|
Interested in writing an Comment Or Article Click Here
 Sacheen Lake sewer dispute in court
April 28 th
By Don Gronning | Of The Miner • April 27, 2011 |
SACHEEN LAKE – Superior Court Judge Allen
Nielsen will hear from attorneys on both sides of the Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water District dispute in Pend Oreille County
Superior Court Thursday, April 28 at 1 p.m. At issue is how a lawsuit to stop the formation of the local improvement district (LID) will proceed. About 115 people are opposing the formation of
the LID, which will access property owners of developed lots in the district $21,580 each and undeveloped lots $14,100 to
pay for the $9.45 million system. They have hired an attorney who filed a lawsuit to stop the formation of the LID. According to the lawsuit, the Sacheen Lake Sewer
and Water District improperly included public roads and government property in the LID. By law, landowners of 40 percent of
the property within the LID must formally object to the LID for it to be stopped. The district contends that landowners of
only 36 percent of the 337 acres within the LID objected. Opponents say that if you exclude a park, highways, and other property that shouldn’t be included,
there are only 259 acres in the district and that they have easily met the 40 percent threshold to stop the formation. They
say that only properties that will benefit from the sewer system should be included in the district. The Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water District commissioners, through
their attorney, will argue Thursday that each of the 115 people should pay a $200 bond for the case to continue, instead of
being able to combine their case and put up one bond. The opponents claim that the formation of the district was capricious and arbitrary. The district answers
that it is not arbitrary if the district gave due consideration to the process, even if the outcome is incorrect. They say
they gave due consideration both when the commissioners voted to establish the district and through the process of seeking
objections. Opponents want the record
expanded to present e-mails and other information that they say show the sewer district commission tried to get the outcome
they wanted. One of the things they
want admitted is a statement from Josh Shelton, who works as a geographic information systems analyst for Pend Oreille County’s
Department of Community Development. Shelton calculated the area for the district that would be included in the proposed LID. According to the statement, Shelton said the overlay
map he developed wasn’t an accurate depiction of the area within the LID due to technical and human limitations. He said he told Sacheen Sewer and Water District
Secretary Sheila Pearman that it wasn’t a “survey grade” document in terms of accuracy. The attorney for the commission wants to limit the record to what
was before the board when they made the decision to establish the LID. The formation of the LID has been contentious all along. The area of the LID doesn’t
include all the Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water District. Opponents say that some property was left out because sewer commissioners
knew the owners would object, contributing to the 40 percent threshold. To proceed, the sewer district needed an amendment to its comprehensive plan to build
the sewer lagoon on land it plans to purchase from the Stimson Lumber Co. north of the lake. The county’s department
of community development issued a finding of mitigated non-significance of the environmental impact of the plan. The department only evaluated the plan, which
didn’t have engineering details of the lagoons. An informational meeting was held by the engineers to explain the plan.
Several nearby landowners vigorously objected to the location of the lagoon, claiming, among other things, that it would devalue
their property and had the potential to contaminate nearby streams. Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water commissioners have long said that a sewer system would protect
the lake and increase property values. The hearing Thursday is only to decide how the case proceeds. If needed, a trial date will be set for later.
Lawsuit challenges Sacheen sewer system LID
|
By Don Gronning | Of The Miner
• February 23, 2011 |
SACHEEN LAKE – A group has filed a lawsuit to stop the Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water District
from forming a Local Improvement District to finance a $9.45 million sewer treatment system.
A lawsuit was filed in Pend Oreille County Superior Court Dec. 16, 2010, according to former Sacheen
Lake Sewer and Water District commissioner Jill Short.
“About 50 percent of the lake is upset with the way this is being done,” Short said.
She said about 100 people have signed on to the suit.
At issue is whether the sewer district should count property owned by the county in the acreage
that is included in the sewer district. The opponents to the LID contend it should not be counted because the county won’t
pay the assessments that will fund a $9.45 million sewer project. Nor will they benefit from the sewer district, Short said,
something that’s required by law.
Owners of a developed lot will be assessed $21,580 for the lot and $14,100 for an undeveloped one
in the LID. Property owners could either pay the assessment at one time or pay about $110 a month for 20 years or a similar
amount for 30 years, depending on what loan the district obtains, district commissioner Perry Pearman said.
“They won’t have to pay anything until they flush their toilets,” he said. The
district plans on having the system in place in early 2013, he said.
That’s not the point, said Richard Prange, one of the opponents. Opponents had a chance to
formally object to the LID. It would not be approved if landowners representing 40 percent of the property within the LID
went on record with their objections.
“We thought we had gained that many,” he said.
But sewer commissioners adjusted the number of acres from 259 to 337 in order to make sure the opponents
didn’t get the 40 percent necessary to stop the LID, Prange said. They did this by including the roadways and easements
and Meyers-Harters Park in the LID area.
After the period for objections passed, owners of about 35 percent of the property in the proposed
LID formally objected.
Pearman said the district got the number of acres in the LID district from Pend Oreille County.
District commissioner Gary Garrett said that it was a proper way to form the LID.
“I’m told that is the way it’s done throughout the state,” he said.
Garrett said he thinks taking the matter to court is the proper way to resolve the dispute.
“It’s an excellent way to go,” he said.
Pearman said he thought the way the district formed the LID was fair.
“It’s not like we’re inventing this,” he said.
The next step is for the attorney for the LID opponents and the district’s attorney to set
up a hearing date, possibly by the end of March, he said.
LID opponents said that the dispute has cost them money. Short said she thinks they have spent about
$10,000 to hire the attorney.
In addition to the fairness, Short said she objects to being included in the LID because she and
her husband have a drainfield system already. She said they paid $14,000 for three holding tanks for their system. She said
the system will last 40 years.
She and her husband, Richard, have asked to be exempted from the LID but were turned down. She said
there are others who have private sewer systems who were also denied exemptions.
Pearman said that the time to put in the system is now, while construction prices are down and the
district can borrow money. He said the district has applied for a 2-percent loan from the state Public Works Trust Fund. The
governor has included the project in her budget, but they won’t know if they’ll get the money until after the
legislative session is over.
If they don’t get the money, they will seek a loan from the USDA’s rural development
fund. That money would also be low interest but would be repaid over a 30-year period.
The Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water District is offering property owners a chance to combine two properties
into one assessment, he said. The properties must be contiguous. That offer expires June 30.
Prange said that if the LID is allowed to stand, it will set a precedent for all future LID proposals
around the state.
“We don't feel that un-served and un-assessed property should stand with equal footing in
a determination of this sort,” he said.
The Miner | Sacheen Lake voters defeat sewer district M&O levy
Sacheen Lake voters defeat sewer district M&O levy
By Don Gronning | Of The Miner
•
SACHEEN LAKE Opponents of establishing a Local Improvement District at Sacheen Lake to fund a lake-wide
sewer system were unsuccessful in turning back the LID but the fight may have cost the district the M&O
levy,
which was defeated at the polls.
