According to a ruling from administrative law judge Steve R. Darnell, representatives of the City of Smithville will be able to participate in a rate-review hearing scheduled for the morning of April 4 at the county complex on Congress Blvd.
In an unusual move, since these hearings are usually held in Davidson County, the state Utility Management Review Board (UMRB) has announced plans to hold the hearing in Smithville.
The decision means city representatives of the city will be allowed to voice concerns over the proposed DeKalb Utility District water treatment plant along with DUD ratepayers.
Customers of the DUD and city officials will be able to to address the UMRB on how the proposed plans for a DUD water treatment plant could impact city water ratepayers and DUD ratepayers.
Attorneys for the DUD have come out in opposition of allowing city officials to participate in the hearing.
The hearing was petitioned by a group of DUD customers to review the rates charged and services provided by public utility districts.
In his ruling, Darnell found that the city, as well as DUD customers, would be affected by the project, and should therefore have a part in the proceedings.
“Smithville's motion (to be allowed to participate) demonstrates the disposition of this case may, as a practical matter, affect Smithville's interests. The factual issues asserted by Smithville are intertwined with the petitioners                                   (DUD customers) assertions. Finally, Smithville's participation will not render the hearing unmanageable or interfere with the interests of justice and the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceeding. Accordingly, Smithville's motion to intervene should be granted without restriction,” Darnell wrote.
The DUD’s representation includes local attorney Keith Blair and Dewey Branstetter, a Nashville attorney hired to help represent the DUD before the UMRB.
City Attorney Vester Parsley and Jason Holleman of Jones, Hawkins & Farmer, PLC of Nashville will represent the City of Smithville at the hearing.
In Darnell’s finding he declined to consider whether it is a conflict of interest for Branstetter's firm to represent the DUD  in the hearing because of a potential conflict of interest.
The judge said, however, that he could not rule on that matter.
In his order, Darnell's wrote that:
“The issue of a conflict of interest has been raised concerning the Branstetter firm's representation of the respondent (DUD) in this proceeding, and also, the Tennessee Association of Utility Districts, of which Smithville is a member. This issue is not a proper consideration in determining whether to grant Smithville's motion to intervene. No motion to disqualify the Branstetter firm is pending before the undersigned (Darnell).
“It is noted that if there is a conflict, it may exist regardless of whether Smithville is permitted to intervene,” the judge continued.
“The parties are referred to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility for guidance on this issue. If either party believes this to be a legitimate issue, guidance should be sought immediately to avoid delay of this hearing.
“It is therefore ordered that Smithville's motion is granted and Smithville shall have the right to participate in this hearing without restriction,” Darnell concluded.