The mayor of Durbin who had a man go around and condemn several properties was an original litigant in the infamous sewer battles of Durbin. He had an old hotel that just kind of disappeared! Why won't he pay his sewer bill like the others!!! What a hypocrite!

THANKS TO THE INNER LAYER FOR THE INFO!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Use Control + to read

From Drop Box

From Drop Box

I could not read the letter from Frank. Can you redo it or give a summary? Also, after getting the password for e-tater, where do i enter it? I am unable to bring up the page. thanks

Do as I say, not as I do. There go I, the Mayor of Durbin.

Will, so did he pay the delinquent charges or not?
Did the town re-inverse him for the delinquent amount?

because he said he was not ask to connect by the town of durbin. was anyone of the others asked to connect, so he changed his mind in the case according to his own statement in the above letter he signed and sent to the PSC. aganist the case he proposed.
Frank needs to explain to the town of durbin why.

Leaders lead by setting an example. Frank cannot ask you to do what he himself will not do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Maybe Frank did not know the proper procedures at that for the Town. Was this place condemned before he purchase it??? Did the Town make him pay or did they reimburse???? Lots of if and an's still in the wind.

This is classic "Take care of number 1" BS! Frank is a hypocrite and that's the bottom line! Now he has his puppet running for mayor (yeah, you read that right Sue, PUPPET!!!!) so he can rule for a few more years! A vote for Peck is a vote for Proud and the SSDD!

Well know the real truth a vote for Paul Ransom is supporting Bill Grimes and his crap stirring and keeping the town government from working. Don Jennings will just get mad a quit again plus he supports his friends the druggies. I would rather have Donald Peck.

If Donald Peck is elected mayor, will he run the town like he did Durbin days? After all, if somebody works that hard its ok to put some of the money in your pocket, right?

Peck at least knows about the Town and does try. For what ever reason you are accusing him of stealing, wheres the proof. I am not saying he does not have his faults, don't we all. He just needs to think about things a little more before he put them out in the public. So yea Peck would get my vote. He has been on the council for several years, he does know about the town, and thats what it takes. To put some one in there that does not know things , would be like the
blind leading the blind. Not saying the other person is not a good person, but he has not lived here long enough to know the ins and outs.

Does Don Peck know what a contract means or does he go to Frank Proud who even knows less.

The real question is not about contracts, but do the board members ( as your name states) know the Town ordinances. At least two did not know the one ordinance on the video. That is a must if you are a council member don't you think?

Was the old hotel occupied? Was there any water usage?

There was no water usage at the hotel nor at the other unused places , the owners of which the town sued for sewage bills .It is a mixed up story which the PSC or the Supreme court should have looked into. Mr.Proud was both a plaintif and a defendent, You cannot get a clear report from an official. I understand that the poster who tries to be the enlightened one is neither a town official nor a resident.

Check out the PSC cases His case did not go anywhere, except to be included in Nottinghams case.
The PSC case # 05-0087-S-C was combined with the orginal Town PSC cases. He was never giving a new case number. So what ever ruling the PSC made for all the others also applied to him.

The post is pure ,no doubt, but not so simple:Frank was one of the original signers as a plaintiff when the case was heard at the local court,Right? His activities in this case should have been the focus of a separate case.

Your probably right, but then the PSC has its own proceedings. Since it was all about the same Town and considered
a billing issue, the PSC threw it all together.

Thanks for your polite post: I would like to have seen the rule examined by the Supremes which states that every property owner had to pay a sewage fee unless the building was "condemned". To me,this contradicts the original rule and makes a sort of mockery of it.The Supremes should have sunk their lawyerly teeth into this conundrum .We are told that the sewer is a valuable asset which makes all property worth more:This is true even if the property owner does not use the sewer,because of wintering in Florida , or if the house is vacant during estate procedings, or if the house was simply abandoned. But then comes this confusing rule that if the property is condemned, the utility cannot service it. That I can see ,but why does this cancel the sewage charge? Is the land itself not made more valuable by the sewer whatever the condition of the house.?In Durbin ,one person made haste to have his property condemned, and I suppose got the sewage charge cancelled. Others did not do so because they were unaware of this step. So they must pay, although their property may be also in ruinous condition. Then there are those on septics who also do not use the sewer, but is their property not also evaluated higher because of the sewer? Should they not be assessed too under the same reasoning?I would like to hear your thinking on this. The imbroglio in Durbin seems to be a result of unfair , unequal treatment.Yes , I would like to hear an attorney speak to these concerns.

