Note: The Payson Roundup does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Members of the current Pine Strawberry Water Improvement District complained that previous members of the Board did not listen to the public. Well, they are in office now and one of the first actions the new Board takes is hiring Mr. Gliege as their attorney. Now Mr. Gliege happens to represent Mr. Pugel and Mr. Peterson, two individuals that the Board will be eventually negotiating with concerning water sharing. Members of the community have pointed out this potential conflict. However, the PSWID Board has said "no problem" and hired him anyway. There are other problems with Mr. Gliege. In the past he was censured by the Arizona State Bar. Go to www.azbar.org to see the nature of these censures. I would hazard a guess that the majority of the attorneys working in Arizona have not been censured. Yet, the Board chose to hire an attorney that has been censured more than once and has a potential conflict of interest. People have objected to his being hired. One Board member suggested that the hiring of an attorney be looked into by a committee. The Board says "No". Why is there this determination to hire Mr. Gliege? and Who is not being listened to now?
Tom, On the long thread about PSWID I posted on 2-17 11:12 am
who or what is PS Water LLC that was incorporated 2/05/2007 by Stephanie Gliege, Loren Peterson and Diane Peterson all with the address of 4455 N. Strawberry Hollow. Statutory agent John Gliege of Flagstaff.
On 2-17 2:40 pm I posted
Stephanie Gliege is a member of the Gliege Law Office PLLC in Flagstaff John Gliege is the other member. This is according to Ariz. Corp. Commission records Is this the Mr. Gliege that is attending the water meetings 'pro bono'?
Now to your post. Seems there may be a lot of conflict of all kinds if his wife or daughter owns a water co in the area. Just an opinion.
Bernice, had you been in attendance, you would have heard the explanation that Mr. Gliege gave regarding this "censure". TONS of attorneys get censured for administrative screw ups. He admitted that he screwed up. There is no conflict of interest, as the ONE board member that has used Mr. Gliege specifically stated that the reason he was using him had nothing to do with the reason that the 4 crooked members were recalled.
Overall, I felt that everyone had an opportunity to speak their mind, for as long as they wanted, unlike the previous board that so quickly dismissed any questions or concerns from the public.
You can harp on and on about this if you choose, and I'm assuming that you will choose to; but the bottom line to bring an attorney up to date would cost us more. And, frankly, Ray Pugel doesn't have anything to do with the PSWID. He's just a concerned citizen that attends the meetings- just as everyone else should be doing.
I felt that Bill Haney operated the meeting in a clear and professional manner, and Don Smith followed suit. The only one with her nose out of joint was Barbara Hall.
The election was clearly decided. You'll have an opportunity in November to vote for what you think will serve the community better.
The State Bar of Arizona made Mr. Gliege return $106,000 in attorney fees to a client. The State Bar of Arizona also put him on probation for one year. Go to www.azbar.org to read the full description of the censure. Also, ask the State Bar to send you records of any earlier censures. Also, while you are at it check the other attorneys that have been involved with the PSWID/PWCo matter. You will find that Mr. Gliege is the only one that has been censured.
I am not against the water company purchase. The matter was put before the public, and the public voted for the purchase. However, when the public voted for the purchase, they trusted that the people elected would act in the public's best interest. I do not think that hiring Mr. Gliege is acting in the best interest of the public.
I think the public should know about Mr. Gliege's association with Mr. Peterson and Mr. Pugel. I feel the public should know about his record.
Bernice, How about my earlier post at 8:53 this morning, where Stephanie Gliege is an attorney in his office and may own a water company in that area according to Corp. records?
Just a little suggestion. You did a good job as the--hm-m-m, how should I put it?--"spokesperson on the blog" for RCW. Does that sound about right?
That 's over and done with.
Would it not now be wiser to leave the subject alone? That is to say, to let people have their say about what is happening re PSWID? Why would you want to be the apologist for everything that people don't like re the new PSWID board? Good Lord! Why take on that never-ending task? Let the people concerned do their own explaining.
Think about this too: In your passion to respond to some implication you don't like you sometimes tend to get carried away. In truth, your characterization of Ray as just another concerned citizen is not only not going to fly, it's actually wrong.
Ray was there to get what he wants, not as a concerned citizen, but as someone who wants to get the property he intends to develop out of the certificated area of Pine Water Company.
So what? There's nothing wrong with that. Ask him and he himself will no doubt tell you that's why he was there. He's just a businessman trying to do what businessmen do. There's no need to defend that.
What I'm saying is that if you try to respond to everything that everyone says re PSWID you'll just wear yourself out for no good reason. If Ray--or someone else--wants to respond--shoot!--let them respond.
Let it go! You did what you set out to do. It's over. Let it go!
I have suggested the removal of my second entry in this blog because all that I need to say was said in my first entry. I have made no accusations against Mr. Pugel and Mr. Peterson. I objected to the hiring of Mr. Gliege as the attorney for PSWID and gave reference to public record to substantiate my objections. I feel that the Board missed an opportunity to work toward bringing peace to the community by not creating a committee to look into matters related to hiring an attorney.
Bernice, I think you brought up some very good points. There is a lot of information that is of public record but most people want to stick their head in the sand and listen to rumors. It is easier for them than doing research. I believe there is more conflict of interest by a lot of people going on than any one could even imagine. Some maybe not illegally but morally. Just an opinion.
Tom, I agree with you, and there is no need to defend anything. I feel that the communities of Pine & Strawberry have stated very clearly that we are ready for a change for the better. There are still people griping about it, but it was put to a vote. Now it is time to heal the division (or partial division) and wait and see what happens.
Thanks Pat -- i agree, there is a lot of information that is part of the public record that people should check out especially if they are making decisions for the public. I believe they have the duty to check things out since they have the responsibility to represent the interests of all and not just a selected few who happen to agree with them.
I believe the thoughts of the quiet person in the back row is just as important and the loud screamer in the front row. I believe that a small group has the right to be heard just as much as a large group. Unfortunately in our society today it is often the loudest, irregardless of the merit of what is being said, that gets the attention.
