At its Sept. 24 meeting, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors voted on a series of requests for information and billing changes made by the Knolls Property Owner’s Association (KPOA).
Discussions with the KPOA began at the Aug. 13 PAWSD board meeting, where KPOA representatives outlined the subdivision’s situation and requests for information.
According to KPOA representative Suzanne Dimeff, the KPOA is connected into the PAWSD wastewater treatment system, but maintains its own wastewater collection lines within the subdivision.
Several hangars in the area are tied into this collection system and run sewage through it into the PAWSD system, she indicated, adding that the act of connecting the hangars to the KPOA system was done without the KPOA’s permission and was later ruled to be civil theft by the contractor who made the connection in litigation over the matter.
These hangars still pay PAWSD wastewater service fees.
According to Dimeff, the KPOA is attempting to create an extra-territorial service agreement with the hangar owners connected to the KPOA collection system, which would allow the association to bill them for upkeep of the collection system that their wastewater passes through on its way to PAWSD.
The KPOA requested several pieces of information to help establish what fees would be reasonable to charge the hangar owners, as well as potentially seeking to change its agreement with PAWSD to be closer to the district’s agreement for sewage treatment with the Pagosa Springs Sanitation General Improvement District (PSSGID).
As PAWSD Programs Manager Renee Lewis summarized at the Sept. 24 meeting, the KPOA requested that it be charged at the same rate as the PSSGID, which is charged the cost required to treat the sewage flowing to PAWSD with no contributions to capital or other infrastructure expenses, instead of the significantly higher normal wastewater rate that KPOA members currently pay.
PAWSD board chairman Gene Tautges noted that the PSSGID maintains a large amount of its own infrastructure and its wastewater flows through only a very limited amount of the PAWSD collection system, while wastewater from the KPOA flows through miles of the PAWSD collection system before reaching the district’s Vista wastewater treatment plant.
Dimeff explained that she did not want an identical agreement to the PSSGID, but did want an “equitable apportionment” of costs.
She added that having such an agreement would also allow PAWSD to use its powers to certify delinquent accounts to the county treasurer to enforce the fees that the KPOA is trying to charge the hangar owners, which they are currently refusing to pay.
PAWSD board member Glenn Walsh noted that the inclusion of the KPOA into the PAWSD system was the result of “generosity” on the part of PAWSD in finding an arrangement to allow a wastewater system which does not meet standards into the system.
Following further discussion of the topic, the board voted 3-1 to deny the KPOA request to alter the KPOA’s payment arrangement with PAWSD.
PAWSD board member Bill Hudson voted against denying the request and stated that he felt that the unique situation could potentially merit further discussion since the KPOA was not requesting to be treated exactly like the PSSGID.
PAWSD board member Bruce Jones also commented that he did not see why PAWSD should be involved in compelling the hangar owners to pay bills to the KPOA, although he suggested that the KPOA should make efforts to show these owners why they should pay additional fees to the KPOA.
Tautges also noted that the KPOA likely has the right to cut off the hangars from passing wastewater through its collection system, if it chose to do so.
Lewis explained that the KPOA’s second request was for hydraulic loading data, which PAWSD does not collect.
Dimeff stated that the KPOA wanted hydraulic loading data for water and understood that PAWSD does not collect wastewater loading data.
She also denied that the KPOA could shut off the valves allowing wastewater from the hangars to enter the KPOA system, commenting that this would create public health issues and “could be a felony.”
Jones raised concerns about whether or not PAWSD would be violating client privilege by providing information from the hangars without the hangars’ permission.
Tautges asked why the KPOA could not ask the hangars for their data directly and not involve PAWSD.
Jones noted that Dimeff was arguing that the hangars were misrepresenting the amount of water they were using, which would also distort the amount of load the hangars were placing in the KPOA collection system, although he added that he did believe PAWSD could provide this data without the hangar owners’ permission.
Walsh noted that planning departments frequently calculate hydraulic load based on occupancy, which he suggested that the KPOA could do.
Following more discussion, the board unanimously voted to deny the request for hydraulic loading data.
Lewis then summarized the final KPOA request, which was for accounting of availability of service fees that were erroneously being charged by PAWSD to KPOA property owners with vacant lots, ending in 2023.
The paperwork documenting this request states, “This request is respectfully made to negotiate a settlement between the parties without need of a subpoena-without filing an action.”
The paperwork adds that the aim of this accounting request is to account for and have PAWSD disgorge money paid to the district through erroneous billing both to property owners and to the KPOA sewer fund for sewer maintenance.
KPOA president Carl Dimeff explained that he circulated paperwork to the property owners in the KPOA which would give their permission for the KPOA to acquire this billing information.
He added that one property owner went through the process to get this information, but that PAWSD refused to provide it because the authorization was not notarized.
Lewis commented that she had requested that the KPOA property owners send their permission to PAWSD via email, if possible, using the email addresses associated with their PAWSD accounts.
She added that the person whose request was denied due to it not being notarized had submitted their authorization via a brief note written in pencil which was impossible to validate, especially since PAWSD did not have another copy of his signature to compare the note to.
Suzanne Dimeff requested that the issue be tabled so that the KPOA could collect the appropriate authorizations.
Jones commented that he was open to tabling the request and would be willing to potentially consider an alternative billing structure, although not one the same as the PSSGID.
Carl Dimeff proposed that he draft a letter specifying the data to be released and have this be signed by the KPOA members.
Walsh raised concerns about the amount of time being spent on providing this information to the KPOA and reiterated his comments on the generosity PAWSD has shown to the KPOA.
“I think this whole giving out our data for folks to police their neighbors is a bad road,” Walsh said before making a motion to deny the KPOA request.
Tautges questioned why the KPOA could not ask its members for their bills, and Walsh raised further concerns about how fulfilling this request would facilitate further requests and attempts to contest PAWSD billing by the KPOA leadership and its residents.
“This is a request for broad discovery, again, just to triplicate or quadruplicate what we’ve seen today,” said Walsh. “I’m sorry, I think we provide you excellent service at a generous price. Districts all over charge 50, 75, 100 percent premiums for out-of-district service. I think we’re doing good work here, and that’s why I move to deny.”
Following more discussion of whether or not denying this request would set a poor precedent for treatment of the rest of PAWSD customers, Lewis clarified that PAWSD staff would welcome discussing billing with individual owners in the KPOA, but that this issue likely did not need to go through the KPOA.
The board then voted on Walsh’s motion, with Walsh and Tautges voting for it and Hudson and Jones voting against.
Tautges explained that this meant that the motion failed and that the issue would be left in the hands of staff.
Walsh commented that the failure of the motion did not mean that existing PAWSD policy, which he argued the motion aligned with, changed.
He added that individual customers could request information on their billing.
Tautges closed the discussion by encouraging the KPOA to “use the tools that you have right now, without us, and move forward.”
josh@pagosasun.com
>