Back in March, the state Board of Water and Natural Resources awarded a two-million-dollar grant and a 3.475-million-dollar loan to the Lake Byron Sanitary District to build a central sewer and wastewater treatment system for its 178 property owners about 17 miles north of Huron.
However, some of those property owners would rather not pay $1,179 a year for a sewer system that will mostly benefit the minority of property owners who live at the lake year-round. Opponents have thus formed Lake Byron Concerned Citizens (which claims a membership of around 60) and taken the sanitary district to court, arguing that the taxing body has failed to follow election laws and thus has no legal authority to spend the state’s grant and loan on easements and construction.
Among the many points of the complaint filed against the Lake Byron Sanitary District on July 27 in Beadle County (see Case #2CIV18-000133) are claims that the sanitary district has failed to hold proper elections since its creation in 2015, failed to keep and publish minutes, handled absentee ballots improperly in its July 2018 election (e.g., allowing a candidate to handle absentee ballots, which violates SDCL 12-19-7.1), and failed to give proper notice of the board vacancies contested in the July 2018 election. As evidence of that last item, the plaintiffs submit the notice published in the Huron Plainsman on June 14:
The Lake Byron Sanitary District allowed petitioning for these three vacancies from June 7 through June 27. A full week of petitioning had already elapsed by the time of publication on June 14. And SDCL 34A-5-21.3 says such notices are supposed to appear “not less than thirty days prior to the deadline for filing nominating petitions.”
The plaintiffs contend that these violations annul the Lake Byron Sanitary District board’s authority. The plaintiffs are seeking a freeze on any action on the sewer system until next May, when the district should conduct its next regular election.
The Lake Byron Sanitary District Board did hold a public meeting back in May, where one property owner complained that she’ll have to pay the flat $98.25 rate for sewer even though she doesn’t have water:
“The flat rate was a board decision,” Dickey said. Gayle Kludt, the chair of the Board of Trustees for the District, said that the list of property owners was garnered from the Beadle County Equalization office.
“Well, I have a small lot,” a woman said. “I don’t have water on the lot, so I don’t see how something like this is fair. How is it fair to those who use their property five months versus those of you who live here year round?”
Dickey replied that it was the board’s position that the line will always be there and be operational, whether it is used or not.
He also said that if the sewer line and other items are installed, property owners would be obligated to pay their portion. He said that the board opted for a flat rate rather than a metered usage to have a better handle on finances [Curt Nettinga, “More Questions Than Answers at Lake Byron Meeting,” Huron Plainsman, 2018.05.11].
The Lake Byron Sanitary District claims that the central sewer is “the next step” in improving Lake Byron’s water quality, which would benefit every property owner. However, Lake Byron Concerned Citizens leader and retired Huron dentist and businessman Chuck Hoffman disagrees:
Key to the supposed sanitary sewer system concerns here is the fact that contaminants to Lake Byron are, unfortunately, from agriculture runoff and/or from water that is pumped into the lake from the James River. In fact, the project engineer who addressed a number of Lake Byron concerned citizens back in May specifically stated that installation of the proposed costly sewer system “is unlikely” to improve the quality of our lake water [Chuck Hoffman, letter to the editor, Huron Plainsman, August 2018].
I’m awaiting word from plaintiffs on the status of this complaint in court. But more than five million dollars in government money is waiting to plow some pipes into the ground around Lake Byron.
Smells like another sweetheart deal for special interests that will not solve the problems intended. Maybe what might be considered is a buffer zone around the lake that would be prairie grass instead of farm ground that produces to much poison runoff. Buy the land from the owners and then declare it crop free. If New York City can think ahead to protect its water supply we all should. https://www.nap.edu/read/9677/chapter/4#51
The same thing happened at Lake Kampeska in the 60’s. Many of the lots around the lake were for summer use. The quality of the lake water is now much better. The cattle don’t stand in the lake anymore. Everyone that owned a lot then (that still owns it) has property worth much more than the cost they’ve spent on the sewer. *note to land developers … Great opportunity to buy lake lots at bargain prices from contrary owners who can’t handle change.
I apologize to the folks at Lake Byron. It just came to me, dense as I am. Cory’s speaking and standing up for people with a problem. That’s why he’s going to be a stellar advocate for his Senate District 3 and beyond in his political career. I was speaking like a business person. I see this as a grand, once in a lifetime opportunity for property owners to move their property up the value totem pole. But, it’s none of my business to tell owners how to react. Cory has the caring nature and insight to think of what the people want. The majority in Pierre are just there to tell the people what’s best for them, no matter what. Again, I apologize to people that are now dealing with an unbudgeted expense. Perhaps, waiting for a while before beginning and letting folks plan for the change is best … as Cory knows, so well.
