Okay, we are on the air.

Welcome to our August 19 work session.

Counselor Seven Jordan is not with us tonight, and Counselor Cosrobani is on his way, but still five or so minutes out.

But we're gonna go ahead and get started with a presentation on our starwater system plan.

Thanks.

Thanks, Bear Betty, and Counselors.

I'm on Peter Pasarelli with me tonight is Scott Bern, our sort of lead consultant on our uh stormwater system plan.

Uh just before Scott's gonna give a presentation of where we are in the plan and what we'll what we're looking at and where we're headed.

Uh this plan, uh we're actually a little bit behind schedule uh in terms of getting getting the work done.

And I think I guess similar to uh with the water and the wastewater system plans.

One of the things that we found when we've gone through uh the update and the plan and actually modeling the systems is we've we found issues with some of the data that we have, you know, you know in our GIS.

And trying to get the model to do the things that we want to do, and models in a paid in the software we know using different software.

Often there's new data requirements that we need to have.

So, you know, we've spent probably most of the year trying to get the model uh and the data to work uh fee and to make sure that we were getting good results on that.

And when I say the data, I'm making sure that uh, you know, that our elevations that we have in our source systems are based off of uh not based off of fully surveyed data.

It's based off of you know, as builds and and what else do we use, Scott?

Well I don't know what the elevations of those systems were.

Um I think we're in a good place now.

We've got the model working.

Uh it's it's providing uh some results that we think are consistent with what we see in the community uh and it's identified perhaps some other places that are that are problematic as well.

Uh so that means I'll turn it over to Scott.

There we go.

I'm not sure I understand what the problem was.

Uh incomplete data.

So was the data missing or was it incompatible with what we're trying to do with a little a little bit above.

Uh it was incompatible with what we're trying to do.

And in some cases, I think we expanded the scope of the model too.

So uh when we expanded that scope to maybe smaller pipe diameters, uh, we didn't necessarily have that component set of data that we needed to do to make the model.

Yeah, I mean the I'd say the city has really good data in really nice shades that has a lot of stuff.

We find a lot.

We did code logged um supermodel and model things.

It's like lots of great data, unfortunately not you're not running the model setups.

It's lots of like depths or um space and the mammals.

You have to turn that into elevations to how smoothly because we're a storm range.

Um a few inches or uh three can make a big difference for how the water moves through that.

So the problem with that is you um elevation surveyed in um small errors can magnify as you cover the call system, so that's some of the things that we ran into.

Um we also on our end, like we made a decision early on to use um the existing model, which is an old model.

A lot of good reasons to do that, but what we realize is that when you try to make an old an old model do new things, uh it breaks and it breaks pretty bad.

So we had to kind of work back and rebuild it and get it to work the way it should have.

So it's a job.

I mean, the advantage of uh modern, you know, last time it was updated was 2014 in 10 years, competing powers on you know, these models can do a lot more stuff, and we're tempted to do more with them and so look at uh more of the system, but uh that requires more data to have meaningful outcomes.

And so the process it feels like when we do these master plans, we're kind of always just taking it one step further and getting better and doing more information to better science.

So you go out and you survey, you measure these we intercrease run field verify uh and in certain locations where we needed to get that feedback.

You know, when I was sitting back in my in my previous job in in Illinois, uh we inherited uh lots of infrastructure from the Air Force and compatibility issues along with the issues of uh the compatibility that we had or accuracy issues that we had with our internal systems.

Um one of the ways to get around that was to go out and get it all surveyed.

And we we spent money to do that, but that was a lot of money.

Uh we got some money you know from the airports at the time we could do that.

But you know, we spent in terms of going out to surveying storm and sanitary sewer uh sewers to get you know very accurate elevations of all of the all of the structures we spent close to a million dollars just working on that.

So we and we do this on the wastework plan too, is we can prioritize that data gathering, right?

Like we can do some quick looks that'll tell us where there's potential problems, and then hone in on those of the areas to spend um the more money.

So that's that's kind of where we're heading here with stormwork.

Thank you.

Uh well, as Erin John, I'm I'm Scotty and I'm a vice president with water system consulting.

We're here in Portland.

Um our team actually consists of a couple of partners, parametrics is another company with offices in Portland's helping us with the modeling piece.

Um and then uh GSI water solutions is a injection control, they have a lot of expertise in dry wells and permitting those drivewells that are helping us with that part of the system.

Um, and we're gonna talk about some of that.

So I think you're a little overview of where we started, some of the things we're just talking about.

The last um master plan was in 2014, and that was an update of the 2004 stormwater master plans because you're going back a ways.

Um what's changed and since then, uh, there are definitely new permit requirements.

I mean, even since the last planet 2021 uh permit, and now we're already getting ready for the next um the next issues of that limit.

So every time those come out, there's some new things that we have to those are going away under the new administration.

Just a buggy or um this is getting older, right?

We have uh we have aging infrastructure that's obviously and um kind of want to bring it up.

We have I think models get better sometimes it happens, though, we look at more and we find more things that need to be uh addressed.

So we've always given we're continuing to evolve and look at the system.

Um sorry.

Yeah.

I did want to say the other thing has changed because we've done a lot.

This is just the list of projects that have been done on the stormwork system.

I mean, it's really impressive.

Uh a lot of the big capital improvement projects that we identified in 2014 have been um objects that we put in place to deal with those deficiencies.

So we should be proud of all the work that's being done on the system.

There's a few few areas that haven't been tackled yet, and some of those um might be the uh certainly into what needed to be found in place.

Um what will be focused on to make sure those are actually still issues that need to be uh addressed in the system.

Um and then uh the team, I think the engineering and public version of the working house to um these goals.

So did the new IC community level thing for our uh injection wells and drive large drywalls that we and areas where we don't have uh you know sewer infrastructure to uh we and it's failed and not working as it's supposed to, we go through.

We if it's failed and not working as it's supposed to, we go through deep fish.

Does that mean you fill in or some service?

Yeah, take that service.

Uh and then in some cases replace it.

I'll just say, I mean, this 2014 was before I was on council, but I do remember the discussion at the time.

Um, because the council was presented with the like 3D cost scenarios, three rate scenarios, and there were some concern that they would have to go for the lowest.

Um, and they actually went on the highest, I think, or if you did, and um and uh you know some surprise with some who were on council at the time that they convinced them to do that.

So that's why I guess all of these things are a couple projects that are still on there that we've got in our uh in our CMP, and some of them were integrating with our other transportation projects.

Uh some of them uh that were identified.

Um we feel like maybe we might not need them now because uh street is one that's really alleviated some problems.

Uh project associated with that that we feel like we probably don't need to do now.

So yeah, there's still some projects out there.

There's a railroad project uh and then I think the other thing we're looking at too is um some of the planning to have some of the vision for the city and make it pure incorporating that into the stormwater plans, the comprehensive plan in terms of road strategy.

Um, I think there's the housing corridors um strategy of how development, that's something that we want to look at in the respects of the stormwater plan, the climate action plan, urban forestry is a big one too because um trees provide a lot of benefit for stormwater, so incorporating that into this plan, and then um certainly the major that we're using is a lot of same stuff as we're drinking water.

So the key element of what in this stormwater plan update.

Um we're sort of looking at the hydraulics of the conveyance system.

Um we're also looking at growth and how the community would make you know surface if you're going to increase across the city.

Uh we're gonna look at climate change from the standpoint of where this where the system might be vulnerable to increased precipitation and different rainfall patterns.

Uh we're also looking at the regulatory drivers, you know, we have um three different permits that are gonna impact uh recommendations of this plan.

There's the MS4 BS permit um that includes some of the new TMDLs, which is the goal maximum daily loads on the Wallamit that becoming provisions in the next permit cycle.

Uh the summer round temperatures, the one that we're uh is coming, um, and then the UIC, which is the underground checking control that covers all the drywalls.

So when you say hydraulics, um, I mean, in our wastewater system, we have pump stations that put stuff up, but in this system, everything is gravity.

Is there actually any mechanical part that moves stormwater?

Currently, anything is gravity or drywall.

I do have a project on the Harveys, the RV project where we will be installing a small stormwater uh station.

If we have this, we call it the hydraulic model, so we think of like whether it's pumped or in a five as hydraulics.

Uh and then we're we're looking at operations and maintenance and standards um as well as changes to your standards can also be a way to tackle some of these regulatory items.

So I'll talk about regulatory reverse.

I'm sure you guys are all pretty familiar with um these, but uh that's the map of the city with where everything flows.

So the green and the purple and the yellow, those are all surface water drainages.

They're gonna either go to Chauset Creek, Kellogg Creek, or the Mount Scott, which is eventually going to Kelly Creek, and then the tan, I think we're along the river that's going directly into the Willamette, and that salmon color area is the that's the drywall area.

So that kind of tells you where the two different permits and where their jurisdictions are gonna come into play.

What are the dark red areas?

Those little dots across the map.

Those are they look the red, I think is the border of those is red, but they're actually this, they're actually dry well.

There's some little areas that have dry well.

Um they're served by drywalls.

And some of that's uh a function uh just not having extensive infrastructure in that area, like off of that 36th Avenue.

I think that's a project that you identify.

We need to build more infrastructure to handle that, but often in the past we've chosen maybe a fix that was quicker to solve a problem.

Um so there's dry wells there.

That's a whole uh so yeah, the MPDS permit is a big one, and that one has most of the, I think really drives a lot of the decision making.

So the last permit was 2121.

There was an update in 2023 to cover pesticides, and then um say one out of 12 co-rentees for Blackness County, so you've got a lot of uh partners in your permit that um you know addresses uh all of the stormwater discharge to laminate and its tributaries, and then you there's a stormwater management plan that we're not gonna try to rewrite in this master, the system plan, but we're leveraging a lot of those um policies that are set out in the management feed into what we do in the system.

Um and then the the reward, you know, everyone's getting ready for the new permit application cycle in 2026.

Um that will likely it seems like every time they add something, right?

So we'll likely have some new items.

So this is just to kind of show aspects of the stormwater management system plan that won't likely be um impacted by the system plan that we're working on.

Those will likely be um pretty similar to what you seem to have passed, but the the three arrows there, the hydro modification is one place where I think as we're modifying the growth and where impervious surface areas are gonna come in that does impact how flow concentrates in your stormwater systems.

Um monitoring plan a new uh temperature can be allowed to be to a temperature component of that plan.

So um, and then um in the past it's always been they've always included one of the provisions to identify a stormwater retrofit project and execute that within the planning cycle.

So that'll like would be uh fit into a capital improvement project that would be part of the stormwater specific plan.

Yeah, this the stormwater management plan that's that that's Scott's sort of briefly talked about.

This is the document that we know of internally, and outlines what are the best management practices that we use to manage storm water to ensure that you know that we're that the surface water that's going into the into the water bodies are as clean as possible.

So it's sort of a but it's more of a qualitative document for the most part.

Uh you know, it's like you know, there's there's an education and outreach component to it.

There are there are like sort of strict discharge parameters associated with this permit, like you would have at a at a wastewater treatment plan.

So sort of qualitative in nature, and it's sort of managed through best management practices, and we have our environmental service coordinator as that person that really provides that oversight and management of that program working with our stormwater team and the natural resources to to make sure that we're meeting our compliance requirements and did I understand you to say that the permitting agencies is that DEQ or is that um will call out a specific project they want us to do?

They'll like make it a condition of our permit or something.

No, I think in the last permit they just said that each each of the boat permanent is um should complete one maybe that the UA decide what that maybe I want to see that you're you know, making some progress towards storm fall.

So you say that they were gonna put in the temperature regulation that discharged the laminate.

Is there anything there now?

Um well I mean we are uh there's sort of strengthening the regulations as it relates to the that to a maximum daily load because you know the stream is impaired by or not the stream, but the Willamette is impaired by temperature.

So you know it works, it sort of works on a qualitative basis, but there's going to be more monitoring associated with it looking at how do we improve and shade our current corridors looking at sort of shape gap analysis and all those types of things that really sort of rely on uh that that we that we see from from our urban forest uh and along those riparian corridors.

Uh we do have uh I think we actually have a meeting this Friday with talking women about like the next steps on this on this simple.

Or coming out to debate the temperature process.

So I was curious about that because we were told we had a recent presentation by them that part of their idea is to by staging logs along that they'll diffuse the water as it comes out of the creek, so then it'll be um you know a wider, I guess.

But does it is that really affecting the temperature of the laminate?

The water's X temperature and there's so much water, does how it actually gets into the laminate impact the temperature?

I I I mean I think there's an incremental component to it.

So I mean it it it does, yeah.

It's an improvement that could be made.

I I would say, you know, one of the things we'll be talking about tonight is the kind of dam removal.

That project is something that will have an impact on uh temperature as well.

Oh that's probably the single biggest thing you can do.

Uh and that's something that you know we've talked with DEQ about and you know that's consideration of like making sure that we're getting you know, we're getting credit and credit for that type of work as well, and uh in our T and D requirements.

Well, I'm thinking that really what they're doing at the Jobs Creek is a it's a they're almost like using a liquid heat sink.

In other words, there's a certain volume of water that has a lot of heat in it, and uh if they weren't diverting it and and spreading it that's it's discharge out of the river, then there's less volume, there's less mass for that for that heat to retain its heat, and therefore when it's spread out, it lowers the temperature incrementally.

I don't know how much, but that kind of makes sense.

But it's uh I that would be a lot of man.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um there's a lot of work going on like up and down the line on this topic.

People are there's she, you know, shade trading and shade banking and all kinds of things going on.

So uh anyway, yeah.

All of these though, pollinies, you know, these TMDL requirements of these things and the permit, they all are sort of like unfunded mandates, right?

So these are requirements that we get from you know regulators to say you have to do this to improve these, you know, to improve these issues.

So and generally we don't get like a direct source of funding to make those improvements.

So you know, that is one reason why we have a stormwater uh utility.

You know, not only is it to you know manage the quantity of flow, but it's to make sure the quality is there to that we're not impairing the streams through through our urban environment.

Um it's similar with the mercury and bacteria, it's kind of like they just want to know that you're doing things in their lives, the risk is pretty hard to sample for those, you know.

So it's more like uh qualitative policy base requirement.

Um the UIC, the underground ejection control, the dry wells, um that one the application was already submitted at the end of 2024, so we pushed a portion more quickly to tell with that uh system wide review of the two or five dry wells in the system.

Um we haven't I think the lays of the application hasn't yet been reviewed, and that gets come back from DEQ, but it's in the in the process there, and I thought I'd just say that the good news is there's no um compliance issues that were detected in the assessment.

The it's kind of hard to see, but the um on the left that the circles are the two-year time of travel around your well fields for the drinking water system, and even though we're showing um some of the dry wells are within that two-year time of travel, the groundwater table is um so much farther below the bottoms of these drywalls that they're not uh risk of influencing uh the groundwater.

So that's why we're able to say that they're they're in compliant and they're not presenting a risk to human hill.

So are red the red blocks are the water wells?

The the red are the dry wells that are within the the two-year time.

Oh, I see the water wells, and then um the the colored contour is kind of the depth of groundwater, and I think the pinkish color is 91 to 100 feet, and most drywalls aren't going any deeper than 30 feet, so we're pretty high above the groundwater table.

Is this something that like during development that we review to see if you know is the developer looking to put in a dry well?

What is its proximity toward regular levels?

Can you just help me understand is the elevation in that part of town, or why are we seeing so many wells and that pro town?

Is it because they were disconnected?

It was unincorporated back in the day.

And the topography of the of the of the area, it's it's challenging to get the water of the hydro to get in the water much to the streams.

Uh huh.

I think it was a lot cheaper to put in drywalls and have everything just drain out the west of the whole solar system, so whenever they could do it, they didn't.

Um talking about hydraulics.

Um, we've been running the model, looking at the existing system, existing rainfall.

Um there's like we mentioned some of the geologists early, but we've we've got a few areas of interest.

We're still working through that to see if those actually uh need projects associated with them, or there might be some other solutions, but um, I circled a few of those.

Uh the industrial park is one area of concern.

Um, it's just because it's kind of sits in that low area, and the sewer is pretty or the storm system's pretty flat.

Um there is some storm piping near the Dave Green wetlands up in the north east corner.

Um it seems like it may have some capacity issues, and then the area in the southeast, which is the Apple Plum Hemlock, that was an area that was actually um identified in the last master plan.

It's also coming up for us.

So like that's what there's probably going to be some approving there, and then there's a um there's a small uh section in the island station neighborhood along the railroad that uh is showing up this capacity challenges.

So we're we're in the process of working through this with staff to figure out what what's the right solution, but uh we're not gonna talk a few spots.

Okay.

So when you reference the day of green wetlands, um, which I think um those are our private property, right?

The city doesn't own the property.

We don't own the property, but we have adjacent infrastructure that has uh that pain discharges stormwater.

I think there's actually uh a line that runs property, right?

I think that connects and there's there's some issues there in terms of the capacity.

So do we have some set?

Yeah.

So wait, we are taking water from private property, or we were putting water onto private property.

