As many of you may recall, the Treasure State Acres has been wrestling with the issue of how to handle flooding problems in certain parts of the subdivision caused by heavy rainstorms. The HOA hired Great West Engineering to analyze the storm-runoff problems and suggest solutions, and it proposed the installation of infiltration structures under several TSA streets. (You can find a copy of the Great West report on these infiltration structures on the top right portion of our “report and docs” page on the reports and documents page of our website.)
Great West identified three priority areas for installing the structures in order to catch the most water and keep costs down. It is estimated the structures would capture approximately 64 percent of the runoff. The priority areas are 1) Buffalo/Wolverine; 2) Bighorn/Cougar; and 3) Red Fox/Bighorn.
The estimated cost of Great West’s preferred option in December, 2023, was almost $1.1 million. For each TSA property owner, that would amount to about $338 a year for 15 years – plus a permanent annual cost of $44 a year for maintenance. The county would likely finance the project over 15 years.
It is unfortunate that we face the need to make improvements like these. But when our subdivision was developed decades ago, the storm-drainage system that was put in was inadequate – and now we’re paying the price.
The project proposed by Great West would require us to create a new RID (rural improvement district), and it would have to be approved by the county commissioners. To start the process, we needed to get 20 percent of the property owners in TSA to sign petitions requesting creation of an RID. Last fall we reached that 20 percent threshold, which is a little over 70 property owners. However, we have not yet requested that the county start the process of creating a new RID.
So why didn’t we do that? One reason is that, when we consulted with county officials, they told us that it might be difficult to convince the county commissioners if only 20 percent of our subdivision’s property owners have signed petitions and shown their support. One thing that happens when the process begins is that the county would give all property owners in TSA a chance to comment, or even protest. And we did hear from some TSA residents who, to varying degrees, opposed the idea.
One reason some opponents gave is that they didn’t think the project would benefit them. While it may be true that many would not see a direct benefit, one thing to consider is that everyone in the subdivision contributes to the water runoff problem, in one way or another, as water runs off their property and goes toward lower points of the subdivision where it sometimes floods peoples’ yards, driveways, garages and so on. County officials also tell us that a project like this would do a better job of getting water off our streets, and thus prolong their life spans.
Another concern for some TSA residents is just the additional cost to their tax bill. Many people in TSA are on fixed incomes, and any additional taxes or fees are difficult to fit into their budget.
Yet another concern we heard, as we moved along, was this: Would installation of these water-infiltration chambers work as planned because they are supposed to be buried under our streets in places where we also have sewer lines and other utility services running? When we asked Great West about this question, we were told that there could be some conflicts, and those would have to be identified by a utility location survey before final planning was done. It was also indicated that this issue poses the potential for higher costs.
Due to such questions and concerns, there are some who feel we should re-evaluate this plan and determine if there’s a less expensive, but still effective means, of dealing with our storm-drain problems. In essence, get a second opinion.
Mark Peterson is an engineer with TD&H Engineering who lives in TSA and specializes in storm-water issues. He believes there may be some less costly but still effective steps, and he’s offered to talk about them at our June meeting. Perhaps there are other ideas to consider.
We weren’t sure if we could handle some improvements to storm drains under our existing RID, and thus not have to go through the process of creating a new RID. The county’s special districts coordinator has just indicated that we probably can make some improvements without a new RID. However, if those sorts of improvements don’t work and we need to return to the Great West plan, she said we’d need to revisit their cost estimates before asking the county to create a new RID.
Anyway, it seems to us that, at this point, there are three options:
Move ahead with the request to the county to form a new RID. This would probably require getting more signatures on petitions to ensure that the county would look favorably on the idea.
Do nothing. This isn’t a good option, we believe, as we have a responsibility to help those who are having to bear the brunt of the water-runoff problems that most everyone in the subdivision contributes to.
Examine other alternatives that Mark Peterson or others might suggest – and see if less costly options couldn’t solve much of the problem – before we commit to a full-price plan.
Let us know what you think. If you can’t make it to the June 3 HOA meeting at the LDS Church, please send an email with your thoughts to sshirleymt@gmail.com
Steve Shirley, HOA president & Terry Atwood, treasurer
PS: Thanks much to those who previously signed the petitions. We appreciate your community spirit. Your willingness to help is part of what makes TSA a great place to live.