These decisions came from higher up then the Town, the attorney,or the PSC. The legislature is the law, We may not like it, but that's the way it is. Unless the legislature changes it will continue to be that way.

All WV Codes are made by the Legislature.
The PSC follows the codes. They can not change them. These are all WV Laws.

In order to change it you must file a amendment for change to the WV legislature bill committee requesting specifically what you disagree with. Then it will go before the senate for review.


Below is some of the case information on condemn properties and how it was ruled.

On September 27, 2006, the Commission entered an order remanding this matter to the Administrative Law Judges Division to determine whether Mrs. Nottingham’s property is habitable. The Commission ordered the ALJ to issue a second Recommended Decision, consistent
with the Commission’s order, including a determination on the habitability of the property in
question. Specifically, the Commission held as conclusions of law:
5. The Commission finds that W. Va. Code 8-18-22 does not require a
property to be connected to a municipal sewer system or otherwise be charged for
sewer service if that property is 1) uninhabitable and; 2) not physically connected to
a water source.
6. The Commission finds that an uninhabitable property is one that must have
been condemned for human occupation or otherwise found to be unsafe, unsanitary,
dangerous or detrimental to the public safety or welfare by an appropriate
governmental authority.
Commission Order entered September 27,2006 at 6-7.
On March 30,2007, the Commission consolidated CharEes C. Shomo v. Town of Durbin and and Ms. Nottingham’s
case due to the similarity of the issues involved in the two complaints.
On September 28, 2007, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision dismissing both
complaints. The Recommended Decision concluded that (i) the Town of Durbin is an appropriate
governmental authority to determine habitability of property; and (ii) neither the Nottingham
property nor the Shomo properties have been determined by the Town of Durbin or any other appropriate governmental authority to be uninhabitable. Recommended Decision entered September
28,2007 at 15.
Public Service Commission
of West Virginia
Charleston 2

I read your post carefully and hopefully with understanding. I appreciate your putting it on ETater. Also, Your calm manner is a welcome change from many of the posts about the sewer charges. So many of those writing them were deliberately insulting, accusatory,badly informed. .Utility charges are often surrounded by emotion, I know.As a former official in the waste water Division of PSC said" Sewage chrges are inherently unfair and undemocratic ."He was referring to the fact that a hotel,or other type business who are connected may pay for only one tap,while making many dollars, but another homeowner who has very little use of the utility or is on vacation and the house unoccupied pays the same amount for one tap. But to get back to Durbin, I do suggest that the town or the commission or a group of private citizens ask that the state law be reviewed and reworded.For instance, I do not believe that the town or utility company actually connects to the home or business: It only brings the waste pipes to the edge of the lot and the owner must pay for the pipes up to the connection.Therefore,the utility could not refuse the connection nor make it dependent on a will o the wisp nebulous definition of liveability. . Suppose the resident wanted to live in a tent? Even a house without a roof could be lived in .Or a cave could be lived in or an underground structure. Of course, if it is a threat to public health,the structure would have to be destroyed , but that brings us to the issue of septics.The owner of them pays no sewage bill, but could they not be a threat to public health where houses are close together and near a river?The strange issue of septics as applied to Durbin has been on ETater:They seem to operate under a different law than in nearby towns.This brings me to the final question: Does the town have to charge people for unused sewer taps if they decide not to? How is it that other small towns in the area do not charge utilities for the months that some customers are away in Florida for the winter? The law should be worded to allow this if it is found to be legal.. So I think that the supreme Court should have examined the cases instead of refusing to hear them. In closing, there are many issues not discussed here,but I suggest that it will be years before the sewage problem in Durbin will be even partially solved.

