Town responds to public questions

Questions about water bills, evaporative ponds and cameras dominate meeting

The Saratoga Town Council had a busy night at their Feb. 4 meeting.

The meeting began with a letter of correspondence from Saratoga resident Cindy Bloomquist. In her letter, Bloomquist said that she was “concerned that The Town of Saratoga has only paid back about (two) years of water bill penalties for a practice that goes back many years.” Bloomquist also said in her letter that if the mayor and council does “nothing, if you do not share your concerns with the public, -or [sic] make your decisions in private conversations, with no visible oversight then you are part of, and responsible for, the checks and balances problem.”

Councilman Steve Wilcoxson responded to Bloomquist’s letter saying that Cindy directed her questions about the water billing problem towards the wrong group.

“I respect your concerns, but sometimes the concerns are brought to the wrong people,” Wilcoxson said. “Sometimes with the water bills - that’s decided by the Joint Powers Board.”

“You’ve brought your concerns to me, I voiced my opinion. I’ve never, ever put a wall up. But I do take offense of being accused … of being part of a cover-up,” he added.

Bloomquist said she wanted to know who made the decisions to pay back 20 months of water bill penalties.

“You guys didn’t do it publicly,” Bloomquist said.

Mayor John Zeiger said that Saratoga Town Clerk Suzie Cox did work with those who were well behind on their water bill.

“If someone had paid a substantial amount on their bill, [Cox] adjusted and took off a lot of the bill,” Zeiger said.

However, Bloomquist said she was still disturbed that the penalties were difficult to find on the bills and impacted several people in the town.

“I just think it was difficult for people to understand. I think the weight should have been on you all, because you made the decision and shouldn’t have because they weren’t based an ordinance,” Bloomquist said. “Not on a personal figure amount.”

Cox said she ran a report back as far as her computer records would go and looked up who had penalties.

“Anyone who had a penalty I made an adjustment,” Cox said. “It wasn’t just specific people picked out.”

Councilwoman Judy Welton said that the water bill issue needs to be put behind and that the town needs to progress forward.

“I think we have made it clear that if you have any problems, you can call us. But I also think we are spending way too much time on this and I think there are other issues that are so important to the town,” Welton said. “We need to move forward, put this behind us and see if we can’t learn from this.”

“We’re spinning our wheels here. Let’s get together and move forward and make sure we don’t do it again,” she added.

Evaporative lagoon vs pipe to North Platte River

At the Jan. 21 town council meeting, Saratoga resident Glee Johnson asked if Saratoga Town Engineer Chuck Bartlett had considered using an evaporation pond for the Water-Water removal project.

During the Feb. 4 meeting, Bartlett wrote a response to Johnson’s concern which said, “At the previous Town Council meeting, Mrs. Glee Johnson questioned why the town didn’t build a 10 acre evaporation lagoon, in lieu of installing a pipe to the North Platte River.”

Bartlett’s letter explained that a lagoon over 81 acres would be needed to sufficiently sustain the amount of wastewater in Saratoga. Also attached was a diagram of the containment level and an aerial photo of the area Saratoga has available for a wastewater project.

Johnson said that she was personally troubled by the response Barlett had written.

“I am a little offended that you made a point of doing this personally, to me. When I asked the question: are they comparing the fact that the evaporation ‘con’ system that was installed in Sinclair, which is a three ‘con’ system, I am knowledgeable about that system,” Johnson said. “I questioned about the different methods that could be used for your sewer system”.

Johnson said she did not say that Bartlett made a terrible decision, but asked if other alternatives for the project had been considered.

“I just questioned if there was other systems that were discussed. I know all of these facts. I know the idea of any kind of evaporation ponds and the size it would take for our area and our size of a sewer system,” she said. “I am very disappointed in you Chuck that you would do that to me personally between you and me.”

Bartlett said that he was asked by the council to write up a report. Councilman Wilcoxson said that he personally asked Bartlett for an explanation.

“You brought up a concern … and you have every right to do that,” Wilcoxson said addressing Johnson. “I asked Chuck to do that so we could respond to [Johnson’s concerns]. So if you are going to be mad at anyone, be mad at me and I’ll be glad to debate it with you.”

However, Johnson said she was upset that the letter called her out personally.

“When I brought [the evaporation pond] up, I didn’t bring it up to embarrass anybody. And that response is rather pointed at me with even having the nerve for me to go to meetings and make any kind of comments. I’m not the bad guy here. [The evaporation pond] was a suggestion. It was one of the systems used in numerous other places,” Johnson said.

“I have never tried to attack anyone personally here. There are times where I am very discouraged about some decisions. But my comments were nothing more than an idea and wondered why it hadn’t been thought about,” she said. “I feel like this is being personally attacked because I brought up something different that was not on the agenda for the project.”

Welton said that she did not view Chuck Bartlett’s letter as a personal attack.

“I don’t take it that way at all. I am sorry that you do. I think it is admirable that you have all of that information that you brought to us at our council meeting last time. But I don’t take it as singling you out.”

Wilcoxson said that he agreed with Welton in that the letter was not supposed to be offensive towards Johnson. He thought the letter was meant to clarify why the town made the decision.

“You were the one who addressed the question, Chuck was asked to [write up the letter]. We do it to anyone in here. There have been other people who have brought concerns in. It was responded to that question. I don’t see anything in here that was derogatory to you. I’m sorry you feel that way, but your feelings are your own,” Wilcoxson said.

Council room camera

A new addition to the town hall meetings are cameras, which will film the future town hall meetings. Saratoga residents at the meeting asked about a monitor placed behind council members and the mayor. The monitor showed three cameras filming: one filming down the hall adjacent to town hall chambers and two directed towards audience members.

Zeiger said that though the Feb. 4 meeting was the first time that the “system had been up and going.” He also stated that the cameras have been in place for three weeks.

Suzie Cox said that the reason they were placed was not solely because of town council meetings, but so court proceedings, which are held in the same room, could be filmed. Cox also noted that the town had decided to place the cameras about four months ago.

The project of placing the cameras in the town hall cost “around $1,000.”

Saratoga resident Tasha Worthington said at the end of the meeting that she liked the idea of a filmed council meeting, however she said that there was one additional camera angle that was needed.

“I’m glad that we have these cameras, I really do. I’m just wondering why there are no cameras facing the mayor and council members,” she said.

Zeiger and council members said that there is already a camera in place that films council members, but it was not working at the time of the meeting.

The next town council meeting will take place at 6 p.m, Feb. 18 at Saratoga Town Hall.