Seeley Lake Sewer
SEELEY LAKE – The Seeley Lake Sewer District Board hammered out the final details of the Rules and Regulations, approved an opinion of probable cost for operating the system, adopted most of their bylaws revision and discussed a variety of other business at their four and a half hour long Nov. 21 meeting.
The new “worst case scenario” monthly estimate is $130.58 plus $2 per 1,000 gallons used for properties assigned one Volume Ratio Unit (VRU), equivalent to a single family house.
Rules and Regulations Hearing
The Board made minor edits to the R&R draft that was available the District’s website ahead of the meeting but spent significant time discussing the System Investment Fee (SIF) (formerly Plant Investment Fee) for the latecomers and building “over-density” on lots currently in the District.
Every lot in town is going to be paying off $7,153.85 in debt from the original construction of the treatment plant. On top of that, property in Phase 1 will be paying off $8,553 in debt for their collection system. As phases are built, each phase will have a debt associated with it depending on how much is borrowed for construction.
The basic concept for SIF is that when a new property is annexed, a property is subdivided or a property is developed beyond its current use or density, the developer needs to pay for their share of the debt based on what they are adding. Vacant lots are figured as having one Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) per lot.
Another issue with adding EDUs is that the District is required by law to make sure the capacity is reserved to serve the existing District before anything can be added. If the new development will exceed the capacity of the system they will be required to pay for the upgrades in addition to the SIF.
Landowner John Richards questioned what it would cost for him to put a 48-unit apartment building on his lots that are located in Phase 1 of the collection system. Because Richards’ six lots are currently each allotted a single EDU, he would have to pay for an additional 42 EDUs at $15,706.85 each due to being “over-density.” The system would also have to be evaluated to see if additional capacity would need to be added at Richards’ expense.
Richards didn’t think that was fair because a 48-unit apartment building was his intention with the property for years. Curtiss countered that if they let him take up that much capacity of the system then it wouldn’t be fair to the homeowner who would be paying the same for their single EDU.
Richards questioned how an existing four-plex in Phase 1 would be charged. District Manager Jean Curtiss explained that because of the way the Notice and Protest was done, if it was on a single lot it would only pay a single assessment of $15,706.85. The same is true for a high waste producing business sitting on one lot. On the opposite side of the spectrum there are some houses or businesses that sit on two or more lots and will be billed debt for each lot.
Curtiss said the Operating, Maintenance and Repair (OM&R) cost is set up to address the actual usage better than the debt service by charging a Base Rate using a VRU conversion table. A single-family residence would pay a single base rate while a four-plex would pay four times the base rate regardless if it were preexisting or constructed after the sewer is built.
The VRU table in Appendix B of the R&R lays out how many times the Base Rate all the different types of uses on properties will be charged. Single-family residences are one VRU and businesses’ VRUs are based on a variety of things such as number of seats in a bar, square footage of retail stores, number of rooms in hotels and number of children in daycares or schools.
The Board voted to approve the R&R with four Directors voting for it and Director Beth Hutchinson voting against it. Hutchinson stated that she voted against it primarily due to it including mandated connections.
OM&R and Administrative costs
Curtiss presented the board with an updated Opinion of Probable District administrative and OM&R costs
The District administrative costs cover the operation of the Board including secretarial, bookkeeping, legal, office supplies, water testing and insurance. The total $27,875 per year will be billed equally to all properties within the District as a Benefited Property Charge. Curtiss rounded the cost per property up to $5 per month.
This Benefited Property Charge will replace the current administrative fee that is billed through property taxes at $154.79 per year for properties with a dwelling unit and a price per square foot for properties without dwelling units that amounts to approximately $140 per acre.
Curtiss explained the reasons this budget can be significantly lower than it is currently is twofold. Her wages as District Manager would no longer be billed through the administrative costs and the $29,000 per year reserve is eliminated. Her job would be billed to grants as administrative costs that are already included in the cost of the project and the treatment plant operator would perform the duties of the District Manager.
The OM&R costs cover the actual cost associated with treating wastewater including one full time treatment plant operator wages, 240 hours of backup operator wages, 200 hours of collection system operator wages, utilities, sludge hauling and disposal, short-lived assets fund, office expenses and other miscellaneous expenses.
The total OM&R is estimated at $227,508 per year and will be paid by properties that are using the system as a Base Rate. The first year of operation will be subsidized with $50,000 from the District reserves and $50,000 from Missoula County leaving $127,508 to be covered by users.
Curtiss said the worst-case scenario for the first year’s Base Rate would be $70.84 per month per VRU if shared by 150 VRUs. That number goes down to $51.83 per month if 205 VRUs were paying. Curtiss gave the range of VRUs based on the high and low estimated VRUs for Phase 1.
Curtiss said if Phase 2 could be built at the same time it could reduce the first year’s subsidized Base Rate down to $30 per month. She has been talking to Steve Troendle, Community Programs, Montana State Office of the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD) but no funding offer for Phase 2 has been received yet.
“[Troendle] is concerned that the way it looks right now, it’s a huge bite for Phase 2. The costs are pretty darn high,” said Curtiss.
Curtiss said Great West Engineering is currently working on details of Phase 2 and she hopes that cost estimates will come down.
On top of the base rate, users would be charged $2 per 1,000 gallons based on the user’s water meter. Users without a water meter would be estimated using a VRU conversion table.
Using Curtiss’s worst-case scenario and the maximum debt service cost approved, a house in Phase 1 would pay $70.84 Base Rate plus $54.74 debt service plus the $5 Benefited Property Charge for a total of $130.58 per month plus actual usage at $2 per 1,000 gallons.
