 |
 |
 |
| | Home | About Us | Join SPOC | Information | News & Events | Property Sites | The SPOC Blog | Contact Us | Newsletters | |
|
Sewage Treatment Plant Update
SPOC’s response to Snowshoe Mountain Resort’s letter to homeowner association presidents of August 26, 2010: Another perspective.
The Pocahontas County Commission voted and on August 26 filed with the West Virginia Public Service Commission a petition to intervene in the current debate regarding the proposed regional sewer plant. Among the reasons supporting their action is the following: “The Commission must be permitted to intervene to protect the integrity and jurisdiction of the Commission over the business of the County as provided by statute. The Commission must be allowed to intervene to protect its interests in the operation of the business of Pocahontas County. The Commission is charged with protecting the citizens of Pocahontas County and in doing so is statutorily charged with the general responsibility of executing the county’s business as provided for in West Virginia Code # 7-1-3 et. Seq.”
With this filing the elected representatives of the citizens of Pocahontas County have seen fit to challenge the logic of the proposed sewer plant development as driven by Snowshoe Mountain Resort and several local developers. Their opposition rests mainly with the fact that Snowshoe Mountain and its developer collaborators seek to have local control of the Public Service District taken away from the citizens of the county and put into the hands of the State. The fact that the Commission took this action was a bold step in challenging the dominance of Snowshoe Mountain Resort on the County.
The wisdom of the County Commission’s intervention can only be seen when the follow-up Petitions filed in this matter by Snowshoe Mountain and its developer friends sought to have the County Commission removed from such standing so that they could continue to plan development unfettered, regardless of the impact this would have on the county, its environment, and current ratepayers. In another petition they argued that the Snowshoe Property Owners Council had selfish interests in protecting the environment. This second petition suggests to me that this group of developers does not care about the environment when they suggest that environmental concerns are wrong.
In a related action, the County Commission also selected a Snowshoe property owner as a new member of the Public Service District (effective September 23, 2010). This action signaled an intention to work with Snowshoe mountain home owners in insuring the right decision for the sewer plant activities. It also will change the balance of power on the PSD from appointees who appeared to be acting at the direction of Snowshoe Mountain Resort to one that could objectively deliberate this important infrastructure development decision and balance the interest of all stakeholders, not just the developers.
This shift in PSD membership threatens the carefully developed plans of the local developers and Snowshoe Mountain Resort to push for the new plant at the expense of the current rate payers. Since their effort to have rate payers finance their development was threatened, the group of six sought to remove the responsibility for this matter from local authorities and accelerated the legal process to accomplish these goals.
It should be obvious to the reader by this time that there is a great divergence of opinion regarding the direction of this sewer plant proposal. Snowshoe Property Owners Council is not opposed to growth and development; in fact it welcomes it. It does oppose the approach taken by Snowshoe Mountain Resort and its owners, Intrawest of Vancouver Canada and the private equity firm of Fortress Capital. They are the masters of this game and are relying upon local management to fight this battle. Local management has no choice and if they don’t make this happen, they will be replaced. These absentee investors seek only to achieve the original goals of maximizing the development of the resort, exploiting its assets and then selling at a handsome profit. These firms operate by relying upon low-interest money, cutting costs, and selling assets without much concern for the long term implications of such decisions on local stakeholders such as homeowners and county residents.
Therefore, as you contemplate your own investment’s future at Snowshoe Mountain Resort, I trust that you will evaluate the messages of both SPOC and Snowshoe Mountain and lend your support to the actions which will best protect the environment, your future cash flows and the long term sustainability of the resort and its operations.
