﻿ Saws Board Still Undecided On Future Of Administrator Position | SheridanMedia.com

Saws Board Still Undecided On Future Of Administrator Position

The Sheridan Area Water Supply Joint Powers Board is still pondering what to do about the Administrator position. The Board agreed to form a sub-committee that will work on the County's proposal that was brought forth last month. SAWS Board Member Steve Maier is on that sub-committee and he feels confident that they'll get things ironed out in the next month.

Under the current proposal, SAWS would save over $53,000 annually.

The County's proposal would assign the administrative responsibilities of SAWS to County Public Works Director Rod Liesinger, who would be assisted by the SAWS Project Manager, which would be a new position. The Project Manager would perform the day-to-day SAWS administrative responsibilities.

First Northern Bank
view counter


I think that you're not understanding the situation. The administrator position is not vacant and needing to be filled, SAWS is contemplating doing away with the position altogether. The by-laws governing SAWS in regards to the administrator position would be irrelevant if the administrator position didn't exist. I'm not going to argue with you about it, since it is clear you're never wrong and only the words spoken by you should be heeded. There is no hidden agenda going on with the SAWS Administrator situation, it's simply SAWS trying to cut costs by eliminating the position and delegating the duties to those already employed by the county and or city. Oh, by the way, you couldn't have been more wrong with your prediction on the whole issue with Mr. Patterson and the City Council now could you have?

That's funny ron, Meier has

That's funny ron, Meier has commented several times that if the administrator positions are done away with then the city will become the governing body of saws.I don't believe there's a hidden agenda either.It's real clear kinskey wants sole control of saws.

I'm not wrong on patterson,he's got a meeting that started today at 4pm in the city council meeting room.Maybe you guys can cover some of the hoops that were jumped through so he can get this building done.If you recall the planning and DRB boards all said they wouldn't hold a special meeting,yet here we are in a special meeting anyway.


Well that's ironic, since it was Steve Maier who brought the proposal to the SAWS Board at their October meeting. If the proposal that the County brought forth is approved the way it is, City Staff would maintain and operate the system facilities under contract to SAWS and the County would handle the administrative responsibilities. If you want a copy of the proposal, I'd be more than happy to provide one for you so you can quit spewing you're inaccuracies!! As far as the special meeting between the DRB and Planning Commission, it never happened, the meeting was canceled. It also was not a special meeting pertaining to Mr. Patterson, it was a work session that was scheduled between the DRB and Planning Commission to review entryway corridor regulations. If you knew so much, you'd have known that no action can be taken in a work session, and the Planning Commission just like the City Council has work sessions all the time. So yes you were wrong, or is it a Kinspiracy??

Yes ron the county is trying

Yes ron the county is trying to get the administrative end of saws in their hands,because if they don't and the admin positions are eliminated,then the city is in charge of saws.

So what did planning and DRB back out of the meeting today after they realized it was going to be nothing but a ron patterson discusion hour?

Reading into it

I think you're reading into this situation more than you should be. Bottom line is that SAWS is trying to cut costs, and will do so by eliminating the administrator position and running things with current employees. Neither the City of the County can end up with sole ownership of SAWS, hence the term, Joint Powers Board, which governs SAWS. About the work session that was canceled, I was told that there weren't enough members available to hold a work session so they nixed it. Last thing that is officially on record, is that Mr. Patterson is due to meet with the DRB at their meeting December 2nd.

SAWS Administrator

Sheridan Media has been following this story closely since eliminating the administrator position was proposed several months ago. The current proposal that is being considered would assign the duties to the County Public Works Director, who would be assisted by a SAWS Project Manager. The City would NOT take over SAWS if the administrator position is eliminated. You evidently didn't read the entire story, in particular the last paragraph that states what I just said.

Sheridan media needs to look

Sheridan media needs to look into what happens if the administrative position is not filled.

Statutes governing SAWS states that if an administrator is not assigned to saws,then the city becomes the entity in sole charge of SAWS.In other words kinskey is in charge.Which is exactly what he wants and why the appointment of this administrator has been drawn out by the city.

The SAWS bylaws clearly

The SAWS bylaws clearly state that the city will become the governing entity,in the advent that the administrator position is not filled.Kinskey and friends can make any statement they want about their intentions.However the law reads other wise.