Bayview Angels Thank You!

Thank you!

Letter to the BW&S Board - Jamie Berube

March 20, 2018

Re: Bayview Water & Sewer District – Meeting Agenda

Chairman Doney & Sharon Meyer:

I was able to attend the board meeting last month and was very disappointed with the following items and especially the agenda.  I have a suggestion I would like considered and a request for an update regarding a topic discussed at the February 15, 2018 meeting.

1.      I have pulled the agenda for the meeting scheduled for March 21, 2018.  To prevent unnecessary costs to the district, I suggest not printing the agendas for those in attendance.  After the last meeting, I saw several agendas torn up and thrown on the ground outside of the community center.  Unless the board members plan on cleaning up the litter, don’t bother.  The public can print these if they are planning on attending meetings.  Per the input at the meeting, these agendas are worthless to the public because there are no talking points to follow your discussions regarding specific topics.  There were several of us trying to figure out what you all were discussing, which may have been in the “Consent Agenda” at the beginning.  At the February meeting, the board stated the information (talking / discussion points) are on their agendas, but not on the public agendas.  Why?  This only added to confusing the public and demonstrating the continual lack of transparency from this board. 

2.      Per the request of at least three individuals, including myself, there is no mention of a monthly balance sheet that the public can review prior to the meeting to better understand the financial status of the district and ask clarifying questions.  Mr. Doney stated he would have to ask for legal advice to provide such information to the public.  It does not appear that this topic is going to be addressed under the Treasurer’s Report, Old Business or New Business.  Am I to assume that neither of you have discussed this matter with legal?  Budget information should be on the agenda under the Treasurer’s Report each month.  Oral reports are difficult to follow and understand if they are not printed allowing the public to follow along.  Am I to assume that the public is not going to be allowed to know income and expense without having to do a “Public Records Request” each and every month?

3.      Lastly, I was publicly scolded and threatened to close the meeting by Mr. Doney for responding to an individual that interrupted me while I was asking a question to the board regarding the Treasurer’s Report and providing a line item accounting of monthly income and expenses as done by most public non-profit organizations.  It is the responsibility of the Chair to keep order at meetings and allowing off topic interruptions of how this board does not get paid to have the evening meetings, how much time they devote to the district, how you all have lives that go beyond the district and what a great job you all are doing, was extremely inappropriate.  Unfortunately, these planted / staged individuals just made matters worse.  It is the responsibility of Mr. Doney, as Chair, to publicly keep order and professionalism during the meetings and not allow the inappropriateness of such off-topic interruptions.

In summary, I appreciate that a meeting was held where those of us that are working during the day could attend.  It is unfortunate that there will only be 4 evening meetings per year.  Most other public boards meet evenings to accommodate the public, such as the Kootenai County Commissioners and Lakes Highway District.  I would like to remind this board that you chose to run for the positions you hold and were elected.  Now you are public servants that are supposed to exhibit transparency and fiscal responsibility to our community and to those you serve.  All I am seeing is the lack of transparency, lack of fiscal responsibility and blame on the previous board and employees for the poor decisions currently being made.  It is okay to make mistakes, just take responsibility and be willing to learn and revise decisions as necessary.  I see no effort from this board to understand the water and sewer systems and the reasons behind past operations of an antiquated system.  I think most agree that improvements are necessary, but within reason and within budget.  Before our district is totally bankrupt, please reevaluate some of the decisions you are making.   Please let me know if this board has any plans to edit the agenda to inform the public of the actual monthly income and expenses and if any actions will be taken to better represent the topics of discussion.

Thank you,

Jamie Berube

(208) 683-5138 – Evenings or (509) 838-4651 x 012340 - Days

jberube@fbhwa.org

jjberube52@outlook.com

BW&S Board Meeting

Just to keep you informed the next BW&S Board meeting is March 21st at 3:00 pm.

Be informed come to the meeting.