According to the PSC Cases the Town has an ordinance that states everyone must pay. Same Case # as above.
Below is a WV Code, they may help answer some of your questions.

8-16-18. Rates, fees or charges for services rendered by works.

The governing body shall have plenary power and authority and it shall be its duty, by ordinance, to establish and maintain just and equitable rates, fees or charges for the use and services rendered, or the improvement or protection of property, not to include highways, road and drainage easements, and/or stormwater facilities constructed, owned and/or operated by the West Virginia division of highways, provided or afforded, by such works, to be paid by the person using the same, receiving the services thereof, or owning the property improved or protected thereby, and may readjust rates, fees or charges from time to time.

§8-18-22. Connection to sewers; board of health; penalty.
Regardless of whether a lot or parcel is within any municipality?s geographical limits, the owner or owners of any lot or parcel of land abutting on any street, alley, public way or easement on which a municipal sewer is now located or may hereafter be constructed and laid (whether constructed and laid under the provisions of this article or any other provisions of law) upon which lot or parcel of land any business or residence building is now located or may hereafter be erected, not connected with a public sewer, may be required and compelled by the municipality or by the board of health to connect any such building with such sewer. Notice so to connect shall be given by the municipality or by the board of health to the owner and to the lessee or occupant of such building. The owner or owners shall connect to the municipal sewer within thirty days after notice to connect has been sent by the municipality. Regardless of whether the owner or owners connect to such sewer, the municipality may bill the owner or owners of the lot or parcel and the owner or owners shall pay the municipality?s charge based on the actual water consumption on the lot or parcel. If the lot or parcel is not metered, the municipality?s charge shall be based on the municipality?s good faith estimate of the consumption on the lot or parcel.

Now the catch here is the PSC set the rates for the Town, it is 0 to 2000 gallons.

A law depends for it,s meaning on what the judge says:ie "The municipality May -------charge if the sewer goes in front of a lot even if there is no hookup etc . Question: Does the word "may" mean the same as the word "must?"Again, if council passes their own rule that a structure must be built and the sewer actually connected before they issue a bill, are they out of compliance with state law? (does may mean must? )That is the way that some small towns do now and also that is what a former mayor and council did at Durbin. They did not charge unused buildings and parttime residents paid half fees.This was the reality for years Again, were they doing something illegal? It is this reasoning which the Supreme court should have addressed.Can every mayor change what the former mayor did without a good reason? Again, I mentioned that nearby towns do not charge utilities for the month or months that residents spend in Florida. Thus, even a state law is not a perfect answer and can itself cause confusion unless a judge declares what it means. To recognize the name of the post,it must be remembered that Mr. Proud,and others who started this imbroglio by charging for vacant buildings and dilapidated building , got himself , outrageously, out of paying for his own. No wonder tempers flared.Too, he was on both sides of the law suit, which is certainly not de rigueur but was not even mentioned by the Supreme Court.I believe that he should have resigned as mayor while this case was being heard.He used another situation in this sewer saga in Durbin to enrich himself, but that is for another venue.
Since you have evidently studied the conflict in Durbin,how would you handle this case? Would you force the litigants to pay, lower the sewer charges for everyone ,turn the sewer system over to some other agency, if possible, what? I ask these questions, not to be flippant,not to arouse emotions,but with a sincere desire to hear the thinking of an intelligent and fair person. Thank you.

This is what happens in every small town that does not have the number of people to keep rates low. I can see both sides of the ordeal. I can understand the anger and also the law. Nothing about this will ever be easy.

There are always a lot of ifs and ans. What would I do? I have no idea.

Proud was not mayor at the time this took place it was Vance. He fell into the mess, along with most of the current council. From the information I have, Proud tore the building down long before the PSC case was closed.

The sewer ordinance allowed for every building to be billed. The previous Mayors did not follow their own Town ordinance. Therefore the dilemma begins.

