Seeley Lake Sewer
SEELEY LAKE – The Seeley Lake Sewer District Board discussed their by-laws update, Rules and Regulations and alternatives at their Oct. 17 meeting.
By-Laws update
Director Beth Hutchinson said she was still frustrated with the edits made by the board’s attorney to the proposed by-laws. She served on a committee with Director Walt Hill and a District resident Rachelle Harman to draft the amendments to the by-laws. She felt that the committee was very careful on how they worded the parts on the purpose of the District, the duties of the board members and that the board members are coequal.
“The document was significantly changed and in effect, two parts of it, at least, have weaponized the by-laws,” said Hutchinson. “If they are weaponized it reinforces the feeling that the majority of the community appears to have of not wanting to be [at the board meetings] because they won’t be heard carefully, they won’t be responded to carefully, they are intimidated and if they want to accomplish anything they have to get an attorney.”
The two sections Hutchinson felt were weaponized are the Purpose of the District and the Duties of the Board of Directors.
The revised version states the purpose is to construct and maintain the proposed sewer to deal with the nitrate pollution in the groundwater.
The committee’s draft District purpose was broader stating that it is to maintain a healthy environment and supervise wastewater treatment within the District in the most responsible, technologically reasonable and economically affordable manner.
Hutchinson didn’t feel that the committee’s draft excluded the District from conducting business but was not written for such a tight purpose.
The entire section on duties of the board that Hutchinson felt is weaponized was added to the by-laws after the committee had finished their draft.
The section states that the board of directors, among others, “owe attendant duties of loyalty, trust and competence to the District and the Board in carrying out the purpose and intent of the Board’s duly adopted resolutions and/or ordinances pursuant to M.C.A. 2-2-103(1) and other applicable law.” The section goes on to state that any action taken against a duly adopted resolution or ordinance may constitute a conflict of interest and breach of the duties owed to the District and Board.
“My obligation is not to the Board per say, it is to the people [of the District] and I am going to sit on that and if it leads to my being questioned about being loyal [to the District and Board] I’ll laugh,” said Hutchinson.
Hill responded that at the September meeting the Board voted on each item in the draft by-laws including these two and the discussion should have happened then and not now. He said the Board should move forward with approving the new by-laws. He felt that the by-laws could be amended in the future if needed.
The Pathfinder pointed out that M.C.A. 2-2-103(1) that is referenced in the duties section states that the duties are “for the benefit of the people of the state” not for the benefit of the government agency a person is elected to oversee.
District Manager Jean Curtiss argued that the section isn’t saying the directors don’t represent the people it only says that once the board duly adopts a resolution the directors should not be out in the public badmouthing the decision or doing things to undermine it.
Curtiss said that if a director wanted to change the adopted resolution then there is a process for them to go through to bring a new resolution to the board that could then be voted on. If passed, the new resolution would be what the board would have the duty to proceed with.
Hutchinson pointed out that she is the only person sitting on the Board who was elected by the people while the rest of the directors have all been appointed by directors that were also appointed. She felt that was the reason they were arguing over who they owed duties to. She acknowledged that they all have the same power and she doesn’t see them as “illegitimate directors.”
District Secretary Felicity Derry clarified that in the past it has been very hard to find people willing to serve on the Board. There were no elections because there was only one person per open position.
President Pat Goodover suggested that the Board ask their attorney to attend the next meeting to get clarification on the issue.
Hutchinson agreed stating that it wouldn’t pass anyway because she would vote against adoption of the by-laws. Board actions require three votes affirmative and there was only three board members present and one on the phone. Under the current by-laws a director can’t vote on the phone.
Everyone agreed to put the by-laws on the November agenda.
Rules and Regulations Hearing
Last month the board opened a hearing on the proposed R&R and took public comment.
Hutchinson was concerned that the Board has not responded to the petition that 182 people signed asking the Board to not mandate sewer connections. She explained that this is exactly what the issue is about, to whom the Board is responsible which was just discussed. For that reason, Hutchinson indicated she would not be voting in favor of the R&R if it includes the mandated connections.
Goodover suggested that since they would need three votes to adopt the R&R they should put it off until the next meeting.
Curtiss said the amendments that were suggested at the September meeting were put on the District’s website ahead of the meeting and that the Board should discuss them and take public comment instead of putting it off another month.
The update includes charging for Operating and Maintenance with a base rate and actual water used for properties that have water meters. Properties without meters or meters that are not up to code would be charged the base rate for the use of the property and a usage fee using Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). It was suggested that for the few homes that are not currently metered, meters could be installed.
A Collection System Investment Charge has been added which is similar to the Plant Investment Charge. These charges are for when a property owner wants to join the District or a property owner within the District wants to subdivide so they can pay their share of the initial construction costs.
Hutchinson questioned if there should be a portion of the Phase 1 collection system that should be paid by future phases as they are connected since they would be using some common sewer mains and be using the main lift stations and force main.
Currently Phase 1 is paying for all of the sewer collection system including the lift stations and force main. Hutchinson also pointed out that a larger portion of the grants was given to Phase 1 rather than the treatment plant.
