Watchdog group, councilwoman express concern over utility sale

SUSSEX BOROUGH — Even if the residents of Sussex Borough approve a referendum on Nov. 4 to sell the borough's water and sewer utility to Aqua New Jersey, one councilwoman said the borough will still have a contract with the county Municipal Utilities Authority.

First, Councilwoman Linda Masson presented and explained the history of the SCMUA's contract with Sussex Borough, beginning in 1992, and she said the borough would be financially obligated if anything goes wrong with Aqua or if Aqua decides the system is not profitable.

Masson also expressed concern that Sussex Borough will not benefit if additional water/sewer users are added.

She said the sale has “nothing to do with health and safety issues; it's all about money.”

Masson also said being financially obligated to the county MUA leaves the borough in a dangerous and vulnerable position and that makes it a dealbreaker.

Jim Walsh of Food & Water Watch spoke of “cash-strapped communities” that are pushing to privatize their water systems in order to avoid higher taxes. He said due to loss of local control, service typically becomes worse, there is less transparency, and rate increases are controlled by politically appointed BPU officials.

Walsh said that President Nicholas Asselta was appointed to the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) by the former Gov. Jon S. Corzine.

Walsh also expressed concern of the water being used for fracking and the possible contamination of the watershed.

"We are a small town trying to run a big business," Councilman Salvatore Lagattuta said. He also said no one on the council is trained in running a water and sewage utility.

Mayor Jonathan Rose spends more than 75 percent of his time running the utility. Lagattuta said the borough, while fortunate to have Rose as mayor and administrator Mark Zaschak to help run the utility, the borough could find itself without someone able to efficiently run the utility.

While he said he would prefer the borough keep the utility, he said there are major concerns, such as the $3.4 million which will need to spent within the next five years to upgrade equipment.

There may be other unknown expenses such as: capital projects in the future and unfunded state mandates. Some known expenses range from both dams — Lake Rutherford and Lake Colesville — needing repair: Lake Rutherford and Colesville, valves, and sewer pipes.

He also said the details of who actually pays SCMUA are still being discussed

"The rates will be the rates; it does not matter who owns it," Lagattuta said. "The big question is can we afford to continue to run the utility?"

While he said there is concern about private ownership, he held firm in his believe that selling the utility will be in the borough's best interest.

"We did not knock on Sussex Borough's door," Asselta said. "Sussex Borough solicited us."

Aqua has bid on the utility in both 2013 and 2014.

Asselta repeated that Aqua NJ will not raise the base rates for five years.

Finally, Asselta said he hopes more people will come out on Oct. 28 for the next public meeting.

During the public comment, residents were concerned about what would happen if Aqua NJ went bankrupt, and whether the council had researched other communities.

Chet Decker said he would feel better if the council had gotten someone else's input who had been a customer of Aqua NJ. He said the “decision sounds like a lifetime decision."

Others commented about Asselta's political connections with the BPU allowing him to cut deals on rate hikes after the 5-year moratorium.

Asselta explained that the rate process is “long and arduous,” and the rate payer advocate looks out carefully for the customers.