Cory,
Thanks for posting this very important issue occurring in Beadle County. I’ve been following this story for a number of years and am quite familiar with it. As a governmental entity, the LBSD needs to be on its game when it comes to everything that goes with being a taxing authority. It seems as if they had no idea what all was entailed when they began this process. The paperwork trail and legal work is cumbersome at best and requires the expertise of those with the knowledge of forming and maintaining such districts. That said, many property owners are angry that they were shut out of the initial opportunity to establish the sanitary district back in 2015, since they did not have an “official” residence at the lake (so they couldn’t vote – supposedly). They wanted to have a voice in the formation of the district, especially since they would eventually be taxed to help pay for the sewer project. My mother is one of those people who now feel “bullied” by the LBSD to pay a $30/month sanitary district fee/bill to help build a fund to pay back some of the loan from the state. Many property owners are not paying the fee in defiance of the “illegally formed” district. While my mother continues to pay it in fear that the LBSD may place a lien on her property. I do agree, that the sewer project is necessary. However, the LBSD and its leaders made some critical errors prior to the formation of the district and the subsequent decisions made thereafter. Bottom line, they did not do their due diligence in bringing together ALL of the property owners first before going down the road to forming the district. That is why they are in this mess today.
There are real challenges to metering sewer usage. Every home would need either an ejector pump within the home, or a grinder pump in an external pit. Either way, you then need a way to determine how much it runs in order to bill for usage. Anyone on a pure gravity system… I don’t know how you could meter use.
Municipalities have the luxury of providing water and sewer so they can know water usage. Sanitary districts don’t have that benefit.
It’s weird to charge lot owners who are not connected to the system… But then again I talked to a farmer who gets charged for his rural water connection in a field even though he didn’t have a hydrant installed for a year.
Wayne, don’t we easily overcome the challenge of metering usage by metering water input? Most of every gallon in from rural water goes out into the sewer. Can’t sanitary districts just check the water meter from rural water and charge accordingly?
And thanks, Porter. Once again, you catch my standard operating procedure: listen for underrepresented people and give them a voice when others aren’t speaking up for them.
The original creators of the sewer district have quietly stepped aside, they realized it would be way to expense and controversial. It is now ran by people and supporters with underlying reasons, they are pushing the sewer project because they purchased property, built on, or rebuilt on property that is too small to support a septic tank and drain field and have to use holding tanks and pump them year around, or have an existing septic systems and drain fields that are failing and need to be replaced. These are Mike Hofer and Gayle Kludt reasons. Strategy is, why pay for my own repairs and expenses when I can have others do it for me. When the sewer district was established the intent and agreement sold to the lake property owners by the Lake Byron Development Association president was to “research and explore sewer system benefits and opportunities” and before anything was committed to, all property owners would have a say in the matter. Today’s leaders of the sewer district do not have integrity, or know what honestly is, they underhandedly deceived the property owners in a November 2017 Public meeting and are now bullying with the authority of the sewer district to get others to pay for their wants. I don’t think anyone in opposition to the sewer system would continue to block it if there were options and choices whether to participate or not. Pay for it based on usage, what an brilliant idea, that was shot down by the engineers and leaders as the cost would be too high for the full time residents. It boils down to cost, the people who want should pay for it and leave the rest out of it.
Cory, since rural sanitary districts don’t provide the water, how do you propose getting water usage information? Water meters are typically inside residences… so you either have to go door to door to ask to see the meter (at lake Byron I think that’s 153 homes!), or require residents to mail, email, or phone in their meter reading by a certain date. Both of those require additional staffpower, and add cost. There’s also the challenge of falsification of information.
A flat fee is the most practical, egalitarian solution for small government.
Moreover, there are inherent costs to providing sewer services whether you use your property year-round or not.
Those who don’t live there year-round still have to pay the electric company for the meter even if they don’t use a single watt of electricity.
What I don’t get, from reading the article, is it sounds like they want to charge properties that aren’t connected… that doesn’t make sense at all.
True, the districts don’t provide water, but they can look at the meter, can’t they? Can they contact the rural water provider and obtain that information directly? I mean, if the district can require everyone to pay $98.25 a month and surrender an easement for the pipes, then surely they can require residents to surrender their rural water billing information.
I know Kingsbrook Rural Water and the City of Aberdeen both charge a flat fee, which makes sense to cover the basic costs of maintenance, but they also charge an additional per-1000-gallon usage fee. A flat fee by itself is less egalitarian and more regressive… especially when it hits the little old lady with no water service.
Rattman, the LBSD has not filed the proper paper work to even send out bills. Another illegal move by them. They can’t charge anyone, or threaten anyone that they are going to place a lien on her property. The LBSD thinks because people are still paying in they support the project. If your mom wants to have her voice heard and to get LBSD to put other options on the table tell her to quit paying that $30 charge.
I, along with several others, told her not to pay the $30. (I know of many others who are not paying.) Yet, she is worried that this may “come back to bite her” later on. I too believe it is illegal. There were no overt threats, but the letter was clearly sent as a bill. I don’t know if she gets a monthly billing statement. I too find it disturbing that the will of the few (without the consent of all landowners) can then be placed on the many. I truly believe everyone involved thinks that there is a need for some type of sewer system. However, disenfranchising land owners from the very beginning and then holding subsequent meetings and elections without their knowledge or participation only precipitates the underlying problem of a lack of communication and transparency. It is sad to see it come to this. The founders of the sanitary district should be ashamed for throwing this grenade and then running in the opposite direction.