Response from Colleen Dahlseid to Rich Doney and BW&S

Editor Note:
Every posting on this blogspot is done after extensive research via the BW&S website, Public Records Request, and attending the BW&S Board meetings. We are presenting facts. Read and form your own conclusions.

"February 26, 2018

Mr. Richard Doney, Chairman

Bayview Water and Sewer District

P.O. Box 637

Bayview, ID  83803

Dear Mr. Doney,

I would like to thank you for your letter of February 1^st in response to my letter   regarding concern for the district’s rampant deficit spending. While I appreciate your response, I found some of it posed more questions than answers.  I would like to ask for further clarification of some of the information you provided.

You state that the fiscal year loss is totally due to the $73,445 vacation payouts and severance package to former operators when you made the decision to go to contract operations.  I recall that the board made a press release to the Shorelines publication at the time the decision was made to make this change and publicized an $82,000 savings you would realize by this move.  Am I now to understand that this $82,000 savings did not include the $73,445 payout?  You knew of the payouts when you made the decision to go to contract operations. This is very confusing to the district’s consumers.  I know that requests have been made to the board to furnish us with the cost benefit analysis that you performed and used as a basis to make this decision, but you refuse to release that information.  If this analysis were made public, it would, perhaps, help us understand the fiscal year operations loss and the losses we have experience in December, 2017 and January, 2018.   This is our money. Why and how it is being spent is our concern.

I find it interesting that the usual, normal and on-going expenses for repair and maintenance are now being labeled “neglected issues”, “poor installation” and “lack of routine maintenance”.  However, we won’t find answers by defining the problem incorrectly.

You stated in your response that you pay the contractors that Mr. Kuchenski hires to do the maintenance and repairs a flat rate and are not charged for two people even if two are sent. Following the meeting on February 15^th, I furnished you with the invoices from Lincoln Excavating that I referenced in my original letter to you. 

                             -2-                              

Both invoices show that the district was charged $125 an hour for each of two people in one instance ($250 hourly) and $100 an hour for each of 2 people in another instance ($200 hourly).  You and Ms. Meyer assured me you would look into that apparent departure from your fee structure.  It is a lot of money, given the fact that our former employee that did a large portion of this work was paid $30 an hour. Our local excavating company used by our employee based operators, when needed, was much less expensive.

Mr. Doney, you failed to address the major issue in my original letter, to curb spending until such time as a budget is implemented that realistically projects costs, based on what you are spending under the contract operations management.

You have budgeted $5,667 per month for water and sewer repairs and maintenance.  Here are the actual expenditures for the last 3 months:

                   ) November $19,604.

                   ) December    20,347.

                   ) January         4,387.

                                      $44,338.  An average of $14,779 per month.

Since I know your fiscal year budget begins December 1^st, if we adjust the figures for just the first two months of your fiscal year—the average is $12,367, that’s still 118% over your monthly budgeted figure, with all the repairs and maintenance that is required in spring fast approaching.

I fail to comprehend how you can manage the district’s finances, measuring performance by a budget that is 118% off on just one line item.  This immense disparity effects the budget in its entirety—especially the bottom line and it appears we may have the same issue in Professional Fees. The fiscal responsibility to get at the heart of the problem and revisit and adjust the budget based on empirical spending rests on this board.

In addition, Mr. Kuchenski indicated he had a bid for $8,500 to convert the sewage treatment site from the current manual operations to automatic. The previous board continued with the manual operations to save the district money.  If someone has to turn a couple switches to continue the manual operations to save the district $8500, it needs to be given serious consideration.  I realize that the contract operator wants to convert everything to auto so he does not have to go on-site, however, is it cost effective?  What happens if the auto system fails?  With the continued deficit spending the district is experiencing in the water-sewer maintenance category, we do not have $8,500 to spend for this unnecessary expense.

                              -3-                            

How do you intend to fund this deficit spending?  Your January 31^st balance sheet shows that you transferred $10,000 from the MWB Sewer Savings #8307 and 

$10,000 from the MWB Water Savings #8299 into the General Checking #7564 to fund the $23,439 loss in the month of December, which Mr. May’s financial report

at the February 15^th meeting failed to note—he gave the balance of these accounts as if the transfers had not taken place?   