I think they just kind of cross through.

I don't I don't know, I'm sure if there's a piecement or anything like that, but they're in close in close proximity.

Yeah, there's there's a little bit of water cut from the wetlands that we pick up.

Uh street groundwork, right?

I'm really surprised about the apple plum, and that's been a problem for a long time.

I guess I thought it had been resolved since we don't hear complaints about it, but that's been an area where I remember when I was on planning like 2008, going on a van trip to look at you know places that it floods the most, and that those are probably out back then.

We did some minor improvements along harmony in-house that we've made it maybe alleviated some of the bigger problems that uh or at least reduce the frequency, but it's still it's still an issue, and since it's still a project that we have in the CME that's substantial project.

Well, actually um this map just kind of shows the pockets of in Belgrade Road that kind of align with the same assumptions being the water and the wastewater master plan where um we use the buildable lands inventory that was done for those supported those efforts um that aligns with CityCon plan.

Um, and we assume the purposes of stormwater for those other plans it was not about like well, how many new connections are you gonna get?

What's that gonna drive the flow?

For stormwater is more about an impervious area, so we made some assumptions about uh maxing out the amount of impervious service based on your current zone codes and use that to estimate what might what might come down the road in terms of growth.

So uh bottom line though, it doesn't actually add that much flow.

Um, so we're not seeing like a lot of growth within the cities being a huge risk to the stormwater system in terms of capacity.

I think that that has an impact too.

And it impacts what those SDCs might look like, right?

So, you know, SDCs are focused on providing uh a revenue source for development how development impacts or how growth impacts our infrastructure if we're not seeing significant hydraulic related growth, I mean it's probably what's we see something smaller on storm water, and they are pretty low.

Well, we haven't done that analysis, but just I didn't think of that's a problem where it's a um the so we mentioned climate.

This this slide might take a second to explain.

Um you're looking at here is on the on the graph, it's time.

So we look at like uh a three or four-day storm event, um, and its flow is on the vertical axis.

So the the staggered um doesn't show on the TV screen, unfortunately.

Well, the the mountain on the left is basically looking at two-year, 25-year, 100-year storms and kind of a different flow.

It's gonna you know it's a design storm that we use to evaluate the system uh where we're trying to replicate, you know, a similar terminal because we don't we typically design our stormwater uh systems for 25-year storms, we don't design them for the 100-year storms, like we do a levy or something like that.

Um the the pink lines on the right, that is taken from uh a model, uh combination of climate change models.

We took the average of several that look out and replicate rainfall out to 2080, and that was a representative storm that you kind of see like relative to the intensity of the peak is almost as high as a hundred-year storm, and it's kind of like back-to-back storm events right on top of each other as a way to take all this climate modeling data that's been done, apply it to this city, and see where the vulnerabilities are.

So we're still in the process of working that one out, and and what we won't likely recommend that you upsize anything for this potential unpredictable future event, but it does help us maybe prioritize where we already know we have the CIP project, and we know it's an area that's how we want to want to medical certain stuff.

So is this the base for this than being a low?

Uh there is like uh theory of climate models in Washington State as one.

Um, there's I don't know, three or four that um people have taken the global models and they've brought it down to a regional model.

So what our team did is took those, took the average, and kind of looked at the um the statistical analysis to say what would be a future 25-year return or relevant these like changing precipitation patterns.

So there's a lot of like it's it's kind of like uh uh a data-driven best guess at what might happen in the next level or using something beside the people.

So I don't know any good, but I think I think I think I mean the big basis, I think the university of Washington.

Yeah, that was more universal.

Sort of climate modeling.

Um yeah, we're not it's it's not going to put in reality into the button change situation.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, it's really taking like it's more atmospheric, like modeling and then trying to turn that into rainfall for our region to make kind of a good decision right level, which is good.

So I don't understand the time axis at the bottom.

So the first series of events that you say is like the current two-year-old year all happened in day one.

And the other takes to day four to happen.

No, I think a think of deep line as a completely separate event that we run through the model.

We're just kind of showing them so you can see the relative magnitude.

Okay.

And then we also easier to tell.

It doesn't mean the time much shouldn't be really be on there.

But the um the reality is it's a 24, most of most of us design around a 24-hour storm.

It's like a statistical, that's what all the ones on the left are.

Okay.

But using these models, it's not as easy to just clip out a 24-hour period.

So if you have a bit more longer of a time frame to capture this like storm event that we're running through the whole development.

It's more of a parametric system, but we're gonna be looking at the tree cover canopy, and um see where there are opportunities within the city to prioritize very target tree planting as a way to also help with some of the stormwater that probably.

So right now we're a little bit limited in that um metro, metro glider data is 2019.

So um there will be chance to take a fresh look at that.

So that's not us.

That's not you guys uh you guys you know like a little way to see the relative cover and within each base, and you can kind of start.

Oh, the runways where you're opportunity, yeah.

No trees in the runway.

Uh okay.

And then on the operations and maintenance side, what we have going is um kind of grouped all the stormwater system assets into five buckets.

There's the ponds and the rain gardens, um, some open conveyance channels, you know, you can catch base with the manhole, and then the dry wells.

So the city has a really good system for capturing condition uh using the method in uh city works, and so um a lot of that is already been going on where there's good data.

What we realized we didn't have data on was the rain gardens, and partly because some of those are privately owned, it's supposed to be privately maintained, but fall into the spray area where the city ends up maintaining them.

And so we're capturing uh the city teams are right now gathering data on those assets that we want to bring in into uh an analysis of one, um, where are opportunities for rehab and re uh repair, maybe and sometimes replacement, but also how much time is this requiring a city operation staff to kind of manage all of this.

So those are two of the things we're looking at.

Um sorry, that's all so we're expecting that work to be done in the fall, um be able to come back with some recommendations around what it takes to maintain the system over the staffing and then like our rehabilitation budgets.

And then the last thing we're looking at is uh a lot of these rain gardens are actually great spots to plant a tree.

And so we're looking at that element as well.

Are there which ones of these have are very conducive to tree planting if that was uh something that's so when you say rain gardens, you mean the swales, or do you mean any rain guard?

I mean, there's whales that are in the right-of-way that are you know do belong to the city, right?

I mean, they're built privately often, but they do ultimately belong to the city, but then also people disconnect, you know, run their rain gutters into it and build their own rain garden on their property or whatever.

So we're talking about most of those scenarios or well, I can tell you from having built one, they made me put trees in it.

I had big trees on my property, and I didn't think I needed more trees, but they made me put trees.

And so I mean, I hopefully they're doing that to everybody.

Yeah, that's good.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um I guess the other thing we're looking at that does affect the water quality across the city is the standards.

So right now the standards are based on some of their bars that were built to 26 Portland's stormwater management manual for 2016.

Including a tree credit that you can use to offset a burst area on your property.

So what we're looking at is I think one of the challenges that have been brought up is that developers they're used to running on those manuals, so they kind of submit on the new requirements.

But there's a lot of like explaining that to you don't know what the city requires, and then there's also there's differences, right?

Like there's uh Clackamas um West just came out with some new standards.

Portland has updated their manual a few times.

Um so we want to look at those, talk it through, and there's certainly administrative requirements that uh city like Portland or a large age like West has advantages that a city like Milwaukee doesn't have, right?

So wanting to write size those things and make it manageable.

So that's one of the things we're looking at too.

Um and then I'll close with kind of our timelines and know where we've got the model going, we're running it now.

Um we're gonna be uh wrapping up the climate vulnerability in the fall.

Um and we'll be preparing our um around where time we should be ready to have a capital approved plan with actual recommendations in terms of spending and um ready, and then we'll get the draft of the plan together that I'm sure you all will get a chance to look at.

Um and looking at file line in the spring of 2026.

I think if I could just go back to that one slide there, and the the last one, the the standard slide.

So, like this is like the requirements that we put on development and also like on our infrastructure, right?

So we've we want to look at like uh what's the consequence of changing the standards that we use, right?

Uh those Portland standards they have.

Scott mentioned there's a lot of administrative requirements that and uh storm water requirements that are required of developers and uh residential property owners, and we want to make sure that we've got what's fit for the same.

So we're looking at you know the Portland manual and this county manual.

I think when Steve Adams was still here, Steve had wanted to look at using the Clackamas County stormwater manual.

He felt like there was that one's maybe a little bit more streamlined and easier to use.

So we want to look at that, but also understand if we're gonna switch what's the consequence, what does that really mean to us in terms of how we you know manage our stormwater program?

And you know, if we change something, do we uh is there some unforeseen consequence of suddenly would we have additional requirements that would that we didn't realize that we want to sort of be deliberate and understand what what it means to change that standard option is to build our own, but uh ideally if we can use one of the other ones, I would probably prefer it because a lot of work to add together.

