The Villages of East Williston and Williston Park had a long-awaited day in New York State Appellate Court in Brooklyn on Monday as attorneys for both villages presented arguments in their protracted legal battle over water rates.
But neither side said they could predict the outcome following the hearing.
“I’m comfortable with how the argument went from the Williston Park perspective,” Williston Park village attorney James Bradley said after Monday’s appellate session.
Bradley declined to comment on his presentation in court, as did East Williston village attorney Jeffrey Blinkoff.
“We argued and we await the decision. The judges had a number of questions and now it’s submitted for decision,” Blinkoff said.
Bradley said he expected a ruling in the case could be issued in four to six weeks.
The Village of East Williston filed its first lawsuit against after the Village of Williston Park board increased the rate it charges East Williston for water from $2.99 per thousand gallons to $3.83 per 1,000 gallons in April 2011.
East Williston won the first round in court in the summer of 2012 when Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cozzens ruled that Williston Park trustees had improperly raised the rates by not holding public hearings on the increase. Williston Park village attorney James Bradley filed an appeal to that ruling in state Appellate Court.
Bradley subsequently filed a response last January to East Williston’s contention in a second lawsuit filed on Dec. 4 in Nassau County Supreme Court that a rate of $4.33 per 1,0000 gallons of water was set “unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously” by the Williston Park Village Board. The state Appellate Court decided to hear both lawsuits together.
In his filing in response to East Williston’s second lawsuit, Bradley said Blinkoff had the right to challenge the procedure followed by Williston Park in determining the rate but not the rate itself.
“The result was a reasonable, fair and equitable system of water rates which provides adequate revenues to support the needs of the water system, including reasonably anticipated future capital expenditures, and distributed the financial burden among the customers,” Bradley wrote.
Bradley said Williston Park had considered criticism by East Williston’s consultant, John Guastella, of the village’s initial rates before setting the price of water to East Williston at $4.33 per 1,000 gallons. William Merklin, vice president for consulting engineers Dvirka & Bartolucci, had originally recommended a rate of $4.41 per 1,000 gallons of water for East Williston.
Blinkoff said in his filing that Williston Park commissioned a report that simply confirmed its decision “to make an economic profit beyond reasonable costs,” including a 12 percent surcharge.
The East Williston lawsuit stated that the Williston Park board rejected offers made by East Williston board members without making a counteroffer.
In June 2012, East Williston Trustee Robert Vella Jr. interceded at a public hearing as the Williston Park board was about to set new water rates with a last-minute appeal for negotiations between the two village boards. A subsequent meeting between representatives of both villages failed to produce a compromise and the rate went up to $4.33 per 1,000 gallons.
Since then, Village of Williston Park Mahyor Paul Ehrbar and Village of East Williston Mayor David Tanner have maintained that they were open to meeting if the other side has something to discuss.
Last month Ehrbar said he had a letter hand-delivered to East Williston Village Hall six weeks ago seeking a meeting with officials to discuss a settlement of two lawsuits. Ehrbar said he received no official response, but Tanner did tell him that Vella would meet with Williston Park Deputy Mayor Kevin Rynne to discuss a possible settlement.
Rynne said he tried to contact Vella but received no response.
At last Monday night’s Williston Park village board meeting Ehrbar said he had again talked to Tanner about possible settlement talks.
Asked about possible talks between the two sides as the appellate court considers the cases, Rynne said, “I see no reason why there wouldn’t be.”