This board continues to fund deficit, over budget spending from the savings of the prior board and employee operators.  These funds will be extinguished in a short time if this spending pattern is not curbed.  We see no attempt to adopt and live by a budget that will protect the district’s assets.

Mr. Doney, I come to you with these genuine concerns.  I do not have a personal ax to grind.  I realize we have an old system that needs some attention, however, I firmly believe it should be addressed on an “as needed” basis—not on an “as wanted” basis.  To experience a rate increase for failure to operate within the budget and curb over-budget spending would be a violation of fiscal responsibility.   

None of us want to see that happen.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration, I know many other users share these same concerns.

Sincerely,

Colleen Dahlseid

P.O. Box 642

Bayview, ID  83803

The Blame Game Part 1

March 5, 2018

The Other Side of BWSD – The Blame Game Goes On –Part 1 of a 3 part Blog (by Karen Renner)

Note – I exclude Director Jan Jones from comments regarding the current board.  She appears to be the only director willing to listen, ask questions and apply logic. I am writing at length to explain concerns with current operations of Bayview Water & Sewer District to assist people who have only recently begun to follow.

Truth or Blame?  If you research why people blame others, it is simply to avoid admitting culpability.  Recent campaigns for positions on the BWSD board focused on allegations of financial mismanagement, a lack of transparency and poor customer service from the previous board and district employees.  No apologies were offered when financial audits came back showing the district ran within budget each year.  The facts are, since Mr. Richard Doney became Chairman of the Board in 2016, operation costs have exploded and complaints by customers continue to increase.  I am not talking about complaints from citizens Mr. Doney refers to as “the group of eight haters”.  I am referring to the growing number of unsatisfied district customers frustrated by inadequate service or being given inaccurate information.

The irony of this continual pattern of blame is that the so-called irresponsible previous board and neglectful operators managed to leave the current board with significant funds in savings!!  How lucky to be able to spend so liberally because of those who served before you.  Obviously, the previous board could have spent far beyond the budget without consideration but chose not to.  They too could have allowed operators to call outside contractors to make repairs or install service connections.  Employees could have gone home each day without any dirt on their hands or boots and watched others complete ‘dirty labor work’.  But they got by, replacing what was necessary and carefully planning for when and how to make purchases within budget.  Staying within budget was valued and some replacements were pushed back when not imminently necessary (currently referred to as ‘neglect’).  Amazingly, the district produced water through every storm, never flooded the sewer treatment site, remained in compliance with permits and completed new service connections without months of controversy. 

We can continue to “chain blame” all day long, and it accomplishes nothing except to confuse facts necessary for customers to understand.   Mr. Doney continues to state various reasons why the district now fails to operate within budget since converting to contract operations.   With an intensifying need to “justify” deficit spending, Richard Doney writes in a recent letter “In the past several months, we’ve incurred major expenses to repair neglected issues, poor installation problems, lack of routine maintenance along with a few unusual circumstances”.  Mr. Doney would ask us to believe that mud slides, electrical surges during lightning storms, winter freezing and power outages are circumstances exclusive to the past few months.   Board minutes and operator reports over the past several years outline maintenance performed, discussions on anticipated work required moving forward and planning for operation expenses within the budget.  (details included later in this letter).  The previous operators were aware of many things needing attention through daily checks or adjustments.  They were also aware of many things that could be upgraded but managed without the expense.  A full time employee operator had the ability to consistently monitor and make repairs, often without calling in another company.  A contract operator with 20 other systems to run does not have the time to dedicate to just one system (hence constant requests to upgrade equipment to run automatically).