Well, the PSWID Board has just posted the agenda for its April 3, 2008 meeting. These meetings are coming at a fast and furious pace as the last one was March 27.
Item 6a is approval of an agreement for legal services between the PSWID and Gliege Law Offices. I still don't see how they can justify hiring an attorney that is known to be the attorney of two of the people that you will be in negotiations with in the future. Something just isn't right. This action being taken despite very good, substatiated objections from the public. So who is listening now?
Another cause of "amusement " is item 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION. The previous PSWID Board was creamed by RCW when they went into executive session. Does who calls an executive session affect its appropriateness and acceptability?
Another curious thing is item 7a "Discuss and take possible action concerning the indefinite waiving of a strict interpretation of Roberts rules of Order for conducting PSWID Board meetings." Can anyone tell me why they would want to take this action?
Notice George Orwell's Animal Farm now playing Pine, Arizona.
Without Roberts Rules, you have mob rule at a meeting. So what will be different? (:
No one seems to want to answer any question about the water company corp. where Stephine Gleige is a member. Seems that should create a conflict of interest.
Mine is nothing more than a guess, but because of the same last name I believe that they are related in some way. The people who would definitely know aren't answering that question. Maybe they will in the future???????????
Bernice, They are in the same law office in Flagstaff. Look under corporations. Stephanie is also a member of P.S. Water Co. Corporation. This information was taken from the Arizona Corporation Commission Website. If one partner or father, daughter, wife or whatever combination owns a water co, it seems that would create a conflict of interest with Mr. Gliege being the attorney for PSWID unless it is all the same thing???
Well, all of you know how I feel about Gliege being the attorney for PSWID. Now I have another gripe. At the last PSWID meeting, Bill Haney states that PSWID has always been a domestic water improvement district. I would appreciate it if someone could explain how everybody in the Pine/Strawberry area could possibly been acting for the last 10 - 12 years under the belief that it was not a domestic water district. I would sure like to have Mr. Haney supply the proof for his statement.
I request this proof because I have a number of issues where he has made statements to me that proved to be wrong. I do not mean to imply that Mr. Haney lies, what I do believe is that he has a tendency to make careless statements. First, he told me that Gila County was going to adopt S.B. 1575. FALSE Then, he said that Barbara Hall would have voted against a letter to the ACC in favor of the K-2 Well. FALSE Then he told me that I would have to pay an individual $10 an hour to search for some documents in PSWID files. FALSE I am worn out researching statements made by Mr. Haney only to find out that there is no basis for his statement. So, I hope Mr. Haney will supply the proof on this one.
Another gripe -- supposedly Mr. Gliege does not have a conflict of interest because "the same water sharing agreement will be used with all parties." I cannot believe that PSWID Board believes that this statement does away with conflict of interest for the following reasons:
(1) Legal advice will be needed when the standard water sharing agreements are written. How can Mr. Gliege give legal advice to PSWID when at the same time he is representing the parties who will be signing the agreement? (2) There is no guarantee that the well owners will sign the standard agreement. How can Mr. Gliege give PSWID legal advice during compromise negotiations when he is representing the parties who want changes to the agreement.
PSWID Board members should remember, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Please believe me, I am not against becoming a domestic water improvement district and purchasing the water company. The people have spoken and that is what they want. However, I believe that it should be done in a legal, honest and open manner. Please do not insult the intelligence of the taxpayers.
Bernice, Haven't you learned by now that once most people that are voted into office turn into the smartest people in the world and we are supposed to follow whatever they say without question? They were voted in and they will make all the decisions even if it is totally against what the people want that voted them in.
I know those were long sentences but didn't know where to start and stop. (:
Did you read my post under Community- Brooke Utility ? If not please read it.
Bernice, Haven't you learned that once some people are elected to do something they forgot who elected them? They turn into the smartest people in the world make all thier decisions based on what they want, and don't listen to anyone. We are supposed to follow them like blind, deaf and dumb sheep. Not politically correct but I don't care.
Please read my post on 4-10 under Community Brooke-Pine water co.
I am completely blown out of my mind by the current PSWID Board. At one meeting Terry Schliezer states that she wants a conservation program that will save 20 million gallons of water (according to Payson Roundup article). She wants $5,000 this year and over $45,000 next year to implement her program. She is going to give 'cash back" to people installing dual flush toilets, low flush toilets and urinals. Now the national average of water usage is 350 gallons of water per household per day. In the Pine area the average per day, per household usage is 90 gallons. I think Pine residents already are conserving, and if they have high flush toilets they already have inserted a gravel filled pop bottle in the toilet tanks. The money that Ms. Schliezer wants for conservation should be put towards finding water. Then after additional water is put in the pipes, we can talk about conserving water.
Right now Pine has no additional water to conserve. Frankly, Ms. Schliezer reminds me of Marie Antoinette when she was told that the peasants have no bread, she said let them eat cake. Perhaps, the PSWID Board member when told Pine has no water would reply, let them drink pop.
Now at the last PSWID meeting, Ellen Greer, a realtor and wife of Board member Mike Greer, wants us to join the Cragin Pipeline project. Ok admirable suggestion. However, where is the money going to come from. PSWID is currently involved with the K-2 Well project. Are we getting out of that? How much is that going to cost? Then the current board wants to purchase the Pine Water Co. and Strawberry Water Co. How much is that going to cost? How much do you plan to tax in order to pay for all of this?
We hear about all sorts of grants and assistance programs from PSWID Board members. Well, let's get the specifics and let's get to work finding the water we need. Let's forget the talk for talk's sake and get to work finding water.
Low flow toilets are not what they are claimed to be. I bought a new house about 18 months ago. Yes they have low flow toilets and if one sheet of toilet paper is in it you have to hold the handle down for 3 flushes to get rid of the paper. Think what happens if anything else is in there.