One final comment regarding the formation of the sanitary district. Our mother, who owns the property at Lake Byron, was neither formally informed of or allowed to vote for (or against) the initial formation of the sanitary district, since she does not have an official residence there. Unfortunately, I believe this is in state statute. However, other state statutes as they apply to road districts and other governmental entities have different rules that may allow a non-resident to vote.
Rattman, make sure to reach out to the Lake Byron Concerned Citizens Inc. group and get on their DL. lakebyronconcerncitizens@gmail.com
Rattman, that’s an interesting point about voting rights.
SDCL 31-12A-1.2 restricts voting to landholding persons and corporations. Non-resident owners get to vote. Children owning property get to vote, but only through their parents. Votes are limited to one per lot/tract/parcel; co-owners must come to an agreement on how to cast their one vote.
SDCL 46A-14-15.1 defines eligible voters similarly for watershed districts, but without the one-vote-per-lot restriction and with an allowance for municipalities in the district to cast one vote.
SDCL 46A-4-2 defines voters in irrigation districts as “any person, the United States of America, the State of South Dakota or any political subdivision of the state, or any corporation authorized to do business in the state and owning not less than thirty-five acres of land within any district.” Um… help me out: “the United States of America” gets to cast a vote? Who does that? The President? And while the conjunctions cause some confusion, this statute could be read to say you only get to vote in the irrigation district if you own 35 acres of land or more.
Sanitary districts appear to have no such definition of elector, meaning they would default to the standard definition of elector, a person registered to vote at an address within the boundaries of the district. That doesn’t mean you have to live there full-time; as Jerry Lammers would tell me, you just need to have a place to hang your hat in the district. More importantly, you would define that place in the sanitary district as your voting residence and thus would not vote in other places
In that regard, sanitary districts are far more loyal to principles of democracy and electoral integrity than those other special districts. South Dakota offers entire groups of landowners special voting privileges based entirely on their status as property owners and allowing them to vote in two places at once. Wow!
Thanks LBCC aka Stinker, we’ve been engaged with the Concerned Citizens and have been getting their correspondence. A thought occurred to me just now, what if 30 days prior to the next sanitary district election a property owner switches their voter registration to Lake Byron votes (hopefully to change leadership and then to dissolve the district) then changes registration back to their home district? Just need notification of the meeting 30 days+ prior.
Rattman, there’s nothing stopping that sort of voter registration switch. Any voter who can reasonably establish evidence of a residence in the district, even if its less than seasonal, can so register and participate in sanitary district elections.
Stirring this thread. The defendants and plaintiffs have decided to not go to trial and have reached a stipulation agreement that stops all forward movement on the sewer project including the $30/month billing and properly elect trustee’s in May of 2019 vs going to trial. Part of the agreement was to create an “Election Oversite Committee” comprised of 2 members from each group, plus a 5th selected mutually with the responsibility of making sure the election is executed properly. I was asked and have been tossed into the deep end of the lake. In this Election Oversight process some property owners have expressed interest in running as a Trustee Candidate and have asked questions and requested more information about the project, it’s costs, what the property owner consensus is, all which were unable to be answered. The Election Oversite Committee has requested to be added to the upcoming LBSD monthly meeting agenda to discuss this recommendation below.
Key pre-election information meeting agenda:
1. Interim LBSD to hold “Public Meeting” March 13th. Notice in local newspaper and letter mailed to property owners. Letter mailed needs to include cost and other pertinent information for people that may not be able to attend the meeting in person.
2. The meeting will review sewer project details so to update/inform/educate potential candidates, property owners and voters.
3. Meeting details but not limited to: Updated estimates on sewer costs. Identify what properties are included and excluded. Identify what has or has not yet bet determined. Lagoon location. Easement and right away agreements. Insurance cost. Other potential property owner risk. (Lake Brant sewer project lawsuit as example).
4. Straw Poll vote by all property owners at meeting, one vote per registered property. Property owner “Does Not” have to be registered voters in the Lake Byron Sewer District. Arrangements required for absentee property owners to cast vote prior to meeting. Vote shall be:
A. “Yes. I vote for the sewer project completion”
B. “No. I am against the sewer project completion and want it stopped”
C. “Maybe,” if additional options are offered and a binding all property vote, 1 vote per property. Property owner “Does Not” have to be a registered voter to decide to move forward with the project or stop the sewer project, after final bids and costs are identified. A maybe vote includes, but not limited to: An Opt Out option for properties that have EPA certified system or holding tanks. Seasonal/Full time resident usage-based rates. Hookup cost option for properties that want to be connected at a later date.
I am optimistic and hoping we will get a positive responsive from the Interim LBSD members. The question I have is are you aware of any State statues, SDCL’s, election Oath, or ethics rules that govern elected official/trustees as to what an elected official is responsible to do, who they are responsible to represent, ect. that could be quoted in meetings to maybe influence them to do the right thing for ALL property owners/tax payers?