There are a few options, that could help or maybe make things worse. The Rates could be changed to exclude people who use 0 gallons. Then the town would be hurting for money. This would only serve to put extra burden on the other customers at a higher rate charge for sewer. The economies at this time and age do not help matters.

The Question here is should the rates remain the same to equal out the same for everyone that owns property in Durbin? OR
Should just the customer that uses the service , pay up to 6 or 7 more dollars extra a month for service.
The Town will lose several customers and therefore the rates will go up for all others. The people have already said the rates were to high now.
Anyway that this is approached will be hard and very difficult to deal with.

What would you suggest to the Town. I would like to hear your ideas.

Pure and Simple , you see the overriding problem, I believe: It is the small number of people, the small number of customers which makes higher fees necessary.The following suggestion has been ridiculed,scorned , but seems to me to be a very reasonable answer: Add more customers by extending the sewer and forming a public service district.Re-examine the houses that were allowed to remain on septics which , using the new membrane system could economically become paying customers. The Huttonsvile district recently was awarded over a million dollars for sewer improvements.Someone could write a grant ,probably free of chargefor Durbin to get such help also. To lower the operating costs and thus the charges to the customers,perhaps you could do this: Send the bills out twice a year as the county does for our real estate tax. That would decrease postage and clerical costs.Also, perhaps the high school busness students could do the billing and bookkeeping as a hands on class also free of charge. This could be worked out with the Board of Education. Another thought which I understand was tried in New Jersey with garbage fees. Increase the property tax on every lot and provide the service without adding fees. The final thought would be to tax all septics for a x dollars a month. While the owners do not use the sewage pipes, they use the soil for decontamination and I hear that when the tanks are cleaned, the untreated sewage goes into the lagoon or river.To close,I realize what a difficulty it is to get a group to change their thinking.It may take years even to get them to talk about it.Just as you have kindly posted the state laws and looked into the town ordinances, perhaps you could find something in the contract or grant papers from the Federal government which made the sewer a reality. Perhaps something was overlooked, or not followed which would provide a partial answer to higher fees. Again, thanks for your calm, yet realistic approach to a serious problem.

You are talking about a major overhaul of the entire sewer plant and system. It was designed to handle Durbin and not much more. Yes they are grants to be got, but some of this would also have to be in loans, and therefore increase rates again.

How far do you think this sewer service should be extended? It could be done, with some pumb stations along the way from Bartow I expect. That might pick up another 80 people. But still the rates would have to increase. There is no simple solution to any of the issues.

All of this would occur extra cost to maintain . Also most of the septic systems are across the river from Durbin, and a couple that will not feed by gravity ( one example of cost for pumps ) It would be a major cost in those connections across the river.

Your reply is wise,is true. Could the town hire an engineer or expert who has installed sewers elsewhere for an opinion, an assessment? It is said that the modern membrane system ,a regional concept used in Tucker county is more economical and efficient than the traditional system.Perhaps it could be utilized for Frank and Bartow.
Thanks for your comments and thanks also for your attention to my post.

Yes, an engineer can be called in an they will do a preliminary study, at no cost. This would include projected cost and probably alternative methods to solve problems. The best solution might be to leave things the way they are, except for repairs or replacement of all sewer main lines in Durbin.

Then again does Frank and Bartow want to be hook to a sewer system. Several have already said leave us out of the Durbin disaster. Durbin has no say over these two little communities. Durbins boundaries are limited at this point
Unless they consider zoning, and I do not see that happening and I imagine there is even a limit to that..

The "study" has been almost completed, or completed, by now. I haven't heard anything for quite a while, but I do know that a study by WVU engineers and an organization from Canaan Valley began a few years back. What were their findings? There must be a report somewhere.

"You are talking about a major overhaul of the entire sewer plant and system. It was designed to handle Durbin and not much more."

You may want to check on this. I have a reliable source that informed me that the plant is easily capable of handling 3 times what it does now. That is, if they keep the storm drains out of the sewer.

To Pure and Simple: To ever include Frank and Bartow into sewerage control from the Town of Durbin, annexation would be the proper term, not zoning. Zoning is a word that is forbidden in Pocahontas County.