I think I read somewhere you had to be a municipality water co to hook in to Blue Ridge (Cragin) so Pine and Strawberry will have to incorporate also I don't think a private co. can condemn land. Just an opinion.
Have been really reluctant to enter this discussion, but having read all of the posts by one individual, I must simply insert my views here. For one, if you read my post in Letters to the Editor in the last issue you know I see little need or use for the PSWID board as it formerly existed. Having said that I am somewhat perplexed that someone who was outwardly against the recall election now expects the "new" board members to have all the answers and ready solutions that the previous PSWID boards struggled for over eleven years and failed to produce. One might want to give the "new" group an opportunity to get up to speed before throwing a critical eye towards thier efforts. Then again, if I am only reading pure "sour grapes" at being on the losing side, I understand fully and will defer future comments.
You make a good point, but the history of the PSWID is a bit complex. It started out as an unofficial organization and suddenly, right out of the blue as far as any foreknowledge that I had, it became a county entity. I don't think you can entirely blame PSWID for the fact that little or nothing has happened. BUI dragged its feet for a long time.
On the other hand I often wondered in the past when PSWID was going to actually do something. Maybe they were doing something, but if so it was danged hard to detect until the K2 well came along.
Chief,
I agree with your comments in the Letters.
Just so I can tell where you're coming from re your comments about PSWID, are you for or against the purchase of the water company?
I was against the recall election, and the purchase, because I'd like to see the K2 well go in and see if it solves our problems, but I'm willing to give the new board a chance to solve our water problems any way they can, and I reserve my judgment for the time being regarding whether or not the new members are, as accused, tools of people who put their own interests ahead of those of the people of Pine and Strawberry.
That'll all come out in the wash I suppose. All I want to see is a dependable water supply at a decent price, and I could care less who does or doesn't profit from delivering that water.
I'd really like to see us tap into the Blue Ridge pipeline as a more permanent solution to our problems, but there seems to be some hang-up, namely that in order to get your slice of the blue Ridge pie you have to be someone who delivers water to ratepayers. Don't know how that will roll out, and I have seen nothing official and in writing that verifies it, but again I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
PS Pat,
Tut! Tut! Letting water flow into the street is a no-no! :-)
Tom, My first task when the wife and I moved to Pine 11 years ago was to attend a PSWID meeting held at the fire station in Pine. All the board members were participating in a voluntary fashion at that time. If there was a vacancy on the board and more than one person was interested in filling it, they had sort of a straw election to seat the new member. At that first meeting, I left with the complete and utter realization that the PSWID board had little or no chance at all at helping resolve the water issues that faced primarily Pine at that time.
Even then I felt that the most appropriate course of action was to get local control of whatever limited water resource existed. Water is not a luxury, It' a necessity and very vital to our standard of living. I know you are totally aware of all that and only mention it to illustrate my views even at that time. It was my view then as well as now that those who most depend on the limited water resource should have greater control and not be at the mercy of an out-of-state for profit corporation and a very bureacratic agency such as the ACC to look out for our interests.
Now understand that Strawberry Hollow wells did not exist at that time so the water available in the deeper aquifer was still only speculation. I did have discussions with many residents that had been here decades and had a pretty good feel for the water that does underlie the area and the geographic fractures and strata that it exists in. Most of that knowledge and experience came from actually drilling wells over several decades at different depths and locations.
Even back in those days it seemed fairly evident that Brooke Utilities was not going to invest any more money into trying to improve the situation. As Mr. Hardcastle testified to in one of the more recent ACC hearings, Brooke really didn't want Pine or Strawberry as part of their franchise as they knew it was a "loser" going in, but they were required to accept them as they were part of a larger aquisition by Brooke Utilities. That is actual testimony under oath and if you want to verify it, it is now part of the public record.
Eventually the PSWID board had some internal disension and there was a mass resignation. The county more or less took over at that point and restructured the PSWID, gave it taxing revenue and had the board members actually stand for election . To this day I am not sure why anyone felt that the PSWID was even necessary due to the corporate ownership of the water franchise and it being regulated by the ACC.
Like you, all I was ever interested in was reasonable water availability at reasonable rates. I stayed away from all the uproar during this recent recall of the board members and never attended or affiliated with either of the two groups that grew out of that undertaking. I am fully convinced that if there is not a MAJORITY consensus of opinion by the RESIDENTS of these to villages as to the direction that we should proceed, then any effort I might put forth with my involvement would simply be a waste of time. At my age I will pick and choose my battles very cautiously. So there you have it. Some of my info may be less than courtroom accurate, but I will put the reality of what I have actually witnessed/experienced while living here against anyones emotional speculation and alarmist viewpoints.
If you all will keep digging back into the past, you will find out how it happened. It has nothing to do with the old families in Pine and Strawberry and I think you will find there was an elected person involved. My opinion, not an accusation.
Pat, In all honesty I am not really interested in looking back into the past as regards the water situation in Pine/Strawberry and all the twists and turns that took place over the years. What would tickle me to death is to get a consensus of the residents to actually agree to and support a plan for moving forward from where we find ourselves at this moment in time. barring that I will simply sit on the sidelines and be a passive observer.
Where I come from there is no such thing as a private water company. Either the city or the county is responsible for serving the interests of its constituents. I frankly think that Arizona is light years behind time in allowing the most critical of the factors regarding the development of its lands to rest in the hands of private industry.
Why? Because the bottom line in those interests is--as it quite correctly should be--making a profit.
I wrote to the county when it was considering the rezoning of land here in Pine to allow a new development, inquiring about how much the availability of water would affect their decision. The answer was that they do not take the availability of water into account at all when deciding whether or not land should be developed.
What a cop-out!
In other words, the county will take our money in taxes, but will not meet the fundamental responsibility of any political entity in a water starved area by seeing to it that when homes are built there is a guaranteed water supply for them.