________________________________________________ August 25, 2010 On Monday night, as expected, the PSD, in a 2-1 vote, signed two documents. One reaffirmed their belief in the Thrasher evaluation of the Rigby proposal and again supported site 7 for the regional plant. The other paper, noting that a Snowshoe homeowner was just appointed to the board (to be sworn in September 23), said the current PSD was hopelessly deadlocked and stymied from getting the site 7 plan underway. Therefore, they asked the PSC to help them get the Thrasher plan started and if they could not, to put the board in receivership and appoint someone who could. It was absurd to ask Thrasher to fairly and impartially evaluate a possible competitor's plan. And they did not do so. Mr. Rigby (www.wwmi.com) presented a guaranteed $14 million plan (privately financed) to include the valley and allow for future growth. "Miraculously" the Thrasher evaluation of that plan found that it would, instead, cost $27 million - about $l.5 million more than theirs, making the $25.5 million Thrasher plan the cheaper one. Nevertheless, the board voted to send the report to the DEP as official and the DEP may very well accept it at face value. Having a Snowshoe homeowner on the board will mean the ratepayers will finally get some consideration as to what solution is accepted. SPOC obviously supports the plan that is less costly by millions, safer by far, and environmentally responsible - the Rigby proposal. The below** referenced "Big 6" oppose this, as seen through their complaint to the PSC. As we have said before, Snowshoe is openly working against the homeowners in this through their support of the Thrasher plan. It is not clear if they have actually studied the Rigby plan and don't care that it is better in all ways, or that they are blindly believing the propaganda on the Thrasher plan. Either way, they are committed to a course of action that will cost all ratepayers very dearly - but not the developers. SPOC's lawyer has filed to intervene against the complainants so we can present our case. The complainants' response to our action was to file another paper calling our concerns and ideas "half baked" and our views selfishly environmental. The tone of that paper was extremely condescending toward the ratepayers. The county commissioners agree with us regarding not putting the board into receivership and voted today to also file for intervention against the complainants - in the name of the citizens of Pocahontas County. Here is a statement from one of the commissioners on his website: "Today the County Commission voted two to one to intervene in the pending case before the WV Public Service Commission. The County Commission believes that it has standing to have a seat at the table in the ongoing debates and discussions concerning the waste water treatment plans for the Slatyfork Snowshoe area in that (1) The Commission created the Public Service District in the first place and (2) The Commission appointed the PSD Board members. The Commission also feels that it must retain its role in the process." There is so much more that could be said, but we couldn't possibly put everything here. So if you have specific questions, e-mail us and we'll get back to you. We will try to keep you posted whenever important things happen. Remember to tell your friends about all this as it will affect us all not only financially, but in other ways as well. Also, if you think we don't have your e-mail addresses, please send them so we can send you further information through our e-mail blasts. **The "Big 6" who are opposing the ratepayers in this matter are: Snowshoe Mountain management; Russell Holt, developer (owns farm on left as you turn north onto 219 towards Elkins); Ralph Beckwith, owns the lumber company near Slatyfork on 219 south; Ike Morris, owns the quarry behind the Ski Barn. The citizens of the valley and Snowshoe have opposed him several times regarding his requests for huge quarry expansion; Frank Santmyer, owns Remax and part owner of Creekside and??; Harvey Galford, owns property next to and behind the Inn at Snowshoe. _____________________________________ August 17, 2010 Homeowners' Weekend was hectic, to say the least. After the State of the 'Shoe address people had to decide whether to go to their association meetings, the SPOC meeting, or eat their fill of barbecue. Because of the late announcement of the Homeowners' Weekend many associations had scheduled their meetings at a time that interferred with choosing the other two options. So we were glad to see 40 people at our meeting, many first-timers from associations that traditionally do not attend. Dave Rigby gave a presention explaining his idea of how to solve the sewage treatment plant problem without spending $25.5 million and threatening the environment. In brief, instead of abandoning the two plants up at the top, he recommended fixing them up for a cost of $9 million. Then, to take care of the people in the valley, and to allow for reasonable growth there, he recommended building a $5 million plant that would cover Overlook Condominiums down Rt. 66 to the intersection of 66 and 219. His proposal would include a plant with a peak flow capacity many times over what is required now and would, therefore, cover more than enough homes to allow for reasonable growth in the valley. His LLC company would provide the financing. Yesterday six developers in the valley filed a complaint against the PSD for not completing the plant in a timely manner and in effect asked the PSC to appoint someone to take over the operation - effectively doing away with the PSD and ignoring the wishes of the County Commissioners who appointed them. The reason for the rush in all this is that on September 23rd a new member will be added to the PSD board and he will, no doubt, be more sympathetic to the wishes of the ratepayers (us). So these six people are pushing to have us pay for their development at the bottom of the mountain at a cost of $11.5 million more than the privately funded Rigby plan calls for. One of these five complainants is Snowshoe Mountain, which sold this flawed plant to the PSD, got their accrued fines due to mismanagement dismissed in the process, and now wants the ratepayers to pay for their future expansion. If you know nothing about this it may be because your association president did not tell you what is going on. At the recent presidents' meeting many of them seemed disinterested and did not choose to attend the presentation so they could be informed on your behalf and save you a LOT of money in the process. (See the possible new rates if the proposed $25.5 million plant goes through.) We need your support so if you will let your fellow association owners know what is going on that would be great. We will be glad to send you any documents outlining what we've said here. Just send your request and your e-mail to one of the SPOC officers. Down the road we will probably have to ask for individual or association contributions to our legal defense fund, which still has some money in it from the previous request (which saved all of you a minimum of $783 even though the transfer went through.) So get the word out and send us your contact information. We will be keeping you posted on the latest here on the website. _____________________________________ August 10, 2010 This chart shows you how much your monthly/quarterly rates may increase if the Thrasher plant is built. The middle set of rates is for a $17 million plant, which is actually more expensive than the Rigby plant. That $17 million was the estimate on Phase 1 of a regional solution to the sewage treatment problem. The current Thrasher plan combines all four phases to now equal $25.5 million.
