Tim Leeds Havre Daily News tleeds@havredailynews.com
The local city and county governments are back to square one on the issue of the county funding the community pool in Havre after the Hill County Commissioners Wednesday voted not to participate in binding arbitration to determine the validity of a 34-year-old agreement. Hill County Commissioner Kathy Bessette said during Wednesday’s meeting that the commission had been advised by County Attorney Cyndee Peterson to vote against arbitration. “We’re just obeying our county attorney,” she said. Havre resident Wells Lamey voiced his opinion to both city council members and county commissioners before the vote that the council and the commission need to get together and resolve the issue. “We shouldn’t fight the battle in the paper ,” he said. “You should throw your personalities out the window and politics out the window and get it done.” A disputed contract The Havre City Council on Aug. 18 unanimously voted to request that the county agree to binding arbitration to determine whether the 1974 agreement, signed at the time by one county commissioner and the Havre mayor, was a valid agreement. In the agreement, the county agreed to pay one-third of the net operations expense for the pool, construction of which was being planned at the time. Peterson has written an opinion stating the agreement is not a valid document because it lacks a duration and method to end the agreement, as required by state law. Havre City Attorney Jim Kaze has written a contrary opinion, stating the document is a valid agreement. Both Bessette and County Commission Chair Mike Wendland voted against the proposed arbitration. Commissioner Mike Anderson, who said in an interview Friday that he did not believe arbitration was appropriate to decide validity of the agreement, was not at the meeting. Allen “Woody” Woodwick, a member of the City Council and its Finance Committee, and Council Member Pam Hillery were the only representatives of Havre at the meeting. Woodwick, before the vote, urged the Hill County Commission to approve the arbitration. He said that while the county contends the agreement is invalid, the city believes a valid agreement still exists. “I’d like that question to be put to rest,” he said. In a letter written to Havre Mayor Bob Rice after the Commission vote, Peterson said she could not recommend the Commission spend time and taxpayer dollars on arbitration about the validity of an agreement she says is invalid and which the Commission terminated in April 2007 when the city disputed her opinion. The Commission at that time offered to negotiate a new agreement. “My primary reason is there is no agreement which provides for arbitration,” Peterson wrote in the letter Wednesday. “Arbitration can be an effective tool when there are contractual obligations in dispute such as union collective bargaining agreements. However, as previously stated several times, there is no valid agreement to arbitrate. “The county will not participate in arbitration because it is not appropriate in this situation and is a waste of taxpayer funds,” Peterson continues. “Again, the County believes the most economical and prompt manner to resolve this issue is to enter into a valid, written agreement.” Council Member Terry Schend, chair of the Finance Committee, said in an interview Wednesday that legal action to determine the validity of the contract could be the next step. He said that question will be taken up at the next meeting of the Finance Committee. “It kind of saddens me that we have to get to that point, but I guess that’s (the Commission’s) choice,” he said How much is owed? Since 1974 the county has either paid a flat amount less than one-third in 22 of 24 years and paying more than one-third in two years or through in-kind services by providing dispatching services from 1992 through 2000. In 2006, the city sent a bill for the onethird payment, including past-due payments through the beginning of the agreement, totaling more than $280,000. After that bill was received, Peterson issued her opinion that the 1974 agreement is not a valid contract, and also that the past-due bill had no legal basis. Since then, the dispute has been over how much the county should pay the city has requested it pay one-third or take full or partial ownership of the pool and submit a county- wide tax to fund county recreation activities, including the Havre and Hingham pools, to the voters. Bessette said during Wednesday’s meeting that before the bill was received in 2006, the county assumed there was no problem with it’s $19,000 payment. “The checks had always been cashed and everything seemed to be OK,” she said. Woodwick replied that sending that bill may not have been the city’s best option. “There should have been some discussion first,” he said. Hillery said after the meeting that one problem seems to have been lack of communication. The city could have let the county know earlier that higher payments were needed, while the county could have stated it believes the 1974 agreement is invalid sooner, she said. “I think the fault lies on both sides,” Hillery said. Who should pay? The issue between the two governments is who should pay how much to keep the pool in operation. The county has stated that a new agreement must be negotiated, and has offered to continue paying the $19,000 Bessette said Wednesday that amount is once again in the preliminary budget for the next fiscal year. Havre resident Nora Nelson, a former Hill County Commissioner, said during Wednesday’s meeting that it seems inappropriate to ask county residents to pay for a pool in Havre if they don’t use the pool. Residents in western Hill County already have a pool in Hingham, and can also use the pool in Chester, she said. “I”m a city person, but I recognize what people in the country are up against,” she said. Nelson suggested the city take the issue to voters in the city, and could include residents in the region near Havre. “I live in the city and I would be willing to vote for funding the pool,” she said. “I can’t see trying to hook people in Inverness and Rudyard into paying for the Havre swimming pool.” After the meeting, Hillery and Woodwick said that option is still open. Woodwick said he wants the idea of raising taxes to be a last resort, but Hillery said she thinks that asking the voters to make the decision might be the right step. “I think that’s what mill levy elections are for,” she said. Payment options How much should be paid by whom is still in the air. In her letter to Rice Wednesday, Peterson wrote that the county continues to be willing to draft a new agreement and pay $19,000. Hillery said after Wednesday’s meeting that the city needs more than $19,000 to continue to operate the pool. When the pool opened, the cost of operating the pool was about $50,000 a year. At the July 30 meeting, the Finance Committee said the cost had risen to more than $230,000. “Pools are not a money-making operation ,” Hillery said. “But, you’ve got to keep the bleeding to a minimum.” In a meeting between the Commission and the Finance Committee on July 30, Woodwick and Finance Committee members Gerry Veis both asked if the county could pay more, and asked for an estimate of how much that might be. At that meeting, Anderson said that at that stage of the budget process, he couldn’t give a firm estimate. He did give two figures: if the city did not negotiate a new contract to replace the 1974 agreement, it would receive nothing. If it did negotiate an agreement, it would receive $19,000 and the two parties could further negotiate the amount, he said. Bessette said during Wednesday’s meeting that was the intent of a payment and agreement sent by the county to the city in January of this year. After a meeting between the Commission and Finance Committee in the fall of 2007, Peterson drafted a one-year agreement and the county sent it and a payment of $19,000 to the city, with the intent that the city review the agreement and sign it or revise it and send it back for review, she said. Instead, the city cashed the check and sent the agreement back unsigned, with a letter from Rice stating the city “believes the 1974 swimming pool agreement is a valid agreement,” although the letter states that “the City Council is willing to resume discussions in an effort to draft a new agreement.” Other avenues The city is exploring other possible funding. Schend said the Finance Committee has discussed negotiating with Montana State University-Northern, once it has selected a permanent chancellor, about a payment so students, faculty and staff at Northern could use the pool. Northern’s pool is currently not in use due to lack of funding. He said the committee has also raised the idea about negotiating with Northern Montana Hospital about a payment agreement to provide use of the pool for prescribed therapy for its patients. Woodwick said after the meeting Wednesday that the Finance Committee has not discussed renegotiating payment with the Havre Public Schools, which is also making an annual payment of $19,000, but under a 1976 agreement that states the amount would be set on a year-by-year basis. “I think that discussion would have to be taken up with the superintendent and the (school board),” Woodwick said. Hillery said after the meeting that the city and county need to continue to look at ways to fund the pool’s operation. “It’s what Wells said,” she said. “We need to get this figured out.”