Think of how much simpler things would be here in Arizona if the law required that where there is no incorporated city the county is responsible for the water supply, as is done back east. Tha does not mean that the county has to become a water company, just that it has to be in control and make sure that everything is aboveboard.
Yeah, I know. I've heard the same old excuse a thousand times: "The water laws have grown over a period of more than a century."
Who cares? Laws can be changed. Especially in these times, when population pressure is pushing people into areas that were considered too marginal for development in the past.
I agree with you 100% that PSWID is totally redundant and alwsys has been. In fact, I believe that a petition should be circulated right now to dissolve PSWID.
One reason I think getting rid of PSWID is the way to go has to do with your comment on the need for the people of Strawberry and Pine to get together with a plan they can all live with.
It's not likely!
During the recent recall election, which was really just a controversy over whether or not the K2 well should be drilled, one side of the issue used a ploy which is going to hurt all of us far into the foreseeable future. They claimed that the K2 well would only serve Pine and that it would drain down the shallow wells of our friends and neighbors up in Strawberry.
The result was a lot of understandable anger up in Strawberry, and the breakdown of what was a reasonably close community into two hostile camps--Pine and Strawberry.
With things in that kind of shape, PSWID must go. It will be the center of bitter controversy forever.
Not only that, but the promises made by one side of the issue about how cheaply the water company can be bought, and the numbers given about how efficiently we can run it ourselves, while very attractive, were totally impossible.
How can the current PSWID board be expected to make good on such pie-in-the-sky promises? But that's what people are going to expect PSWID to do.
And if it can't, look out! We'll be fighting each other, and the board, forever.
So I say, dissolve PSWID. Talk to the county, let them provide a forum, and get the people in our two small communities talking to each other again. Let reason take the place of anger. Find a way to get together and work out our problems.
And start the petition drive to dissolve PSWID tomorrow!
If we wait for summer to get here, along with inevitable water hauling charges in Pine, the roof is going to blow off PSWID.
And if you think that's bad, wait till Strawberry has to start paying water hauling charges because BUI won't be able to cheat by pumping Pine water uphill to Strawberry while charging Pine for water hauling from Star Valley.
Ye gads! Strawberry out of water? Or having to pay water hauling charges after years of plenty?
Is that going to create some excitement! Has a cat got a tail?
And if Hardcastle is up to what Pat suggests, and it will not be possible to buy Pine Water because it will no longer exist as a separate company, I don't want to be anywhere near a PSWID meeting when the finger-pointing and name calling begins!
Tom, Like the finger-pointing and name calling hasn't already started?
If you dig back in time, the PSWID will probably go away and your money returned that you have been paying on your tax bill and not be taxed anymore. Think about that !
I don't think there are any county owned water companies in Arizona, is there?
Not that I know of. I don't think it would be in accord with Arizona law or customs.
The best thing to do with PSWID is to get rid of it.
There no longer is a Pine-Strawberry community.
As a result of the fight over the K2, there's a Pine, and there's a Strawberry.
Thanks to all the bad will engendered during the K2 conflict, Pine and Strawberry are no longer two small, warm-hearted, like-thinking, mountain communities working together to solve a mutual problem.
They have been torn apart by ill will and that ill will is not going to go away as long as there is one entity trying to represent two different towns. It won't work!
On the face of it, the idea of one entity representing two towns was a terrible idea to begin with. Two towns, with two different sets of needs and two different sets of goals, needs and goals which conflict with each other, represented by one entity? Ridiculous!
There's little point in trying to patch up the damage. Emotions are running too high.
Pine folks wanted the K2 because they needed the water. Strawberry folks didn't want it because they felt that it would pump water out of "their" aquifer.
Those are very emotional viewpoints. They are not going to change. Pine still desperately needs water, and Strawberry still wants to vigorously defend the water supply beneath the town from outside use. It's Payson v. Star Valley all over again.
Using those facts, a third party has stepped in and use the old "divide and conquer" routine. And as long as PSWID exists they'll continue do the same thing, playing one town off against the other.
Can you blame either town for feeling the way it does? Of course not!
Okay, fine. Two separate towns, with two separate sets of goals, calls for two separate water districts.
Why continue a battle that need not exist? The fight will continue forever, but only because PSWID is trying to represent two different towns.
It's like having one state legislature for Utah and Arizona or one town council for Payson and Star Valley.
Won't work. Can't work.
Dissolve PSWID, create a PWID and a SWID, share the accumulated funds equitably, and let it go at that.
Each town can see to its own needs without harming or interfering with the other one. Things can go back to the way they were, and we can get rid of all the bickering.
This is such an important issue, and there is so much ancient history in this and simillar strings, that I thought I'd start a new string, one that offers an idea for peace between two opposing factions, and a solution that I genuinely believe will benefit everybody in Strawberry and Pine.
Note: The Payson Roundup does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on March 31, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Members of the current Pine Strawberry Water Improvement District complained that previous members of the Board did not listen to the public. Well, they are in office now and one of the first actions the new Board takes is hiring Mr. Gliege as their attorney. Now Mr. Gliege happens to represent Mr. Pugel and Mr. Peterson, two individuals that the Board will be eventually negotiating with concerning water sharing. Members of the community have pointed out this potential conflict. However, the PSWID Board has said "no problem" and hired him anyway. There are other problems with Mr. Gliege. In the past he was censured by the Arizona State Bar. Go to www.azbar.org to see the nature of these censures. I would hazard a guess that the majority of the attorneys working in Arizona have not been censured. Yet, the Board chose to hire an attorney that has been censured more than once and has a potential conflict of interest. People have objected to his being hired. One Board member suggested that the hiring of an attorney be looked into by a committee. The Board says "No". Why is there this determination to hire Mr. Gliege? and Who is not being listened to now?
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on March 31, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
On the long thread about PSWID I posted on 2-17 11:12 am
who or what is PS Water LLC that was incorporated 2/05/2007 by Stephanie Gliege, Loren Peterson and Diane Peterson all with the address of 4455 N. Strawberry Hollow.