_____________________________________________ August 8, 2010- This shows the savings for each unit over the 36 month period that SPOC was fighting the transfer of the sewage treatment plant. We lost eventually, but through the delay saved homeowners a minimum of $783.
__________________________________________ August 7, 2010 -- After several sometimes acrimonious PSD meetings which homeowners attended, things are still up in the air. At one point it appeared the EPA might be called in, but the PSD would prefer to take care of things on its own. Nothing is really new from the update below except that we are closer to a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONZI) being issued, which would mean fines could commence. We do not believe that we homeowners/ratepayers will be ultimately liable for exorbitant fines brought on by the irresponsible actions of previous owners of the system and the PSD. As we said, we will go to court to insure this does not happen. Again, this is much too complicated to go into here, but you can find out most of the answers to your questions on August 14th. If you can't be there, please contact the president, first vice-president, or secretary of SPOC via e-mail for answers. _____________________________________________ August 7, 2010
This is the letter sent to the EPA representative by SPOC president Mike Olsen. The EPA is very interested in what is going on here and has the option to step in if nothing gets done. We know they are only hearing one side of the story and are looking to let them know the ratepayers' view on building a plant.
Martin Harrell
Acting Chief
NPDES Enforcement Branch
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
Dear Mr. Harrell:
I am writing to you in my role as President of the Snowshoe Property Owners Council (SPOC). The Snowshoe Property Owners Council represents the property owners at the Snowshoe Mountain resort in West Virginia. There are approximately 2000 property owners and SPOC membership includes more than one half of all the owners on the mountain. Therefore, on behalf of our members, who are also rate payers of the Pocahontas County Public Service District (PSD), this letter is to share our concerns regarding unfolding events that will adversely affect all rate payers.
I would like to preface my comments with a question regarding how you are receiving information about the proposed plan. I am fearful that you are hearing only one side of the story. None of the present members of the PSD are current rate payers and two of the three members appear to be strongly influenced by the ownership of Snowshoe Mountain resort and several local developers in the surrounding area. I am quite certain that these members have not shared with you the overwhelming negative view held by rate payers regarding the planning process leading to a final decision as to the continuing operation of the present and future sewer facilities.
The pattern of recent PSD board actions appears to be related to pressure from regulatory officials to accept an engineering proposal (Thrasher Engineering) that ignores the constructive concerns of the people… concerns that are backed by countless hours, dollars spent and studies commissioned. We are concerned that regulatory reps and the PSD board may be painting a picture to you of delay or of an effort to stop a project, rather than a community-wide effort to move forward with a more environmentally compatible project.
I have attended several meetings of the PSD and must say I am appalled by the unprofessional approach to the management of the conduct of these meetings. While rate payers are present and allowed to speak, no record of their comments is kept and no discussion is allowed. Judging by the actions of the PSD to date, they have chosen to ignore the expressed wishes of rate payers and several environmental groups that have mounted formidable objections to the proposed plan. These objections are based upon environmental concerns for the head waters in Pocahontas County, and the exorbitant rates that property owners will be required to pay in future. The inexperience and unwillingness by two of the three PSD board members to listen to rate payers is the reason there has been little progress in moving the plan forward.
A viable alternative plan offered by rate payers (not the PSD Board) developed by an internationally recognized professional engineer has been put forth to the PSD Board. This plan is much less costly, remedies the current problems of water contamination, provides safer environmental alternatives and meets the needs of current and future development on the Snowshoe Mountain Resort. The plan also offers opportunities for developers in the area to pursue their goals but not at the expense of the current property owners.
