Today’s mail includes a letter dated November 27 from the Springfield treasurer’s office. It reads:
Pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction Order issued by the Court, the City is prohibited from collecting or attempting to collect from any individual or entity the trash fee. Under the court order the trash fee is suspended and individuals or entities who have not already made payment to the city, are not to make payment unless otherwise ordered to do so by the Court.
In the event that the court does order such payment to be made in the future, the individuals or entities responsible for payment shall not be charged for late payment. In addition, the court order prohibits the City from placing a lien on the property for failure to pay the trash fee.
For individuals or entities that have already paid the trash fee, the court order requires that the City separate the monies paid for the trash fee from all other funds and deposit the monies paid into an interest-bearing account.
Should you have any questions, please contact the Department of Public Works at (413) 787-6260.
At Monday’s Finance Control Board meeting, a Solid Waste Enterprise Fund was authorized. Trash fee revenue received so far will be deposited directly into this stand-alone account, so that the cash can’t be mixed with the general fund.
Requesting the authorization at the meeting, FCB Deputy Executive Director Stephen Lisauskas said, "Any revenue [such as a fee] collected at some future point in time, associated with solid waste management, would be deposited directly into this account, specifically sequestered for expenditure for solid waste management services. If there were ever to be a surplus in this account," he continued, "it would remain in the account and could only be used for that purpose. If there would be a deficit in the account, which the city’s financial projections indicate it would be, that deficit, on a annual basis, would be required to be funded by the general fund."
To the west, news of Judge Constance Sweeney’s November 20 preliminary injunction reached the halls of the Pittsfield City Council. According to Tony Dobrowolski’s report in the Berkshire Eagle today, the council passed an ordinance last month assessing a $70 service fee, as of January 1, 2007, to owners of four-unit apartment buildings. "Several councilors had expressed concerns over the measure," Dobrowolski writes, "because they believed it would be passed on to the tenants of four-unit apartment buildings through rent increases." From the article:
"I will note that I have read the honorable Judge Sweeney’s opinion," [city attorney Richard] Dohoney said. "And there’s some very factual differences from what you folks did here and what happened in Springfield. In fact, to the extent my opinion has changed, I feel more confident in the ordinance that you folks passed based on Judge Sweeney’s opinion."
Councilor at large Tricia Farley-Bouvier, who proposed filing [former city councilor Peter] Arlos’ petition [asking Dohoney to render an opinion on whether the new measure meets the requirements of the law], suggested the city follow the case in Springfield and revisit this issue if necessary.
[Councilor Matthew] Kerwood also suggested monitoring the Springfield situation, but asked the council to go "one step further" and request that Mayor James M. Ruberto and [Public Works Commissioner Bruce] Collingwood suspend the implementation of the service fee for four-unit dwellings until the matter has been resolved and "we have legal clarity."
"The Springfield case is somewhat different," Kerwood said. "But depending on how that case is ruled upon, it could have impact for us here in the city."
The Pittsfield City Council voted last night 9-2 in favor of Arlos’s measure, which includes staying the implementation of the new trash assessment until the legal opinion is rendered.
It is a thrill to live in such a trend-setting city as Springfield.