I do think that some people not in favor of the LID voted against the M&O, said Sheila Pearman, executive
secretary for the district.
Voters were equally divided, with 82 voting in favor of the levy and 82 voting against it, a 50-50 draw. The
levy
needed a 60-percent approval to pass.
The district was seeking $60,000 with the M&O, which would have been collected at 85 cents per $1,000
assessed valuation.
The district has been around more than 20 years, said Pearman and only a handful of M&O levies have failed.
The latest to fail was in 2009.
We got a grant and filled in our obligations, Pearman said.
This time the grants may be harder to come by.
Well work with whatever money we have left over, she said. It will be a slim line budget next year.
Some activities the district does will not get done, such as maintaining lake levels, beaver control and milfoil
control, she said.
The LID didnt go to a vote. Instead, elected district commissioners passed a resolution to form one. For the
LID
to not go through, owners of land representing 40 percent of the ground within the district needed to formally
oppose the formation of the LID.
According to Pearman, landowners representing 35.8 percent of the land within the district, some 120 acres,
formally opposed the formation of the LID. There are 337 acres in the LID district, Pearman said.
The rules for what objections were counted were specific, she said.
If the written objections werent signed or if they were signed by someone who wasnt the owner of record, they
were not counted, she said. Some arrived late and they werent counted.
The LID will generate $9.45 million to build a sewer system by assessing property owners $21,580 for a
developed lot and $14,100 for an undeveloped one. District commissioners are confident they will be able to
get a
loan so that property owners can pay off the assessments over 20 or 30 years, depending on the loan.
The next step is for the commissioners to formally form the LID at a meeting set for Nov. 18 at the Sacheen
Lake
Fire Station on Highway 211 at 7 p.m.
10/27/10
comment: Random Thought #20:
Did you ever wonder how it got to be the people who upgraded their septic systems and
regularly attended sewer board meetings were vilified as not caring about the Lake, water quality, or their neighbors?
A
possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #19:
Did you ever wonder why current board members
(and their family) assert that they are not public servants and that the general lake population needs tough love, as the
Sewer Board knows what is best for them?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought
#18:
Did you ever wonder why the spouse of one board member said he didnt want to see any corners cut on a lake-wide sewer
system, while his wife said she didnt like that idea when the topic of several cluster systems were discussed as an alternative
option to the higher costs associated with the lake-wide sewer?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random
Thought #17:
If information is power, why are our Commissioners, as usual, withholding the results of the LID vote until
after the election? All the talk of being transparent meant what?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random
Thought #16:
Do you wonder if the eroded banks and flooded septic drainfields, add to the lake nutrients and biomass? Was
that actually caused by Sewer District acceptance of higher lake levels? Do you think that your dishwasher soap causes as
much havoc as the continuing erosion by high water levels?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random
Thought #15:
Do you ever wonder what the payment to Johnson/Sterling accomplishes for the benefit of the Sewer District
ratepayers? What happens if the payments stop? Will the water stay higher even after the October draw down?
A possible
solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #14:
Do you wonder why the committee members who spent
three and one half hours counting the letters of objection, would spend so much energy trying to find ways to disqualify their
neighbors objections?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #13:
Did you wonder
about the Commissioners decision to publish everyones name if they were against the sewer only to later change their minds?
Wouldnt intimidation work this time, as well?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought
#12:
Did you ever read the comprehensive plan and find even one viable alternative?
A possible solution to this
question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #11:
Did you ever wonder if more of the money used to fight the milfoil
invasion was allocated to chemical treatment rather than time consuming, labor intensive mechanical means(divers) that we
might be farther along in beating back milfoil?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random
Thought #10:
Will there be a good explanation for the use of the cash deposits from the first LID and will the people instrumental
in developing that plan, explain why it now isnt valid or legal?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random
Thought #9:
Do you ever wonder who would be tapped for the employment opportunities for the expanded Sewer District administrative
duties or for the higher budgeted technical and maintenance positions?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO
M&O
Random Thought #8:
Do you ever wonder about the many different versions of the sewer system proposed,
discussed, and later discarded, that always ended up with an even higher cost?
A possible solution to this question:
VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #7:
Would you think that with the Board eliminating nearly 50% of the land area of
the District and a loss of a potential $400,000+ in hook-up fees by changing the LID boundaries, would look for ways to tag
extra partial hook-up fees to those of us left in the LID boundaries?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO
M&O
Random Thought #6:
Were there any sweetheart deals/considerations like free hook-ups or the rumored key-holing
offered, that wont be discussed until after the election, or ever?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random
Thought #5:
Do the Board Members care about anyone inside or outside the District that do not support the Sewer as they
proposed?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #4:
Does anyone honestly believe
that there is any incentive for an Engineer/Construction Management firm to come up with an economical system that is being
paid on a commission basis?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #3:
When
a lagoon system was proposed as an alternative to the site above the RV Park, did you know the Engineers stated that lagoon
treatment presented problems because the State of Washington reviewed and revised the requirements for lagoon treatment regularly
and that the District would be subject to additional modification costs? Why the change?
A possible solution to this
question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought #2:
You ever wonder about the all or nothing thought process of the Board?
Their lack of any fiscal responsibility? That they dont care what you think? Do we all deserve to be punished because we cant
see a benefits/risk/cost ratio as a plus?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Random Thought
#1:
Did you ever wonder why these same people pushed for a Lake Manager (their personal hall monitor)? Whats next,
zoning laws, covenants, incorporation or some other way of exerting power, control and fiscal burden on all of us? Or should
we just move or stop breathing?
A possible solution to this question: VOTE NO M&O
Do you have any random
thoughts?
Name withheld at my request.
slcpo 9/12/10
mail@slcpo.info
SEWER FACTS
The
current sewer board is constantly throwing out the scare tactic that the Department of Ecology will soon require Sacheen Lake
to be sewered:
The
facts are: 1.) The Department
of Ecology has never required another lake to be sewered.
2.) Before sewering could be required, the lake would have to be proved to be contaminated,
which it is not and testing has proven as much.
3.) If required by the state to sewer the lake, the state would have to pay at least half
the cost. The state of Washington is in a financial down turn and has no extra
funding to pay for the project.
Get the true cost of the sewer project:
The
Sewer Bord have never had the engineer actually do a lot survey to better get a feel for cost. . We won't have a "rock survey"
until after you have been asked to give your support to the project.
Cost
per residence: $21,500 And will go up 20-30% or more
Employees ? Service Vehicle ? Equipment/Tools ?
Sewer Plant Buildings ?
Insurance ?
Upgrading electric Service: ?
Certifying Wells ?
(Necessary
incase well damaged during contruction)
$15 Monthly flushing charge
The sewer board is also planning to ask for $0.85/$1000 in November for the 2011 tax year.
We
are led to believe that this $21,500 will give us a complete sewer system. Do
you understand that in 20 or 30 years, once this system is paid for, the Engineer has stated that the system will
have to be upgraded, in 20 years, or sooner, pumps replaced, etc. We will never
finish paying for this system.