Goodover said he felt that there were significant changes and he would like to see the amendments all put into one document so they can have a clean copy to consider voting on at the November meeting.
Hutchinson asked what the time frame is for getting the R&R adopted. Curtiss said that Rural Development and Montana Department of Environmental Quality both want to see it completed before the project goes to bid. The District either needs to have the connections mandated or have people voluntarily sign user agreements. The project is planned to go to bid in January.
Goodover recessed the public hearing until Nov. 21 at 6 p.m.
Alternatives to the proposed project
The board was presented with two alternatives to consider. One alternative was to change the currently designed gravity collection system to a Septic Tank Effluent Pumping (STEP) system. The other was to construct small cluster systems using onsite septic tanks for primary treatment and a SepticNET system to treat the effluent.
A STEP collection system uses onsite septic tanks to treat the solid waste and pumps only the effluent to the treatment plant to do the secondary treatment. The currently designed gravity collection system eliminates the individual septic tanks and pumps all of the liquid and solid waste to the treatment plant.
In an email to Goodover, Great West Engineering, the company designing the system, stated that they looked at the STEP alternative in the 2012 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and found it to be more expensive to construct and double the cost to operate than the gravity system they chose.
There are some issues with the analysis on both the operating cost and construction cost.
The original analysis didn’t account for the dealing with the sludge at the treatment plant with the gravity collection system but added the cost of pumping sludge out of the individual septic tanks in the STEP alternative.
Also, the cost of dealing with the sludge at the treatment plant has climbed since the original analysis. Last month the Board approved a contract amendment to redesign the sludge handling to include costly bio-bags. That change more than doubles the estimated operating cost of removing the sludge from the proposed system and wouldn’t be required in a STEP system.
Curtiss noted that they are currently working on some changes to bring down the cost of the new bio-bag system.
Pertaining to the construction costs, the original analysis didn’t account for reduced amounts of surface restoration, as the sewer lines don’t require as deep or wide of trenches. A STEP system could also eliminate the need for as many lift stations.
Amy Deitchler from Great West Engineering was in attendance to answer questions. She said another maintenance issue with STEP systems is having all the individual pumps at all the houses rather than just a couple of lift station pumps.
Shannon Therriault from the Missoula City-County Health Department said the Health Department’s main concern was regarding the groundwater pollution and that the nitrogen is being treated. Since the STEP alternative would use the same treatment plant it made no difference to them how the waste was transported there.
Deitchler explained that the gravity system is fully designed now and to compare apples to apples would require a full design of the STEP system.
Hill felt that a STEP system might be a workable alternative but that with the plan to go to bid in January and the fact that they have already spent more than $300,000 designing the gravity system it wouldn’t be worth reconsidering now. Hill added that any delay to the project is also costing thousands of dollars due to rising construction costs.
Hutchinson disagreed saying that she didn’t think it would take much to go back and do a basic comparison. A STEP system would not need to be fully designed to see if it was worth looking at further.
The alternative using cluster systems and treating the effluent with SepticNET systems would scrap the currently proposed sewer in its entirety.
SepticNET systems treat the effluent to the same nitrogen level as the proposed system, below 7.5 mg/L. The wastewater would be discharged in drain fields located in town instead of pumping out of town.
One challenge identified with this type of system is that it requires land in town that could only be used as open fields. A 5,000 gallon cluster system that would treat 20 houses worth of sewage would require a drain field about a quarter of an acre in size. Per DEQ regulations a full sized replacement field of a half-acre could be required as well.
Deitchler said that at the time the 2012 PER was done, SepticNET systems were not DEQ approved for clusters so they were not considered in the alternatives analysis. None of the DEQ approved level II treatment technologies for doing clusters systems could meet the 7.5 mg/L nitrate requirement in 2012. Therefore, cluster systems were eliminated from consideration.
Goodover questioned if the District were to switch to this new technology and spend four years designing it would there just be another system that was better that they would then have to switch to? He felt that switching to the newest technology could be a perpetual thing and nothing would ever get resolved.
Hutchinson felt that doing cluster systems could be an easier way for future development to come into town because the designed sewer system is basically limited to serving just the existing lots. Developers could design and install cluster systems faster than upgrading the proposed sewer.
Curtiss agreed that these kinds of cluster systems could work for future development but she saw it as more of a solution for outside the District.
Deitchler said another concern is that the required setback from wells to wastewater treatment discharges has recently been increased to 1,000 feet. This could eliminate putting cluster systems on a lot of the land in town where there are wells drilled.
Hill reiterated his concerns about changing the system this late in the game. He is concerned that any changes would cause the District to lose $10 million in grant funding.
Goodover felt that looking at options for getting the cost of the current project down would be the best way to move forward. He agreed with Hill that if the funding package the District currently has won’t pay for an alternative system then they shouldn’t be considered.
Curtiss said she would check on the funding and if it would be available for any of the alternatives.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Nov. 21 at 5:15 p.m. at the Missoula County Satellite Office located at 3360 Highway 83.
Reader Comments(0)