Townsend Citizens Seek Clarification On Rationale, Scope, And Cost Of Water System Repair At Public Hearing
 | Author:
Linda Kent, MT43 News Staff Reporter
MT43 News Correspondent |
Townsend Citizens Seek Clarification on Rationale, Scope, and Cost of Water System Repair at Public Hearing
Linda Kent
MT43 News Staff Reporter
In a sometimes-contentious water rate increase hearing July 16, several Townsend residents questioned whether the city council had thoroughly considered more cost-effective alternatives to proposed upgrades to the city’s water system. The city plans to raise the cost of water service by $70.46 per month in three increments of $23.49 between Sept. 1, 2024, and Jan. 1, 2025. The increases are needed to meet the estimated 20-year bond obligations to finance the project.
Mayor Vickie Rauser opened the meeting with a letter from Ayla Adams, who wrote of her concerns about the across-the-board nature of the increases, given the variance in usage among customers and the ability of those on fixed incomes to pay the additional fees.
Adams ended her letter by stating, “Where are we supposed to come up with more funds? The only fair way to solve this is metered service or the same discount as state property taxes.”
James Tillman concurred with Adams’ sentiments, “I’m retired and on a fixed income. This is going to be a pretty big bite out of my income.”
“With the potential options to upgrade this and include whatever else is needed here, were there considerations of a phased approach?” Carolina Belliew of Lakeside Distillery asked.
“I don’t believe that was specifically considered,” Rauser responded. “Council believed it was important to include all aspects of the water system in this project. Piecemealing it increases cost.”
“Was there an analysis done based on the local citizens, their level of income and how this would affect them,” Belliew asked.
“That would have been outside the scope of an engineering report,” Rauser said. “The preliminary estimate two years ago was significantly less than what it is now. As I’m sure we’re all aware, construction costs have gone through the roof.”
“This sounds like this is not a new issue, it’s an issue that’s been on-going and building,” Belliew continued. “So, has there been budget that’s been set aside or allocated for this?”
“Historically, your elected officials took great pride in the low rates that the residents paid and didn’t necessarily pay attention to future replacement cost of these systems,” Rauser explained. “In essence, the can was kicked down the road for years. And here we are.”
The water system project includes replacing the iconic, 250,000-gallon Townsend water tank with a 1 million gallon tank to be located on city property near the fairgrounds. Water from the three city wells would be pumped to the new tank, which would then gravity feed back into the city’s water mains. The increased storage capacity would bring the community’s water supply into compliance with Montana Department of Environmental Quality standards, address low water pressure issues on the south side of Townsend, and provide enough water to meet fire suppression needs. Also included are the replacement or installation of additional valves and fire hydrants.
Explaining why the city chose to leverage its existing wells, rather than attempt to drill a well at the planned storage site, Rauser said, “We’re in the middle of water rights adjudication, and at this time, it’s better to maximize the water rights we have with our existing three wells until the water rights adjudication, that would impact the property east of town, is finalized.”
Rauser said the current cost for the project is estimated at $17 million, with approximately $14 million of that to be financed through the 20-year bonds issued by the Montana State Revolving Fund. She cautioned that the actual cost would not be solidified until bids could be received. That is expected to happen in the next few months, pending final DEQ review of the project.
Jake Balliew of Lakeside Distillery asked several pointed questions about why the city would choose to place the new storage tank outside of town at the cost of installing several hundred yards of underground pipe flowing in both directions.
“I don’t think anyone is arguing that the water system isn’t in severe disrepair and needs to be worked on,” Jake Belliew said. “I think a large part of why I’m sitting here is that it doesn't really seem to me that there was a lot of effort put into place into getting this done but in a really fiscally responsible way. . . Putting in 8,400 feet of 16-18-inch pipe? That’s a lot of money when you could put it closer into town.”
“City council weighed the options presented by the engineering firm,” Rauser said. “And made the decision that the site outside of Townsend was the best option.” She said there were options for installing a tank in the city limits, one of those being Holloway Park, which would have effectively made that park unusable.
When the possibility of placing the tower in Memorial Park, site of the current tower, was raised, Rauser explained that the majority of Memorial Park belongs to the county.
“The water infrastructure of this town is outdated, and it needs serious repair,” Heather Haley said, speaking in support of the council’s efforts. “What we are going to be paying for is the water infrastructure that we all need to live. By living here, it is our responsibility as citizens of this town to help foot the cost.”
“I understand the frustration, everything is expensive right now,” Haley continued. “However, we need water to live, we need water to be safe, we need water for our animals, our crops. We need to figure out how to get it done. That’s the bottom line.”
Phil Morris asked the council for a cost comparison of placing the tower at Holloway Park instead of at the planned location. Rauser responded that the estimates she could provide would be significantly out of date.
“A couple years ago, it was $3 million less money, estimated, to go out there, to the fairgrounds, versus building it in town,” Council member Doug Sitton said. “Guess what, we’re going to pay the same as everyone else. It’s an overdue situation, and it’s unfortunate, but it’s a necessity.”