A
Department of Health representative has stated that based on the size and number of homes around the lake, a smaller system
would do the job and for several million less. Why would an engineer who is being
paid 18% of the entire project cost, look for a cheaper plan?
Sent in SLCPO
Sept 1 Sewer Meeting
At this meeting the commissioners approved the
Resolution 10-03 to move forward with the LID Process. The LID Hearing will be published in the Miner 9-8 and 9-15 and letters
to ALL property owners will be sent by the 15th of Sept.
The process for objection can start as of the
9-8 issue of the Miner IF the notice has been posted. Be sure to check your newspapers legal section. Just remember ALL property
owners of a particular parcel must sign the opposition letter! MORE THAN 40% of acreage is needed. Opposition letters can
be sent in from 9-8 to 10-12 NO LATER and no letters will be accepted after that date regardless of postmark, so get them
in early!
The PWTF has been approved but now they are waiting
to see if the Governor will actually sign the funds. We were approved for only $8.4 million. The balance of any difference
will probably come from application to the Rural Development loan funds. This could also include our required 5% match that
is needed for the PWTF Loan. Interest rates on the PWTF should be around 2% for 20 yrs and the RD Loan would be approx 3.25%
for 30yrs.
Shortly after receipt of their LID letters, showing
the cost, we will be getting a letter requesting the annual M&O monies to operate the lake projects. This will be placed
on the November ballot. It appears they may be asking for $.85 per $1000. I hope
people remember that we disapproved a $500,000 bond to help purchase the Stimson Property and the Board still went ahead and
made an offer based on an appraisal that was over 2 years old, to purchase that property! I
am not sure if all the Board members are really listening to their constituents.
At least with the LID process everyone can be
heard even if you are not a registered voter. BUT will this Board listen to what the people are saying? IF there is 30% opposition
do you honestly feel that they will take the advice of Eldenberg AND RELOOK AT THE SITUTATION?
Also at this meeting one of the waterfront people
who are not in the District sent in a letter requesting to annex into the District for consideration, but no mention of what
that consideration would be.
There will be a committee of citizens around the
lake to count the opposition letters received. If you are concerned that your letter will not get to the right hands, a simple
solution suggested by a Board member was, SEND IT CERTIFIED OR RETURN RECEIPT!
I was an attendee at the Sewer information meeting
last night.
I have to admit that there have been several comments
made by various Board members and Engineers that really upset me.
FIRST: Mr.
Eldenberg made it very clear that our using the Stimson property will not impact our Sacheen Lake
watershed BUT WILL FLOW DIRECTLY TO DAVIS LAKE!! How can a Board and an Engineer be so unconcerned for our neighbors! I guess
they truly believe in the motto "NOT IN MY BACKYARD".
Second: the next concern is the Sacheen Lake Estates
situation. A while back they were saying that Sacheen Lake Estates will have to have their own LID when those properties start
developing, which was the primary purpose of EXCLUDING them from this LID. The Board continually stated they would be required
to have LID#2....NOW they are saying that each of those parcels are big enough to support their own individual sewer needs.
SO that does tend to lead one to think that the purpose of the exclusion was due to the Land Area of approx 210 acres that
could stop the LID from passing. Very interesting I must say.
Third: Our costs are now up to 21,500 to the tune
of $125 per month for a single developed lot. If you didn't sign the covenant/consolidation agreement, then you are looking
at an additional stub in fee of $71 more per month and that is only for 1 additional, add up 2 and 3 additional parcels!
Fourth: they tried to use the scare tactic of
"The State of WA and Dept of Ecology" will in 3 to 6 years require everyone on our Lake to have a public sewer systems....SO
DOES THAT MEAN THE STATE WILL REQUIRE ALL WATERFRONT PROPERTIES AROUND THE LAKE BE INCLUDED IN A MANDATED SEWER SYSTEM, EVEN
THOSE THAT DON"T HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT LID PROJECT??? If that is the case then why isn't the Sewer Board forcing
these properties into the LID NOW!!! What ever happened to "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"?
Fifth: the Board has made the decision that people
will share the pumps, whether you like it or not! So I guess "Love thy Neighbor" will have to be taught to everyone, so listen
up all the "hateful, nasty" people around the Lake YOU MAY have to share a pump with someone you DO NOT LIKE!!! I love it!
Oh you also need to know that the Engineer and Board will decide WHICH property is going to provide the power for that shared
pump, so if you don't have the adequate power to run the pump , then you neighbor WHO PAID to have upgraded power will be
the source for power, the Engineer also stated those of you who have paid for a generator on your property will more than
likely be the source of power for the shared pump. Nice, you pay to insure you have power during outages AND NOW YOU GET TO
CARRY YOUR SHARED NEIGHBORS OUTAGE! What a deal, your foresight and expense is now being shared with neighbors.
Sixth: the District Lawyer stated that there are
several septic systems that are in desperate need of repair...OH so for those "IN NEED", we all get to pay???? Didn't see
anyone jumping to help do my system! Thank you very much!
You can sign me as: "THIS IS ONE OBJECTION LETTER
GOING IN BY RETURN RECEIPT, BECAUSE I DON'T TRUST THE BOARD TO COUNT MY OBJECTION"!
 
Property needs current appraisal
To the editor:
Property owners around
Sacheen Lake better grab on to their wallets because the sewer board is about to take a good chunk of your money. At the April
7 monthly meeting, we were informed that the board has signed a purchase extension on a piece of land to be used for their
sewer lagoon.
What is picking your pocket is this: They are agreeing to pay the price based on an 18-month old appraisal.
The property could well appraise for thousands less in today’s market, but we will never know! I asked the county assessor
what similar land of the size and type being purchased would cost per acre and was told that, though no pieces that size are
selling, the price per acre would probably be $1,500-$1,800 tops. We are paying near $2,300 (or about $64,000 more than we
should). Get your attention? Got mine!
It is my understanding that a sewer district can only pay the “appraised”
price, but is an outdated appraisal considered the appraised price? I would hope not! Would you pay the price for a house
today based on its price two years ago? Not me! It’s your money. Check it out. But then I say to myself, it only amounts
to a $64,000 waste – I guess that’s just “chump change” in a $10,000,000 project, and this is just
the beginning.
I love governmental bodies that get things done, but what makes me really disgusted is one that takes
a question like mine asking for the board to get a “reappraisal of the property’s price” and being told,
“Thank you for your comment.” Anyone else?
Guess whose money it is? Yours and mine!
-Richard Prange
Sacheen
Lake
I was unable to attend last nights' meeting.
I received an update today and was appalled to learn of the seating arrangements used by the Board. They sat with their
backs to the audience so they did not have to make eye contact or interact with the attendees. They kept their voices
low to make hearing difficult and had slides on the screen that were either too small to see or if large enough, the slides
kept changing so they could not be followed. Guest speakers, Dave Lamb and Jill Short were both asked to sit in chairs
were the audience would only see their backs and hear little if any of what they had to say. Both Lamb and Short refused
to sit where people could not see nor hear them.
