By Michael Howell
On September 10, the Stevensville Town Council approved a 3% hike annually in both the water and sewer base rates for the next five years. The hike in water base rates was approved on a 3 to 1 vote with Councilor Robin Holcomb dissenting. The hike in sewer base rates resulted in a tie vote amongst the Council, with Councilors Bill Perrin and Tim Hunter voting in favor and Councilors Robin Holcomb and Jim Crews voting against. The sewer rate hike was approved when Mayor Gene Mim Mack cast a tie breaking vote in favor of adoption. In a separate but related action, the Council also approved the Utility Billing Reduced Rate Program to Assist Low Income Seniors and Disabled Adults. This vote also resulted in a tie with Perrin and Hunter voting in favor and Holcomb and Crews voting against. Mayor Mim Mack broke this tie in favor of the program.
A public hearing was held earlier in the evening to take public comment on these three actions. At that meeting the mayor recapped the history of the Town’s water project and the associated rate hikes starting back in 2004, when the first analysis of the water system was done by Professional Consultants Incorporated (PCI). It was recognized that the Town had failed to keep up with rising costs in operation and maintenance of the system over the years. State law requires the town to run the water and sewer systems as separate enterprise funds which pay for their own operation and maintenance and distribute the cost equally amongst the users. The engineering company recommended a rate increase and in 2007 the council raised the rates by approving a $6.07 increase. The rate hike came as a shock to many residents and precipitated many complaints.
In 2009, the Preliminary Engineering Report was updated and the town began a series of improvements in 2010.
At the time only half of the town’s users were being metered. A water metering installation program was instituted to extend metering to the whole system. It was also determined that the cost of doing improvements to the treatment center at the infiltration gallery up the Burnt Fork to meet changing drinking water standards for surface water was prohibitive and a plan was made to quit using the infiltration gallery in favor of constructing a well field in town. It meant abandoning the old 18-inch cast iron water main connecting the reservoir to town with a 16-inch plastic pipeline. The distribution system in town was improved, providing loop systems to increase fire flow and pressure valves to equalize water pressure throughout the system.
Installation of a storage system was delayed in order to gather and use information from the metering system that was completed. That project is now approaching its initial study phase.
The $4.4 million water improvement project was paid for by 75% grants with a 25% match. The Town took out a bond to pay for the match. The PER recommended making a 40% hike in rates the first year, a 30% hike the following year and a 3% hike in each succeeding year for the following three years to make the program work. The 40% hike was implemented in 2010, but precipitated many complaints from the public. The remaining recommended hikes of 30% and 3% annually for three years after that were never implemented.
Also, between 2012 and 2014, two and half miles of water main, about 20% of the total, was replaced, helping to alleviate some of the massive water leaks that plague the system. In 2013 the water system was extended to include Selway Corporation and serve the Tax Increment Financing District that was established. This project was 100% funded through grants with no local match requirement.
The 3% hike in base rate that was adopted will go into effect November 1, 2015 and will raise the water bill for a ¾ inch line (739 connections) by $0.38, raising it from the current $12.73 per month to $13.11. The base rate for a one inch line (41 connections) will go up to $23.48 per month; base rate for a one and a half inch line (20 connections) will go up to $52.46 per month; and base rate for a 2 inch line (3 connections) will go up to $93.64 per month.
The base rates for a ¾ inch line will go up each subsequent year on November 1, to $13.50 per month in 2016; $13.90 in 2017; $14.32 in 2018; and 14.75 in 2019.
The base rate for a ¾ inch line includes the first 3,000 gallons of usage. The Town will continue to charge the same monthly usage rates of $1.85 per 1,000 gallons for all additional usage. Base rate usage allowance for a 1 inch line is 5,370 gallons; for a 1 ½ inch line 12,000 gallons; and for a 2 inch line 21,420 gallons.
In regards to the sewer base rate increase, back in 2010, when the water rates were raised by 40%, the sewer rates were raised at the same time by 45% to pay for a large improvement project precipitated by DEQ requirements. In addition a 3% hike annually was approved through 2015 to cover projected increased costs of doing business. That 3% increase has been added to every water bill every year since the 2010 rate hike. This November 1, the sewer bill for a ¾ inch line will go up from $27.27 to $28.08, a jump of $0.82 per month. It will go up each subsequent year on November 1, to $28.92 in 2016; $29.79 in 2017; $30.68 in 2018; and $31.60 in 2019.
