The wastewater storage tank, Tautges suggested, would be that weak link if it were too small to handle the backup created by an extended repair job.
“And that was not caught by the engineer we were paying to do this?” Lattin asked. “What kind of deal is that? I don’t understand.”
“It was suggested and determined, about two years ago, to be not needed,” Tautges responded.
“Who suggested that?” Lattin pressed.
“People who are not employed by the town or the water district any more.”
— from a November 5. 2015 article in the Pagosa Springs SUN, “Perpetual problems plague pipeline project,” by Ed Fincher
I suppose we all expect a big government project — like, for example, an $8 million pressurized sewer pipeline — to have some cost overruns. For several reasons.
For one, it’s impossible to foresee all the problems and challenges that will crop up during a complex construction project. And number two, we are all humanly incompetent at some level, and we all make mistakes.
And third: The employees and consultants who design big, multi-million-dollar government projects sometimes give us unreasonably low estimates of the total cost, so they can get the project more easily approved by a government board. Once the project is started, it’s a simple matter to ask for additional money because, “Oh… ooops… we forgot about that little detail…”
The question posed by this editorial would be: “Are the lack of foresight and the tendency to incompetence compounded and exacerbated — when a government makes its decisions in secret?”
We know that, here in Colorado, government boards are legally required to make all decisions in open public meetings. From the Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 24, Section 6:
It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.
We also know that this law is regularly violated by government officials, either accidentally or intentionally. But we might ask, why does the state of Colorado require our government boards to formulate policies in open, public meetings? Because we’re all just trying to be “nice?”
Or did the Colorado legislature understand that human beings naturally make mistakes — and also have a natural tendency to be self-serving — and that these human tendencies can be mitigated somewhat by requiring transparency, and public participation?
We’ll get back, in a bit, to the $618,000 mistake in the design of Pump Station One sewage vault, as one small part of the PSSGID-to-PAWSD sewer pipeline cost overruns — an $8 million pipeline originally estimated at about $4 million. And we’ll hear the rest of the November 5 conversation between PSSGID board member (and Town Council member) Kathie Lattin and PSSGID manager Gene Tautges.
But first, let’s travel back in time, about 4 years… to remind ourselves of the secrecy that surrounded the creation of this project in the first place.
In Part One of this article series, we heard local activist John Bozek complain, on January 3, 2012 that the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) — of which he is a customer, and to whom he pays property taxes — was about to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Pagosa Springs Sanitation General Improvement District (PSSGID), which serves the downtown sewer customers. This agreement, about to be approved, would then initiate the process of building a rather expensive sewer pipeline.
Mr. Bozek’s complaint was fairly simple. No member of the public had ever had a chance to review the document that was about to be approved.
I had myself asked PAWSD staff for a copy of that IGA just hours earlier that day, on January 3 — and was told that the Town staff would not allow anyone to view the document prior to the upcoming noon meeting. How the Town staff could ethically prohibit PAWSD customers like John Bozek, and PSSGID customers like myself, from viewing an intergovernmental document set to be discussed that very day, I still cannot understand.
But unfortunately the secrecy extended beyond the PAWSD and PSSGID customers. Even members of the PAWSD board had been forbidden from seeing the legal document.
“I asked for the public to see the IGA well in advance of John [Bozek’s request] and I was told, this was a ‘Town document’ and the Town wouldn’t allow it to be released. And the next time I was refused, I was told this was ‘out of courtesy to the Town…’ ”
The above quote is from an interview with PAWSD board member Jan Clinkenbeard on April 17, 2012 — four months after the approval of the sewer pipeline IGA. Ms. Clinkenbeard shared her recollection of the fateful approval process of January 3… a document that appears to make PAWSD customers liable for the maintenance of a future Town sewage pipeline, but did not require Town customers to pay any of the capital investment fees or property taxes paid by PAWSD customers.
From the IGA: “Costs of operation and routine maintenance of Segments A and B shall be paid for by PAWSD without contribution by PSSGID…”
Click here to download a copy of the IGA.
Jan Clinkenbeard:
“The PAWSD board never had a direct discussion with the Town Council. Never. On something of this seriousness — I mean, this is an agreement between these two entities — and for these two entities to never sit down together and have a discussion, to me personally, seems unusual. I was under the impression that we were going to the January 3 meeting to have a discussion with the Town Council. But it quickly became apparent — when I asked a question and [Council member] Stan Holt said, ‘We’ve already had all our discussions and we’re ready to vote’ — that that simply wasn’t the case.
“I’d thought the PAWSD board intended to discuss this [new version of the IGA] — that we would go back and hold an open meeting and invite the public to review the document and comment on it.”
Ms. Clinkenbeard had expressed that same thought at the January 3 meeting, in response to the ‘lack of transparency’ comments by citizen John Bozek.
“I had also requested that [the IGA] document be made available to our rate payers — our PAWSD voters — and I started making that request in December. I would periodically email and ask, has this document been made available? And what I heard was that it might be made available today. So I can understand the voters’ concerns, because this is a ‘forever’ document. This isn’t a minor thing, like changing our trucks from blue to white. This is something that is going to last forever. I have no problem making this document — and other financial information — available. I think we should.
“We have a PAWSD board meeting on January 10. It’s been suggested that we put this on the agenda. That should give people, who want to look at this, ample time to look at it. They can come to the meeting, they can ask the questions. With our staff, we will try to see that people get the information they want.
“I just think this is important enough, that we should give our rate payers a chance to look at this document, and inquire about whatever financial questions they might have.”
Instead of taking Ms. Clinkenbeard up on her suggestion, however, a motion was made and seconded, and three members of the five-member PAWSD board — Steve Hartvigsen, Allan Bunch and Roy Vega — voted to approve the IGA, with board members Jan Clinkenbeard and Windsor Chacey voting ‘nay’. The Town Council, serving as the board of the Pagosa Springs Sewer General Improvement District PSSGID), voted unanimously to approve the IGA.
Ms. Clinkenbeard: “The [pipeline proponents] had the three votes, with Roy and Allan and Steve, and it was all over. It was a done deal. And Windsor and I were extremely surprised…
“I’m interested in the Webster’s definition of the word, ‘transparency.’ One of the definitions is, ‘without concealment.’ And I find that very interesting — and of course people can take ‘concealment’ to mean more than one thing.. but we all know what legal documents look like, and if you are never allowed to actually read the document, sometimes the little ‘buts’ and ‘ands’ and ‘ifs’ mean a whole lot…
“A lot of paragraphs in the IGA were never discussed [by the PAWSD board.] So I don’t consider that to be transparent.
“And when this document is, somehow, never allowed to be seen by the public — if I were a member of the public, I would wonder what is in this document that they don’t want me to see, that they don’t want me to know about.
“I really respect John Bozek… and when he asked repeatedly to view the IGA, many months in advance, and was never given a chance to review the document, I think that was a loss for all of us. He is a ratepayer, and a taxpayer in the sanitation district, and that alone should be enough — but I respect the thoughtful work he did during the County financial crisis, and I think it would have been [beneficial] to have heard his opinion.
“And yet, he was never allowed to see the IGA [prior to its approval].”