I reviewed board minutes, operator reports and recent invoices obtained in order to understand facts.  The list below summarizes the maintenance & repairs completed.  I did not include typical daily system checks, performing requested locates, new service installations, reading meters, routine septic tank pumping, etc.  Minutes and recent operator reports are available on the BWSD website for anyone wanting to verify (I have been accused of bringing Fake News to Bayview).   As you can see, previous and current operators addressed problems with pumps, line breaks, leaks and other maintenance/repairs in addition to new service connections.  So why the outrageous increase in costs far exceeding budget??? Despite documentation in monthly board minutes, the district maintains ‘major repairs’ are exclusive to the past few months. 

2016 - Maintenance and Repairs documented by employees (operator reports available for the last part of 2016)

·         Dromore addition -  pump fixed

·         Re-wired timer on pump #1 Tri-Plex (main sewer pump station which houses 3 large pumps)

·         Rebuilt one of the Tri-plex pumps

·         Repaired distribution leak at Vista Bay

·         Replaced transducer in main well pump house #7 after pressure sensor was malfunctioning

·         Replaced a pump on Hudson Bay Road

·         Repaired major water leak in Farragut State Park (indicates 9 more aging joints need fixed)

2017 -  January through August - Maintenance and Repairs documented by employees

·         Replaced a bad check valve on Tri-plex station pump #1; pumps 2 and 3 were not running on automatic and had to be run on manual until United Crown found the voltage controller was not working and this was replaced;  verified fluctuating voltage at peak power using times with KEC

·         Two new pumps purchased for Tri-plex

·         Repaired leaking sewer line to a septic tank on Arapaho Drive

·         Mud slide on Cape Horn road, shutting off section of water main to make repairs to main line and service connections

·         Pulled Pump #3 at the Triplex station and replaced it with a new pump ($6,009.28)

·         Replaced a vent screen at the top of the main water tower in Farragut

·         Serviced 2 septic tanks with flow issues

·         Repaired electrical breaker - Duwamish condos

·         Replaced generator battery at pump house #7 (main well house)

·         Serviced Cape Horn Main Pump station generator

·         Repaired water shutoff valves

·         Digging up and replacing two concrete top water meter boxes

·         Sprayed out sand filters at the treatment site

·         Installed a new actuator for the sand filters

·         Treatment site spring maintenance:  checking valves, inspecting all sprinkler lines for any needed repairs, clearing brush & fallen trees and spraying poison

·         Maintenance pumps at the Triplex, leaking oil detected and repaired ($2,235.63)

·         (Reid Vacation coverage by Water System Mtg) Water leak repaired at Duwamish, pulled pump under warranty at Dromore station ($4,064.50 Water System Mgt labor) ($590.84 excavation)

·         Treatment site operation maintenance: Rotating sprinkler heads at treatment site for proper coverage; cleared site of weeds and impeding trees;  cleaned out the #2 and #3 sand filters;  flushed the system and cleaned the bottom of the pond

·         Installed a new pump at the Tri-plex

·         Repaired Leak at Lakeland RV ($1,790.84 includes installation of a new meter on same invoice)

·         Serviced irrigation pump at the treatment site ($384.50)

·         Installed new septic tank motor at McDonalds resort; re-plumbed to provide easier maintenance access ($4,656.80)

·         Repaired septic tank leak on 5^th street ($500)

·         Repairs to Pumping Failure Alarm at Cape Horn Estates Booster Pumps ($300)

·         Tested calibration of water flow up on Cape Horn Sewage Lagoon

2017 – August to January, 2018 Contract Operator Maintenance and Repairs documented (no reports posted for August & September 2017, work identified via invoices received from public record requests)

·         Repaired three treatment site flow meters

·         Hired company to inspect and clean water tower ($2,900), inspect water main on lake bed in Scenic Bay ($4,750)

·         Hired company to replace water meter on Cottonwood Court ($2,500 – labor, 2 man crew @$250/hr)

·         Hired company to repair broken pipe in Dromore Pump house ($800 - labor, 2 man crew @$200/hr)

·         Repaired breaker at Duwamish lift station; installed new control panel and contactor ($2,038.45)

·         Repaired leak on Pend Oreille Pines Rd ($2,656)

·         Moved 2 water lines on Cape Horn Road as required by Lakes Highway ($5,065)

·         Serviced LMI pumps and check flow meters ($2,031.45)

·         Winterized sewer treatment irrigation site

In the July 18, 2017 board minutes, the previous employee operator reported that “in the near future the district will need to dig up and replace the valves at MacDonald’s when the season comes to an end and things slow down”.  Did the new operator follow up on this?  Is this neglect of repairs? If so, by who?