The only time the Board faced the
audience was during the Public Comment phase. Attendee questions related to fairness in application and in quality for
all from the LID. I understand that Commissioner Garrett was rude to all asking questions. When it came time for
comments from former Commissioner Ron Schmidt, as he was speaking, Commissioners Garrett and Pearman started having a private
conversation, completely ignoring Ron. What a rude way to treat a man that has given 18 years to the Board. It
appears that the Board does not want to hear from the public and certainly not from those who have views that do not mimic
their thinking. One person heard another attendee leaving last night say, "I love it, he really knows how to shut them
up". Is that the plan?
What happened to the "professionals" I voted for
that wanted to unify the lake and represent all property owners. Do they only represent those that agree with them?
How self-serving can you get? I guess that was another vote wasted.
Please sign me,
Unwanted and unrepresented
Well the results from the Election are in and our lake
could be in a lot of trouble. If people do not sit up and pay attention, take an active role in attending meetings and just
plain getting involved, our "new" board will ram-rod their agenda, whether it be good for all or not, so fast no ONE will
fill the impact until it is to late.
The voters around this beautiful
Lake have spoken! People agree that certain areas of the Lake need sewering..BUT not all areas need it or want it. People
agree that the Terrace needs a sewer system. People agree that they should be helped by the Sewer Board to obtain that goal
of a sewer system. The Board needs to look for property within reach of the Terrace/O'Day area to give them a sewer system.
Utilize the existing Terrace/O'Day LID to achieve those goals and dreams for those homeowners. Then move on to the next area...
Kohles Beach waterfront properties. Get those who have the failing drain field and systems to obtain an LID to get property
to serve those in need. Then move to the next area. Doing this in clusters would make so much more sense. Hopefully your new
board will see this. Hopefully we can bring our beautiful Lake Community back to one that is UNITED! The running gun battles
have to stop! Everyone's goal is to maintain our beautiful lake Community for all of our future generations. Having a Lake
Wide Sewer will not necessarily do that. Give those 50 or so property owners some credit for thinking in the future. Those of you who have paid for the safekeeping of our Lake should not have to pay again and again.
I for one am so tired of hearing
about "Diamond Lake". WE ARE NOT, I repeat NOT like Diamond Lake. Our whole community has a different make-up than Diamond
Lake. They are a shallow Lake, flat area and build their homes on top of each other. Sure we have a few areas like that, where
you can hear your neighbor sneeze in the night, but the majority of our lots are spaced very nicely for privacy. We have a
very deep Lake with dark water due to the Cedar Trees surrounding our Lake. If you really want to stop potential pollution
of our Lake, then start by NOT using fertilizer on your waterfront lawns! Our Lake is great for fishing, we don't have mutant
fish as some would have you believe, older timers tell us "this has been the best fishing in years", and continues to be today.
So in closing, I can only
tell you to keep an eye on your pocket book. With suggestions for a tax that can be put in place with no input from our Community,
to using our M&O monies that WERE NOT voted on to pay for things that were in the Bond that failed and a Board who wants
a sewer at ANY cost.............God Save Our Lake!
Signed, Fed Up
Upon reflection on our recent election, I keep thinking about it in the historical perspective. A question does come
to mind as to whether anyone has learned anything from the election or do they just think that they have.
One
does notice that the bloc of voters favoring a lake-wide sewer project is in the majority of voters in the election. It also
appears that the majority is not one of greater than the 60% required by Washington State Law enabling the majority to enact
a tax without further popular support. This voting majority has shown that it is willing and able to elect a Board that may
reflect it’s communal viewpoint. It could be argued that the new Board is reflective of the single platform of “get
it done”. One wonders for what other reason that these new Board members could be elected when there appeared to be
other candidates with greater experience, knowledge, and participation than those successfully elected. Even the one current
Board Member running was ousted, even though one would have to admit that she had worked harder than anyone within recent
history to try to move the District forward. I also cannot in good faith comment on what appears to be conflict of interest
issues, when nearly all candidates owned multiple lots that may be given financial benefits from the District, while single
lot holders apparently have no options available to them. So being on the payroll hardly seems a disqualifier as to elective
suitability. It does concern me that candidates, who showed any concern for cost, funding availability, impact on the community
(except those wanting the lake-wide sewer system) or the greater population was handily defeated. Once again, examining motivation
doesn’t require much effort.
It also occurs to me that the greater population of the District wants
to retain the Sewer District. That the District has among other things, addressed the Lake’s water level and milfoil
control. That a number of Citizens felt that it was necessary to support the Maintenance and Operations Levy in order to continue
to work on those issues, even though they did not support the Bond issue.
There is a voting bloc that got
its’ desired slate of candidates elected and continued funding for the Maintenance and Operation Levy but was unable
to maintain the same percentage of votes for a bond that would have allowed the District to move forward with a treatment
site purchase. This should make everyone sit back and re-evaluate the situation. Why do people oppose this first step? What
was wrong with binding the District to a property that would allow them the opportunity to build a treatment location for
some if not all of the District’s ratepayers? This was a chance to move forward when other funding options are scarce.
Was it due to the health of personal finances or of the national economy? Was it due to some who would not settle for half
steps and by stamping their feet saying “if it is not a lake-wide system now, then I won’t vote for it”.
Wow!
What will be interesting to watch is whether the two groups can ever work together. The group that
does not support the proposed lake-wide sewer project cannot elect anyone that reflects their position. They do have the financial
veto power by not supporting the necessary funding mechanism offered. The group favoring to proposed lake-wide project has
the power to elect anyone that they want as commissioners. They have the power to bring forward any plan, at any price, for
any group, no matter what the objections happen to be. But they do not appear to have necessary votes to bring funding through
the election process. They would/will need to enact an LID (with or without the support) of the 60% of the District’s
constituents or by placing a direct tax burden on the District’s lots (again without any approval process other than
by Board member’s vote).
It will be very interesting to see what path the new Board takes. Will they
feel that they have the mandate to push forward without looking back? It will also be interesting to see how the group currently
opposed to the projected system reacts as well. Will they continue to support the District, even though their concerns with
regards to the current design/projected cost lake-wide sewer are not addressed? Or will they determine that the benefits to
the District’s ratepayers are less than the impact of the enactment of the proposed project and vote down any future
levy issues? Thereby, dealing a death-blow to the District.
Will there be any compromise or consensus building
efforts? Will there ever be any community building? Or are we going to suffer through the same historical repeats of the past.
A represented constituency or just a ratepayer, just who are you? Checks and balances, I do believe that Jefferson, Adams,
Franklin, et al had a great vision to see human flaws and integrity. I am looking forward to see what happens next.=
10/4/2000 To All Residents:
At the Oct. 3rd informational meeting, it was disclosed that the
General Obligation Bond proposed for $505,000 will be the burden for
ten years for ALL property owners in the Sewer District. Only the
register voters will make the decision to accept or reject this bond.
According to the Sewell Engineer, testing will be done this week to
determine if the proposed property will service the Terrace/O'Day
section of the lake. If the property is deemed usable, the Bond will
be used to purchase the land and develop plans. Testing to determine
If the land is suitable for the entire Sewer District can be done at
a later date. At some later date, after the Terrace/O'Day section
has been completed, the Board can then decide IF they want to
continue to sewer the balance of the District although the entire
District will still be paying for 10 years for the property the
Terrace/O'Day section have their sewer system on.
The following questions come to mind:
1: Why is all the District asked to pay for a property for the
Terrace/O'Day section?
2: Where is the guarantee that the balance of the District will be sewered?
3: Why isn't the Bond small enough to cover the needed testing prior
to purchase so that ALL will know if the land is suitable for ALL to
be sewer since ALL will be paying?
4: Once the Terrace/O'Day residents have their sewer system how
urgent will they campaign to see that the balance of the District get
their connections as well? Do you really want to pay $115/$100,00 assessed value for 10
years to help only the Terrace/O'Day section to have a sewer system?
Just consider: if your property is assessed at $200,000 and the bond
passes, you will pay $230/year above your already increased taxes for
10 years plus M & O requests each year just to help one section get
what they want with no guarantee that you will ever get included.
6: Why is the cost of each sewer hook-up now "we don't know". The
engineer said at the meeting that all those that are hooked on at a
time after the Terrace/O'Day section will pay an increased amount and
some of the cost may be refunded to the original hook-ups. In other
words, we buy their land, they get the sewer system, then if we get
included, we get to pay more so they can get a refund?
Please consider this carefully. The lake has been proven to not be
polluted. Require the Board to take the time to develop a good, fair
plan at the best cost. SLCPO
9/23/2009
Sacheen Lake off polluted lakes list
Clerical
error kept lake on federal listing for 11 yearsBy Youssef SleimanOf The MinerOLYMPIA – The way that people perceive Sacheen Lake’s water
may begin to change after the state’s Department of Ecology dropped the lake from a federal list of polluted water bodies
in February this year. “Basically, Sacheen Lake was listed erroneously in 1998,” DOE spokeswoman Jani
Gilbert said. The 303(d) list compiles all of the impaired water bodies, and in 1998, Sacheen Lake was added to the
list. However, 11 years later, water quality specialist Ken Koch discovered a clerical error that led to the lake’s
listing in the first place. Sacheen Lake had hits against it for total phosphorous and fecal coliform, which are bacteria
left from animal waste and failing septic systems. When water quality assessments were written again in 2004 and 2008, Sacheen
Lake appeared on the 303(d) listing again. What Koch discovered in February was that the 2002 and 2004 listings were
only based on the 1998 listing. And the final listing decision for Sacheen Lake in 1998 was “No.”
“Yet the listing was erroneously added to the 1998 list,” Koch wrote to The Miner. “In the process
of completing the 2002/2004 listing cycle, this listing was still on the list and since there was no new data, the listing
was simply brought forward to the 2004 list. The error was finally caught and the listing inactivated.” Both
the 1998 final listing decisions for total phosphorous and fecal coliform stated “no,” but the lake received the
spot on the list anyway and held it for about 11 years. Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water District managing secretary Sheila
Pearman said that when the sewer district first discovered the lake had been listed as an impaired water body, the board questioned
it. However, to get off of the list, Pearman said, the district would have to spend more funds to “renew” the
lake. At the same time, the district was counseled that the impairment listing could also bring in more grant funds for lake
cleanup projects. “In the past, that may have been true,” Pearman said, “But anymore, there’s
hardly any grant funds left.” As far as Pearman knows, the district did not receive any grant funds based
on the listing. Since the district also did not spend any funds to try and get off the 303(d) list or receive funds
from being on the list, the listing had a net zero effect on the district’s balance sheet. “The biggest
impact may be on how people perceive the lake’s water quality,” Pearman said, adding that some residents, after
hearing about the 303(d) listing, wouldn’t swim in the lake. The only active mark against Sacheen Lake remains
the aquatic invasive species listing, caused by Eurasian watermilfoil. The ecology department did note the existence
of an Active Phase II State Clean Lakes Restoration Project at Sacheen Lake. The project performed watershed nutrient management
(to manage nutrients such as phosphorus), septic tank elimination, lake level regulation, public education and control measures
on aquatic herbicides. “So yes, the people are right. Sacheen Lake was on the 1998 and the 2004 lists, but erroneously
so,” Koch wrote. Sacheen Lake wasn’t the only lake to receive a reprieve from the state’s ecology
department. Another total phosphorous sampling hit against Sacheen Lake came from a 1981 float-equipped helicopter recon of
the lake. The helicopter would land, take a sample, and then DOE would use the sample for pollution determinations. The results
were collected in a 1985 study, informally called a Sumioka and Dion study. “It was later decided that a single
sample event is not justification for a 303(d) listing,” Koch said. “If the Sumioka and Dion information was the
only information we had on any particular lake, the listing was inactivated. Many lake listings were inactivated. This happened
with Sacheen Lake.” This listing was dropped from Sacheen Lake in 2006. The fecal coliform and
total phosphorus listings, inactivated Feb. 4, came from a 1991 Phase I restoration project, by Kennedy Engineers. The data
was submitted to the ecology department in hard copy only. Seven years later, the department recommended against listing Sacheen
Lake on the 303(d) list, but the lake appeared on it anyway. The department is waiting for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to approve the 2008 list before changes are made and a new category assigned to Sacheen Lake. All three sewer
commissioner positions are up for election this year, with the only incumbent being recently appointed Jill Short. Two other
positions will run for an unexpired term of four years and an expired term of six years. Voters will also be deciding
on two finance issues for the sewer district. The district is putting before voters a 10-year $505,000 bond issue and a one-year,
$56,000 maintenance and operations levy. The rate for the bond is estimated at $1.15 per $1,000 of assessed value, and the
rate for the levy is estimated at 80 cents per $1,000. The district is holding a meeting Oct. 3 at the Sacheen Lake
fire station to discuss the bond. The bond would be used to purchase a site for a water treatment facility, Pearman said.
7/23/09
Sacheen Lake Property Owners:
I have written a survey asking for your opinion of the proposed "Bond" and the proposed LID. The survey gives estimated costs we
are looking at right now if they were passed.
I have begun circulating the "paper" survey at the lake, and I have asked others to help with the task. I am also
emailing to people if I have their address, and they aren't here to get a copy of the survey. If you would be here in
the next week or two and could help by getting these out to your close neighbors by hand, please email me at richard.prange@verizon.net or call me at 447-4052. The actual survey asks that you send your filled out form to the Pend Oreille County Auditor.
She has agreed to collect them and get them to the Sacheen Sewer and Water Board. Thanks a bunch. I could use
some help though.......
Sincerely,
Richard Prange
7/11/09
About the only thing to come out of the
July 9th meeting at 12:30 P.M. was a decision to run a "bond issue" on the November ballot to pay for land acquisition, comp.
plan update, facilities plan, and any needed studies (unless I misunderstood)---aproximately $500,000. We will find
out the "rate" and "duration" after some investigation. A new LID formation would be a waste of time at this point because
funding of it would be based on the completion/acquisition of the aforementioned needs. Now, I could be wrong, but does
this mean that all the lake will be on the hook for the land, comp. plan update, etc. but only the Terrace will benefit if
a new LID isn't formed to cover the whole lake?? Anyone know the answer to that question? I don't want to be "a
negative" on this yet, but when I asked if that land could be used for more than one "communal drainfield" I was told "No"---that
the Dept. of Health or Ecology wouldn't allow more than one communal drainfield on that property. Again, I might be
wrong, but if the Terrace LID was completed, I think that would be the system of choice for that size project. Check
it out. Richard Prange Sacheen Lake
7/7/09
name: Jason Sargent email: Jays1964mg@aol.comcomment: Dear Commissioners and Mr. Ormsby: As stated on the Washington State Attorney General's web site: The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know
and what is not good for the people to know. Please review the letter sent to Mr. Rob McKenna. Dear Mr. McKenna Sacheen
Lake Sewer and Water District in Newport Wa. has been holding "public" meetings without adequate notification of the public.
The last meeting was properly posted in the Newport Minor newspaper on July 1st for a "public meeting" on July 2nd. No meeting
was held. The meeting apparently was by invitation only and was conducted on June 29th. The topic of the meeting was very
controversial dealing with an access agreement between our District and 2 residents of the West Branch of the Little Spokane
River who control the level of Sacheen Lake through a series of dams. No opposition from the public was given because the
public was not aware of the meeting. The second meeting is to be July 9th at 12:30 pm which has not been publically posted.
This meeting will discuss the formation of a lakewide LID for the purpose of a multi million dollar sewer project in which
the residents must pay for. Mr. Mike Ormsby from Spokane (attorney for the Board) will attend. To my knowledge an d my
neighbors knowledge no "public" notice has been given. I have been notified by word of mouth. These examples are only 2 of
many meetings that have been held. Please advise me of how I may impress upon the Board to properly notify the "public" in
advance of all Sacheen Lake Sewer and Water meetings and their respective agenda. Kindest regards, Jason Sargent Sacheen
Lake resident
Jul 7, 2009 03:43:12 AM, richard.prange@verizon.net wrote:
I just read an article in a paper out of Skagit County. Seems the county applied for and got $2 million dollars
from the Department of Ecology to loan out to property owners who need to repair or replace septic systems...........No money
out there???? Seems they got it by request! Now tell me that we couldn't get low interest loans for
the sewer District (same lien on property) and save each participating property owner the 18% engineering fee. I have
asked the Pend Oreille Planning Director if he was aware of the potential money source. He is checking on it.
With good water quality at this time, we need not be in such a big hurry to put out a LID without taking the time to explore
more funding sources. We aren't ready yet!
Richard Prange
Sacheen Lake
To: Fellow Sacheen Lake Homeowners
5/6/2009
Should we Sewer Sacheen Lake?
Yes,
at the appropriate time with financial support from those causing the need. The
compilation of very little investigative analysis has not yielded concrete data to verify or deny the existence of any current
Sacheen Lake
water pollution issues. Water pollution evaluations seem to be inconclusive and
or conflicted. With the current proposal, the Sacheen Lake Sewer & Water
District proposes to assess all property owners to create a $10.1 million sewage system to alleviate alleged potential sewage
leakage into the lake from 320 residences. 48% of these homes have permitted
septic systems. 240 (75%) of these property owners utilize their cabins only
three months out of the year! With this in mind, we are being asked to throw
$10.1 million at an unverified condition supported by, at best, a fuzzy rationalization.
Keep in mind the proposed $10.1 million project price tag was derived from one bid.
Is a sewer system
needed at this time for Sacheen Lake?
On
April 23, at the St. Thomas More meeting, I asked Mike Ormsby, counsel for the sewer district, “so with only 16% of
the homes that are year round (on the lake), won’t that system be somewhat under utilized nine months out of the year? Isn’t that kind of a cost consideration in terms of return on our investment?”
Mr.
Ormsby responded, “your question is a fair one..I think that return is one way to look at it…whether the lake
is fully developed or not though, probably the bigger issue is (is) there a deterioration in the water quality of the lake
if you don’t put in a sewer system? and I think that the belief by many is that there is already been some deterioration
of the lake”.
I
asked Mr. Ormsby, to clarify his position regarding the quality of Sacheen
Lake water and Mr. Ormsby responded,” the question was, if the
quality of the lake is deteriorating and here again, I’m not here to tell you I have any empirical evidence to say that,
but I do believe a lot of people believe that it is”.
Barring the nonsensical response and relying
on the facts presented I can only conclude that (1) the proposed sewer system would be “under utilized” at minimum
nine months out of the year and (2) the sewer board can’t unequivocally, factually state that the lake water quality
has deteriorated over an agreed period of time. In fact one gentleman present
stated that he has been consistently testing the lake and has found very little change for some time.
Why build an “under used”
Sewer System for 10 million dollars if we don’t know the water has deteriorated?
There
are 280 + undeveloped lots on or adjacent to Sacheen lake, within the proposed sewer district.
An undeveloped lot is a piece of land that currently may only have a garage or outbuilding on it. It is unclear how many of these lots are currently large enough to support the required septic and drain
fields to pass current county code. Additionally, it is not clear how many of
these lots will be large enough to subdivide and plat into many smaller lots. With
the inclusion of the proposed district sewer system, many if not all of these lots are most likely to convert to properties
eligible for one or more structures. Converting them into cost effective and
profitable parcels for development will result in a significant intensification of the lake population and its consequent
escalation of use. This is, in my view, the backbone of support for the proposed sewer system. Who are these owners?
They aren’t required to publicly divulge their identity. Remember
a yes vote to implement this system is not required.
The intensity of Density!
Does
the lake need protection for the future? Yes, absolutely. Protecting our lake from present and future pollution is mandatory and not the question on the table. The questions at hand are, “Does
our lake have a pollution problem now?” and “Who should pay for a sewer system based on future anticipated
density”. If current owners with legal septic systems unfairly bear
the long term cost of this system, a minority of property owners and their agents will be very inclined to rezone, plat and
develop land near and adjacent to Sacheen Lake. Preparing for density will guarantee
it. You’ve seen it elsewhere, condo after condo on or near our lake shores. Saying yes to the current sewer proposal will set the stage for developers to enhance
their bottom line and erode our Sacheen way of life. Worse, we pay the bill and
you receive no return on your investment unless you’re planning on selling out and leaving the lake.
Planned development should require that density is limited to the extent that those that
create it pay for the infrastructure to support it.