Utility Billing Reduced Rate Program to Assist Low Income Seniors and Disabled Adults approved
The Utility Billing Reduced Rate Program to Assist Low Income Seniors and Disabled Adults which was approved will increase everyone’s water and sewer bills (including seniors and disabled adults) by $1.52 per month. That money will go into a fund that can be used to offset the utility bills of qualified seniors, over 65 years old and earning $28,000 or less annually, and disabled adults from 18 years up who earn less than $28,000 annually.
A senior or disabled adult earning from $0 to $14,000 could qualify for a reduction of 70% of their utility bill, close to a $30 a month reduction. Those earning between $14,000 and $21,000 could get a 50% reduction, and those earning between $21,000 and $28,000 could get a 25% reduction in their bills.
According to the Mayor, the rate increase would raise about $14,700 and could serve up to 60 qualified applicants. He said the assessment would be reviewed every year and if the funds were not being used then the assessment could be decreased to match the need.
At the public hearing which took comment on all three of the proposed ordinances, the comments were mostly negative. Generally people were fed up with the constant, and sometimes quite significant, rate increases over the last several years and said it was adding up to be too much.
One member of the public said she did not understand or see any need for the rate increase and suggested that to be fair it should be charged to all property owners in the town, not just the water users. She said owners of vacant lots should be paying the base rate since those services have been made available to them and they are part of the town. One woman also said that she was working hard to make ends meet and found the constantly rising utility rates a hardship. She was cutting back on her use and she did not think she should be required to subsidize other users. A 100% disabled veteran said that it takes more money than people realize to live these days and to make the program work they should raise the qualifying limit from $28,000 to $30,000 or $40,000.
Council member/mayoral candidate won’t vote in the appointment process
The Council discussed the protocol for interviewing candidates for the mayor’s position. Five applications were received by the deadline at the end of August and four were determined to meet the qualifications. They are: Jim Crews, Cindy Brown, Paul Luddington, and Jerry Phillips. Jim Crews is a sitting Council member and Cindy Brown is his wife.
The Mayor stated that the issue of a sitting council member being a candidate raised some issues concerning a potential conflict of interest and was presented to the Town Attorney, Brian West. Mim Mack said that in West’s opinion, there was no clear law stating that it was a conflict of interest, but that West’s recommendation would be that any council member who is a candidate recuse themselves from the process.
A motion was made to ask Crews to recuse himself from the process.
“I’ve thought about this quite a bit,” said Crews. He said that in his opinion the laws concerning conflict of interest clearly state that a conflict has to do with financial interest in the outcome. He also noted that the Council has adopted Robert’s Rules of Order and, according to those rules, as an elected official from Ward 2 he is “obliged” to vote on matters that will affect the people of his district. He said those rules and a precedent set in Missoula also support him voting for himself, if he sees fit.
Councilor Bill Perrin raised some obvious problems that it would present for the interview process.
“I am willing to abstain from the interview process,” said Crews, “but not from voting. There is no impropriety in it. It is the law.”
“I don’t see a problem with him being a part of the whole process and voting,” said Councilor Robin Holcomb.
Mayor Mim Mack noted that the previous town attorney Keithi Worthington, had stated that it would be “absolutely a conflict.” He said although their current attorney would not call it absolutely clear, he did recommend that any sitting Councilor who was a candidate should recuse himself.
Clayton Floyd stated from the audience that there were ways to change the interview process to accommodate for Crews participating without gaining any advantage over the other candidates. He said they could let the person declare “I will consider all applicants equally and I will not give any advantage to myself.” He said it was a matter of integrity and if a man says it, his words should be taken to heart.
“I think what’s going on here is an effort to preclude his vote to favor a candidate that you all want,” said Floyd.
The Mayor took issue with that remark.
“You just said that some members on this council can’t be trusted and yet you are asking us to trust a council person just because they say they are going to be fair,” said Mim Mack.
A few people spoke in favor of letting Crews participate and vote. One said it deprived Ward 2 residents of half their representation on the council and deprived Crews of his right to vote for himself.