At the regular board meeting on February 15^th, I attempted to clarify an example Mr. Doney cited as a recent major expense such as “Major leak at Lakeland RV Park after Lakes Highway broke a pipe during roadwork”.  I called Lakes Highway District, as well as the sub-contractor who did the work on Perimeter road.  Both verified they were notified by the district operator of the leak discovery prior to road work starting, and repairs were in progress the day road work began.  Mr. Doney insisted (quite rudely) that I did not know what I was taking about.  I have a picture taken on July 10^th, 2017, the day work began to fix the leak.  It shows water pooling in the access road to the RV Park and no road work in progress from Lakes Highway.  It also shows the ‘locates’ which are spray painted on the asphalt (which are typically called in a few days prior).  Invoice for excavation work done was July 10, 2017, district operator provided labor to repair a 2” pvc broken elbow (major leak).  In my opinion, a public apology is owed to Lakes Highway District since the letter is now posted on the website.

At the February 15^th board meeting, Mr. Doney presented a response (to a letter of concern submitted to the board by a citizen) deflecting any responsibility for financial management decisions that were fully within the discretion of the board.

1)      “Vacation pay outs and severance package to former operators”:  When Neil retired, Reid operated the system for months by himself.  Neil’s position did not need to be replaced when there was a fully licensed operator and a contracted back-up operator in place (combined was thousands of dollars less per month than we are paying now to contract operators).  Mr. Doney states payouts were an ‘unforeseen expenditure’ yet the board was aware of the amount of vacation employees had.  Neil’s vacation payout could have been less impactful had the district chose attrition or delayed the abrupt conversion to contract operations (thus avoiding an additional vacation payout and severance package).  These decisions were choices of the board, implemented without a transition or oversight plan in place addressing overall financial implications    Again, blame and no responsibility taken.  Again, savings funds were accessed.

2)      “Unexpected costs have occurred…” Doney states aging equipment needs checked regularly, and routine maintenance and repairs were neglected.  Previous operators checked daily M-F, the current operator does not.  Why is there so much blame assigned to typical issues with any aging system?  Mr. Doney’s letter also states “Water line break at Dromore booster due to incorrect piping and installation”.   According to board minutes, Water System Mgt completed work in June 2017 at Dromore when a pump went down (while Reid was on vacation).  Months after this work was done, Dromore flooded and it was reported by a citizen because the contract operator had not checked that location for 4 consecutive days prior. It’s possible that a leak could have been detected before a total break, who knows.  If something was done incorrectly, why is the board not requesting Water System Mgt fix it?  Who determined the piping and installation were incorrect?  Was it the company that originally installed these pumps? I requested invoices for work done at Dromore to see who did the re-plumbing and the district has not yet complied with my request submitted 3.1.18.  These are questions the board should be openly addressing, but fail to do so.

3)      “The District incurred start-up costs for the upcoming Facility Plan”… This has been an on-going subject for quite some time at meetings and we have no idea how this expense will be covered.  As of January 31, there is only $12,990 left in the total FY budget for professional fees (of $41,200 budgeted through the end of November 2018).  We have yet to pay for the yearly audit which is a substantial cost to the district.  Once again, this Board (under Chairman Doney) does not plan for, or execute fiscal responsibility.  How does the board plan to cover the huge expense of the Facility Plan (which district cost may be as much as $67,000 according to DEQ statements)?  Savings?  DEQ application states the district has the funds to cover this.

4)      District share of the grant for Cape Horn generators was $4639. Originally, the 25% share cost of the grant was going to be off-set by credit for director and employee labor.  Again, Mr. Doney continues to present large expenditures as ‘unexpected and unforeseen’ yet fully within the repercussion of choosing to contract operations.  With no employees to provide labor and contract operators who do not perform this labor as part of their contract, the district had to actually pay the full 25% share cost of the grant with district funds…

This board appears to resist any information which may present a different set of facts or perspective which, in my opinion, opens the district to extreme liability and risk.  Examples:

·         This board contracted with an operator who did not have a qualified license to operate the sewer treatment site.  The board insisted it was OK because the back-up charge operator was licensed, however, failed to confirm with the back-up operator.  Weeks later, DEQ issued a letter of non-compliance (after I filed a complaint).  The board then stated “the only reason we were out of compliance is because they changed the rules”.  I called DEQ to verify, no rules had changed since Idaho Bureau of Licensing assumed oversight of licensure 5+ years ago.  The board did not read the Re-Use permit, or call DEQ to understand requirements prior to making a decision to contract with an unlicensed operator (land application/treatment site) and place our system at risk. Nor did the board arrange for supervision, training or oversight from a licensed operator until forced to do so by DEQ.  The board trusted misguided information from the new contract operator without verifying compliance requirements or facts, and mislead the public during meetings.

·         In January, the new contract operator reported that during the major power outage he was unable to start generators and that the main well generator must be started manually (who is this a problem for?  It’s an older diesel generator). 

o   Mr. Kuchenski had been the charge operator for over 5 months and apparently never took the time to understand, check or maintain generators prior to the first power outage that placed our community at risk of being without water or pumping sewage

o   Mr. Kuchenski reported there was no schedule to follow, but he would develop one

o   After this, Mr. Doney states in  a letter that generator batteries were corroded and needed to be replaced, suggesting neglect by previous operators and reason the new operator was unable to start generators during an emergency

o   Board minutes in May, 2017 document previous employee operators replaced the well generator battery -  was this a bad battery under warranty?  Same minutes also document maintenance on another generator.  Employees reported routinely starting generators (and cleaning the terminals with baking soda) despite not having a written schedule as they were able to track this being here full time and having in depth knowledge of our system. Was baking soda thought to be corrosion?

o   Not one director inquired of Mr. Kuchenski during his report, asking when he last started the generators, serviced or checked them.  5 months of being in each pump station and not learning emergency operations is not acceptable (in my opinion).

·         In January, Mr Kuchenski reported the well pump could not be operated manually, which ‘placed us at the mercy’ of the system during the same power outage. 

o   Marsha Ritzheimer reported in a recent letter her knowledge of 2 separate switches, both operational.  I know Reid operated the well pump station in manual mode, sometimes days at a time when necessary. 

o   Mr. Kuchenski reported he has called a company to come and fix the switch

o   Again, not one director asked the operator why 5 months had gone by without his knowledge of emergency operation.  If there was switch problem, why was this not found on routine checks?  Marsha points out, the main manual switch has a 10 minute safety delay, however, Mr. Kuchenski reports the switch was ‘disconnected’.  Mr. Kuchenski was also unaware of the instant override switch.

o   Mr. Kuchenski could have stated he did not know how, rather, he reports things were broken – things he didn’t bother to check or learn about for 5 months.

I could give example after example of information reported which the board accepts at face value, no questions, no verification and questions about this are met with defensive and hostile tones.  Oversight is the responsibility of the board.  On September 20, 2017, I wrote a formal letter to the board asking what contract monitoring and oversight processes were in place and have yet to receive an answer.  People deserve the truth.  It would be nice if the district would simply take ownership of decisions they are making, as well as answer questions with complete honesty.  There is no money in the monthly budget for loan re-payment (as the originally stated reason for converting to contract operations).  Fact is, we will be asked to approve a bond this fall, and most likely more than double our base water rates to cover loan re-payment because it is costing more to contract operations.  What started at 1.7 million for upgrades, the Letter of Interest to DEQ requests 3.3 million.  The more we spend, the more the engineering firm makes.  Operations become remote or automatic with limited on-site presence…everyone wins but the customers who will pay substantially more.

