Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

DeKalb County hearing finds customer notice flawed; majority of commissioners say amended sewer rates meet state standard

DeKalb County Commissioners (District Authority for St. Joe'Spencerville Regional Sewer District) · January 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a contested hearing on the St. Joe'Spencerville Regional Sewer District's amended rate ordinance, DeKalb County commissioners concluded the district failed to provide the statutorily required notice but—by a 2'1 vote—found the adopted rates to be "just and equitable." The dispute centered on missing notice language, contested flow data and a jump in project estimates that could affect grants and bids.

DeKalb County commissioners heard nearly five hours of testimony and public comment before concluding that the St. Joe'Spencerville Regional Sewer District did not comply with the statute's notice requirements but that, on the evidence presented, the rates adopted by the district met the statute's substantive "just and equitable" standard.

The hearing focused on a rate ordinance the district approved that raised charges by more than 5%. Counsel for the district acknowledged the customer notice required by Indiana Code 13-26-11-15 was mailed one day late and omitted the required statement of ratepayers' rights to appeal; he asked the commissioners to waive the defect so the hearing could proceed because a petition had already been filed. "I wanted to start out by disclosing that ... that statutory required notice was a day late and it didn't include the notice to appeal," the district's presenter told the panel.

Petitioners Nucor Fastener and Volcraft, represented by attorney Michael Hawke, filed a formal remonstrance arguing two issues: that the district did not provide the statutorily mandated notice and that, even if notice were cured, the rates were not "just and equitable" as required under Indiana law. Hawke summarized the legal claim: the statute's mandatory language uses "shall" and "must," so the failure to include the required content and timing is not merely technical.

Technical witnesses gave competing financial and…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans