Commissioners review Slaty Fork Wastewater Treatment Plant with PSD members

Commissioners review Slaty Fork Wastewater Treatment Plant with PSD members

Commissioners met with yet another, but certainly more familiar impasse Tuesday.

But instead of being at odds with PSD members or uneasy Slaty Fork community members, two commissioners seemed to be at odds with themselves.

Saffer and Fleming, while championing the cause of Snowshoe property owners who don’t want to pay higher sewerage rates, asked the PSD members to slow down the process, a tack that could hike the cost of the plant even more.

“Is there a rush to the finish line?” Saffer asked. “Do you feel we could slow down just a little bit and make sure this is acceptable?”

“Slowing down is not a problem for me,” said PSD treasurer Mark Smith. “Grinding to a halt would be.”

Smith noted that the project cost $15 million when it was first introduced and the price tag now could range from $23 million to $41 million.

“Every waiting month incrementally increases the total cost of this,” Smith said. “Time is money. That’s one of the things that weighs in my decision.”

Both Saffer and Fleming said they have received letters from Snowshoe property owners suggesting they are being asked to fund future development in the valley that will not benefit them.

Smith said rates have been approved by the Public Service Commission.

“They have the final say,” Smith reminded the commission.

Both Smith and PSD president Bill Rexrode said they stood behind their 2007 decision to select Site 7 for the embattled plant. That’s more or less where Snowshoe Mountain Resort planned to put the plant when it was a private facility.

After the resort agreed to a regional plant, the PSD selected about nine acres on the Sharp Family Farm for the facility. That decision was opposed by the Sharp Family and several environmental groups, as well as community members opposed to eminent domain.

Saffer said Site 9, which would discharge into the Shavers Fork of Cheat is endorsed by 8 Rivers Safe Development. Fleming agreed that the site, the “least ambitious,” is also the cheapest.

The plant would be located at Silver Creek.

Saffer continued questioning Smith and Rexrode, including how they deal with the fact Snowshoe Mountain Resort is cooperating with the PSD to be relieved of fines from the Division of Environmental Protection.

“Do you feel whatever action you take must be to help Snowshoe with fines? Do you feel constrained by that?” Saffer asked. “Are you acting in the best interest of the county and property owners?”

“It’s in the best interest of the county to have a properly functioning wastewater treatment facility,” Smith said.

And Saffer wanted PSD members to know he distrusts their engineering firm.

“Do you feel Thrasher is myopic and not giving you new and different ideas?” Saffer asked. “Have you considered peer review? Do you feel you’re getting a full complement of suggestions?”

Smith said Thrasher is the largest engineering firm in the state, with more than 150 engineers available.

“They have plenty of opinions coming into them,” he said. A peer review, he said, would take time and money.

Smith invited commissioners to the PSD meeting Wednesday, where, he said, the people with all the answers would be.

In other business, the commission:

• Agreed to write a letter of support for a study of the eligibility of 4.5 miles of the Upper Elk Watershed to be designated as Wild and Scenic.