Well
planned and managed development is not evil. Every citizen should be entitled
to use and enjoy publicly owned natural resources. Those that seek this liberty
should pay their fair share. The existence of inevitable future developments will require intensified infra structure: roads,
sewers, security etc.. Shouldn’t those that create the need for a
sewer pay for its creation? The proposed sewer will cause everyone’s property
values to increase but so will taxes. Heck, the 2009 assessed values for Sacheen
Lake are expected to double this year as it is. If the proposed sewer is implemented as currently structured, developers will be on the scene before anyone
is able to get in the first flush. They will command inflated prices and lucrative profits as they harvest the commercial
opportunity created with the sewer system we buy for them.
n
How can we responsibly protect the quality
of life at the lake and the pureness of our water?
Future
catalysts of development should solely finance the infra structure required to implement the density from which they profit.
Developers need to allocate a portion of their capital to create a protection system for the lake that will be necessitated
from their desire to develop their lots.
How can this be mandated?
Two words -- “use tax”. If you profit
from it, you pay it. Sure it cuts into profits, but developers will get that
enhanced value from their investment with the inclusion of the sewer system they require.
This value will justify their robust margins and the strong consumer demand for a treasured Sacheen Lake location.
If you disagree with the sewer mandate please make sure your vote is heard. You must vote “NO” to be heard. If you support
the sewer, don’t bother, the board doesn’t need your support to implement their initiative.
If you are concerned and disagree with the current sewer district proposal the board
will be accepting disapproval votes in the near future. You must vote “No”. If you disapprove, but do not respond, your lack of response will be construed as
a “Yes” vote. To defeat this initiative, the County will require
a 40% response of “No’s”. That would be roughly 240 Sacheen Lake parcels,
not people. Remember if you have 5 parcels, you receive 5 votes.
We
can all agree that Sacheen Lake
is a very special place. Lets’ make sure those that want to profit from
the increased density of Sacheen Lake
pay their way for the systems that must be present to support that density. Those
of us that have already paid for our cabins based on an established set of laws and accepted level of density should not be
required to bear this expense.
I’m
not against change; I am simply demanding equity.
Thanks
for listening.
Kim Davis
E. Shore Road
______________________________________________
I think we all would be better off if ALL property holders in the Sewer District were to have a voice in this
planned expenditure of $10 Million +/-. Unfortunately, the methods used by the
supporters of the sewer, the prior Board and others preclude that possibility. The
use of orchestrated “straw polls” in which those of us showing concerns are put under the scrutiny and pressure
to vote “yes” by hostile stares and voices. Many of these meetings
or cheerleading sessions, are just that. Another method is the use of highly
questionable “statistics”( i.e. 82% of East Shore Residents want the sewer, but is that 82% of the people asked
or responded? Another is “I have 30 neighbors near me who want the sewer.”) The recent proliferation of “Yes” signs also seem to crop up on lots that
are not even served by the Sewer District. The use of questionable underlying
criteria has also been employed. Two examples are the proposal “that the
Lakewide Sewer would be a “Growth Management Tool”” and that “the Sewer District would be able to
determine the number of bedrooms that a structure could have in the District” (according to the Commission Chair). But one of the most egregious justifications is the water quality issue. This justification is not supported by either the Sewer District consulting Water Quality expert Dave Lamb
nor has it been shown in the continued testing of the water. That in a statement by Karen Averit that “It wouldn't matter if one quarter of the lake were sewered, when the other three quarters still are polluted with
failing or non-existent systems. By this logic we cannot go forward because without sewering the large
blocks of property on the lake that are not part of the Sewer District, then no matter what we do, the lake will still be
“polluted”. These are some of the methods used to determine
support and viability of a lakewide sewer project. Let’s face the facts
that there is a sizeable minority on this lake that want a sewer, period. They
don’t care what it costs, who would be hurt by it, what it will really do to the lake because of the increased use and
development, or whether the process is dealt with honestly.
The reality in this situation
appears to be that the Terrace LID formation was based on approximately 80 lots @ $16,000.00 = $1,280,000.00. The Terrace cannot build a system for that cost and must have outside funding to meet a $16,000.00 LID
level. Unfortunately, it was shown at the last information meeting that even
with the “help” of the balance of the lake to support the formation of a Lakewide sewer, the cost will still rise
above $20,000 per lot.
We understand that a project
such as this would require an evolution of thought. But much of the process is
ill-advised or not functional, primarily because the drive to get a system in place is so all-consuming to some, that poor
decisions have been made. I cite the example of the Comprehensive Plan that was
ordered for $50,000.00 that used examples that could be employed that were not viable, even as it was written. Now, a revised Comp plan is in the works for a discounted $45,000.00.
The prior Board voted to not consider any other Site than the “HWY 211 Kopp property”, even though there
was opposition to that property from a business neighbor, that it was limited to only 200 hookups, and has a building moratorium
on it. The Board, who voices a concern for multiple lot holders (possibly offering
them a better ”deal”, discussion of a discounted hookup for Cedar Creek Resort and maybe 10 hookups for the Hwy
211 “old resort”, but will not address the concerns of those of us who have spent $10,000’s in being proactive
in improving our septic systems, except by telling us “you have to collapse your tanks”. Can we be justified in going forward with a $10 Million project supported by a one purpose constituency
and Sewer District that has demonstrated through their actions being less than fiscally responsible?
I have been told by the
regional head of Tri-County Health that the State of Washington
mandates their office to allow repairs of septic systems within the law. Have
you attempted to improve your system, or do you just want the rest of us to pay for it?
Look around this lake,
at night, for 300 days of the year, how many residents are there and does common sense tell you that we should invest (define
that!) $20,000.00+ per lot? Or are the many seasonal users paying for the few?
Common sense tells me that a Lake defined by geography into three distinct areas is better
served by three or more cluster systems to serve those who may need a sewer as their only option and to cut huge costs (and
cost overruns) from being incurred by everyone.
I asked the SS&W attorney
at the last informational meeting as to whether the Board must determine a non-response be a “yes” or in favor
of the Sewer project. I was told by Mike Ormsby that “it is up to the Board”. Eric Eldenburg of Sewell Engineering, has on many public occasions stated that he
would recommend that the Board drop this project if there was as much as 25% against.
Mr. Ormsby changed his statement to 40% against would mandate dropping the project from an earlier misstatement. The supporters of the Lakewide Sewer have not wanted this process to go to a vote
and therefore are trying to be “fair” by attempting the non-voting LID format.
I have been told by a person (that I will not name) that is an expert in LID formation for a nearby local government,
that they would have already dropped this project due to the amount of opposition. We
ask that because this is America, and we believe each person should have a vote, if the 60.1% want the lakewide sewer then,
we will withdraw our opposition. But we also believe that a yes is a yes, a no
is no and a non-response means that the person was not actually contacted, is undecided or maybe doesn’t care. Can you imagine what our government would look like if the non-participating people
in our country would always be considered yes voters?
Mike Kanyer
ADDENDUM
After attending the SS&W
meeting last night (5/7/09), I must add the following bit of information of which everyone should be made aware.