Councilor Bill Perrin said, “This defies common sense. It puts Jim (Crews) in the position of having to vote for himself. I think if you stand back and look at it, and that’s what our attorney was telling us, this just doesn’t pass the smell test.”
Crews said these were his last words, “Council is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. The rule in abstaining on voting in questions of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for themselves for an office or other position to which members are generally eligible… if a member never voted on questions affecting himself it would be impossible for society to vote to hold a banquet, or the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against him and suspending or expelling him.
“The Council is ruled by this. This is our operating procedure. I will abide by the council’s decision. If the council requests me to abstain, I will, against my best judgment. But this is our rules of order and if you don’t abide by it, you might as well throw it in the trash.”
The Mayor asked Crews if he would vote for his wife.
“In that situation, I would not vote. That would not be fair to anybody,” Crews said. “What I’m saying is that I represent Ward 2… and I believe that the ward has got to be represented.” Then he called for the question.
The Mayor said the motion on the floor was “to follow the Town Attorney’s guidance, which was that any council member should recuse himself from the process.” The council split with Perrin and Hunter voting in favor of following the attorney’s recommendation and Holcomb and Crews voting against it. The Mayor broke the tie, voting to follow the attorney’s recommendation.
A motion was made to interview all four candidates.
Someone in the audience questioned whether Luddington should be interviewed. He said the Council should not be considering an applicant who stated on his application that he was keeping his full time job and would probably hire an assistant to help carry out his duties.
Mayor Mim Mack pointed out that it was included as an option in the mayor’s job description and would not cause any increase in expenses for the position.
The Council voted 3 to 0 to interview all four candidates. Councilor Crews abstained from voting. Candidate interviews are tentatively scheduled for September 14 at 7 p.m. at Town Hall. Nominations and selection are scheduled for September 24 at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.
Tree Ordinance approved on second reading
After hearing some criticism at the public hearing from Council candidate Bob Michelson, and others, the Council approved the Tree Ordinance on second reading with one amendment. The amendment would require that one member of the three-member Tree Board be an arborist and not necessarily a resident or citizen of the town. Concerns were primarily about the Tree Board’s authority to manage trees on private property that constitute a safety hazard or might be damaging the town’s sewer lines. The idea was that an opinion from an expert in the field is required in making such determinations and recommendations, not just a group of residents.
The Tree Ordinance will become effective 30 days from the date of adoption, which was September 10.
Ag center at school allowed
The Council approved changes to the Town’s animal control regulations that would exempt from prohibitions an academic or extra-curricular program operated in conjunction with the Stevensville Public School system as long as a site plan is submitted showing the proposed livestock area and the number and type of animals to be contained at the site. All nuisance regulations would still apply. But the $25 fine for a dog bite was changed to be the regular penalty for a misdemeanor violation, which is up to $500 and/or 6 months in jail. A motion made at the recommendation of the town’s attorney to amend the ordinance to allow for administrative approval of a site plan instead of full council approval was defeated on a 3 to 1 vote. The motion itself was approved unanimously.
Airport CIP and AIP approved
The Council approved a Capital Improvement Plan for the Airport that outlines project expenses for FY 2016 through 2022. In 2016, a $2.798 million project involving reconstruction of the runways is scheduled. The local government share of that cost is estimated at $279,800. In 2017, a runway extension project is planned for runway 12 that is estimated to cost $1.673 million. The local government share is estimated at $167,300. A $1.188 million taxiway extension project is scheduled for 2018 with a local government share estimated at $118,800. No projects are planned for 2019 through 2021. In 2022, a pavement maintenance project is scheduled that is estimated to cost $5.862 million with the local government covering $586,200 of that cost. The Council approved a grant agreement and letter of amendment that would provide $202,500 in federal funds for the engineering design work for the runway reconstruction project and lights and signage improvements and the design for a new Automated Weather Observation System station. A task order between the Town and Morrison-Maierle Engineering for $220,000 related to Phase I of those improvements was also approved.
In other business:
• The Council unanimously approved a resolution amending the Personnel Policy for the town that would bring the per diem payment for travel and expense reimbursements for out of state trips into line with state policy.
• The Council unanimously approved an interlocal agreement to participate in the Montana Law Enforcement Testing Consortium, a joint recruitment testing program that will identify qualified candidates for participating cities and counties.