Statutory agent John Gliege of Flagstaff.
On 2-17 2:40 pm I posted
Stephanie Gliege is a member of the Gliege Law Office PLLC in Flagstaff
John Gliege is the other member. This is according to Ariz. Corp. Commission records
Is this the Mr. Gliege that is attending the water meetings 'pro bono'?
Now to your post. Seems there may be a lot of conflict of all kinds if his wife or daughter owns a water co in the area. Just an opinion.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on March 31, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who is R.A. Gillies ?
Posted by AZangel99 (Jane Wilcox) on March 31, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bernice, had you been in attendance, you would have heard the explanation that Mr. Gliege gave regarding this "censure". TONS of attorneys get censured for administrative screw ups. He admitted that he screwed up. There is no conflict of interest, as the ONE board member that has used Mr. Gliege specifically stated that the reason he was using him had nothing to do with the reason that the 4 crooked members were recalled.
Overall, I felt that everyone had an opportunity to speak their mind, for as long as they wanted, unlike the previous board that so quickly dismissed any questions or concerns from the public.
You can harp on and on about this if you choose, and I'm assuming that you will choose to; but the bottom line to bring an attorney up to date would cost us more. And, frankly, Ray Pugel doesn't have anything to do with the PSWID. He's just a concerned citizen that attends the meetings- just as everyone else should be doing.
I felt that Bill Haney operated the meeting in a clear and professional manner, and Don Smith followed suit. The only one with her nose out of joint was Barbara Hall.
The election was clearly decided. You'll have an opportunity in November to vote for what you think will serve the community better.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on March 31, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The State Bar of Arizona made Mr. Gliege return $106,000 in attorney fees to a client. The State Bar of Arizona also put him on probation for one year. Go to www.azbar.org to read the full description of the censure. Also, ask the State Bar to send you records of any earlier censures. Also, while you are at it check the other attorneys that have been involved with the PSWID/PWCo matter. You will find that Mr. Gliege is the only one that has been censured.
I am not against the water company purchase. The matter was put before the public, and the public voted for the purchase. However, when the public voted for the purchase, they trusted that the people elected would act in the public's best interest. I do not think that hiring Mr. Gliege is acting in the best interest of the public.
I think the public should know about Mr. Gliege's association with Mr. Peterson and Mr. Pugel. I feel the public should know about his record.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on March 31, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bernice,
How about my earlier post at 8:53 this morning, where Stephanie Gliege is an attorney in his office and may own a water company in that area according to Corp. records?
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on March 31, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jane,
Just a little suggestion. You did a good job as the--hm-m-m, how should I put it?--"spokesperson on the blog" for RCW. Does that sound about right?
That 's over and done with.
Would it not now be wiser to leave the subject alone? That is to say, to let people have their say about what is happening re PSWID? Why would you want to be the apologist for everything that people don't like re the new PSWID board? Good Lord! Why take on that never-ending task? Let the people concerned do their own explaining.
Think about this too: In your passion to respond to some implication you don't like you sometimes tend to get carried away. In truth, your characterization of Ray as just another concerned citizen is not only not going to fly, it's actually wrong.
Ray was there to get what he wants, not as a concerned citizen, but as someone who wants to get the property he intends to develop out of the certificated area of Pine Water Company.
So what? There's nothing wrong with that. Ask him and he himself will no doubt tell you that's why he was there. He's just a businessman trying to do what businessmen do. There's no need to defend that.
What I'm saying is that if you try to respond to everything that everyone says re PSWID you'll just wear yourself out for no good reason. If Ray--or someone else--wants to respond--shoot!--let them respond.
Let it go! You did what you set out to do. It's over. Let it go!
"Let the dead bury their dead," remember?
Sometimes I actually give good advice.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 1, 2008 at 5:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have suggested the removal of my second entry in this blog because all that I need to say was said in my first entry. I have made no accusations against Mr. Pugel and Mr. Peterson. I objected to the hiring of Mr. Gliege as the attorney for PSWID and gave reference to public record to substantiate my objections. I feel that the Board missed an opportunity to work toward bringing peace to the community by not creating a committee to look into matters related to hiring an attorney.
I will say no more.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 1, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bernice,
I think you brought up some very good points.
There is a lot of information that is of public record but most people want to stick their head in the sand and listen to rumors. It is easier for them than doing research.
I believe there is more conflict of interest by a lot of people going on than any one could even imagine. Some maybe not illegally but morally.
Just an opinion.
Posted by AZangel99 (Jane Wilcox) on April 1, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom, I agree with you, and there is no need to defend anything. I feel that the communities of Pine & Strawberry have stated very clearly that we are ready for a change for the better. There are still people griping about it, but it was put to a vote. Now it is time to heal the division (or partial division) and wait and see what happens.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 1, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Pat -- i agree, there is a lot of information that is part of the public record that people should check out especially if they are making decisions for the public. I believe they have the duty to check things out since they have the responsibility to represent the interests of all and not just a selected few who happen to agree with them.
I believe the thoughts of the quiet person in the back row is just as important and the loud screamer in the front row. I believe that a small group has the right to be heard just as much as a large group. Unfortunately in our society today it is often the loudest, irregardless of the merit of what is being said, that gets the attention.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 2, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, the PSWID Board has just posted the agenda for its April 3, 2008 meeting. These meetings are coming at a fast and furious pace as the last one was March 27.
Item 6a is approval of an agreement for legal services between the PSWID and Gliege Law Offices. I still don't see how they can justify hiring an attorney that is known to be the attorney of two of the people that you will be in negotiations with in the future. Something just isn't right. This action being taken despite very good, substatiated objections from the public. So who is listening now?
Another cause of "amusement " is item 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION. The previous PSWID Board was creamed by RCW when they went into executive session. Does who calls an executive session affect its appropriateness and acceptability?
Another curious thing is item 7a "Discuss and take possible action concerning the indefinite waiving of a strict interpretation of Roberts rules of Order for conducting PSWID Board meetings." Can anyone tell me why they would want to take this action?
