|
The County, Culverts, and Hulen Meadows
Background. In the summer of 2013, Blaine County's Road and Bridge Department blindsided 90% of Hulen Meadows' 170 homeowners with a 15-day deadline to remove encroachments on the County's right of way (30 feet on either side of the 20 foot road) for "easier snow removal, road drainage, and safety." Three complaints had been made about icing during the winter; the Road and Bridge Operations Director explained she didn't want more complaints or the resulting sanding costs. Most encroachments were two or more decades old. None had ever been cited by the County. All were overlooked for years by the County during construction permitting and approval. Snow-related accidents are rare. Neighborhood protests (historically unregulated right-of-way, budget issues, uncrowned roads, sole focus on Hulen Meadows) persuaded County Commissioners to postpone action. Instead, it would develop a County-wide policy for subdivisions, including other encroachers such as Cold Springs and Eagle Creek. The study has yet to start. (More about rights-of-way issues in a future Insight Weekly.) Six months later, Road and Bridge was at it again. Here's the story. Water System Replacement. Having collected enough funds to start replacing its aging water system, the Hulen Meadows Water Company (HMWC) Board scheduled construction in the subdivision's south end to begin this past spring. One side of every road would be excavated for water main replacement, a summer-long project. The Board applied for a Right-of-Way Permit (ROW) to dig in County roads. Application errors pushed construction back a few weeks. During that time, the County said it would grant the permit only if culverts were installed under driveways by homeowners in the path of excavation, i.e. on one side of the road. Culverts? Why? They are not required by a ROW permit and hadn't even been mentioned during the earlier encroachment debacle. In fact, only the County's Access-Approach Permit (i.e. Road Permit), required for new home construction and new/altered driveways, calls for a culvert. Beyond even that permit being ignored for decades, HMWC wasn't asking for a road permit. Board members asked Commissioners to write directly to affected homeowners about the new requirement but they declined to "get involved." They suggested a HMWC wide assessment for culvert costs and getting legal advice. Outcome and Questions. HMWC's Board acquiesced without protest, although the permit gives that option. Pushed against a construction deadline, the Board moved ahead. A construction start date was announced and individual homeowners told they would have to pay for their culverts at $700 each. The situation has since changed (see addendum below), but still leaves questions: 1. Is it right for the County, at any random moment, to demand fulfillment of a requirement overlooked for decades? 2. Does the County have the right to withhold a permit unless homeowners agree to something not required by the permit? 3. Will the County actually pursue required culverts in the future? (One informed HMWC resident recently had to ask for the requisite permit because the County, again, overlooked it.) 4. Should the County consider grandfathering long-overlooked requirements? 5. How do a few culverts here and there benefit overall County snowplowing? In our opinion, the County needs to get its management practices in order and not encourage what, to some, looks like "blackmail" or "vindictive control" by a government department. It needs to follow-through on permit requirements at the proper time, not decades after the fact. It needs to guide how departments such as Road and Bridge, with huge budget deficits and deteriorating roads, prioritize their operations. Until next week, Jima Rice ****************************************************************************************************** Addendum (especially for HMWC residents). HMWC's Board recently announced that, instead of individual homeowners paying for their culverts (some have objected to doing so), it will assess all 170 homeowners a share of the $20,500 bill for 15 installations (more to come in further construction) per its attorney's advice. The Board's attorney correctly states that the Board is "responsible for HMWC's water system," but incorrectly adds that "culverts are part of the cost of water system maintenance and improvement and benefit all shareholders equally." To the contrary, 1. A culvert requirement occurs only when individual homeowners seek a County building permit. The issue of installation and maintenance is between the homeowner and the County. The County's responsibilities should not be assumed by the HMWC Board. 2. Culverts are not part of the HMWC residential water system. 3. Culverts have not benefitted homeowners equally. Costs vary widely from home to home due to driveway width and number; many homeowners previously removed culverts but are now getting virtually free reinstallation; those who already have culverts will be penalized. Note: The attorney was correct to state he is acting solely for the HMWC Board and that individual homeowners should seek further legal advice. | 
sted in definitions of democracy, campaign finance 