Curtiss estimated that these costs would be starting in 2021 so that gives the District some time to work on finding funding to continue the subsidies and funding to help people who can’t afford it.
The Board voted to adopt the Opinion of Probable Costs for OM&R with four Directors voting in favor and Hutchinson abstaining. Hutchinson stated that she wasn’t for or against it but wanted more time to review it.
Alternatives to the proposed project
Last month 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.
Curtiss contacted funding agencies and Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) representatives to discuss these alternatives and if funding would be available if they were pursued.
DEQ Environmental Engineer Terry Campbell said that it would be possible to redo the alternatives assessment that Great West Engineering did in the 2012 Preliminary Engineering Report, however, the process could take a significant amount of time. The construction of the system could easily be pushed back a full year. Campbell felt the delay would risk funding agencies backing out.
Hutchinson questioned if a full assessment would need to be done or if a ballpark analysis could be done without delaying the project.
Campbell said if the District did it internally it could possibly do so but in his opinion the funding agencies are getting very agitated with the unprecedented length of time the project is taking and he reminded the Board that the grants offered were also unprecedented.
Campbell said that the state and RD funding is only available for projects that meet the criteria as public systems. To be fundable, a system must serve at least 25 people for at least 60 days in a year. Small multi family or individual systems are not fundable.
Small cluster systems that meet the criteria for a public system would be eligible to apply for funding, however, the current funding package would go away if the board chose to go that route.
Curtiss said that Troendle agreed that the time limit for the funding was already being pushed and he didn’t think the District would ever get the level of grants that it currently has.
Troendle suggested alternatives for the collection system could be considered for Phase 3 and 4 but didn’t think it was reasonable for Phase 1 and 2.
Campbell recommended that the Board stay on track and at least get bids on the project so they would know what it could be done for instead of just the engineer’s estimate. He agreed that alternatives could be looked at for the next phases as he sees new technology that comes out every year that could be better.
The board voted unanimously to move forward with the planned project and consider alternatives when they get to Phase 3 and 4.
By-Laws update
At last months meeting Hutchinson expressed her concerns for two sections of the bi-laws that had been rewritten by the board’s attorney, going as far as to call the sections “weaponized.” The two sections are the Purpose of the District and the Duties of the Board of Directors.
Hutchinson explained that she felt the Purpose was weaponized because it was written in such tight focused language that it would require the District to construct the sewer exactly as currently designed in the entire District. She felt the bi-laws committee’s language or even the original 1992 Purpose was adequate and would allow for the system to be built but options could be considered.
Hutchinson suggested that in Phase 4 there were about seven out of 51 lots that really could benefit with a sewer due to high ground water while the other lots are on larger parcels with plenty of room for individual systems. She also took issue with the fact that there has never been any groundwater testing in either Phase 3 or 4 that would suggest they have a problem.
“We need to allow a Purpose that allows us then to make decisions that are appropriate for them,” said Hutchinson. “The new [Purpose] doesn’t do that. It strangles.”
The Board went back and looked at what the committee had written.
President Pat Goodover didn’t like a section of it stating the board would supervise wastewater treatment in “the most responsible, technically reasonable and economically affordable manner.” He felt it was just asking for a lawsuit suggesting that the question of what system was most affordable wasn’t easily answered.
Hutchinson agreed that taking the section Goodover was opposed to out would be fine and the Board voted unanimously to accept the Purpose as follows: “It is the purpose of the District to maintain and provide a healthful environment for present and future generations and to supervise wastewater treatment within the District.”
The section on Duties of the Board that Hutchinson felt was weaponized 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.
“The way the Duties are written out, it’s great for a lawsuit but it is not great for a representative government. We have a responsibility to our constituents,” said Hutchinson.
Director Walt Hill said the term “District” was both the people in the District and the actual property within the District.
“The Board has a fiduciary duty to the District, which includes the people in it, but also includes the purpose of the District to do the things which we are assigned to do. That fiduciary duty is more than taking any segment of or any group of constituents and saying, this is how I feel,” said Hill.
The Pathfinder argued that M.C.A. 2-2-103(1) that is referenced in the duties section reads that the duties are “for the benefit of the people of the state” not for the benefit of the District, a government entity.
After much discussion on whether the definition and use of the word “district” meant the people of the District or the governmental entity, Director Hill suggested that the section be rewritten.
Goodover agreed and moved that the by-laws be passed excluding the duties section and that the Board revisits the section after the committee revises it. The Board voted in favor of Goodover’s motion with Hutchinson abstaining.
Other business
The Board received a request from a landowner who wishes to change their property in Phase 4 to either Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the collection system. The property is adjacent to the northern edge of Phase 2 and across the highway from Phase 1.
The landowner recently deconstructed their house and wants to rebuild it but ran into a hitch. The county will not give them a building permit because the Missoula City-County Health Department doesn’t have records of there being a septic system. The landowner contends that the system was permitted but that the County lost the information, however, they feel like they are at an impasse and would like to continue constructing their new house.
By switching to an earlier phase of the sewer project they hope to convince the Health Department to allow them to continue using the existing septic system until sewer is available. The other option for the landowner is to do groundwater monitoring and engineer a new system. They would rather spend the money hooking up to the sewer than doing that.
Moving properties between phases requires the Board to amend the boundaries of the phases that are technically Sub-Districts by resolution. There are a handful of other properties that for various reasons have wanted to move phases that may be considered as well. Curtiss said that it might be difficult to change Phase 1 because of it having already gone though the notice and protest for the collection system.
The Board agreed to consider making changes to the Sub-District boundaries at next month’s meeting.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Dec. 19 at 5:15 p.m. at the Missoula County Satellite Office located at 3360 Highway 83.
Reader Comments(0)