His office did not properly record a new owner and diverted the tax payment to another account (thus losing it).  He then sold the property in a tax sale and required 4 times the tax bill for redemption.  At this point it was just an error, easily corrected.

But when the error was brought to his attention (with verifiable proof) he chose to spend the next year fabricating  cause to keep the money.  Outside of government, what he did would be considered criminal.  He was finally FORCED to return the money but not before pocketing a couple hundred for his trouble?? 

 Get all the details at www.firedavidadams.com

The few businesses that fall under their jurisdiction are being raped.  This is the story of one such case:

The owner of 3724 Covenant Rd (the old Piggly Wiggly building) wanted to put a Milano’s Pizza shop in part of the building.  Since a grease interceptor was designed into his plans, he was required to get approval from ERCPSD.  This should have been a rubber stamp process and the work was budgeted at around $5,000 & would take 2wks to complete.  As of today, he has spent over $19,000 and ERCPSD wants him to spend another $20,000 to do their job?  And we have been looking at a mess on Covenant Rd for 6 months.

In march, he started that process.  Though, according to code, the proposed sewer demand was significantly less than that of the previous grocery store and the sewer connection had been in place for over 20yrs,  ERCPSD demanded a $7950 fee.  Further, their engineer, Mr. Way, insisted the sewer line be increased from 4” to 6” (citing non existent DHEC regs), and, counter to accepted plumbing practice, required the grease trap be moved up to the front of the building.

During the week of 3/19, Boozer Utility service dug up the parking lot and performed the requested changes only to find that ERCPSD did not have a 6” tap to connect to.   At this point Mr. Way decreed that the owner was required to make a new tap which required digging up Covenant Rd, crossing a 24” water main, a gas main and 2 major storm drains.  In addition, he wanted Boozer to dig up his previous work and install 4 additional and unnecessary backflow preventers.  He installed the backflow devices but, since the tap would cost  $20,000 in addition to the $20,000 already wasted,  they chose to take the tap issue before the commission. 

At this point you might be thinking, as I did, the East Richland Public Service Commission chaired by Chip Smith of Constan Carwash, was the public advocate as is the Public Service Commission (PSC).  You would be wrong.

Mr. Way is fond of pointing out that ERCPSD is not bound by any code or regulation.  As I will point out, they make their own rules on the fly.  I am inclined to think there should be some standard or baseline to weigh ones own actions against.  If you don’t mind, I’ll use the code & laws enacted by our state to govern public utility providers (Public Service Commission).  By that standard, ERCPSD, fails every measure:

 SC103-71 Purpose. These rules are intended to define good practice. They are intended insure adequate and reasonable service. The utilities shall assist the commission and the ORS in the implementation of these rules and regulations.

Sounds like a good start, I have yet to find evidence that ERCPSD has any such purpose.

SC103-539. Tariff’s Rules and Regulations. [SC ADC 103-539]

 A copy of the utility’s tariffs as filed with this commission and provided to the ORS will be on file in the local business offices of the utility and shall be available for public inspection.

Thus far, this appears only to exist in the minds of ERCPSD employees.  When I first contacted ERCPSD, I was advised to size the grease trap using 25gal per seat and told, if we chose to double the tank size (which we did), we would still be required to adhere to the normal pump out schedule.  Nothing unusual here. That criteria came straight from the Unified Plumbing Code (UPC).  We were later told to use 50gal per seat which must be their private internal standard

SC103-502.10. Tap Fee.

A non-recurring, non-refundable charge related to connecting the customer to the utility’s system which includes the cost of installing the utility’s service line from the main to the customer’s premises and a portion of plant capacity which will be used to provide service to the new customer. Plant capacity shall be computed by using the Guide Lines for Unit Contributory Loadings to Wastewater Treatment Facilities (1972) to determine the single family equivalency rating.

By the UCL (2002), 2724 Covenant Rd. had a pre-existing tap more than sufficient to cover the new use of the building.  As a grocery store (Piggly Wiggly) the loading was rated 3000 GPD.  In it’s new form you add 40gal*40seats=1600GPD (restaurant) +3*100GPD (retail)=300GPD for a new rated load of 1900GPD, 30% less than the previous load.  By my logic, a new tap fee is not warranted and the existing 4” waste line was sufficient according to the UPC. 

ERCPSD billed us anyway, $7,950, for the tap and offered that they had done a study and found ERCPSD fees to be low, if anything.  That statement, which I heard more than once, is interesting because of the 12 sewer districts in our 3 county area, the next highest tap fee is the City of Columbia, $3,950.  The other 10 are all well below $3000.

ERCPSD then had us move the grease trap to the front of the building, citing UPC requirements. A grease trap is a noxious animal, recall the odor you may have experienced at the rear of almost any restaurant.  Why would anyone require it be near your customer entrance?  They first wanted the tank within 3’ of the building but recanted when I complained that the excavation would undermine the foundation.  In fact, the UPC would have the tank as far as possible away from the source for the purpose of allowing the wastewater to cool and therefore allow the grease to coagulate (enabling it to be trapped).  Further, they cited a DHEC regulation requiring the waste pipe be increased to 6”.  According to DHEC’s  Director, Wayne Stokes, that regulation does not exist.  But we complied with all without complaint.

SC103-540 E. Service Pipe Connection–The utility shall be responsible for providing the location for the connection of the customer’s service pipe to the utility’s service pipe or the utility’s main, whichever is applicable, at the utility’s expense, and at no expense to the customer. The utility shall have the right to inspect the service connection to the utility service line at the time of the completion of connection, and the service may not be provided to such connection until the utility inspects the service line.

ERCPSD did not locate the tap and, even now, after the City of Columbia accidentally located it, they aren’t sure where it is or how big it is?  They did inspect and approve our connection but subsequently recanted and requested we dig up the 6” line they had required and replace it with 4” pipe that existed previously.

SC103-555. Service Pipe Connections. [SC ADC 103-555]

A. Utility’s Service Pipe–The utility shall install and maintain that portion of the service pipe from the main to the boundary line of the property being served, public road, or street under which such main may be located. The connection of the service pipe to the main must be made using appropriate wyes, saddles, or other acceptable fittings.

The ERCPSD  asserts that is the customer’s responsibility and their attorney confirms.  They also note that the tap should be made “in accordance with ERCPSD requirements”.  If it isn’t already clear, no one knows what those requirements are and they are subject to change at the whim of ERCPSD.  As well as I can discover, ERCPSD is the only utility in the state, public or otherwise, that makes this requirement.  Most will not allow any private contractor near their main, much less allow them to cut into it?  As a matter of fact, in most cases it is illegal.

These guys are flying by the seat of there pants.  The rest of the world is managed by well publicized regulation, code and practical standards.  As evidenced, East Richland County Public Sewer District is not and they seem to have a history of being accountable to no one.  Common logic seems only to apply as it relates to maximizing their revenue.

Regarding the upcoming public hearing, someone needs to make the case for reigning these bad boys in.  Some day you may find yourself on the wrong side of ERCPSD and their commission