Close Window To Return to Minutes.

Report to Village of Bear Lake Council - Utility Authority Questions and Requests

At our last Council meeting Glen and I were asked to present the following list of questions and issues we felt needed clarification by the BLP Utility Authority at the May meeting.

a) On page 3 of the Articles it states the Board members were supposed to take an oath of office - none has been provided and none were taken? Who has the oath language and who should administer it?

Mr. Richard Wilson stated each unit was responsible for administering its own to its own officers.

b) We request from the 2 Township Clerks, a copy of their minutes and certification of who was appointed as their representatives, so we may keep a master file of primary documents.

Mr. Richard Wilson has supplied a packet of documents which the Clerk now has a copy of.

c) We also request a signed copy of the bylaws as approved at the April 15, 2003 meeting.

Ditto above.

d) a number of admin activities need to be accomplished or be in place before we can proceed.
i) The Treasurer, as stated in the Articles, needs to establish a bank account separate of Bear Lake Township.

Don Shreve is waiting to see if there is sufficient to make a transfer - see below
.
ii) The Board has yet to prepare, adopt and submit to all 3 units of government for approval of a FY 2003/4 budget, as specified in the Articles, which includes administration costs.

Dendra was asked to assist Don to do this.

iii) The Board needs to establish a procedure for approving services and a procedure for approval and payment of bills - none is specified in the Bylaws.

We (Glen and Dendra) will write one for consideration.

iii) The Village needs to complete it’s FY2002/3 Audit.

2002 has been mailed to Prein Newhoff, the Auditor's letter of approval has been mailed to Miller Canfield.

iv) In order for us to do that we need an itemized statement with invoices of the transactions for the Bear Lake Pleasanton Sewer/Feasibility Board.
Not supplied yet.
v) There is approximately $9k remaining of the amount all 3 units contributed to pay Prein Newhoff for the Engineering feasibility report. When we are assured that all outstanding debts are paid for the previous Board, and that account is declared defunct, we will consider transferring our share of the balance to the newly created bank account.

Only $400 remains with outstanding debts still remaining. It appears the final invoice from Prein Newhoff has been received and paid. The BLPUA agreed by motion to assume the outstanding debts of the Sewer Board but it is unclear whether there is sufficient funds to do that. What is the Council's wish and what $ limit do they wish to commit?
f) The Village was not informed that there would be additional expenses incurred before consideration by Rural Development therefore we have none budgeted in FY2003/4.
We quite clearly and unequivocally stated that we contributed to the Engineering study only and the additional legal fees concerned us. We also quite emphatically stated that the Village HAS NOT created any line item for additional funds for the BLPUA as none was requested in this financial year.

vi) The Secretary needs to purchase an official seal.

Mr. Wilson has purchased one.

e) The Village formally requests that the Village Clerk receive the Minutes within 8 business days of the Regular Meeting and also be notified within 18 hours of any meeting change in order to post it at the customary and usual places and inform Council members.

Dendra requested them again on the 10th day after the meeting and has received a copy. In addition we had asked in writing for a copy of the audio tape recording to make transcript - it has not thus far been received.
The April BLPUA minutes ar now posted to the Village web site and as soon as possible so will the authorizing documents.

g) We have received a proposal from Attorney Wilson for future legal fees.
The BLP Utility Authority has not voted yet to appoint legal council or a bonding attorney.

Dendra raised the issue, also raised by our attorney, that Mr. Wilson is the attorney for both Bear Lake and Pleasanton Townships as well as the Village of Onekama, and that his proposed role as BLPUA attorney would inevitably place him in a position of Conflict of Interest. He agreed that in the event that a perception of Conflict should arise he would have to absent himself if asked to.
When asked when the Contract for BLPUA legal fees would commence he answered - not until and unless an offer is made and accepted from US Rural Development. On that basis his proposal was accepted. Thus far we do not have an agreement with Miller Canfield until and unless we proceed with a bonding issue.

The Authority will also need to appoint an outside auditing firm and a CPA. Should we ask for RFP’s for these positions?

Yes, when needed.

h) The Village of Onekama intends to purchase Leslie Smith’s property. The proposed irrigation area is within 0.6 miles of the Village of Bear Lake’s State approved Wellhead Protection catchment area. What is our, and their, legal responsibility to monitor it and what are our options and liabilities if it starts to infringe?

