Seeley Lake Sewer
SEELEY LAKE –The Seeley Lake Sewer District Board had a packed agenda for the June 20 regular meeting with topics ranging from bidding schedule and changing the force main route to Rules and Regulations (R&Rs) and cost estimates for Phase 3 and 4. The meeting ran nearly four hours with some agenda items being tabled.
Bidding Timeline
District Manager Jean Curtiss asked that the board to consider changing the bid dates from late this summer or early fall to January. Curtiss explained that a small sewer job in Missoula that went to bid in August received only one bid. They rebid that same job in January and received nine bids and it came in significantly cheaper.
Curtiss said delaying until January would also give them some breathing room to work though all the R&Rs, work on cost saving ideas, work on additional grants, get Phase 2 closer to being ready to go to bid and maybe continue the discussion on a resort tax. She said the District could also have time to consider a mandatory connection ordinance.
Curtiss said the cons of delaying are the loss of momentum and Rural Development estimates that the cost of inflation is about $40,000 every month the project is delayed.
The board voted to change bidding to January.
Easements
The District needs easements across three parcels of land for the force main to head east of the intersection of Cedar Lane and Tamarack Drive to the State property where the treatment plant will be located. One parcel is owned by Missoula County Public Schools while the other two are part of a subdivision with one being common area and the other being a private owner.
Curtiss said an appraisal was done on the private parcel and on the high school’s parcel but not on the common area because she was lead to believe the easement would be donated.
Negotiations on the easement across the private parcel have come to a standstill after the District’s attorney informed the District they couldn’t pay much more than the appraised price. Curtiss said that the private landowner felt the appraised value was not enough and declined to come down to a closer number.
Negotiations across the common ground have also hit a roadblock when the homeowners association requested compensation for the easement. Curtiss said the appraiser who did the other two lots felt that the cost of doing another appraisal would likely exceed the appraised value because the land is not buildable or sellable. Curtiss said without the easement through the private property it was unnecessary to go through with an appraisal on the common area.
The Pine Street easement petition has been submitted to Missoula County. The easement extends off the north end of where Pine Street ends to Cedar Lane. Curtiss said that while the easement could be used for a road in the future the District would use it only as a utility easement. Curtiss said there would be a hearing with the Missoula County Commissioners July 11 to consider the petition (see legal notice).
Force main route
Due to the breakdown in easement negotiations, Curtiss said the District should consider alternative routes, either across United States Forest Service land to the north of the designed route or to follow Locust Lane and Airport Road under Morrell Creek and past the high school.
Curtiss talked to the Forest Service and felt that would be a viable option. However, Amy Deitchler from Great West Engineering, the firm designing the sewer system, said moving the pipe even a short distance to the north will have impacts, particularly on the amount of pressure the lift station must overcome.
The District explored the route up Airport Road in the past and developed a pros and cons list as well as initial cost estimates. Curtiss said the biggest con is the estimated $400,000 in added cost.
Director Mike Boltz disagreed with her saying that in the previous estimates the price range overlapped between the designed route up Cedar Lane and the route up Airport Road. He felt the alternative route would come in closer to the same cost as the other route.
The route change would require an additional lift station. One would still be located near the intersection of Highway 83 and Cedar Lane and the second one near the high school. The two lift stations could be smaller in size than the currently planned single lift station.
The biggest pro of the Airport Road route is that it could be good for the high school, which is not currently in the District. The High School could possibly connect with a gravity pipe to the second lift station. The second lift station could also be used for future development of property on the east side of Morrell Creek.
The board will consider signing the engineering contract to change the route at next month’s meeting.
Annual administrative budget
The board adopted the budget of $95,625 for next fiscal year as it was presented at the last board meeting. The main reason the budget has doubled since last year is due to the District having to pay for a District Manager that was previously provided at no cost from Missoula County.
Assessment method for administrative budget
Board President Pat Goodover pointed out that the resolution to adopt the assessment method was not on the agenda but said the board could add it if all four of the present board members agreed.
Director Beth Hutchinson opposed adding it because she felt that they should discuss different assessment methodologies instead of adopting the proposed one.
Missoula County Public Works Seeley Lake Projects and Operations Coordinator Kim Myre said the assessment methodology has been the same since 2013. It charges a flat rate to property with dwelling units and charges everything else including vacant land and commercial properties based on the square footage of the property.
Myre said there is an issue with timing. She wanted the board to adopt it in March but now it is June and the District will run out of time to have it completed at the August meeting.
Hutchinson was frustrated that the way the board works always seems to put the board in a “crisis position” for making decisions. She eventually went along with adding the item to the agenda.
The board adopted the assessment methodology as presented. This will result in properties with dwelling units paying a flat $154.79 and properties with no dwelling units pay a rate of approximately a third of a cent per square foot, which works out to approximately $137 per acre.
Rules and Regulations (R&R)
Curtiss reviewed the first couple chapters she had given the board last month and presented a draft of the remaining chapters and appendixes of the R&R. The full draft is available on the District’s website: http://www.seeleysewer.org
Curtiss cautioned that the rates and fees in the draft are sample numbers only. Curtiss hopes to have the Operating and Maintenance more dialed in so the numbers can be updated by next month’s meeting.
