District sued by pro-sewer landowners

Seeley Lake Sewer District

SEELEY LAKE – The Seeley Lake Sewer District Board of Directors learned at the end of their Dec. 17 meeting that a lawsuit had been filed against the District seeking to force the District to construct the proposed system. In the Board’s regular business they approved a letter to be sent out to District landowners and voters with information on the project and the Feb. 23 Bond Election.

District Manager Jean Curtiss informed the Board at the end of her Manager’s report that she had seen a draft of a lawsuit against the District. However, at the time of the meeting the lawsuit had not been served to the District. Curtiss said that after she learned that the lawsuit was coming she talked to some of the Plaintiffs to try and convince them that it wasn’t a good way to move forward but to no avail.

The lawsuit was filed with the court Dec. 15. It lists five plaintiffs by name - Scott Smith, Michael Stock, Robert Skiles, Curtis Friede and Dave Stewart - and then lists “John Doe Plaintiffs A-Z.” The five named are all landowners in the District and the lawsuit indicates the John Does are also landowners but does not indicate how many anonymous plaintiffs there are.

The Seeley Lake Sewer District and John Does 1-10 are listed as the defendants. The lawsuit explains that the unnamed defendants are other individuals who may be responsible for implementing the resolutions that have been adopted by the District Board.

The lawsuit lists multiple resolutions the Board has passed over the years where the Board has committed to moving forward with funding, constructing and mandating connection to the proposed sewer system. The resolution passed this fall abandoning the previously approved funding method in favor of utilizing a bond election is then presented.

The argument is made that, “Despite having adopted multiple Resolutions requiring the installation of the sewer system and requiring all property owners to connect to the sewer system, the Sewer District refuses to proceed with the sewer system project.”

The lawsuit states that the Board must act in accordance with its resolutions and that failure to do so violates state law.

The Plaintiffs seek a Declaratory Judgment from the court to declare that the Board is obligated to comply with adopted resolutions including but not limited to completing the bond election, installing the designed sewer system and requiring landowners to connect within 90 days of it becoming operational.

The Plaintiffs also asks the court to declare that the Board is required to install the system and mandate properties to connect regardless of the outcome of the bond election.

As an additional or alternative action, the court is asked for a Writ of Mandate to bring about the same results as a Declaratory Judgment.

The lawsuit points out that it is urgent to resolve the issue being that a main component of the current funding package the District has secured will expire this spring.

The lawsuit does not address how the District would pay for the project if the bond election fails.

The Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorney’s fees and “Such further relief as the court deems equitable.”

The District’s Bond Council Dan Semmens who was in attendance at the meeting shared his feelings on lawsuits and funding.

“It’s hard to see how a lawsuit is going to result in the authority to finance and it will only eat up time and money and energy and be a distraction in the context of this critical election,” said Semmens. “The other thing it will do is it will stop the funding agencies in their tracks.”

Curtiss said she would reach out again and see if the Plaintiffs would be willing to hold back on serving the lawsuit. Her efforts were unsuccessful as a director of the Board was served the next day on Dec. 18.

The full lawsuit is available at https://www.seeleylake.com/home/customer_files/article_documents/sewer_lawsuit_filed_dec_15_2020.pdf

In its regular business, the Board spent two hours revising the informational letter that will be sent out to landowners and voters ahead of the bond election.

Vice President Beth Hutchinson said she didn’t like some of the threatening language in the letter regarding action the Health Department or the Department of Environmental Quality would take. She wanted to see words like “may” or “might” used in place of “will” to describe future actions from the Health Department or DEQ.

Missoula City-County Health Department Sanitarian Jim Erven said that because there is documented groundwater pollution they are compelled to take action to correct the pollution so the word “will” take action is more accurate. Erven said what steps might be taken are still unknown.

Hutchinson also argued that the draft language used to explain the groundwater pollution was incorrect when it stated that groundwater monitoring has consistently found elevated nitrates “throughout the Seeley Lake community.”

Erven responded to Hutchinson’s concerns stating that there are three test wells that have consistently shown elevated nitrate levels over 15 years. One test well regularly exceeds the state water quality standards. He felt that the problem is well documented and there should be no debate on it.

Hutchison countered that the test wells are not “community wide” let alone even “district wide” because none of the test wells are located in Phase 3 or 4.

The language in the letter was changed to read the contamination has been consistently found in “portions of the District.”

The letter contains basic examples of the tax impact on residential properties worth $100,00 and $200,000 for the general obligation bond. The letter does not contain information on how to calculate the estimated impact on commercial property. Semmens said it could be calculated for all properties by multiplying 0.103 by the taxable value found on the property tax statements. These are always estimates because the total taxable value of the District will change every year.

Another topic that generated a bit of discussion is how to word what would happen to the existing grants and funding package if either the General Obligation Bond to fund the treatment plant or the Revenue Bond to fund the collection system for Phase 1 were voted down.

The Board settled on the following:

“Failure to approve either of the two bonds means the grants and low interest loans obligated to fund the sewer project may be in jeopardy or forfeited. If a sewer system is built in the future, property owners face the prospect of significantly increased out-of-pocket costs. While a community wastewater treatment system is not mandated at this time, if the nitrate levels continue to trend upward from septic effluent, the Health Department and DEQ will need to take steps to address the nitrate exceedances in groundwater.”

The letter has several footnotes that go to supporting documents that will be made available on the District’s website, seeleysewer.org

The next regular Sewer District meeting is scheduled for Jan. 21 at 6 p.m. Check the District’s website seeleysewer.org for information on how to participate.

 

Reader Comments(0)