Birmingham Blues

As Sansou points out below, the Birmingham News reveals today that attorney Bill Slaughter, a long-time advisor to the Jefferson County Commission who also helped craft the Citigroup plan, wrote yesterday’s Commission resolution calling for a non-bind referendum on the sewer system. To call it wordy is just a bit of an understatement. County election officials are now scrambling to redesign the November ballot in the hope that they won’t have to order a separate one (estimated cost $110,000).

The multiple-choice quiz questions are below the fold. Note the effort to blame the entire debt crisis on the Clean Water Act. Just a bit more denial from the Commission and its advisors.

FIRST QUESTION Jefferson County confronts a crisis involving a sewer debt of $3.25 billion that was incurred under court order pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. Which of the following courses of action should be taken by the county? Select One:

Attempt to implement a plan under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy law that would repudiate all or a significant part of the sewer debt.

Default on the payment of the sewer debt and accept the appointment of a receiver for the sewer system with power to raise sewer rates within the limits of the law to remedy such default.

Pay the sewer debt in full by reducing the amount payable from sewer revenues and using various tax revenues to pay a portion of the debt.

SECOND QUESTION The Jefferson County sewer system benefits the entire county by preventing the contamination of streams and assuring the sanitary treatment of waste in accordance with the environmental standards of the federal government. Health and recreational benefits accrue to citizens who do not directly use the system as well as to those who do. Is it fair for only those citizens directly using the sewer system to bear the entire burden of the cost?:

Yes

No

THIRD QUESTION The Retirement Systems of Alabama (”RSA”) has publicized a proposal that calls for Jefferson County to attempt the implementation of a plan under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy law which involves the repudiation of a major portion of the sewer debt and the sale of the sewer system to RSA.

(A) Since lowering the price to be paid by RSA will increase the remainder of the $3.25 billion in sewer debt that must be repudiated, what is the price that should be paid by RSA?:

$1 billion or more but less than $2.0 billion

$2.0 billion or more but less than $3.0 billion

(B) Should there by any restriction on the subsequent right of RSA to sell the sewer system to a private company?

Yes

No

(C) Should the county require indemnity from RSA or any subsequent purchaser for future liability arising under federal or state environmental laws

Yes

No

This entry was posted on Friday, August 15th, 2008 at 7:36 am and is filed under Local Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.