Refer to the copy of US RD requests for comment on the Environment Assessment of proposed irrigation for Village of Onekama. 18 monitor wells are budgeted as part of our US RD proposal. However there will still be legal liability contractual issues to be resolved. Especially in light of our Wellhead Protection Program and the State's new legislation related to aquifer protection.

i)The Engineering Report does not properly define our boundaries or those of the Townships, and, more importantly crosses private property within the Village and isn’t clear on how the lines will route around our well site.

Not resolved yet. It appears the Report was submitted with some errors still in place.

j) Yet to be determined are several unknowns chief of which is what will Onekama expect to levy on top of the expected $80. Also are we comfortable relying on Onekama being in sole control of operation and repair with only one full time employee being stated as required to run it all?

Not resolved yet.

k) What is the Authority’s position on accepting $80+ a month fee if the USDA offer is all loan and no or insufficient grant?

l) If the offer comes back as a loan it will be for 40 years at 4.5%. The additional cost of running the system to Onekama and back is @$1.5m - with possible additional costs yet to be determined. The Village’s share of construction is fairly constant at $3.3m. Fred has stated that if we want to pursue additional funding to help Village residents that will be up to the Village. If USDA RD awards a grant to solely the Village portion how will that affect our monthly per REU cost?

m) If this turns out to be just simply too expensive - what is our back up plan?

Not resolved yet. We are pursuing other options and alternatives, the final $ submitted went up to $10.83m

n) It is being proposed that we contract with a financing assessment officer to determine who pays what in fees. How much should we pursue, and incur debt for, in advance of getting a decision and/or offer from USDA RD?

Not resolved yet. Miller Canfield Rep Dennis Nieman advised against doing anything until we have a better idea of true costs.

o) Where, in the project cost, is the repayment to the 3 governmental units of the moneys already expended on the Feasibility phase?
Now included.

p) A copy of both the draft and the final, in print and CD ROM format, is available for reference use at the library - it is also available for a limited home loan from the library and is now available as a download on our web site.
99 thus far. If you compare the Feasibility Report with the Final you will see where the project costs have risen - primarily in the transmission and treatment. Also the contingency fees are calculated on a % so they rise in tandem.
Dennis Nieman went over in careful detail the process for application and what will happen IF we get a favorable proposal from USRD. He stated quite firmly that Public Hearings (TWO are necessary to proceed) should NOT be held until an actual reasonably accurate cost can be presented to those affected.
Concerns: Several pieces of procedure and paperwork are required to be sent in along with the application. The Village was not aware of this before hand but at this stage both Glen and I feel we should let the process go forward.

1. Upon notification by USRD, each unit of government has to vote to accept and then publish a display ad a "NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROCEED".

2. Each unit holds a Public Hearing. Each unit's registered voters have 45 days in which to present a petition to hold a Referendum vote on the NI. If 10% of the registered voters in each and any unit present a legally valid petition requesting a vote each unit has the option of holding a Special Election or waiting till its next regular election to include a referendum proposal.
The reason ALL voters can participate is that each unit has to pledge the 'good faith' of its General Fund to cover its debt obligation to make collection payments to the Utility Authority. Each Unit collects from the property owners within its own sewer district and then writes a single check, probably quarterly, to the Utility Authority. It has to make that payment whether it's collected its full dues or not.
If 51% vote against proceeding, the issue is dead.
Village voters may vote in BOTH a petition for a Village referendum AND Bear Lake Township referendum as we are actually BLTwp. registered voters and pay taxes to both.

3. If the referendum vote is favorable - or IF there isn't one at all - we would proceed to the next step - which is to formally establish each unit of governments Special Assessment District for sewer service. At THAT point another Public Hearing is held within 60-90 days to hear comments/ complaints from those specifically included only WITHIN the SAD, and only those.
If 20% of those within each and any of the SAD's sign a legal petition for a referendum vote then THOSE affected will be polled in each and any SAD only. 51% in favor of the SAD in each unit is necessary to proceed.

However:
*It is Glen and Dendra's position that if the USRD proposal is as a straight loan it will be too expensive for Village Residents, particularly the school. What is Council's consensus?

Close Window