County interlocal agreement in limbo

MISSOULA – The Missoula County Commissioners briefly discussed the future of the interlocal agreement between the county and the Seeley Lake Sewer District at an administrative meeting Oct. 31. The agreement that provides county resources, including a District Manager, is set to expire Nov. 14.

At the October Sewer Board meeting, Commissioner Jean Curtiss informed the board that they needed to reach out to the county commissioners if the board wanted to continue the interlocal agreement. The board appointed a committee of two board members to initiate the discussion with the county.

Missoula County Public Works Director Greg Robertson reported to the commissioners that as of the administrative meeting neither the board nor any of the board members had reached out either in writing, email or by phone to discuss the matter. No board members were present at the commissioner meeting.

Robertson, who has been the District Manager since 2011, told the commissioners that he had asked on a couple of occasions what the board’s intentions were as to moving forward with the project after the last election. In May voters replaced three incumbent board members that were supportive of the project with three new members that had all previously protested the project. Robertson said the board hasn’t answered how it intends to move forward.

“I’ve essentially stopped work on activities related to start up [of the sewer project],” said Robertson.

While engineering continues to ready the project to go to bid in January and February, Robertson said he wouldn’t restart working on start up conditions until the board gave him clear and concise direction. With the lack of direction and the amount of work to meet start up conditions, Robertson said he thought the bid date would have to be pushed back.

Robertson added that meeting startup conditions is labor intensive and he doesn’t want to spend the time if the rug would be yanked out from under the project.

At the last sewer board meeting, Robertson told the board that he had been advised by the county attorney’s office to cut back on communication with the board due to the lawsuit against the District initiated by Don Larson. Robertson told the commissioners that the communication issue has been resolved. While the lawsuit is still alive, the court denied Larson’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Robertson said he hasn’t really had much communication with the board lately because there hasn’t been anything he’s working on that needed board action.

Commissioner Cola Rowley questioned if Robertson has informed the board of the steps they need to be taking. Robertson replied that it is very clear in the startup conditions as to what steps need to be taken to satisfy Rural Development, the main funding agency.

Rowley asked if it would help for Robertson to recommend actions and motions to the board for their agendas. Robertson said he has reached out to the Sewer District Board President Beth Hutchinson and offered his services but he said she thanked him and said no. In the past Robertson said the district secretary would disseminate any material to the board that required board action.

“The trouble is, from the board you’re getting mixed messages,” said Curtiss. “If I was Greg I’d be sitting back too.”

“Just to sit idly by and watch all this work grind to a halt over dysfunction seems painful,” said Rowley.

Robertson agreed that it would be sad to see the thousands of hours of his time over the last seven years go by the wayside but that he isn’t the one “driving the bus.”

Curtiss suggested that the process might be a bit overwhelming for the sewer board and that the county could maybe lay out some of the options for the board to consider moving forward.

In the end, the commissioners requested Robertson draft a letter outlining some of the options to send to the District board. Without further action from the District and county, the interlocal agreement will expire Nov. 14.

In response to an email from the Pathfinder, Hutchinson, who was not in attendance at the county administrative meeting, expressed her frustrations with Robertson’s lack of work and disagreed with some of his statements to the commissioners. She wrote that the board’s effort to function has been impacted by “Robertson’s personally initiated strike.”

“What conscientious, sincere District Manager would sit on his hands for five months pretending he has no responsibility to pursue simple tasks relating to his job?” Hutchinson questioned in her email.

Hutchinson wrote that she reviewed board minutes and emails from Robertson and couldn’t recall the issue of setting agendas ever coming up in the limited conversations she has had with Robertson.

In June she received an email from Robertson informing her that he wanted all communications in writing because of the drama and history of the District. He didn’t want his words to be “taken out of context or spun for whatever purpose.” The email came just one day after Larson’s lawsuit was filed.

Hutchinson is frustrated with several things regarding Robertson’s actions as District Manager. She pointed out that Robertson has only attended two (June and September) of the last five board meetings. Robertson left both meetings early. He also submitted a schedule to Rural Development without giving the board a chance to review it even though Hutchinson had secured an extension from Rural Development to give time for board review.