MY experience has been somewhat different:Several prominent people in Frank and Bartow want to be on the sewer, because they do not want the expense and trouble which are a part of septic ownership. another point: If the line is extended to their n eighborhood, they must connect to it:There is no choice. .I have heard, that this sore point has come about at JimTown where the Norton sewer is being extended by the request or demand of some residents: Jimtown residents must hook onto the sewer even if they recently installed a septic.I was told this a few months back . Have you heard anything about it? In Mill Creek,homeowners were told that they must hook on to the sewer when it was built. . They could not be made to hook on to the water,Ie they could use a well for water if they wanted to but could not use a septic or an outside unplumbed toilet.That was many years ago, and I was under the impression that it was a state law. You might ask the PSC about this or look at the original Contract from DEpt of Ag. When the Mill Creek sewer was extended to HUttonsville, and then north to ValleyBend, Dailey ,East Dailey and towards Beverly, I do not believe that the fee was raised .Maintainence and expenses apparently did not increase too much .. However, You might ask about it at Huttonsville Public Service District.The office is in the old Mill Creek Bank Bldg located in Mill Creek. Another thought: Several groups have an interest in cleaning the GreenBrier,The Watershed group for one. There is an interest in establishing swimming in the GreenBrier at Durbin, so Parks and recreation might give you some assistance with getting septics off the river bank. I believe that the commission should aid Durbin in this important issue because they are a more stable group, with more gravitas than the council and Mayor,many of whom resign. If the sewer is extended out of the corporation, can it remain under the direction of the municipality? The Commission should know.To close, keep on trying, get ideas from many sources and keep us informed. Thanks.

Air Time, You seem very concerned about the Durbin, Frank, Bartow sewer issues. Instead of all this "Air Time", why don't you come forward to spearhead such a plan?

Why Indeed! My interest is in cleanliness of the area and in making the GreenBrier swimmable again .My efforts are not of the "coming forward" variety, because a low profile seems more efficient and perhaps safer: I have promoted the idea of unincorporating Durbin and letting a more stable group take over the sewer management who will operate it in a scientific and businesslike manner. Nearby communities can be their guide.I have protested the misuse of a gift which was to be used to solve the sewer dilemma in Durbin. I have suggested other groups which could help with grantwriting and funds.and as you know, some groups have offered help.The county commission has not. For my efforts I have been called an assortment of names, , or totally ignored. Spearheading change in Durbin is a difficult task which most of us are painfully aware of.

Air Time,
Are you a resident of Durbin? Maybe you could run for office and make some advancement in governmental procedures.

The Greenbrier is 'swimmable'.

The GreenBrier in Durbin is not listed as safe for swimming due to the large amount of coliform bacteria in the water.Somewhere above Bartow it may be.Thanks for your suggestion about governmental procedures and running for office,but I do not see the council mayor entity as useful in the modern age. Someone needs to talk to the people at cass and see how they became unincorporated.

Cass is a state park.

I wasn't aware that there was a list of unsafe swimming streams.

If you serious about addressing potential sewer contamination to the Greenbrier you should look all the way to Thornwood and up stream a couple of more miles.

The unicorporation issue has been talked about a lot on etater, but nobody has addressed the town about it to my knowledge.

I don't see the structure of Mayor/Coucil government as being bad itself. It has worked for years and continues to work elsewhere very efficiently. I think Durbin has a people problem not a government problem. Some are residents, some aren't. From those I know that are involved, they don't have that different ideas than you say you do. Communication with the Town by those able and willing to help might be welcomed. I would suggest that etater is the WORST place to express your interest.

