Seeley Lake Sewer
SEELEY LAKE – The Seeley Lake Sewer District Board covered a wide range of topics at their July 16 meeting. They signed a resolution recommitting to move the project forward while considered a different method of financing, discussed appealing the denial for attorney’s fees in the lawsuit against the District and reconsidered the annual fee assessment methodology. The District also received an invoice from Beal Law Firm for nearly $15,000 for the lawsuit filed and then withdrawn on behalf of the District against newly elected President Tom Morris and Director Jason Gilpin.
District Manager Jean Curtiss explained that the Board’s agenda had two seemingly opposing resolutions on it. Directors Pat Goodover and Walt Hill presented a resolution stating that the Board was recommitting to completing the proposed sewer project. Vice President Beth Hutchinson presented a resolution to send the project to the voters, something that both Gilpin and Morris previously stated they support. Curtiss said the opposing items generated some calls from funding agencies that are nervous about the commitment of the Board to complete the project.
Curtiss proposed a resolution that included the Board recommitting to installing the project but also included scheduling a meeting with bond council to learn about the funding and consider a bond election to finance the project instead of the approved assessment bonds to more equitably spread the construction costs.
Curtiss explained that by recommitting, the Board would ease the funding agencies concerns and the District can continue to work toward getting the project to bid. Simultaneously the District could be researching how passing a bond election could save on the cost of constructing the system as well as redistributing how the properties are assessed.
Hutchinson felt the compromise was sidestepping the issue. She explained that three of the current directors were elected based on their opposition to the project for various reasons. She felt that putting the project in the hands of the voters would give the electorate a voice and then the choice to move forward or not would come from the people, not from a couple of directors.
Morris agreed that ultimately the people are in charge of the government and an election would give that power back to the people. However he also felt that exploring the idea of a new bond election and moving the project along might also give time to solve some of the other funding issues.
Goodover moved to adopt Curtiss’s resolution. Hill, Morris and Gilpin joined Goodover in voting for it while Hutchinson voted against it stating that she was concerned about the recommitment part of it.
The Board scheduled a work session to learn about options with bond counsel for July 28 at 6 p.m. via Zoom.
Lawsuit attorney fees denied
On July 8, District Court Judge Leslie Halligan denied the District’s motion to award of attorney’s fees against Don Larson, whose case was dismissed in May. Curtiss said it was her understanding that the costs were being covered by insurance. The Board has not received a bill from Attorney Jon Beal.
Curtiss asked the Board if they wanted to schedule a meeting to discuss appealing the denial of attorney’s fees. While there was no formal vote, both Hutchinson and Hill said they didn’t support appealing the decision. Morris and Gilpin regularly recuse themselves from any decisions relating to the attorney.
Annual Assessment method
The Board discussed the annual assessment method because it is becoming apparent that there is a significant amount of opposition to it. A pair of very vocal landowners who were present at the meeting said they were out gathering protests. Curtiss said the District has already received several.
Goodover questioned if it the Board should have a second option ready in case the first one failed.
This year the Board voted to use the market value to spread the assessment. This method lays a huge burden on the more expensive properties in the District, namely the lakefront properties.
There are approximately 80 lakefront properties accounting for just 16% of the total properties in the District. With an estimated average of $1,500 in tax burden each, those 80 properties will be paying about 56% of the District’s budget next year under the market value method.
Because the District has a deadline in September to get the tax information to the county there is very little time to go through another public notice process.
The protests for the market value method are due on Aug. 3. The Board voted to schedule a special meeting for 7 p.m. that night if it looks like the protest will be successful. This would allow them to get a second method published a week earlier.
The proposed second option is a combination of every dwelling and every commercial property paying an equal amount. The vacant land would pay based on its acreage.
Beal Law Firm invoices
In other business, the Board voted to approve all the invoices except for the legal invoices from Beal Law Firm.
Morris yielded the floor to Hutchinson, since one of the invoices presented was for the suit filed against him and Gilpin. The lawsuit was attempting to prevent Morris and Gilpin from taking any action against the proposed project.
Hutchinson asked former President Goodover if he would speak to the attorney bills.
“It seems as though virtually nothing on that particular set of bills was authorized by the Board. And yet the attorney is referencing [Goodover] as having authorized a goodly amount,” said Hutchinson.
Goodover explained that that the Board had authorized him to be the point of contact for the attorney so anything that was being done was run through him.
Hutchinson felt that the contact point was simply to be a conduit between the Board and the attorney. She felt the invoice shows either Goodover or Beal initiating ideas and then Goodover going along with them without the Board voting on them.
Hutchinson moved that the Board hold off on paying the invoices and moved that she and Goodover be on the committee to go through the invoice before the next meeting.
Goodover, Hill and Hutchinson voted in favor of holding off on paying the invoices while Morris and Gilpin recused themselves. Morris joined the three in voting in favor of the committee consisting of Hutchinson and Goodover while Gilpin recused himself.
The Board did not discuss the details of the two invoices however they are available at https://www.seeleylake.com/home/customer_files/article_documents/sewerbealinvoices.pdf
The first of the two invoices was for the Board’s “General Business” totaling $6,930.30. This includes a past balance of $583.80, reviewing contracts, researching laws relating to mandating connections to the sewer, work on the Pine Drive easement and costs associated with the Firm’s resignation as the General Business counsel.
However, the invoice also includes some things that appear to be more related to the subject of the second invoice, the lawsuit against Morris and Gilpin. This includes researching if Board directors who go against the proposed sewer project can be held personally liable and researching conflict of interest issues related to Morris and Hutchinson being voted in as president and vice president being that they are “opposed to [the] project as designed and approved.”
The second invoice from Beal Law Firm totaled $14,385.45 for the lawsuit against Morris and Gilpin.
The very first line item dated June 4, 2020 reads, “Review Goodover email with attached thoughts on SLSD Board declaratory judgment complaint he wants filed before the 6/15 board meeting.”
Morris and Gilpin were seated at the June 15 meeting.
The invoice has several references to Goodover authorizing the lawsuit and even ends with a $38 charge for “Factual research regarding all communications with Pat Goodover from May 4, 2020 to date to document his instruction and authorization to prepare and file the Declaratory Judgment action on behalf of the District.”
The May 4 reference in the invoice suggests that the idea of suing Morris and Gilpin was floated even before the pair won in a landslide election over two opponents who were vocally more in favor of the proposed sewer.
The invoice also sheds light on when the other directors were notified of the lawsuit. On June 16, four days after the lawsuit was filed, there is a charge for a telephone conference with Goodover discussing if he should provide complaint to Hutchinson and Hill for input before Morris and Gilpin were served.
The next day the Pathfinder learned of the lawsuit through a court record search and sent an email inquiring as to when the Board authorized the lawsuit. Charges from that day show that Goodover notified the other directors of the lawsuit and he began discussing dismissing the lawsuit with the attorney.
The Board voted on June 22 to withdraw the lawsuit.
Visit seeleysewer.org for notices and agendas.
Reader Comments(0)