The board is considering two different methods of charging rates. One system uses an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) that is typically based on how many bedrooms are being serviced by the connection while the other system is a Volume Ratio Units (VRU) that is based on an average of how much water the property uses.
Curtiss said the main goal was to come up with something that is fair to everyone so they are paying for the portion of the system they are using.
Curtiss has left the section requiring mandatory connections in the R&R so the board can continue having the discussion. She said with the extended time for going to bid, mandatory connections could be considered for Phase 1.
If mandatory connections are not required, Curtiss said there would need to be a section that states if your current system fails you will be required to connect and no new or expanded septic systems will be permitted.
Director Walt Hill felt that the board should continue to consider mandatory connections but acknowledged that it would change the tenor of the arguments against the sewer. By hooking everyone up it would reduce the cost to everyone, however, many will not want to be forced to hook up.
Phase 3 and 4 estimates
Estimates for these phases were made public at the meeting. Curtiss and Deitchler both cautioned that these estimates were very rough.
Phase 3 of the collection system is estimated at $8,275,000. Part of the reason Deitchler said the estimate is so much is that there are a lot of long skinny properties along the south shore of Seeley Lake. The estimate includes running individual service lines with grinder pumps all the way from the house near the lake to Boy Scout Road.
Deitchler said combining the service lines for those properties could have significant cost savings. There is also the possibility that the sewer main could be run down a power line easement that is closer to the houses than the road.
Phase 4 of the collection system is estimated at $2,402,000. Possible cost savings for this phase were not discussed at the meeting.
Deitchler confirmed that there would also need to be treatment plant upgrades that are not included in these estimates. She said the upgrades are less than were originally planned.
Hill expressed his frustration that once these numbers are put out they are hard to get back out of people’s minds. Additionally these numbers say nothing about the grant funding that will bring down the actual cost to landowners.
Alternatives to planned sewer project
Hutchinson presented that she has identified four possible alternatives that she would like to see explored.
She handed out a case study for a system built in Christiansburg, Ohio that uses onsite tanks to treat solids and then a community system to treat the effluent.
Hutchinson said being that she was not an expert she suggested the District have a workshop in July and invite representatives from the four companies to come and present on their systems.
Missoula County Sanitarian Jim Erven said that it was hard for him to comment on the alternatives without knowing more details but he said the state has approved a number of level two treatment systems.
Erven explained that those systems do treat nitrates, which is the problem in Seeley Lake’s ground water, but not nearly to the level of the designed sewer system. The designed Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) will treat down to 7.5 mg/L of nitrates while level two systems only treat down to 24 mg/L. Standard septic systems put out around 50 mg/L.
Erven didn’t feel that level two systems could solve the groundwater issue and it would not provide the ability for growth. The Health Department has already put regulations in place that don’t allow any new or expanded growth. The SBR will open up a lot of properties for development.
Deitchler said Great West has looked at all sorts of alternatives over the last 12 years she has worked there and they feel the best possible system has been selected.
Curtiss said that the grants the District has are for building the designed system and there isn’t money out there for fixing systems on an individual basis.
Resident Cheri Thompson was frustrated that the discussion on alternatives always turns to discussion on individual systems and she said there are options for community-sized systems. She felt that the technology has changed and new systems have come out since the alternatives analysis was done in 2012.
After much discussion on why alternative systems wouldn’t work, Hutchinson pointed out that nobody there was an expert on the systems she has found and that was why she wanted to invite some experts to present.
Hutchinson said the designed system is “ungodly expensive” and that other communities have faced similar challenges and solved them in other ways. She felt that getting more information on alternatives would help people accept the designed system if it really was the best choice.
Goodover suggested that individuals should meet with Erven and present him with alternatives. If something looked like it might work to Erven then they could bring it to the board. Residents in the audience disagreed and said they wanted a meeting for everyone to attend.
Hutchinson made a motion to set up a work session with representatives from other systems. Directors Hill and Boltz voted against Hutchinson.
Goodover didn’t vote but said he wouldn’t vote for it because he didn’t think it would change anybody’s minds. People that are against the designed system will still be against it even if it is determined to be the best option again.
Sludge handling
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality reviewed the design of the treatment plant. Curtiss drew the board’s attention to one item to which DEQ recommended they consider options. The currently designed system of sludge dewatering and hauling utilizes roll off containers.
The DEQ letter states that the same type system was selected and used in Manhattan, Mont. but they quit using it after a few years. Deitchler said that Manhattan abandoned the system because it required their operator to wear full Tyvek suits and manually pressure wash the inside of the containers to keep them working properly.
Deitchler said the option is for the District to use geofabric bags but that comes with a higher operating cost of about $60,000-75,000 per year. Curtiss said she just wanted the board to be aware that the current plan would be “asking our employees to do kind of a gross job.”
The next meeting is scheduled for July 18 at 5:15 p.m. at the Seeley Lake Community Hall.
Reader Comments(0)