Board discusses funds for the major sewer project
By Jen Clancey STAFF WRITER
Editor’s Note: This story was updated to provide a more accurate description of an alternate solution for funding of the canyon sewer.
On Feb. 4, the Gallatin Canyon County Water and Sewer District discussed how it will communicate current and future plans for its project to construct a centralized sewer in the Big Sky portion of Gallatin Canyon, as well as solutions for funding the development.
In December, the Upper Missouri River Waterkeeper filed a lawsuit against the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for its permitting of a pipeline design review for the Gallatin Canyon sewer project. Citing concerns with public transparency and absent environmental reviews, the lawsuit seeks to require DEQ to conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment of the entire sewer project, and vacate DEQ approvals of the project.
At the district’s February board meeting, GCCWSD board member Scott Altman announced that the district will begin sharing all applications and permitting documents related to the sewer project on its website, with monthly updates. He also noted that GCCWSD will do an environmental assessment of permitting for the sewer project moving forward.
“The canyon sewer is a community solution for the health of the river by creating a master plan to remove old septic systems and create the best treatment possible for the canyon. We definitely encourage community participation and have since the beginning,” Altman wrote to EBS on Feb. 10. He also noted that GCCWSD will do an environmental assessment of all permitting for the sewer project moving forward.
When board members at the Feb. 4 meeting asked if the decision to conduct environmental assessments at each stage of permitting was related to the Dec. 17 lawsuit, Altman said no.
“It’s for the community. We are in the community, you know, we’re elected officials. We feel like that’s the correct thing to do … We want everyone to know where we’re at and we want everyone to help, honestly,” Altman said at the board meeting.
Board members agreed with the plan and noted that it was a prudent way to move forward with the sewer project. Mace Mangold, VP of infrastructure at WGM Group—the firm contracted to lead the sewer project—noted a good next step is to have the Gallatin County Commission request DEQ conduct an environmental assessment of the project, so that GCCWSD is taking necessary precautions moving forward.
Kristin Gardner, chief executive and science officer at the Gallatin River Task Force, thanked GCCWSD for its transparency, and pointed out opportunities for improvement in communication.
“First I want to appreciate your commitment to transparency. I think it’s really important here,” Gardner said. She noted that a meeting in the near future with river conservation groups should be a priority.
“As far as getting the groups together—you know, a lot of them haven’t heard about this project in a really long time and I think it would be really beneficial if we could get everyone in the room and they have the opportunity to ask questions and get updates because they’re gonna be talking to their membership about this,” Gardner said.
Funding squeeze: TEDD and TIF questions revisited
As GCCWSD works to coordinate with conservation groups and the DEQ, funding also remains a challenge in getting Gallatin Canyon properties hooked up to a centralized sewer.
At this point, there’s two options to make the projected $50 million project feasible: a targeted economic development district and tax incremental financing structure, known as TEDD and TIF, could fund a gap of $10 million or more after local entities pool money for the project; or the project must par back its plans, and forego connecting to the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility by constructing its own processing facility. TEDD and TIF efforts have faced pushback at the county level. The Gallatin County Commission announced in October it would not support the funding structure for the sewer project, on the basis that there are other funding options available.
Things look rocky without TEDD and TIF. Board members discussed how difficult it could be to find a local entity to fill the gap.
“I feel like this has been passed around enough and that everyone, all these other entities, always seem to have another commitment … And I worry about the burden on us being to convince everybody that someone needs to do more,” board member Stuart Goldberg said.
Mangold explained that TEDD and TIF are a crucial part of the financial stacking to fund the project, and mentioned other ways the district could fundraise to fill that gap. Mangold is optimistic that a TEDD and TIF is possible with enough outreach and education about the funding model.
“We want to just re-center with the county that this project … it’s not really a Big Sky challenge. It’s a county challenge in their development model—it’s a state challenge. They have these problems all around the state and private development can carry only so much,” Mangold said in the meeting.
David Tuan, operations manager with engineering firm AE2S and manager for canyon sewer projects, offered his insight from years of local government experience.
“I think one of the key objections the county had was not understanding the economics,” Tuan said. He said justifying the environmental benefit of the project is also very important, but it’s possible that perceptions of the TEDD-TIF funding tool being used to fund further development is a hurdle. Mangold noted that education and outreach will be key, and Tuan recommended that the district provide further education on how this tool can be used for regional infrastructure and to support county finances.
“This is a revenue generator for the county. It’s a tool they should be using,” Tuan said.
