Transparency of Paradise sewer project questioned after document uncovered

By CHUCK BANDEL

Valley Press

Centuries ago, according to Biblical accounts, a shepherd boy named David took on a Philistine giant named Goliath and overcame seemingly insurmountable odds.

A doggedly determined group of anti-sewer protesters in Paradise have been hoping to overcome their own battle against the odds.

While no stones have been flung, those opposed to the $4.5 million proposal to install a sewer system in their small, unincorporated Sanders County town may have found a crack in the armor of the pro-sewer establishment in their fight to halt or significantly alter the plan.

Thanks to some determined work by protest leaders Katy French and Lee Ann Overman, two of a large majority of Paradise property owners who have been battling the proposed sewer project for months, if not years, a key document has been uncovered that raises new questions about the validity and transparency of the project.

“We have been asking to see the Memo Of Understanding (MOU) that was signed between the Paradise Sewer District and Bridger Bischoff (owner of a proposed housing development that is linked to the project) since July,” French said. “We hadn’t seen it. We asked again in September and October. We had been promised along the way that the MOU would be made available.”

Their persistence paid off last week when French, a Paradise area landowner and engineer with experience in such projects, obtained a copy of the non-binding agreement which some, including Paradise Sewer Board President Sonny Chase, had denied existed.

French and Overman, whom also own property in the town, agreed the MOU points out some “disturbing” information about the project and agreements town residents suspected but could not confirm.

Earlier this month, the protesters achieved a small victory when Sanders County agreed to table a proposed ordinance/resolution that would require in some cases pre-treatment facilities for any existing or future construction of businesses by property owners who would be required to hook into the proposed sewer system.

The pre-treatment facilities would be needed, proponents say, to prevent large waste injections that could potentially clog the system.

The Paradise Sewer Board was established by area voters in 2010 to examine the need for and potential development of a sewage system to replace existing individual septic tanks. Proponents claim the existing septic systems pose a threat to the area’s underground water supplies which in turn limits any future growth in the area.

While acknowledging that a core area of the town has become a legitimate area of concern for groundwater contamination, the vast majority of property owners have risen up against what they say is a lack of communication by the Board and Sanders County. They also decry what they perceive as having to indirectly pay for development proposed for property owned by Bischoff on the north side of the town and the long-term costs associated with the project.

Under current proposals, town property owners would have to pay an approximately $185 per year assessment fee for the next 40 years to pay off the balance of the project that would not be covered by grants and other funding sources already obtained by the County. The costs borne by property owners would also include an estimated $35 per month fee to maintain and operate the system.

In addition, project leader Great West Engineering is seeking a mandate that would require property owners to hook into the sewer system or face steep installation costs at a later date. It would also require frequent inspections and upgrades of existing septic systems.

The project’s $4.5 million price tag has also drawn critical scrutiny from engineers from other engineering firms across the state who say the actual price of a system of the size and scope being proposed should cost more in the $2-2.5 million range.

The MOU outlines a proposed $200,000 purchase price paid to Bischoff for six acres of land he owns west of the town, on which the underground sewage treatment facility would be built. Also involved is language outlining rights-of-way that Bischoff would cede to the project and retain for access to other property and facilities he owns in the area.

Bischoff has not returned requests for interviews by the Valley Press, nor has he spoken with Paradise residents or appeared at any recent public meetings to discuss the matter.

“We’ve been wanting to know who paid this money, when they paid it and for what,” Overman said. “Until now we haven’t had answers to those issues.”

Recently obtained documents show money for project-related expenses have been paid, but does not outline who paid them, when they were paid and specifically what they were for.

Protesters are also upset that Bridger’s proposed development would gobble up most of the new system’s capacity. The MOU does indeed reveal that Bridger would be granted up to 75% of capacity for his residential development that would include an RV park with a small convenience store.

“We want to know who exactly is paying for Bridger’s subdivision,” Overman said.

French said the project’s growth estimates for the Paradise area show a one percent population gain in the years ahead and that the MOU does establish most of the growth would be linked to Bischoff’s proposed development.

“With 75 percent of the capacity taken up by one developer, what would that mean for the other property owners within the district?” French asked. “If I have property on which I could build four houses, would I be limited to building three and be stuck paying taxes and other fees on the fourth lot that I would never be able to use?”

French said a Sept. 4 meeting with County Commissioner Carol Brooker which was designed to answer property owners’ concerns was highlighted by Brooker asking if the residents wanted another vote on the proposed project.

“We all answered ‘Yes’ in unison,” she said.

No response has come forth on that idea, Overman and French said.