Part 2 and 3 to follow, including facts surrounding the infamous flooding of the BWSD sewer treatment site – stay tuned….

Letter to BW&S Board Date: 9.20.2017

Correction:
BW&S Board responded, but failed to answer most of the questions and failed to respond in writing to Karen directly and never posted their response in the website as requested

To:          Bayview Water and Sewer District Board

From:    Karen Renner

Date:     September 20, 2017

Re:         Agenda Item/Public Matters/Budget Clarification and Compliance Issues

I apologize that I am unable to attend the meeting in person, but wanted to submit my concerns and questions in this letter.  I remain very concerned with the outcome of decisions this board has and is making on behalf of the customers of this district.

Compliance Issues #1 – Violations of the Idaho Open Meeting Law

The Executive Session held on August 10, 2017 violated at least 3 rules of the Idaho Open Meeting Law.

1)      Executive sessions may take place only at valid open meetings

2)      A public agency cannot conduct an executive session to consider general staffing needs

3)      No executive session may be held for the purpose of taking any final actions or making any final decisions

At the general board meeting on August 15^th, 2017 ,decisions made during the executive session were announced including the elimination of two system operator positions, and the announcement of which contractor was selected for operation of both the water and sewer systems.  The law states “Failure to follow the procedural steps for a valid executive session will invalidate any action taken as a result of the executive session.  Additionally, it may subject the board members to the liability for those actions”. 

The customers of this district have a right to request that the board acknowledge these violations, and adhere to the principles of open and transparent government.  As stated in the law, a violation is cured by repealing any action taken at an illegal meeting or disregarding deliberations made in violation of the Open Meeting Law.  Should it choose to, a governing body may, in a properly noticed meeting, repeat the deliberation(s) that occurred at the illegal meeting. 

Additionally, the district has failed to comply with requirements for taking and posting minutes of all meetings, specifically all “Special” meetings held.

Compliance Issue #2 – Non Compliance with DEQ Reuse Permit M-105-04

Since dismissal of the previous system operator 8/14/17, permit compliance has not been met as follows:

·         Effluent flow meters have not been read daily

·         BWSD operating without a properly licensed charge operator for the treatment site

·         Proper chlorination of wastewater has not occurred

·         Proper application of wastewater to irrigation fields has not been maintained

·         Two weekly wastewater grab samples exceeded maximum allowable limits for coliform bacteria (one sample prior to the overflow exceeded permit limits by 7x indicating the system was operating with no chlorination)

·         BWSD failed to report these test results to DEQ within 24hrs of becoming aware (any violation which may endanger public health or the environment)

DEQ Investigation Report of Overflow at the Treatment Site on 8/31/17:

BWSD cited suspected vandalism and no risk to public health and the environment in an incident report issued.  On 9/12/17 DEQ issued a memorandum of the overflow event on 8/31.  This report has not been referenced by the district, and is not on the agenda for the meeting 9/20/17.  The report summarizes the following:

·         Water spraying form a broken sprinkler riser due an aged PVC coupler breaking lead to overflow from the access road and onto a forest service road

·         Broken sprinkler risers have been a common problem at the site in the past due to falling trees, impacts by animals and general aging of the system

·         Mr. Kuchenski reported he had been ensuring the chlorine system was being properly refilled

·         Mr. Kuchenski was not a properly licensed charge operator

·         BWSD was in the process of contracting with a licensed charge operator

What I have learned, which is not in the report is the following:

·         DEQ did not review chlorination logs, or request results of recent wastewater test samples.  During the investigation, BWSD failed to disclose the most recent test result which exceeded coliform bacteria permit limits by 7x. the week prior to the overflow, showing the system ran for a period of time with no chlorination

·         Allegations of vandalism were investigated by law enforcement and closed

·         Operator ran the same irrigation area continuously for 15 days, which saturated the area where the break occurred (estimated over one million gallons applied)

·         Previous operators had been replacing aged couplings with a thicker, more durable coupling – I have been told there is a box of these new couplings in the supply room

·         BWSD board will apparently take no responsibility to correct previous false claims and accurately report to the customers

System monitoring activity – comparison between employee data and contractor data

Triplex Pump station log data (main hub for transfer/pumping wastewater to treatment site)

Between 7/15/17 and 8/14/17, checks were documented 21 of 31 days, missing weekend days

Between 8/15/17 and 9/14/17, checks were documented 8 of 31 days, missing weekends and 11 consecutive days over Labor Day weekend.

