HomeMy WebLinkAbout032309CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1
MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF MARCH 23, 2009
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend and the Public Utility District #1
Commissioners met in workshop session the twenty-third day of March 2009 at 6:30
p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Council members present at roll call were Brent Butler, David King, Laurie Medlicott,
George Randels, Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval and Mark Welch.
Commissioners present were Wayne King, Ken McMillen, and Dana Roberts.
Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts,
Public Works Director Ken Clow, Development Services Director Rick Sepler, City Clerk
Pam Kolacy, Water Operations Manager Bob LaCroix, Water Resources Asset
Manager Ian Jablonski, PUD Manager Jim Parker, District Resource Manager Bill
Graham.
Bill Graham presented a Power Point on the proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Feasibility Study. He noted that the WRIA 17 Planning Unit through the PUD was
awarded a grant from the Department of Ecology for a feasibility study to investigate
storing winter surface water underground. Consultant Golder Associates has identified
the Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS) as the most viable source of water;
however, the City has stated that an ASR project is not in its interest. Because a viable
source of water must be identified, the PUD is requesting the City's support of studying
the option to permit lease access to the OGWS as part of the project so that the grant
funds can be secured.
He noted that the conditions of the City's Special Use Permit from the U.S. Forest
Service must be met in order for a possible project to be determined feasible. If
additional environmental analysis is required the cost would be borne by the applicant,
not the City.
Three options have been identified for the next step: (1) Aquifer testing only; (2)
Aquifer testing and source assessment revision; and (3) Terminate contract. Mr.
Graham stated that $15,000 is available from Dept. of Ecology for option 2, which
includes a more detailed source assessment. He stated this would answer the big
questions about whether the OGWS could be used. This is Ecology's preferred option.
City Manager David Timmons provided the City's perspective and said that the first
question to be answered is "should" this be done, not "how" to do it. He asked what
Council/PUD workshop Page 7 March 23, 2009
problem we are trying to solve; the City's position has been that the study doesn't really
serve any purpose to the City, but as a regional partner we have an obligation to
participate and look into it. He noted that the City is concerned that the ASR study does
not give us the information the Council needs to guide policy decision. Many sections of
the OGWS are 100 years old and when the City entered into the agreement with the Mill
there was a significant concession for the cost of future replacement and depreciation of
the asset. The City has a few million dollars set aside in reserve but not nearly enough
to deal with some of the longer use issues. It is possible a bigger customer base will
help. The City needs to consider the possibility of filtration or secondary disinfection for
the water supply and has just spent ten years going through the Forest Service Special
Use permitting process which resulted in a 20 year permit with a requirement for five
years of monitoring by National Fisheries. All these factors must be taken into
consideration.
He then noted that the City believes the study may have unintended consequences and
must be broadened in scope to solve the issues we are trying to address. He referred
to the City's Water System Policies contained in the packet materials. These include
water supply and conservation. He stated the City is not opposed to the study but does
not think it will give us the information we need unless broadened in scope. He also
stated that the underlying land use policies must be addressed before any conclusions
can be reached. He stated that cost factors should be identified in the study and cited
the example of Monterey County, which was ordered to return water to the rivers after
five years of withdrawal, at a cost of over $200 million. He stated the study should ask
both questions, whether it is feasible and what will it cost.
Mr. Timmons stated the assumption is being made this will be a revenue source for the
City without factoring in the expense side.
Mr. McMillen stated that he does not see why land use is a factor as that is a County
issue; nor should the deterioration of the water system have any bearing -will the pipes
rust any faster if we take some water out of the system? He stated the study is at no
cost to the City but that it is a regional issue and maybe they should talk to the County
but the PUD is going to need some water and time is of the essence.
Mr. Graham said that the PUD may end up trucking water for the study; he stated that
there may be an opportunity within the $15,000 grant to look at some of the policy
concerns that have been presented and to amend the scope of the study.
Ms. Sandoval stated she believes an honest discussion of the scope of the study is
needed in order to make the City feel comfortable. An option may be to partner and
broaden the scope of the study.
Mr. Jablonski listed concerns about the ASR project, noting that Golder Associates did
not take into consideration Tribal water rights and US Forest Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service responsibilities for protecting the Tribal rights and natural
resources within the Quilcene watersheds. He added several other concerns outlined
in a written document provided for the record.
Council/PUD workshop Page 2 March 23, 2009
Mr. LaCroix stated that he did not think that ASR would be of any benefit to the City or
to the Quilcene watershed; he added it could threaten the City's permit and may end up
contaminating the City's source water with contaminants found in the water from the
Chimacum basin. He stated that the chemistry should be considered carefully before
combining water from the two sources. He stated that the estimated cost per gallon of
water to the PUD is low; the City will be spending millions of dollars in the next few
years on reservoirs and either secondary disinfection or filtration which will drive up the
cost of potential supply to the PUD. He added that the City's commitment to participate
in watershed planning is not necessarily a commitment to supply water outside the City.
He stated that if the Council determines there is surplus water available it should be
delivered to paying customers as pure, clean drinking water.
Mr. Timmons stated that the Water Policies generally support the concept of the City as
an active player in conducting these studies; the City is not opposed to the ASR study
but thinks the scope needs to be broadened.
Mr. Randels stated that "feasibility" is a broad word, not a judgment as to whether
something is technically or financially or politically feasible. If you are really judging
feasibility you need to judge all factors. He asked about involvement of the State
Department of Ecology as it seems they should know what the technical problems are
and should have been in the room when the study was put together. In addition, they
should have insisted that the key players in usage were meaningful participants. He
agrees that this is a good starting point, but others need to be at the table as well.
