Board closes in on R&Rs, by-laws amendment

SEELEY LAKE –Seeley Lake Sewer District Board received public comment on their attorney’s denial of a citizens petition, discussed their proposed Rules and Regulations (R&R), worked through a final draft of the by-laws and approved an interlocal agreement with Missoula County at their Sept. 19 board meeting.

In public comment, District resident Franny Trexler read a letter to the board regarding her frustration with the way District Attorney Jon Beal handled a petition for a referendum she turned in to the Missoula County Elections Office. The petition sought to have an election on whether to repeal or keep the Board’s resolution that mandated sewer connections.

Trexler was frustrated that Beal tied her and her petition to the ongoing lawsuit against the District filed by Don Larson. Beal’s response to the petition was to file a Request for Status Conference in Larson’s lawsuit where he accused Trexler of being a surrogate of Larson.

In Beal’s request for the status conference, he accused Larson and his surrogates of attempting to circumvent the Court’s authority with petitions to the elections office. Beal and the elections office had denied a petition filed by Larson’s attorney several weeks before Trexler’s petition was submitted.

In Trexler’s letter to the Board, she claimed that she has never met Larson and lays out the reasons for her decision to start the petition process. Trexler was introduced to Larson at the meeting.

Trexler explained that she felt the requirement for the District to obtain 140 plus signed User Agreements would be a clear way for the people of the District to have a say in the project. Trexler helped collect over 180 signatures on a letter to the Board asking they not mandate connections but said that the board ignored it. By mandating connections, the board was alleviated from collecting User Agreements.

Another issue Trexler addressed was that Beal claimed she had no standing to file the petition because she doesn’t own land in the District. Trexler said the constitutional right to address issues through the referendum process is to the electors, not to the property owners. She is a registered voter residing within the District and therefore felt she has the right to file the petition.

The Board did not respond to Trexler.

Rules and Regulations Hearing

The District opened public comment on their R&R last month and published a draft on their website.

Jim Erven with the Missoula City-County Health Department presented suggestions from the Health Department. They suggested that the exemption for level 2 septic systems installed within the last five years be taken out of the mandated connections section.

There are only two level 2 systems in the District. One of those belongs to Board President Pat Goodover and is more than 5 years old and the other is Rovero’s. Erven explained that Rovero’s system puts out 9-12 houses worth of wastewater and, even though nitrate is being reduced with the level 2 system, it is a significant source of nitrates that should be connected.

The Health Department was confused by was the exemption from the mandatory connections for unbuildable or vacant lots. Erven said it seems unnecessary because if there is nothing to connect, it shouldn’t be mandated to connect.

The Health Department also suggested language be added to make sure septic tanks were properly abandoned. Landowners cannot use their old septic tanks for anything and they must be pumped and either crushed or filled in. The cost of abandoning existing tanks is included in the collection system budget for Phase 1.

There is some confusion over rates because most of the R&R reads like the District would be charging based on Volume Ratio Units (VRU). Some sections also reference charging additional fees for going over the VRU. This would require the District to be tracking actual water used and then constantly comparing it to the VRUs assigned to the property.

Director Beth Hutchinson felt that using actual water use would be a better method because it would be more fair for people who use very little water such as senior or single resident households compared to the higher water users. There are less than 50 of the 500 lots in the District that don’t have a metered public water service.

Director Mike Boltz agreed, saying that under the VRU system his hotels would be charged significantly more than Rovero’s but his hotel uses less water.

Another issue with charging based on VRU is that seasonal property would pay a higher rate all year long.

Board President Pat Goodover asked District Manager Jean Curtiss to look at developing a rate based on actual use.

The Board recessed the hearing until next meeting so that Curtiss could make adjustments to the R&R based on the board and public comments. Curtiss will update the District’s website seeleysewer.org when she gets the amendments completed. The hearing will be reopened at the next meeting, Oct. 17, to continue discussion and consider adoption.

By-Laws update

For the last several months a committee consisting of Directors Walt Hill and Hutchinson and District resident Rachelle Harman has been working on revising the by-laws that haven’t been updated since the District was formed in 1993. Beal and Goodover then revised the committee’s draft. The Board spent nearly two hours of the meeting combining the two drafts into a final draft.

Article IV Section 1. Purpose of the District and Article VII Section 14. Duties [of the Board directors] generated the most discussion.

The committee’s version of the Purpose of the District was “to maintain and provide a healthful environment for present and future generations” and “to supervise wastewater treatment within the District in the most responsible and technologically reasonable and economically affordable manner.”

