Wednesday, May 22nd 2013
 

Village approves $20K payment for unbilled railroad maintenance fees

Print
Written by Amy Mayhew
Thursday, October 11 2012

The village is on the hook to ...

HOLLY, Michigan – The village of Holly is digging deep into its pockets again after receiving a costly bill from CN Railroad for traffic signal maintenance fees dating back to 2007.

The matter was discussed during the Oct. 9 Village Council meeting.

“We received some information from CN Railroad with regard to traffic signal maintenance which we had not been invoiced for, for the past six years, unfortunately,” Clerk/Treasurer Cathrene Behrens explained. “The short version is we owe them $19,740 in back maintenance costs for the streets I have listed – Oakland, Broad and Saginaw.”

Because the three locations are considered to be major streets, Behrens said the invoice could be paid from the village’s Major Streets fund which current carries a balance of $186,441.


“They stated they would work with us over time to pay these fees, but they were talking quarterly, whereas we were talking a few years,” Behrens said. “So in looking at our fund balance which is around $186,000, we’re recommending that we just pay it and be done with it and then next year during the budget process, we’ll obviously budget for these costs that we, up until now, didn’t know existed.”

Cathrene Behrens


The transaction, Behrens said, will take the Major Street fund balance to $166,701, still what she considers to be a “good balance” for that particular fund.

Councilman Jason Hughes asked how the track maintenance went unbilled for nearly a decade without anyone noticing, and also asked if the matter has since been rectified so that it doesn’t happen again in the future.

“It was part of the transition when CN bought Grand Trunk, and somehow during that transaction, we were lost in the shuffle on the billing process,” Brian Klaassen, director for Holly’s Department of Public Works said. “That’s the only answer that I got – we sent the supporting documents where they had billed us in the past, but it stopped in 2007.”

Village President Jeff Miller asked Behrens if CN Railroad was willing to give the village any “leeway” on the payment.

“I think the ‘leeway’ they were willing to grant was quarterly versus us paying it now,” Behrens said. “It we pay for it now or if we pay it in three months, the money is still going to come from the same place.”

Village Manager Jerry Walker concurred with Behrens, adding that the village has no choice but to pay it per Public Act 354 of 1993, or that is, the Railroad Code. “The error truly was on their part, however, we really do not have a choice as to whether we pay ot not,” he said. “It’s just how we do it – whether we do it in quarterly installments or if we do it in one lump sum.”

Councilwoman Jackie Campbell’s motion to pay the amount in full was seconded by Hughes. The motion passed 6-1 with Councilman Tom Clark casting the dissenting vote.

Behrens said railroad traffic signal maintenance fees will now become a part of the fiscal year 2013 budget, and all budgets to follow.


Comments   

 
#1 Stacie 2012-10-11 16:20
Hmmm...reminds me of when the Village sent me an extra water bill a few years back saying I had been under billed for years because of a flaw with the old meter and now must pay the difference. At least the railroad was willing to "work with you" to get it paid. I remember being told by someone in the Village office to pay it in 30 days or we'll shut your water off and that I should be thankful we only had to pay a few hundred dollars as opposed to the thousands others were billed. Did I mention we got this "extra" bill a month before Christmas. Sorry but no sympathy for the Village on this one.
Report to administrator
 
 
#2 Ryan Bladzik 2012-10-12 10:30
The odd thing about this issue was the lone dissenting vote by Tom Clark. Throughout the discussion, Councilmember Hughes asked if the core billing problem was being fixed, and Councilmember Kullis asked if dividing up the payments would help with the budget. It seemed clear that everyone understood that the Village had to pay this by right and law.

Yet, with absolutely no questions or other input, Councilmember Clark voted no (which basically said he didn't think the Village should comply with state and federal law and not pay its bills)...
Report to administrator
 
 
#3 C. Rankin 2012-10-13 09:33
I wondered about that, too. But the motion that was on the floor was to pay the bill in full, and in one lump payment, so maybe he wanted to do the quarterly payments, or thought that the council should attempt to find a way to get some sort of reduction of the bill, or credit towards future bills from CN. I mentioned at the meeting that council should try to get some reduction in the bill due to the unusual circumstances, and I hope that effort is made. We aren't going to get any concessions from CN if we don't even ask.
Report to administrator
 
 
#4 Ryan Bladzik 2012-10-13 13:48
@C.Rankin, that may be true about preferring quarterly payments or attempting to get a reduction, but unless council members explain their positions or thoughts when deciding how to vote, there's no way of knowing what they are thinking.
Report to administrator
 

To comment on this article, please register for an account or log-in if you already have an account.

 



Front Page | Community | Sports and Outdoors | Opinion | Education | Holly Express | Site Map
©2013 The Holly Express.
Send feedback to Editor@theHollyExpress.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without prior written permission.