Pump House #7 Log Data (main water pump house for Bayview)

Between 6/15/17 and 8/14/17, checks were documented 44 of 61 days, missing weekend days

Between 8/15/17 and 9/14/17, checks were documented 8 of 31 days, missing weekends and 7 consecutive days at one point, and another period of 7 days over Labor Day weekend

It would appear our new system operator, and all of his employees were unavailable over the extended Labor Day Holiday to conduct monitoring checks and meter readings at the two critical pump houses for both wastewater and water.  The customers of this district were told at the general meeting Aug 15^th that Integrity would be operating our system daily – Could the board please define what the definition of daily is?  In my opinion, inconsistent checks of our very expensive pumps and systems at extended intervals throughout each month is unacceptable, placing our district at high risk for system failures by not detecting problems early and conducting repairs.

Budget Considerations and Clarifications

Our current surplus/savings after contracting operations out is $26,160 less than 2 years ago when we had three full time employees, dedicated exclusively the operations of our district.

The cost/benefit analysis for contracting out is unknown, as these deliberations took place in a closed executive session.  Points I would like to have the board consider and explain:

·         What would the cost of one system operator be to the district? (Salary, no overtime)

·         What would the cost of an employee operator in training be, part time through the summer months? (increased resources trained specifically to our system)

·         What duties did our employee operator perform throughout the year that are not part of the contract operator duties?

·         How has reduced office hours benefited customer service?

·         Customers were told all staff of Integrity are licensed operators.  Could you please clarify which licenses these employees have?  Has Bob K. been a responsible charge operator of a sewer system? 

·         Previous operator was working average of 50+ hours per week after Neil retired and running our system in compliance – how does Integrity intent to achieve this level of service and compliance with a staff of 3, who also run 20 other systems?

·         Is there a corrective action plan and contract monitoring process in place?

·         Wastewater contract specifies unanticipated fees are not included in the contract – many of these duties were performed by our employees which will now be an additional cost @ $45/hr (ie annual report writing, system failures, broken collection system pipes). 

·         It is costing the district more money to contract daily routine system operations, compared to claims that we are saving $82,000 by contracting system operations.  We cannot determine how much more because of the contract add-on charges for unanticipated costs for both the water and sewer system which will accumulate throughout the year.  Same for general contract labor previously done  by employees.

In summary, the current BWSD board has increased costs, increased rates, decreased customer service, decreased frequency of system operation, eliminated historical expertise of operations and failed to ensure compliance with operating permits.  They have all but eliminated our ability to participate in community emergency disasters such as the Cape Horn fire where our system operators worked with fire crew around the clock regarding access to water supplies.  With Integrity servicing 20 other districts, I am certain that each of their customers will expect to be first in line for emergency response during winter storms, fires, power outages etc.  I did not take the time to touch on ethical issues, such as back dated contracts or deceptive posting of a recent special meeting – that can be shared at another time.  Our community deserves better than this, and I consider the decisions being made by the current board to be reckless and narrow minded.   I define the character of this board by one example.  When Reid was terminated on the spot with no warning, he was allowed a short time to gather his personal belongings of 10 years in the office. During this time, the board sitting before us now was celebrating, in his presence, with cake and ice-cream.  Ms. Meyer went so far as to offer cake & ice cream to him as he was on his way out.  This level of conduct is embarrassing and insulting, and exemplifies why two of our three previous employees walked off the job.