Mr. Butler stated he likes the cooperative nature of the project and supports broadening
the scope, particularly in regard to water quality issues.
Mr. Graham stated that once a site is chosen the water will be withdrawn for
identification of the water chemistry, and it is a critical concern in all ASR projects. You
must be somewhat lucky and choose the site well. He stated that when the scope of
work was done, Ecology was in the room; it was agreed we weren't going to get through
many policy and political issues and that we would just stick to the technical issues.
Mr. Welch stated that if we are not dealing with the land use issues in the County, we
are missing a big piece; the question is how we make this resource last for generations
to come.
David King asked about the interruptible water right, and how the water would be used if
this worked. Mr. Graham stated the PUD doesn't see themselves as user or operator
but as member of the planning unit. David King asked if there were anything innate to
this water and its use; if we wanted to support local agriculture, can it be restricted to
agriculture as opposed to other uses. Mr. Graham stated the PUD would not be able to
impose that restriction.
Mr. McMillen stated we are getting away from the question of feasibility; it is not costing
us very much and by funding the project, DOE is in the game already.
Mrs. Medlicott stated it is a struggle to keep the policy and the technical study separate;
she suggested separating the worth of the study from the worth of the project.
Council/PUD workshop Page 3 March 23, 2009
Mr. Roberts stated that he believes committing to this study should not oblige the City to
participate in any way; beyond that he stated he does think there is a big land use
component to the issue. He added it has never been his intention that if the research
went well and subsequent water delivery went well that it would be a supplement to the
PUD supplying water. The Board hasn't taken any action and has not discussed this
being an expansion of our domestic supply potential. ft strengthens the regional system
and might help if the City sees demand rise. Regarding land use, he stated the PUD
can sit and listen but the City and County are primary players here. He added that for a
number of reasons, there is recognition that we would all be better off in an uncertain
world if more of our food is grown locally. He thought this would be the target of public
water and is the only way he can see an interruptible system being very useful. The
PUD does not foresee being in the irrigation business.
Ms. Robinson stated that the study as presented tonight seems to be the top 5% of the
iceberg; asking more questions and identifying more things would help the City and
PUD answer questions about moving forward. It would be interesting to see whether
or not the PUD decided not to go forward on the basis of more information. She stated
that if the City is going to say "yes" to the study, the City needs to participate in the
study and the facts that it needs identified. We want to be good neighbors, work with
everyone and all entities where we have shared interest but the seven Council
members are elected to represent the citizens and taxpayers of Port Townsend, not the
residents of the County, and the City is where they are ultimately accountable. She
stated she would be interested in having staff come up with a list of questions to be
answered by the study.
Ms. Sandoval stated this is a testy topic but will never be resolved unless we get to the
heart of it and address the questions and issues that have been raised. She does not
want to be driven by the fact there is "free money" and that money gives us a certain
amount of information. She said we need to address all the questions in a manner that
lets us make good decisions. Perhaps we should not be driven by the time frame and
free money; the City may need to participate with funds and perhaps the County should
be at the table. She would like to see City staff come up with a list of concerns.
Wayne King stated that the PUD represents the County and if this does not work, they
will proceed on their own project. He added the biggest expense is power and
treatment; if power is cheap and you can pump the water we can turn our wells off in the
winter, let them recharge, and see what happens. If we can turn wells off there will be
water for the farmers and the people. He noted their job is fifty years down the road as
water purveyors. He said that coming up with all the reasons we can't do it is not right,
we should talk about all the reasons it will or might work. He stated that Peterson Lake
is another benefit for everyone in the County. He added that if we carry on like this we
are wasting the people's time and money; if the City does not want to do it they should
just say so.
David King stated that it seems DOE may have some of the same concerns the City is
voicing, wanting to look at feasibility and a broader look. He suggested that the staff
get together to find a common number of issues to be addressed for feasibility.
Council/PUD workshop Page 4 March 23; 2009
Mr. Welch stated that a study like this can't exist in isolation; there are interests by the
County, PUD, Fisheries, Ecology and Tribes. He stated if we don't start asking all the
questions we will run into a wall later on and there is much to consider beyond
feasibility.
Ms. Sandoval expressed confidence in the City's staff; she stated she does not see this
as a "no" but as things we need to consider; they may or may not be show stoppers but
we do need to delve deeper.
Mr. Randels stated the hope that the City experts and PUD experts sit down with the
DOE experts to talk about the scope of study, the potential for broadening it, and to look
a little deeper at the iceberg with the result that Ecology would help us figure out a way
to spend their money more wisely. The study won't be comprehensive but it could be
more comprehensive.
Mr. Graham stated that he believes Ecology would come to the table if invited and
agreed that their voice is missing. He also stated that if the parties show due diligence
and show we are moving forward, he believes that at least we could get a no-cost
extension to the grant.
Ms. Sandoval stated we are not going to move this to its final destination until the
Council talks with the County; right now she likes the thought of talks among staff with a
final proposal for the Council's consideration about whether to accept the PUD's
invitation. She added that the broader policy discussion will need to take place with the
County. She stated her concern that if the stated purpose of the project is eventually to
be a fix for agriculture, she wants to make sure that will happen and not end up being a
fix for development.
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Mr. Parker gave a brief update on the progress of the PUD's progress toward an electric
utility. Mr. King stated that the PUD would like a letter from the City supporting the
electric utility.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Attest: PUD:
x'1/~~C~di ~ ~~~~2~~
Pam Kolacy, MC v \
City Clerk
Council/PUD workshop Page 5 March 23, 2009