Notice George Orwell's Animal Farm now playing Pine, Arizona.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 2, 2008 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Without Roberts Rules, you have mob rule at a meeting. So what will be different? (:
No one seems to want to answer any question about the water company corp. where Stephine Gleige is a member.
Seems that should create a conflict of interest.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 3, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mine is nothing more than a guess, but because of the same last name I believe that they are related in some way. The people who would definitely know aren't answering that question. Maybe they will in the future???????????
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 3, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bernice,
They are in the same law office in Flagstaff. Look under corporations.
Stephanie is also a member of P.S. Water Co. Corporation.
This information was taken from the Arizona Corporation Commission Website.
If one partner or father, daughter, wife or whatever combination owns a water co, it seems that would create a conflict of interest with Mr. Gliege being the attorney for PSWID unless it is all the same thing???
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 3, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It has been suggested to the PSWID Board that Mr. Gliege has a potential conflict of interest. They don't seem to care.
Seems that those people who about two months ago were indignantly shouting, "They don't listen!!!!" are the ones who are now turning a deaf ear.
The water companies can be bought with legal counsel from any of a number of other well qualified attorneys. Why the insistence on Mr. Gliege?
Once again, the people who can answer that question aren't talking.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 16, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, all of you know how I feel about Gliege being the attorney for PSWID. Now I have another gripe. At the last PSWID meeting, Bill Haney states that PSWID has always been a domestic water improvement district. I would appreciate it if someone could explain how everybody in the Pine/Strawberry area could possibly been acting for the last 10 - 12 years under the belief that it was not a domestic water district. I would sure like to have Mr. Haney supply the proof for his statement.
I request this proof because I have a number of issues where he has made statements to me that proved to be wrong. I do not mean to imply that Mr. Haney lies, what I do believe is that he has a tendency to make careless statements. First, he told me that Gila County was going to adopt S.B. 1575. FALSE Then, he said that Barbara Hall would have voted against a letter to the ACC in favor of the K-2 Well. FALSE Then he told me that I would have to pay an individual $10 an hour to search for some documents in PSWID files. FALSE I am worn out researching statements made by Mr. Haney only to find out that there is no basis for his statement. So, I hope Mr. Haney will supply the proof on this one.
Another gripe -- supposedly Mr. Gliege does not have a conflict of interest because "the same water sharing agreement will be used with all parties." I cannot believe that PSWID Board believes that this statement does away with conflict of interest for the following reasons:
(1) Legal advice will be needed when the standard water sharing agreements are written. How can Mr. Gliege give legal advice to PSWID when at the same time he is representing the parties who will be signing the agreement?
(2) There is no guarantee that the well owners will sign the standard agreement. How can Mr. Gliege give PSWID legal advice during compromise negotiations when he is representing the parties who want changes to the agreement.
PSWID Board members should remember, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Please believe me, I am not against becoming a domestic water improvement district and purchasing the water company. The people have spoken and that is what they want. However, I believe that it should be done in a legal, honest and open manner. Please do not insult the intelligence of the taxpayers.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 16, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bernice,
Haven't you learned by now that once most people that are voted into office turn into the smartest people in the world and we are supposed to follow whatever they say without question?
They were voted in and they will make all the decisions even if it is totally against what the people want that voted them in.
I know those were long sentences but didn't know where to start and stop. (:
Did you read my post under Community- Brooke Utility ? If not please read it.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 16, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bernice,
Haven't you learned that once some people are elected to do something they forgot who elected them? They turn into the smartest people in the world make all thier decisions based on what they want, and don't listen to anyone. We are supposed to follow them like blind, deaf and dumb sheep. Not politically correct but I don't care.
Please read my post on 4-10 under Community Brooke-Pine water co.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 16, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Also the post on the 15th on this thread at 2:41 pm.
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 17, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat,
I have posted in the community discussion/Brooke Utility thread. :-)
Posted by SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) on April 19, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK all you guys let's hear from you.
I am completely blown out of my mind by the current PSWID Board. At one meeting Terry Schliezer states that she wants a conservation program that will save 20 million gallons of water (according to Payson Roundup article). She wants $5,000 this year and over $45,000 next year to implement her program. She is going to give 'cash back" to people installing dual flush toilets, low flush toilets and urinals. Now the national average of water usage is 350 gallons of water per household per day. In the Pine area the average per day, per household usage is 90 gallons. I think Pine residents already are conserving, and if they have high flush toilets they already have inserted a gravel filled pop bottle in the toilet tanks. The money that Ms. Schliezer wants for conservation should be put towards finding water. Then after additional water is put in the pipes, we can talk about conserving water.
Right now Pine has no additional water to conserve. Frankly, Ms. Schliezer reminds me of Marie Antoinette when she was told that the peasants have no bread, she said let them eat cake. Perhaps, the PSWID Board member when told Pine has no water would reply, let them drink pop.
Now at the last PSWID meeting, Ellen Greer, a realtor and wife of Board member Mike Greer, wants us to join the Cragin Pipeline project. Ok admirable suggestion. However, where is the money going to come from. PSWID is currently involved with the K-2 Well project. Are we getting out of that? How much is that going to cost? Then the current board wants to purchase the Pine Water Co. and Strawberry Water Co. How much is that going to cost? How much do you plan to tax in order to pay for all of this?
We hear about all sorts of grants and assistance programs from PSWID Board members. Well, let's get the specifics and let's get to work finding the water we need. Let's forget the talk for talk's sake and get to work finding water.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 19, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Low flow toilets are not what they are claimed to be. I bought a new house about 18 months ago. Yes they have low flow toilets and if one sheet of toilet paper is in it you have to hold the handle down for 3 flushes to get rid of the paper. Think what happens if anything else is in there.
I think I read somewhere you had to be a municipality water co to hook in to Blue Ridge (Cragin) so Pine and Strawberry will have to incorporate also I don't think a private co. can condemn land.
