A lengthy discussion at a meeting of the Hill County Commission Thursday left the issue of what will come out of negotiations on the county’s annual payment for operation of the Havre Community Pool still unclear. The County Commission agreed to meet with Hill County Attorney Gina Dahl and come up with a counterproposal on the city's recent offer for the county to pay 25 percent of the yearly expense. However, one Havre City Council member said when the Commission didn’t accept the city’s offer Thursday, the next step will be court. “I am not going to come back to another meeting,” Council Member Gerry Veis said. “It’s to do today, it needs to be done today.” Veis said after the meeting that the next step will be to follow the recent City Council-approved motion to engage the legal process to determine if a 34-year-old agreement between the City of Havre and Hill County — which states the county will pay one-third of the pool’s expense — is a valid, binding contract. Other council members were not so sure. They said they wanted to hear what the county’s proposal was before pursuing legal action. “I absolutely am willing to listen to counter proposals,” Council Member Pam Hillery said after the meeting. Council Member Bob Kaul, who said after the meeting that he is willing to listen to counteroffers from the city, said during the meeting that the situation has to be resolved one way or another. “The last seven phone calls I have received since Monday said 'lock the door and nobody leaves until this is settled,'” he said. Two years of contention The issue goes back at least two years, when the city presented a bill to the county for one-third of the cost of operating the pool less the pool’s revenue from payment in fees for use of the pool. The city also demanded past-due payments, based on shortfalls of the onethird payment agreed to in a 1974 interlocal agreement, totaling some $280,000. After former Hill County Attorney Cyndee Peterson reviewed the bill and the 1974 agreement in 2006, she said the agreement was not a valid legal document because it lacked some elements required by state law, including a duration and a method to terminate the agreement. She said the past-due bill also had no legal standing including due to the legal principal of offer and acceptance — the city had accepted and used the county’s payments for the duration of the contract — and violation of the statute of limitations. The city’s attorneys have maintained that the 1974 agreement is a valid legal document, and the City Council on Oct. 6 voted to pursue legal action. Before taking that step, the city presented an alternative — the county would pay one-fourth of the expense, rather than one-third, in an agreement that included creating a board comprised of city and county government representatives, local Residents and users of the pool to oversee its operation. The county has always paid a flat fee — which was more than one-third in the first and fifth year of the pool’s operation and less than one-third in the others — and by providing in-kind services in the 1990s when it provided dispatching for the city. Since 2001, the county has paid $19,000 a year, and has budgeted $19,000 for this year, although it has not been paid. The council members said the cost this year under the proposed 25 percent would be $59,000 to $60,000. A motion to approve the 25 percent agreement failed in Thursday’s commission meeting when it died without being seconded. Determining a figure The commissioners all agreed they could not accept a flat 25 percent payment, because they could not pass on an unknown dollar amount to future commissioners — 25 percent might be $60,000 this year, but could be much more in future decades. “That’s a moving target,” Commission Chair Mike Wendland said. “I don’t feel I could leave my successors with that.” Hillery said a percentage seems to be the only way to handle the pool funding, because the city doesn’t know what future expenses will be, either. “It is a moving target but our expense is a moving target,” she said. “I realize that $19,000 is a solid number but if the cost goes up, $19,000 becomes less and less.” Commissioner Kathy Bessette said part of the problem might be that the council members — while they also are facing higher expenses with limited funds — might not realize how tight the county budget is. Bessette said that decades of increasing federal and state mandates for services the county must provide, while the county faces reduced help from the state and federal government to provide those services, makes finding more money for the pool nearly impossible. She suggested a meeting where the city could see what the county is facing in its budget and what it would have to do to find a 25 percent payment. “If we try to reach the level you’re requesting we would have to cut people … ,” she said. “Our hands are basically tied. We would have to cut people and services we are mandated to provide.” Veis said during the meeting he is willing to compromise, but doesn’t want to abandon the principle of the 1974 agreement. Veis said even if the court system determines the contract is legal, he would be willing to discuss the county paying 25 percent instead. Council Member Andrew Brekke echoed that. “I agree with Gerry that we would be remiss if we turned our back on an agreement we believe is valid … ,” he said. “I don’t want to go to court either, but I am not willing to negotiate for less than (25 percent).” Agree to negotiate Some members of the group did talk about new negotiations. Council Member Bob Kaftan queried the Council if he was understanding correctly that the $19,000 figure was negotiable — and was told that it was. Council Member Cal Long asked what the county’s offer is — in negotiations, he said, if a side doesn’t agree with an offer they make a counteroffer. “I know it has to be settled, but we might be able to settle without court,” he said. “That’s the way the negotiation process goes.” Bessette said that because the county now had a hard figure — she said this was the first time she had heard the $59,000 to $60,000 amount instead of a percentage — it might be able to find a way to approach that. “That was my question, was what is the figure? … ” she said. “Now that we have a firm figure, I would be willing to see if we could find more.” “I don’t know where,” she added. Commissioner Mike Anderson said he is open to negotiations, although he would prefer the groups sitting down together to negotiate. If it is preferred, he said, he is also willing to write and send the city a counteroffer. “If that’s what you want, I would do it,” he said. Several members of the group made suggestions on how negotiations could be approached. Kaul said that maybe an incremental annual increase would allow the county to gradually pay more of the expense without having to jump straight from $19,000 to $60,000. Bessette suggested a contract with a flat fee, with the amount due reviewed every five years or perhaps every other year. After Brekke asked what timeline the city could expect for the county’s offer, the Commission set a drop-dead date of Nov. 14. After the meeting, many of the City Council members seemed pleased that the process is moving forward. Havre Mayor Bob Rice said in a telephone interview this morning that he also is pleased that negotiations are ongoing. “That’s the way it’s supposed to work,” he said.
 Printer Friendly |  Email this story |