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….