to the EPA more than a month ago to show it is attempting to meet the requirements of the new code. He added that the EPA doesn't respond directly to these reports but reviews them for cooperation. He said the federal agency has yet to send specifications of the new regulations.
"We're trying to anticipate what we're looking at," Ward said.
If the city doesn't show progress in some capacity, the EPA could deny the city's storm water permit, Ward said.
Also looming is a FEMA-imposed deadline to study, and fix if necessary, the flood wall that separates downtown from the Merrimack River. The city has until May 2011 to certify that the flood wall is capable of protecting downtown property or suffer the consequences.
On Aug. 13, Fiorentini said, he met with representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA and members of Congresswoman Niki Tsongas' and U.S. Sen. John Kerry's offices. The Corps representatives said the wall is structurally safe right now, but some trees and underbrush will need to be removed after the preliminary study is conducted. Representatives from FEMA stipulated that in addition to the Army Corps' demands, an additional in-depth survey will be required.
Fiorentini said both groups made it clear that no matter what progress the city might be able to show it has made in the past several months, the May 20 deadline is firm.
Last week, Fiorentini asked the council to approve a $44,900 bond to pay for the engineering study that would get the process started, but the council balked.
City Councilor Michael Young opposed borrowing to fund the study, saying he wanted to determine whether the city could use its water supply fund, which stands at $1.5 million acquired through fees paid by property developers.
Young said the ordinance states that appropriate uses of the fund are "(defraying) the cost of maintaining, protecting, improving, developing and expanding the city's water supply system." Using this wording, Young argued, the city would be protecting its water distribution systems downtown by paying for the study through the water supply fund.
"It warrants more research," said Young. "I don't want to see the people of this city go deeper in debt."
Fiorentini, however, called the council's delay an example of putting "politics ahead of the best interests of the city."
The mayor said the full council must act by Tuesday, Sept. 7, or the city won't be able to meet the May 20 deadline.
"Their actions have put the city and all of the businesses downtown at needless risk," Fiorentini said. "I am hopeful that the more reasonable councilors will work this out so that we can go forward and do what needs to be done to protect our citizens."
If the city is unable to recertify the integrity of the flood wall by the May 20 deadline, many downtown property owners are expected to have to purchase flood insurance at government-set rates. Also, if the flood wall does not meet Army Corps standards, the Corps will not respond to assist the city in case of a flooding emergency.
On Wednesday, Young was to present his research to the council's Natural Resources and Public Buildings subcommittee.
Fiorentini, meanwhile, stands by his assertion that the money can't be used as Young suggests. Fiorentini said he sought the opinions of city attorneys Michael Leon and William Cox, both of whom said using the water supply fund would be illegal and that Charles Benevento, the city's chief financial officer, would refuse to sign such an order.
Young, however, said the city has been using the fund for "nonstandard" uses for years, paying for items such as water meters or finding drinking water sources.
"It's no more of a stretch," he said.
Young added that he wouldn't be opposed to bonding for additional costs in the recertification process, but objected to borrowing for something he believed could be covered by the city's own finances.
"If this balloons into hundred of thousands, I may support bonding," he said.
Ward said that regardless of how the venture is funded, getting the study started right away is vital for meeting the deadline.
"We're behind the eight ball," he said. "We need to get going."
Read about the outcome of Wednesday night's subcommittee meeting at hgazette.com.
