Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutSettlement Proposal Letter 2.3.2006.. L ( .!ur " 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 113 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 Distrids continued payments for 113 of the capacity of the treatment system, including the J-Ditch loan. In the process, the City appropriated virtualfy 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 any acceptable plan for the future must address this problem. I. 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 result in the restoration of the capacity to which the District is legally entitled. The unprecedented groVv1h in the McCall area presents unique and difficult challenges to both 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, 110t 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. ~;xJ~J Jerry &2vig, ~ Chairperson, Board of Directors cc: Lindley Kirkpatrick