Board Moves to Protest Election

SEELEY LAKE - Calling the bond election “flawed,” the Seeley Lake Sewer District Board took action to protest. At their Dec. 15 meeting, the board also discussed other issues they felt contributed to the failure of the bond including Rural Development’s timetable, the inability of the board to legally distribute information and the Pathfinder’s coverage of the board’s meetings.

Preliminary numbers reported by the Missoula County Elections Office show the $4.4 million bond failed by 49 votes. 137 voted “yes”, 186 voted “no” while 170 of the registered voters did not return their ballots for a turnout rate of 65.59 percent.

The board feels there are several problems with the election and feel they can legally challenge the results. Most of the discussion was centered on who was allowed to vote.

Board member Mark Butcher said he had talked to a person who received a ballot who shouldn’t have while other board members felt people who should have gotten ballots, did not.

The Pathfinder confirmed that at least two people who do not live in the district or own land in the district received ballots. They were confused when they received the ballots but assumed they were in some future phase so they voted.

The board was also frustrated that owners of businesses were not able to vote if the business property was owned under a corporation or other business structure.

Another issue with ownership came up regarding family trusts. In a letter dated Sept. 13 from the Missoula County Elections Office, voters were informed that “trusts” and “corporations” were not eligible to vote.

While “trusts” were still not allowed to vote, trustees who could show ownership were allowed to vote. Landowners who lived outside the district had to be registered to vote in the election 40 days prior to Dec. 13.

The board complained that by the time they learned that trustees could vote, those trustees had only around 48 hours to register.

However, based on the sewer districts tax assessment rolls and the voter registration list, nearly all of the trusts had at least one trustee registered to vote. In fact, only four of the 30 family trust owned properties were not represented. This does not account for a couple of family owned properties that are organized using a business structure other than a “trust”.

Business structures such as corporations and limited liability corporations were still unable to vote as well as the people who owned them.

Of approximately 500 properties in the district, nearly 100 are owned by businesses that were ineligible to vote.

The board asked District Manager Greg Robertson to file an official protest to the election based on these issues.

In addition to the mechanics of the election, the board also blamed the election loss on several other factors.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (RD) letter of conditions, the board was required to gain approval of the voters and landowners within 210 days of accepting the funding conditions.

The district accepted the letter of conditions in August. They needed to complete the debt election in December in order to have enough time to meet the rest of the conditions in the 210 days.

The board said that the short time table didn’t give them enough time to educate the voters. This was complicated when the board was told they could not legally produce any information packets unless it was 60 days prior to the election.

It is unclear whether it was an attorney from the company the board hired to complete the information packet or an attorney from the LOR Foundation that told the board about the 60-day rule. LOR was providing the funding for the information packet. Either way, it ended the board’s ability to produce and distribute the information packet.

The board was frustrated that nobody told them about the 60-day rule until two weeks ahead of when ballots were mailed out. The board had been working on the information packets well ahead of the 60 days. However, the information they wanted to print was not available.

The board was also frustrated with the Pathfinder’s coverage leading up to the election.

The main complaint was that the Pathfinder printed that family trusts couldn’t vote. Board members felt that it should not have been printed in the Pathfinder. By the time the board found out that the county was allowing family trustees to vote, it was too late to print the correct information.

Another issue the board had with the Pathfinder was the printing of the original per month estimates made by RD. The board felt that once those original numbers were printed it was impossible to break in people’s minds.

The board was able to negotiate a significantly lower rate by spreading the cost over the entire district and through subsidies. The new number was also printed in the Pathfinder but board members said voters kept reverting back to the originally printed estimates.

Board members also disagreed with the Pathfinder’s decision to print some of the opposition’s advertisements and letters to the editor.

The next regular sewer board meeting is scheduled for 5:15 p.m. Jan. 19 at the Missoula County Satellite Office located at 3360 Highway 83.