HomeMy Public PortalAboutContracts-PLWSD LETTER TO COUNCIL - Settlement Proposal - 02.03.06PAYETTE LAKE' RECREATIONAL VA,Trtt AND SEWER DISTRICT
etvuar .
l\ 16'411 ('a) Couneil
Ii 1,:tonson,
210 last Park Street
ii)
Deur Counci
rie 1)i-strict Board voulo like to thank Bill Robertstin for providing die summary ol
his view about our current di fre:kmers In heht of 1.hw. recent letter received from I„.,indley
Kirkpatrick advising ot the scilleruent proposal tbrtheorning from the City. we do feel that
one or Iwo puirns raised in surrunur3- clescie.c considerable disi.assiur bccause they
directly affect the issues both sides must consider and resolve in order to trio\ e forward.
First, we fully tigree ithihe assessment t trom bullet 1, page of 13:111 Robertson's
documein) of both tbe mecliator and Ch)ls counsel dial i-, not itkely to pre -tail in Ow
current 1,w,suit auninst the District. The rea.tiOn for this is that a nul ..vould bevei) :reluctant
to overturn almost ycars el contracts beiv, en the City and the District.--eimtrac.is in
both parties nitimateI\ af.4reed that the 1 istrk u ned nki continuously pad for 1/3 cthe
capaehy of Ilk SySIVITI.
\No, disagree ivith the 0)111CiltiOTI tha tie District's main interest in this ea -se is
operatin!.2 the sysicm, Vtlik the Disiric1 is very proud of our ()pawing uulite\ t.nietive
maintenance record, and the excellent condition of our system. Bill Robertson's contention
1s it lundarnental misunderstanding ol; the District's position. s mhondet'moikling
must be corrected before an pi -ogress tov,ard a long-term solution Can be made.
LDistfict's rnain efirts:ern is to protect it-tk. itcre,si.s i)f Is trons,
Our parorut fo-rned the District ;Ind ,n‘est,.(1 in t;i ser ico
treatment system.
()tn. patron, have it:nett on ilsstirewees from 11-e based on
Nvit! he lituc ai he 1) elel enLv u r11-c'
t)lloent,:ti to tier nreperitcs rot ull.ae (.4‘;er
Di,trict ,:onset \ A oini,t,:r hilt,tup.;,
LI me cer s, sten, ,Ails tuniuAi prooleint,.. the iftrther IL,
iluOL.F.'• itS I t?' t -,10511P,
4. The District built a computer model of its hookup inventory to ration and
conserve its allowable hookups. Further, the District has historically approved inclusions
only when this model indicated it could do so without exceeding its contractually guaranteed
capacity.
5. The District stopped additional inclusions when the model showed that the
number of hookups reserved for its patrons, plus the number of hookups in its inclusions
would equal is 1/3 share of the limited land application capacity after anticipated build -outs
ten years into the future.
6. Based on capacity concerns, the District then turned down inclusion requests
from Greystone condominiums, Aspen Ridge, and the Village at Deer Meadows. The City
subsequently approved all three applications even though it had already exceeded its
contractual capacity in the system.
7. At this point, the District began a feasibility study to complete construction of
a new treatment plant in approximately six years to insure it would not exceed its 1/3
capacity limit.
8. At the current time, the District is still only using about half of its
contractually agreed land application capacity. Meanwhile, the City is using all of its
capacity and half of the District's capacity. It did this without notification of, or discussion
with, the District. Further, it did this in spite of the District's continued payments for 1/3 of
the capacity of the treatment system, including the J-Ditch loan. In the process, the City
appropriated virtually all of the capacity the District had reserved for its patrons.
In the District's view. this is the most important problem to be solved as we move into the
future, and anv acceptable plan for the future must address this problem.
1. One way to solve this problem would be to have all this capacity returned to
the District by the City as soon as additional land for application is found. However, the
District has not previously requested this measure because of the potential damage it could
do to the City of McCall.
2. Instead, seven months ago the District sought to start a dialogue with the
City that would allow this problem to be solved through reason and discussion. The lawsuit
filed subsequently by the City will not eliminate the need for the City and District to
cooperate to chart a future course operationally acceptable to both parties and their patrons.
3. The District is committed to resolving the common problems the City and
the District face, and to finding a solution that minimizes the disruption to our obligations
to our patrons and to the City's plans for continued growth.
However. for this to occur:
1. The City must immediately dismiss, without prejudice, its lawsuit against
the District, so both the District and the City can stop spending time, money and effort on a
contentious legal fight that, instead. should be going toward the construction and
maintenance of sewer systems.
2. City council members must negotiate in good faith with the District's Board
of Directors, recognizing the District's rights. This agreement must be based on the City's
acknowledgment that the District's contracts with the City are valid and that, among other
things, these negotiations will ultimately resuit in the restoration of the capacity to which
the District is legally entitled.
The unprecedented growth in the McCall area presents unique and difficult
challenges to bath the City and the District. Meeting these challenges in a way that
respects and protects the interests and rights of both parties will require cooperation, not
continued conflict. It is the sincere hope of the District Board that the Council will choose
to continue the dialogue we have begun with a mutual view toward achieving a solution
that serves the long term interests of both parties and their respective patrons.
We look forward to scheduling another discussion session as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Jerry yYevig,
Chairperson, Board of Directors
cc: Lindley Kirkpatrick