Guest opinion

Just say no

I'm urging a no vote on the sewer extension at this time. I feel this is a hastily prepared decision and demands further explanation and planning.

For the past nine months the people of Bigfork have been fighting against the unprecedented proposed master plan amendments, zone changes, plat appro-vals, PUD proposals and then proposed variances for the PUD's in order for them to be legal.

In nearly all of these proposals they have been recommended by the county planning office as meeting certain criteria. The criteria have been met only because the very first proposal of changing the master plan has been done. Then the following proposals of course are recommended because they fall within the criteria of the changed master plan.

To the tune of 20 percent of all the Flathead County Planning Board Agendas for the past year have been in Bigfork according to the Daily Inter Lake of last week. We need to stop the "bleeding" somewhere and I think it is now.

A no vote may be the only current remedy to help slow down this breakneck speed of the developers if sewer services are not available, then some of these developments cannot proceed.

It seems to me there is a gigantic conflict of interest between our sewer district and the developers in the Holt Road, Chapman Hill proposals and Ice Box Canyon proposal. In all the meetings I have attended the engineer for the Thomas Dean and Hoskins engineering firm is also employed as the consulting engineer for the Bigfork Sewer District.

In every instance I have been aware of the staff report and the engineers recommendations are that yes the Bigfork sewer plant can handle the proposed developments.

I believe for the same engineer to be employed by a company, then this company being used as the developer's consultant, and at the same time being the sewer district consultant and making recommendations for the sewer plant is a conflict.

Nine months ago I was told at the sewer plant that the plant could handle 1,200 total hook-ups. At that time I was told there were about 900. The Inter Lake reported there were 960 at this time. If you look at the proposals of the Holt and Chapman Hill developments there alone are proposed at a minimum of 220, perhaps as many as 250 hook-ups, when developed. Plus if approved a recreational center and continued Eagle Bend development.

That pretty much takes care of the current maximum number, so it becomes quite obvious something has to change and relatively in the near future. The Inter Lake reported they were told the district was "looking ahead to possibly doubling or tripling its treatment plant capacity."

That isn't going to be possible at the current plant, so why over extend by running new lines to the north where the current business and newly proposed subdivisions will be developed, you can be sure to the max.

Why not build a new plant North or elsewhere where there is plenty of open space, and have a plant that can accommodate the planned growth for the Bigfork area. Will it be expensive? I'm sure it will, but why waste $2.5 million on a stop gap measure.

My last point is that the Bigfork letter regarding the extension and the indebtedness as outlined on the Ballot Measure are worlds apart.

Nowhere on the ballot does it say anything about just the 49 owners to the north will service the debt and it further says, ". . . a special assessment bond for the purpose of financing a portion of the district's cost of improvements to the District's sewer system."

Obviously other changes and costs are coming. Vote no now and since only registered voters in the district can vote many are left out who live elsewhere but own homes here. I believe that to be very unfair, to incur district indebtedness without an opportunity to vote.

Let's plan twice and build only once!

Lee Wight

Bigfork