Eric Eldenburg of Sewell
Engineering has proposed a total build-out of the lakewide sewer to a total of 400 hookups.
This recommendation is apparently in response to the ongoing public pressure of getting the cost of this system back
down to a $16,000.00 level and at the urging of a lower cost option by Sewer Commissioner, Jeff Storms. We all appreciate the fact that Sewell is willing to look at a lower cost option BUT….
In his recommendation,
Mr. Eldenburg was able to justify the lesser amount by looking at the historical data of 2-3 new homes built per year within
the bounds of the Sacheen Sewer District. This based on 320 structures currently
in place on 607 lots. In figuring the build-out, Mr. Eldenburg figures that a
25% increase would result in a mathematically derived figure of 400 hookups. The
design criteria from the Comprehensive Plan was 200 gallons per day per hookup. He
believes that historical data from other area lakes reveals that there is a possibility that flows of 150 gallons are possible
and therefore provide a built-in extra capacity.
Unfortunately, there were
some other issues that could not be addressed by Mr. Eldenburg at the meeting.
1st. The historical data of 2-3 homes per year cannot in good faith be used due to the fact that with building
permits restricted around the Lake, there is a significant amount of pent up demand and his planning is not taking that into
account. His projection that the system would not meet capacity for 20-25 years
may be based on hope, rather that reality. A promise was made to look at other
area lakes (Deer Lake, Diamond, etc.) to get a better view of growth following a Sewer installation.
2nd. The underlying math in this proposal includes the following:
Approximately 100
lots will be consolidated or allowed out of the bounds of the LID. This leaves
a balance of 500 +/- ratepayers into the system.
The first 400 hookups will
max out the systems’ design and construction parameters.
100 lots will probably
not be able to hook up to the system, even though they will have to pay for the system.
The resulting lower cost that is being offered, is still dependent on ALL 500 lots/ratepayers contributing, to bring
down the cost to $16,000 +/-. We would hope that these lots would not have to
bear the $20- $30 monthly service fee.
3rd. Washington State Health uses a design criteria of 190 gallons per day for a two bedroom
house septic system. 200 gallon per day flows for the sewer would probably not
be considered over-designed.
4th. Most troubling of all, is that Mr. Eldenburg’s proposal acknowledged that failure to design and build
a system equal to the needs of the District now, must be addressed in the future. He
was not able to give a figure in today’s Dollars as to the costs of increasing capacity in the future to cover all hookups
charged. Although, Mr. Eldenburg did say any future expansion would have significant
costs attached.
It would be appropriate
for those of us who would view our ownership to be long term to know what the ultimate cost would be for this sewer. It is not a revised $16,000.00. In fact,
the costs could possibly go higher than $20,000.00 per hook-up due to the delayed construction to bring the service to all
who are paying for it. For example you will pay the revised cost of X ($16,000.00?)
and at some point later (2-20??? years) when capacity is met another cost Y ($???) will be levied on all hookups. Are we all going to be dead by then? Is this just real estate
or a gift to our heirs?
I wouldn’t go so
far as to call this a pyramid scheme, but pushing the remaining costs farther down the road without knowing the costs/consequences,
does not provide the underlying picture for all of us to grasp. Mr. Eldenburg
said that once the capacity of the system is reached, a future Board will be forced to deal with the problem. We beg to differ here. When the capacity is met, and the District
is forced either to fight a legal battle with our neighbors who are paying for the system but can’t use it, or expand
the system. Expansion costs will be borne by the Sewer District ratepayers(all
of us), not the future Board and not just the latecomers. And any hope that other
areas not covered by the LID will join and pay large hookup fees is not a viable hope.
It is obvious to me that
Sewell is reacting to the negative response from the crowd at the Spokane April 23rd Informational meeting over
the cost of $20,000.00 per lot. I believe that it is somewhat disingenuous
of Sewell to come back with a proposal that shows an artificially lower cost with deferred construction and no costs that
will be attendant with such a scheme. This is not the first time Sewell has tried
to show lower costs with many to pay but would not all would be served. In the
fall/winter of 2007, the Board looked at one of their proposals for the Kopp property that included 78 full time hookups and
240 seasonal hookups without the ability to expand on that property to serve anyone else.
This is without knowing how many lots were in the District, how they would determine who would get a full time hookup
and how they would cover the hookup needs of the District when capacity was reached.
I would have hoped that Sewell would understand that there would be a much better chance of a lake-wide sewer to succeed
if the costs were brought down to a reasonable level. But hiding costs, that
are probably going to be coming our way sooner, rather than later, does not get us where we need to be. Is it time to find a new Engineering firm?
Last (thank you GOD!) I
brought my earlier concern to the Board and formally asked them to not consider non-responses to the LID question. Again, a yes is a yes, a no is a no, and no response is not considered.
I was told that the Board would consider my request and make a decision at a later date. I urge you all to contact the Board and voice your thoughts. If
you believe, as I do, that people should have a voice in their future, and the majority will decide, then no one should have
any fear with the adaptation of this policy.
Mike Kanyer
Sacheen Lake Sewer –As I
See It
So some Sacheen Lake residents
would like to have a sewer system, and you need to understand the background before you can understand the hostility that
it has created.
Some of the lake properties
are too small to have space for both a well and a septic system on the same lot. If these cabins
were to burn down, they couldn’t rebuild. They formed a LID for a group sewer system a few years
ago that would take care of a good many of the problem lots, but it was too expensive to do the project with the number of
property owners covered. They got together and decided that they needed a lot more properties to
be covered to make the project financially feasible for them to go ahead.
Now to do this, they decided to
make everyone of the properties around the lake hook up-developed or not. As they said, “ more people
on the bus with everyone paying the same lowers the cost for all of us,” and the cost kept growing even after adding
lots that were undeveloped and lots with brand new, working systems that didn’t need a sewer—“ more people
on the bus…..” Now we have a conflict between our justification and the facts.
They decided to justify
this action by saying that the water quality around the lake was “bad and getting worse all the time,” yet at
multiple, public, sewer meetings their hired consultant, that has been doing water quality studies around the lake for years,
has said that, “Sacheen Lake has good, recreational quality water suitable for everything but drinking”.
So we have a conflict again between the justification and the fact.
We have a $10,000,000 project
proposed with no alternatives priced out, (costs running from $19,000 per developed lot to $11,000 for undeveloped lots as
estimates) and some people like me want put all options on the table, price them out, and then and only then offer them up
for a public survey or LID. Let the chips fall where they may. I have heard of other
proposals, other ways of dealing with the project that are much less complicated, less invasive, less demanding, more protective
of individual property rights (actually allowing people with expensive systems to opt out until their systems are shown to
fail.) I know this is a novel idea, and we have to remember that the whole basis for this proposal is,
“ the more people on the bus………”.
I just want to see the background
research done to show that this system is the only system that will do the job, and it is the cheapest, less restrictive possibility.
Asking too much?
Richard Prange
Sacheen Lake
|