Cass is an unincorporated municipality which once was incorporated. I am somewhat certain that either the health department, Forestry, DEP or someone can tell you that certain rivers in the "Birthplace of Rivers" are safe for swimming.Many small and larger towns have gone to other types of government for efficiency and economy. Without rancor, I would like you to discuss reasons for Durbin having a mayor and council. With so few people , would not a county government be better?A commissioner told me personally that the only good which we derive from our higher taxes in Durbin are the leash laws and street lighting. Do you know of other advantages? As you may know, leash laws are not enforced and 400- -500 $per month for street lighting is not a useful expenditure. East Dailey and Dailey must be 50 times bigger than Durbin , and have not had any local government , ever. And Helvetia , known statewide, has never been incorporated. I see the government as it exists in Durbin a source of mischief,and tax wasting.Why do you think that it works well? Remember, no rancor. You are probably correct in saying that ETater may not be the best venue to hold these discussions, but what about talking about change at a Durbin council Meeting? A safe venture?I do not think so.Unincorporation was "voted" down by acclammation at one meeting where very few people attended. Most people do not know that it could be an option,and that incorporation causes their taxes to be higher than in Frank, or Bartow. Thanks for your interest in this local matter.Oh yes, remember that Norman posted a poll about incorporation. Unincorporation won 2 to 1.Too bad a question cannot be put on the upcoming ballot where those interested could vote on it. Many may not have access to a computer.

Cass is a State Park. It has been taken over by the state. It is nothing like Greenbank or Bartow, simply unicorporated.

Being 'somewhat certain' that some department can tell us that certain rivers are safe for swimming is much different than saying that the Greenbrier is not safe for swimming. That's how rumors get started.

I didn't mean to say that Durbin's govt. worked well. I meant to say the Mayor/Council form of govt. works well. Like I said, Durbin has a people problem, not a govt. problem.

I don't really care if Durbin is unicorporated or not. I have said before that I will inherit property there one day and will be paying the town fees. Personally, I think the fees will be much higher if a PSD takes Durbin's utilities over. Just look at the water bill over the last few years, it has increased and there is nothing anyone can do about it. It will be the same thing with the sewer if it is run by a PSD versus the Town.

The thing I see is that nobody who lives in Durbin (that I know of, and I have talked to many) wants Durbin to be unicorporated. It seems only the people who don't live there want to cause the problems and fight about it.

Normans poll about unicorporation vs. incorporation is useless. How can anyone justify voting in that poll if they are not a resident of Durbin? If the towns people aren't talking about unicorporation, why should we talk about it?

Only thing I got to say to that is AMEM

There was a post several months ago extolling the area as a place for vacationing, and it contained the statement about the GreenBrier being a place for swimming at the area above Bartow. It was copied from an out of state newspaper.If the health department does not post unsafe places for swimming, they are shirking an important duty. Many do not believe that the sewage situation in the area contributes to a lack of sanitation generally , or un safe swimming conditions, but I take issue with this attitude. I do not know that anyone except Durbin residents took part in the poll. When they tell you that they do not want unincorporation, do you ask them why? Can they tell you what good comes from it? Was the commissioner wrong?Outsiders may be slightly embarrassed about the shenanigans of the town council and thus wish that it would become another form of government.Durbin is still part of Pocahontas County and the state of WV both of which may be considered unsophisticated because of Durbin government. I read with horror a post from someone in Durbin who wrote that Durbin Days and the money it received was only for Durbin, not Frank or Bartow,who should stay out of it. And some bldgs in C ass are privately owned. It formerly had a mayor and council, which somehow became another entity. Ask any old timer. It is possible that a modern form of government may yet emerge in Durbin from one who is considered an outsider(troublemaker). A suspicion of those from elsewhere is an unfortunate characteristic of rural areas such as Durbin. If you have an inheiritance in Durbin would you like to buy some property now? Would you like to see Durbin become a State Park ,like Cass?I would.

Air Time - If you are not willing to come forward for change, then you should change your name to "Dead Air Time". It is hard to follow your advice when you are not willing to lead the effort. You talk about change, but not willing to expend the time to make change happen.

You are right: I would find it difficult to overlook the blistering names which I would be called by those who believe that nothing should be changed.At any rate, I believe that something positive will happen through the efforts of the state or Federal government.

Then quit complaining.

I will complain if that is what you call a bona fide explanation of something which you brought up.