Current studies conducted on behalf of various interested groups suggests the approved plan (Thrasher Engineering ) offers serious risk to the environment as the geography in this area is well known for its karst terrain. The alternative plan offered by rate payers does a great deal to reduce this risk. In other words, it is more environmentally sound and fixes current problems much quicker than would be the case with the construction period of two to three years for a major regional plant to become fully operational.
The original plan put forth seven years ago was based upon growth assumptions that today no longer exist with respect to real estate development in ski resort communities. The case for the original plan, as argued by owners of Snowshoe Resort, was to enable it to expand its real estate development activities. The assumptions of growth were built upon easy access to mortgage money, a real estate market progressively heating up and a feverish pitch for everyone to create wealth through this process. The events of the last two years and the current stagnation of the USA economy plus the unfavorable demographics behind the ski industry make these assumptions moot.
The current facilities with modifications recommended in the alternative plan will more than handle future growth over the next 20 years even if these modest forecasts turn brighter. There is no need to construct a plant that will be oversized and serve approximately 140 potential rate payers that are not part of the present system. Put simply, rate payers have no desire to pay for unnecessary capacity or the risky bet of unlikely future development.
On a more positive note, the Pocahontas County Commission is newly configured, largely as a result of the community’s dissatisfaction with choices being made as the sewer project is planned. Their most recently appointed PSD member has been successful in convincing the board to immediately address compliance issues while they work to move a project forward. A CIP, or Capital Investment Plan, has been approved and the board has voted, unanimously, to purchase equipment needed to meet permit requirements. The West Virginia Environmental Training Center was engaged, as of the last PSD meeting, to assist the sewer technicians solve technical treatment issues.
We are encouraged that the Pocahontas County Commissioners will be appointing a (second) new board member who will take office September 23rd. The PSD will soon have new attorney with utility and environmental law experience. Given these facts, we are hopeful that many of the problems will be resolved and responsible, objective, and environmentally sound plans will be developed and the wishes of the ratepayers will finally be honestly considered.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that SPOC is not anti-development. We favor growth but in a rational and measured approach. We do not seek to limit the potential for developers seeking opportunities but we do object to paying for the high risk infrastructure proposed in the current plan. We therefore request an opportunity to talk with you directly so you can hear a more detailed explanation of our side of the issue.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Olsen
President, Snowshoe Properties Owners Council
___________________________________________
July 10, 2010 -- Where to begin-----A LOT has happened in the last few months and nothing is settled yet. We cannot give you any final estimates of what will be built, how, and by whom. We still stand firmly behind the David Rigby plan to improve the original Silver Creek plant (which he built originally), repair/improve the Snowshoe plant, and build a smaller plant at site 7 in the valley. It would NOT require the presence of a long pipe running from the top of the mountain to site 7 by the Welcome sign. This is something we would like to see avoided at all costs because of the inherent danger of breakdown in the pipe at some point. The Rigby proposal would be many millions less than the Thrasher plan. A major reason is it would use the same footprint at the top of the mountain with the existing plants and would build a smaller plant at site 7 -- one that would still serve the needs of the valley and allow for expansion. In this economy and with Snowshoe homeowners having taken a hit in property values and resort services, etc., it is not prudent to ask us to finance a growth plan that is unrealistic in light of the growth in the area since 1974. We can fix what we have, take care of the people in the valley who want to use the smaller plant at site 7, and still not pay the exorbitant rates that would be incurred with the Thrasher plan. Needless to say, things are much more complicated than this. We will have Mr. Rigby at the SPOC meeting to answer your questions during Homeowners Weekend in August -- Mt. Lodge meeting rooms after the "State of the Shoe" address, approximately 2:30. In the meantime, because the PSD chose to buy a seriously flawed system when it took over the Snowshoe sewage treatment plant, the emission violations continue daily. The DEP has said the PSD will be responsible for at least $250,000 in fines with an option to fine up to at least $20,000 per day until the violations are remedied. And these fines could potentially be retroactive! No matter who builds the plant and how, all these problems cannot be fixed anytime soon. The estimate for the Thrasher regional plant solution is at best 18 months to two years. According to the present wording of the Consent Decree, the PSD is liable for these fines as are the ratepayers. We are in the process of getting