Just an opinion.
Posted by Chief1942 (Ronald Hamric) on April 19, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have been really reluctant to enter this discussion, but having read all of the posts by one individual, I must simply insert my views here. For one, if you read my post in Letters to the Editor in the last issue you know I see little need or use for the PSWID board as it formerly existed. Having said that I am somewhat perplexed that someone who was outwardly against the recall election now expects the "new" board members to have all the answers and ready solutions that the previous PSWID boards struggled for over eleven years and failed to produce. One might want to give the "new" group an opportunity to get up to speed before throwing a critical eye towards thier efforts. Then again, if I am only reading pure "sour grapes" at being on the losing side, I understand fully and will defer future comments.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 19, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It hasn't been the same board for 11 years has it?
If it has been, shame on all of you for letting them get away with not having water flowing in the streets by now.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 21, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat,
You make a good point, but the history of the PSWID is a bit complex. It started out as an unofficial organization and suddenly, right out of the blue as far as any foreknowledge that I had, it became a county entity. I don't think you can entirely blame PSWID for the fact that little or nothing has happened. BUI dragged its feet for a long time.
On the other hand I often wondered in the past when PSWID was going to actually do something. Maybe they were doing something, but if so it was danged hard to detect until the K2 well came along.
Chief,
I agree with your comments in the Letters.
Just so I can tell where you're coming from re your comments about PSWID, are you for or against the purchase of the water company?
I was against the recall election, and the purchase, because I'd like to see the K2 well go in and see if it solves our problems, but I'm willing to give the new board a chance to solve our water problems any way they can, and I reserve my judgment for the time being regarding whether or not the new members are, as accused, tools of people who put their own interests ahead of those of the people of Pine and Strawberry.
That'll all come out in the wash I suppose. All I want to see is a dependable water supply at a decent price, and I could care less who does or doesn't profit from delivering that water.
I'd really like to see us tap into the Blue Ridge pipeline as a more permanent solution to our problems, but there seems to be some hang-up, namely that in order to get your slice of the blue Ridge pie you have to be someone who delivers water to ratepayers. Don't know how that will roll out, and I have seen nothing official and in writing that verifies it, but again I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
PS Pat,
Tut! Tut! Letting water flow into the street is a no-no! :-)
Posted by Chief1942 (Ronald Hamric) on April 21, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
My first task when the wife and I moved to Pine 11 years ago was to attend a PSWID meeting held at the fire station in Pine. All the board members were participating in a voluntary fashion at that time. If there was a vacancy on the board and more than one person was interested in filling it, they had sort of a straw election to seat the new member. At that first meeting, I left with the complete and utter realization that the PSWID board had little or no chance at all at helping resolve the water issues that faced primarily Pine at that time.
Even then I felt that the most appropriate course of action was to get local control of whatever limited water resource existed. Water is not a luxury, It' a necessity and very vital to our standard of living. I know you are totally aware of all that and only mention it to illustrate my views even at that time. It was my view then as well as now that those who most depend on the limited water resource should have greater control and not be at the mercy of an out-of-state for profit corporation and a very bureacratic agency such as the ACC to look out for our interests.
Now understand that Strawberry Hollow wells did not exist at that time so the water available in the deeper aquifer was still only speculation. I did have discussions with many residents that had been here decades and had a pretty good feel for the water that does underlie the area and the geographic fractures and strata that it exists in. Most of that knowledge and experience came from actually drilling wells over several decades at different depths and locations.
Even back in those days it seemed fairly evident that Brooke Utilities was not going to invest any more money into trying to improve the situation. As Mr. Hardcastle testified to in one of the more recent ACC hearings, Brooke really didn't want Pine or Strawberry as part of their franchise as they knew it was a "loser" going in, but they were required to accept them as they were part of a larger aquisition by Brooke Utilities. That is actual testimony under oath and if you want to verify it, it is now part of the public record.
Eventually the PSWID board had some internal disension and there was a mass resignation. The county more or less took over at that point and restructured the PSWID, gave it taxing revenue and had the board members actually stand for election . To this day I am not sure why anyone felt that the PSWID was even necessary due to the corporate ownership of the water franchise and it being regulated by the ACC.
Posted by Chief1942 (Ronald Hamric) on April 21, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like you, all I was ever interested in was reasonable water availability at reasonable rates. I stayed away from all the uproar during this recent recall of the board members and never attended or affiliated with either of the two groups that grew out of that undertaking. I am fully convinced that if there is not a MAJORITY consensus of opinion by the RESIDENTS of these to villages as to the direction that we should proceed, then any effort I might put forth with my involvement would simply be a waste of time. At my age I will pick and choose my battles very cautiously. So there you have it. Some of my info may be less than courtroom accurate, but I will put the reality of what I have actually witnessed/experienced while living here against anyones emotional speculation and alarmist viewpoints.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 21, 2008 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you all will keep digging back into the past, you will find out how it happened.
It has nothing to do with the old families in Pine and Strawberry and I think you will find there was an elected person involved.
My opinion, not an accusation.
Posted by Chief1942 (Ronald Hamric) on April 22, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat,
In all honesty I am not really interested in looking back into the past as regards the water situation in Pine/Strawberry and all the twists and turns that took place over the years. What would tickle me to death is to get a consensus of the residents to actually agree to and support a plan for moving forward from where we find ourselves at this moment in time. barring that I will simply sit on the sidelines and be a passive observer.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 22, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Chief,
Agree. Your facts look doggone good to me.
Where I come from there is no such thing as a private water company. Either the city or the county is responsible for serving the interests of its constituents. I frankly think that Arizona is light years behind time in allowing the most critical of the factors regarding the development of its lands to rest in the hands of private industry.
Why? Because the bottom line in those interests is--as it quite correctly should be--making a profit.
I wrote to the county when it was considering the rezoning of land here in Pine to allow a new development, inquiring about how much the availability of water would affect their decision. The answer was that they do not take the availability of water into account at all when deciding whether or not land should be developed.
