Dear Editor,
Residents have asked, “Why do I have to put up with County Water District when I am a Billings resident?” I believe it is because Montana makes it almost impossible to annex the District into the city.
The District recently settled a fee dispute with Billings paying $2.95 million for water the District received from the city and sold to ratepayers. The District had refused to pay for the water due to an accounting error by the city. The District’s attorney advised that the potential liability, if the case had gone to trial, was $2.95 million for water plus $1-$2.5 million in late fees and hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
District water rates are higher than ratepayers would pay in the City of Billings; the District resells water purchased wholesale from the city. We are the only district that does not produce water. Our agreement with the city requires that residents will pay for infrastructure only after it is complete. Wholesale water is 45-55% of the operational costs for the District. Ratepayers can expect projected wholesale water increases of 40% or more in FY24 or FY25. Board President Ming Cabrera told the city council and water board that “mediation” over the proposed future increases would be “very, very difficult;” another frivolous lawsuit will harm the city and most significantly, the District’s ratepayers.
The board’s June decision to increase rates by 5% was made by three members which is not a legal quorum of the board. General Manager Peyton Brookshire did not complete a rate study as directed by the Board in May. The District had $750,000 more in revenue than operating expense for the last fiscal year; the board does not have the evidence that an increase is needed. System development fees for new construction were not developed as required under Montana law. The board has heard testimony from developers and realtors that District fees are limiting development and hurting property value for all.
Tom Zurbuchen and three board members filed a lawsuit which claimed the agenda for the November board meeting was not publicly available. A legal quorum of four members of the board signed a memo directing Mr. Brookshire to post the November agenda on the District website. When Mr. Brookshire failed to comply with the directive, the agenda was linked on the Heights Task Force Facebook and emailed to 5000 subscribers of the Hotsheet. Mr. Brookshire told the board at the December 2021 meeting that he did not post the November agenda because same board members directed him not to post. Attorney Mark Noennig advised the District to publicly notice the December meeting and include and reconsider all the November decisions with opportunity for public comment.
My responsibility as a board member is to the ratepayers and to the law. I am grateful that Scott Twito and Assistant County Attorney Jeanna Lervick have been clear in communicating MT law to the District. My recommendation is to follow the law and stop wasting money on frivolous litigation.
Pam Ellis
Billings, MT