our lawyer to ask that we be taken off this list as we have had nothing to do with the violations - they go back to Snowshoe and now the PSD. Can you imagine if we here on the mountain were actually held responsible for a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, for something not of our doing? Things change almost daily, it seems. We will try to keep you posted and we will be asking you to contribute a relatively small sum of at least $50 to help cover the legal costs of this endeavor. ___________________________________________________________ April 21, 2010 - A lot has been happening in the past few months regarding the disposition of the Site 7 sewage treatment plant proposal. It is much too lengthy to go into here, but the short version is as follows: Tom Shipley, newest PSD member, brought up the possibility of once again considering Site 9/10 for the plant(s). There has always been the serious issue of the environmental risk of running pipe from the top of the mountain all the way down to the Welcome Sign at Site 7. That and the cost of a plant there, as well as the fact the ratepayers on top of the mountain would be paying the lion's share for the valley's treatment, instead of future developers, have always been part of the contentious debate that has gone on for years regarding the proposed plant. To greatly simplify the latest happenings, a highly respected and experienced waste water treatment expert has come up with a proposal which would take care of the waste on top of the mountain as well as at site 7. It would eliminate all piping going down the length of the mountain to the bottom location. The total cost of this project would be approximately one half of the Thrasher Engineering proposal for a similar solution. In other words, ratepayers would stand to save millions - and the major environmental concerns would go away. Obviously SPOC supports this new plan, but many hurdles have to be jumped, not the least of which is convincing certain organizations of the worth of this project (like the DEP). Everything is in a state of flux at this point, but members of SPOC and the rest of the community and environmental groups are working hard to see that finally the right thing will be done. We'll keep you posted. _____________________________________ December 6, 2009 - Nothing new has been reported since the July 13th entry. We will keep you posted if we hear anything. July 13, 2009 - The project still has several more hurdles to jump before the site of a sewage treatment plant at the base of Snowshoe Drive becomes "engraved in stone." SPOC is keeping a close eye on the situation and is in touch with our attorney as to what action, if any, we may take next. We will keep you posted as events occur. March 9, 2009
There is so much more that could be said and we need to answer your questions. Please e-mail us with your concerns, and please let your friends here on the mountain know about what is going on. We will try to keep you up on the very latest through this site. February 20, 2007 - At a recent PSD meeting open for public comment the members heard from more Snowshoe homeowners who questioned the rate increase and the need for a regional plant at this time. Speaking were officers from Silver Creek, Mountain Lodge, Creekside, Camp 4 and Expedition Station. Thrasher was to use the information from the homeowners to form a more complete list of options with cost analysis for the proposed site 7 location at the bottom of Snowshoe Drive as well as other considered plant sites. This information was to have been presented and discussed at last week's PSD meeting, but the PSD members were not prepared to either discuss or vote on anything, including the possibility of taking over the Snowshoe water plant as well. Next Tuesday is a rescheduled meeting at which they hope to make decisions on the site location and options. SPOC is waiting to see what is recommended to the PSC before considering what position to take and recommend to homeowners. December 3, 2008 - The new interim sewer rates will probably kick in January 2009. The following information is based on figures supplied by Snowshoe Water and Sewer and the published interim rate schedule that follows the transfer of the Snowshoe plant to the Pocahontas County Public Service District. This is the YEARLY increase total for all Snowshoe homeowners. It is the amount you will pay above and beyond what you have been currently paying per year: October 23, 2008 - The PSC has approved the transfer of Snowshoe Water & Sewer to the Pocahontas County Public Service District. A spokesman for the PSD has said there are no intentions of changing the site of the plant from their approved site 7 at the bottom of Snowshoe Mountain. SPOC is in the process of deciding our legal response to these developments. We will keep you posted. August 9, 2008 -- At the last Pocahontas County PSD meeting the three man committee voted 2 to 1 for site 7 (at the bottom of Snowshoe Drive by the "Welcome to Snowshoe" sign) as the location for the regional sewage treatment plant. While this is a better choice than site 5, it still presents many of the same problems cited in homeowner concerns over the past several months. SPOC continues to favor consideration of the Eight Rivers two PSD proposal which would include the use of membrane technology on the top of the mountain and would not require Snowshoe homeowners to pay for a plant they do not need at the bottom of the mountain. Nothing definitive has been decided yet - we will keep you informed as things continue to unfold. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
