Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
B-Y, Yankton Trial Delayed Until December
By Nathan Johnson
nathan.johnson@yankton.net
The trial date set for the B-Y Rural Water District’s lawsuit against the City of Yankton has been moved to December.
The federal case had been scheduled to take place in Sioux Falls Oct. 28.
“They have identified Dec. 16 as the new start date for that,” Yankton’s Community Development Director Dave Mingo told the Yankton City/County Planning Committee Thursday morning.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol adjusted the schedule in court documents filed last week.
“I think all parties involved would like to get in and undertake the activities as soon as possible to work through them. Obviously, we’d have liked to have gone through the process six months ago,” City Manager Doug Russell said. “But we have to work with the system.”
City officials reported last month that a mediation effort with B-Y to settle the issue out of court was unsuccessful.
“We were always optimistic mediation could work,” Mayor Dan Specht said at the time.
Citing federal law, B-Y filed a federal lawsuit against Yankton last fall claiming that its jurisdiction to serve water covers all of Yankton County except for the municipal boundaries of the city as they existed on or before the district’s inception in 1977.
The city filed a response to the lawsuit citing a South Dakota law stating that, when someone within three miles of a municipality that owns and operates a water supply system requests water from a rural water system, the city has 60 days to elect to provide water service.
Dr. Bruce Fairchild, an expert hired by B-Y, has calculated the damages he believes the rural water district and its customers have incurred as a result of the City of Yankton serving 493 customers in annexed areas and 24 customers outside the city limits between 1980 and 2007. In a letter dated Sept. 30, he wrote that Yankton’s actions led to there being fewer B-Y customers, which cost the existing customers in the form of higher water rates. Those damages amount to $2.1 million, which Fairchild adjusted to $3.4 million after adding interest.
Additionally, Fairchild calculates that B-Y has lost $2.4 million in profits during that time — which he said would be $3.9 million with interest.
Dr. Karl Egge, an expert hired by the City of Yankton, has questioned the methodology used in an earlier version of Fairchild’s report, saying the damage calculations were “speculative and arbitrary.” In the earlier report, Fairchild only calculated damages incurred by B-Y customers, and it was Egge’s opinion that compensation for those losses would rightfully have to be claimed by former and current B-Y customers, rather than B-Y itself.
The legal counsel for the City of Yankton asked the judge on Oct. 3 to strike Fairchild’s revised Sept. 30 report from the record because of the new calculation of B-Y’s lost profits after the Aug. 1 deadline for discovery disclosures. They argue it constitutes a wholly new opinion rather than supplemental information, which is still allowed. Alternatively, the city has asked for the court schedule to be adjusted so it can have its own expert respond to the new information submitted by Fairchild.
In other business Thursday, the Planning Committee continued discussions about an as-yet-unreleased study on the possibility of building a sanitary sewer system west of Yankton, a planning document for the east side of Yankton and a subdivision ordinance.
The federal case had been scheduled to take place in Sioux Falls Oct. 28.
“They have identified Dec. 16 as the new start date for that,” Yankton’s Community Development Director Dave Mingo told the Yankton City/County Planning Committee Thursday morning.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol adjusted the schedule in court documents filed last week.
“I think all parties involved would like to get in and undertake the activities as soon as possible to work through them. Obviously, we’d have liked to have gone through the process six months ago,” City Manager Doug Russell said. “But we have to work with the system.”
City officials reported last month that a mediation effort with B-Y to settle the issue out of court was unsuccessful.
“We were always optimistic mediation could work,” Mayor Dan Specht said at the time.
Citing federal law, B-Y filed a federal lawsuit against Yankton last fall claiming that its jurisdiction to serve water covers all of Yankton County except for the municipal boundaries of the city as they existed on or before the district’s inception in 1977.
The city filed a response to the lawsuit citing a South Dakota law stating that, when someone within three miles of a municipality that owns and operates a water supply system requests water from a rural water system, the city has 60 days to elect to provide water service.
Dr. Bruce Fairchild, an expert hired by B-Y, has calculated the damages he believes the rural water district and its customers have incurred as a result of the City of Yankton serving 493 customers in annexed areas and 24 customers outside the city limits between 1980 and 2007. In a letter dated Sept. 30, he wrote that Yankton’s actions led to there being fewer B-Y customers, which cost the existing customers in the form of higher water rates. Those damages amount to $2.1 million, which Fairchild adjusted to $3.4 million after adding interest.
Additionally, Fairchild calculates that B-Y has lost $2.4 million in profits during that time — which he said would be $3.9 million with interest.
Dr. Karl Egge, an expert hired by the City of Yankton, has questioned the methodology used in an earlier version of Fairchild’s report, saying the damage calculations were “speculative and arbitrary.” In the earlier report, Fairchild only calculated damages incurred by B-Y customers, and it was Egge’s opinion that compensation for those losses would rightfully have to be claimed by former and current B-Y customers, rather than B-Y itself.
The legal counsel for the City of Yankton asked the judge on Oct. 3 to strike Fairchild’s revised Sept. 30 report from the record because of the new calculation of B-Y’s lost profits after the Aug. 1 deadline for discovery disclosures. They argue it constitutes a wholly new opinion rather than supplemental information, which is still allowed. Alternatively, the city has asked for the court schedule to be adjusted so it can have its own expert respond to the new information submitted by Fairchild.
In other business Thursday, the Planning Committee continued discussions about an as-yet-unreleased study on the possibility of building a sanitary sewer system west of Yankton, a planning document for the east side of Yankton and a subdivision ordinance.
 |
 |
|
| On This Date (10/10/08) | Bingo Night At Link Auditorium Tonight |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
Not registered yet?