What a cop-out!
In other words, the county will take our money in taxes, but will not meet the fundamental responsibility of any political entity in a water starved area by seeing to it that when homes are built there is a guaranteed water supply for them.
Think of how much simpler things would be here in Arizona if the law required that where there is no incorporated city the county is responsible for the water supply, as is done back east. Tha does not mean that the county has to become a water company, just that it has to be in control and make sure that everything is aboveboard.
Yeah, I know. I've heard the same old excuse a thousand times: "The water laws have grown over a period of more than a century."
Who cares? Laws can be changed. Especially in these times, when population pressure is pushing people into areas that were considered too marginal for development in the past.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 22, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you 100% that PSWID is totally redundant and alwsys has been. In fact, I believe that a petition should be circulated right now to dissolve PSWID.
One reason I think getting rid of PSWID is the way to go has to do with your comment on the need for the people of Strawberry and Pine to get together with a plan they can all live with.
It's not likely!
During the recent recall election, which was really just a controversy over whether or not the K2 well should be drilled, one side of the issue used a ploy which is going to hurt all of us far into the foreseeable future. They claimed that the K2 well would only serve Pine and that it would drain down the shallow wells of our friends and neighbors up in Strawberry.
The result was a lot of understandable anger up in Strawberry, and the breakdown of what was a reasonably close community into two hostile camps--Pine and Strawberry.
With things in that kind of shape, PSWID must go. It will be the center of bitter controversy forever.
Not only that, but the promises made by one side of the issue about how cheaply the water company can be bought, and the numbers given about how efficiently we can run it ourselves, while very attractive, were totally impossible.
How can the current PSWID board be expected to make good on such pie-in-the-sky promises? But that's what people are going to expect PSWID to do.
And if it can't, look out! We'll be fighting each other, and the board, forever.
So I say, dissolve PSWID. Talk to the county, let them provide a forum, and get the people in our two small communities talking to each other again. Let reason take the place of anger. Find a way to get together and work out our problems.
And start the petition drive to dissolve PSWID tomorrow!
If we wait for summer to get here, along with inevitable water hauling charges in Pine, the roof is going to blow off PSWID.
And if you think that's bad, wait till Strawberry has to start paying water hauling charges because BUI won't be able to cheat by pumping Pine water uphill to Strawberry while charging Pine for water hauling from Star Valley.
Ye gads! Strawberry out of water? Or having to pay water hauling charges after years of plenty?
Is that going to create some excitement! Has a cat got a tail?
And if Hardcastle is up to what Pat suggests, and it will not be possible to buy Pine Water because it will no longer exist as a separate company, I don't want to be anywhere near a PSWID meeting when the finger-pointing and name calling begins!
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 22, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
Like the finger-pointing and name calling hasn't already started?
If you dig back in time, the PSWID will probably go away and your money returned that you have been paying on your tax bill and not be taxed anymore.
Think about that !
I don't think there are any county owned water companies in Arizona, is there?
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 23, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat,
Not that I know of. I don't think it would be in accord with Arizona law or customs.
The best thing to do with PSWID is to get rid of it.
There no longer is a Pine-Strawberry community.
As a result of the fight over the K2, there's a Pine, and there's a Strawberry.
Thanks to all the bad will engendered during the K2 conflict, Pine and Strawberry are no longer two small, warm-hearted, like-thinking, mountain communities working together to solve a mutual problem.
They have been torn apart by ill will and that ill will is not going to go away as long as there is one entity trying to represent two different towns. It won't work!
On the face of it, the idea of one entity representing two towns was a terrible idea to begin with. Two towns, with two different sets of needs and two different sets of goals, needs and goals which conflict with each other, represented by one entity? Ridiculous!
There's little point in trying to patch up the damage. Emotions are running too high.
Pine folks wanted the K2 because they needed the water. Strawberry folks didn't want it because they felt that it would pump water out of "their" aquifer.
Those are very emotional viewpoints. They are not going to change. Pine still desperately needs water, and Strawberry still wants to vigorously defend the water supply beneath the town from outside use. It's Payson v. Star Valley all over again.
Using those facts, a third party has stepped in and use the old "divide and conquer" routine. And as long as PSWID exists they'll continue do the same thing, playing one town off against the other.
Can you blame either town for feeling the way it does? Of course not!
Okay, fine. Two separate towns, with two separate sets of goals, calls for two separate water districts.
Why continue a battle that need not exist? The fight will continue forever, but only because PSWID is trying to represent two different towns.
It's like having one state legislature for Utah and Arizona or one town council for Payson and Star Valley.
Won't work. Can't work.
Dissolve PSWID, create a PWID and a SWID, share the accumulated funds equitably, and let it go at that.
Each town can see to its own needs without harming or interfering with the other one. Things can go back to the way they were, and we can get rid of all the bickering.
That way, maybe something will get done.
What we have now is ridiculous.
PSWID must go!
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 23, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is such an important issue, and there is so much ancient history in this and simillar strings, that I thought I'd start a new string, one that offers an idea for peace between two opposing factions, and a solution that I genuinely believe will benefit everybody in Strawberry and Pine.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 23, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is crazy!
I erased the comment I was maming on this thread ,started a new string instead, and put a different comment here.
Now, when I send the differing comment the original post shows up!
And my changed post is gone!
What the %$#@!?
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on April 23, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yoiks!
Now both the changed post and my confusedpost have shown up.
Oy!
Please just go to the new string. It's called PSWID must go. I'm done commenting here.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on April 23, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TOM,
GET A NEW COMPUTER LIKE I DID AND YOU CAN'T DO
ANYTHING. (;
Niether Pine or Strawberry are a town. They are communities.
They need to each incorporate and then they will have some legal standing. Or incoroporate together.. The way they are they can't really do anything.
Post a comment
(Requires Payson.com registration. You will then need to request that your user details be verified.)