The revised version had several sentences pertaining to the history of the District and defined the nitrate problem in the groundwater. It then went into its purpose being to design, construct, install and maintain a sewage treatment plant and collection system to solve the groundwater problem.

Hutchinson felt that the purpose should be more flexible giving leeway to make modifications without having to go back and amend the by-laws. She felt that the revised version was more goals oriented and wouldn’t be durable going forward. She explained that the committee’s version allowed the District to accomplish the goals laid out in the revised version.

Goodover felt the committee’s version left too much up for interpretation because there is no way to know what the most responsible, technologically reasonable and affordable system would be tomorrow or that the system that has taken several years to design still fits the version when it is constructed.

Hill motioned to remove the history part of the revised version and go with the remainder. The motion passed on a split vote with Hutchinson voting against Hill, Goodover and Boltz.

The draft revised by Goodover and Beal added a section in Article VII Composition and Responsibilities of the Board of Directors called “Section 14. Duties.”

Citing MCA 2-2-103(1) the section states in part that “Board directors, staff members, volunteers and any individuals appointed to committees of the Board owe attendant duties of loyalty, trust and competence to the District and the Board in carrying out the purpose and intents to the Board’s duly adopted resolutions and/or ordinances.”

The section 14 goes on to state that those people “must place the best interests of the District and the Board above their own competing best interests and personal beliefs when carrying out the purpose and intent of resolutions and/or ordinances that have been duly adopted by the Board. Any action taken by an individual to interfere with, delay or otherwise prevent the Board from pursuing its duly adopted resolutions and/or ordinances may constitute a conflict of interest and a breach of the individual’s attendant duties of loyalty, trust and competence to the District and the Board.”

Hutchinson felt that most of the section didn’t need to be in it because what the MCA is sufficient. She questioned how the “best interests of the District and the Board” was determined. She felt that the section also restricts the relationship between Board members and their constituents.

Goodover asked Beal for his thoughts on why it was included.

“I think it’s important to have it in there for a couple of reasons. One, it sets forth the specific statues and the concepts that are embodied in the case law interpreting those for a board of directors. It also encompasses the concept that the board only acts through resolutions or ordinances and it reaffirms that the boards actions will be consistent with that irrespective of personal beliefs,” said Beal.

Beal went on to say that it was his opinion that the Board has already made the decision that a sewer needed to be constructed for pollution abatement and to protect the public health and safety.

The Pathfinder questioned who determined what was best for the District and Board and if this section would mean that directors on the losing side of a split vote would be in violation of the by-laws.

Goodover felt that it wouldn’t impact directors ability to disagree on issues but that once a decision was made they should all move forward supporting the vote of the majority of the board.

Beal explained that the Board’s vote to pursue constructing a sewer had already been done though a resolution. If someone actively thwarts the Boards ability to act on their resolution to pursue the sewer system it would not be in the best interests of the District or the Board.

“If they get a whole new vote or something. Or all the board members are all killed in car wrecks and you get a whole new board and then the Board votes and does a resolution or ordinance and says we aren’t going to do sewer works anymore, we’re going to build Ferris Wheels. Then that’s the will of the Board you have to pursue,” said Beal. “But until there is a different resolution that’s approved, the purpose and intent of the Board and what must be followed by Board members is to pursue the best course of action to construct those sewer works.”

“To what extent are we taking away the agency of an individual who is on the Board to disseminate their own personal opinion?” questioned Hill. “I just don’t want to infringe on that right.”

After further discussion Goodover, Hill and Boltz voted to approve the section as written while Hutchinson opposed.

The Board worked though the whole document line for line and will consider adopting the final draft at their next meeting.

Interlocal Agreement

The Board signed an interlocal agreement with Missoula County to continue receiving assistance from the county including but not limited to office space, administrative duties and survey work at no cost. The county agrees to sell or trade a surplus vehicle to the District and will provide backup sewer plant operators for a set price of $3,000 up to 100 hours and by the hour beyond that.

The agreement reaffirms the terms of a $110,000 loan that was given to the District in 2011 and must be paid off by Jan. 1 of 2022. The agreement also confirms the $100,000 for subsidizing operation and maintenance was a grant.

The agreement now goes back to the county commissioners for approval before it takes effect.

The next regularly scheduled meeting is Oct. 17 at 5:15 p.m. at the Missoula County Satellite Office located at 3360 Highway 83.