But we find things that we like in all of them.

We could pull it together and make our own potentially.

So you just think the Portland one is a bit administratively cumbersome, is that one of your well, you know, it it puts some requirements on property owners in terms of operating, you know, when we have these OM requirements where we require maintenance agreements with residential property or water quality facilities than I think.

I think my understanding is some language in there, and like that includes like down spouts, so you know, and and those requirements require us to go out and make sure that somebody's submitting these OM documentation, OM documentation when they build.

So we want to make sure that we've got that right size.

And we referenced that in the old Northstone Water Management.

We want to make sure that we're not creating you know a new urban on uh residential computer ourselves.

Well, I don't want to have any requirements that we're not gonna be compliant for people.

And those are additions since the 2016 Portland code or any changes, yes.

Interesting.

Yeah.

And some things are good, and some things we're like, oh so yeah, we're gonna go through it all.

So yeah, we've got to go through it all.

And we're in managing our rain garden circuit infrastructure too.

We want to make sure that I got one person right now that does that, Stephen.

So maybe he takes care of 150 plus rain gardens with some seasonal help.

And we want to make sure that the requirements that are outlined in those manuals are easy for us to maintain and to and achieves the goal that we need to do.

So I feel like West makes sense just right here.

They're the ones doing our water treatment.

It might anyway and tie into our MS4 permit too nicely.

So but we're gonna we're gonna take the time and do the do the work.

Okay.

Well, um I don't see any other questions.

Well, thank you for your time.

There you go.

All right.

Next we have we didn't get an agenda today, so we don't even know what we have.

We have something else before the Kellogg Dam.

I know that.

So it is on Oh, it's the oh yeah, yeah, it's March.

Very excited.

I'm good to go out and make sure it is so uh it's gonna be uh solar and ESP seismic projects, and I really don't need to probably skip on expansion just from recognize some project management skills opened as well.

Um she pretty much single-handedly took these projects from concept uh through broad, you know, through design to uh through construction completion and did a fantastic job.

Got them done on time and uh and I think on the solar one under under budget.

Um both of them were within budget, but we saved money on that one too and actually increased the size of the solar array that we're doing thank you all done absolutely um good evening or good afternoon, everybody.

Um I'm going to just report back.

I'm excited to give this update um on these projects that were um they were pretty fun to put together and go through.

Um so I'm gonna go through PSP seismic first and then JCB solar, but if anyone has questions during, and I'll try and make up some time here.

Uh so first of all, with PSB seismic, the public safety building.

We started off in 2022 with a grant from the business Oregon for 1.2 million, and then in 2023, Peterson Structural Engineers came on board with the design contract, and we issued the construction RFP, and then in 2024, that's when we had 2kg awarded the contract, and um construction happened in March through November of 2024.

We had various scope items, a variety of interesting things to do in the building.

Um which was pretty it seemed pretty complex at first, but once we had 2kg on board and we were up and running, it really went very much smoother than we were thinking it was going to um with an occupied filming um anything.

It was there were complications, but um 2kg was very efficient, and I'm just gonna take you through some project photos showing what the work looked like because some of this work happened behind the wall and above the ceilings where you might not even know we were there if you want to try today.

So here we have some of the bracing that we did.

Um equipment bracing in the fire bay, the first two photos, and then just an example of the furniture bracing.

You can see the brackets down at the bottom of that cabinet.

Um and I mentioned before how efficient 2kg contractors were during the construction, especially during the furniture bracing, because if you left your office to go to lunch or something, you had to kind of make sure your furniture was where you wanted.

There were a couple of times when people came back and stuff was bolted to the door wall.

Oh my god.

So about it, but some of it might have it on the pull off there.

So you're actual examples of the FRP, which is fiber reinforced polymer.

Um so we had to peel back the dry wall and expose the actual CMU below and then apply the FRP there to the CMU.

And the one on the left with the two big X's is an example of a location where they did a pull test.

So they attached pux to the sticky stuff and then tested the strength of it before it gave out to make sure it was to the specification that the engineer had laid out.

But this is an example when you go there today, these walls have been covered back up and painted, and you can't really tell anything happened.

And did this happen?

I mean, I recall that this was sort of about a uh command center space, but did this happen in a lot of spaces in the building, or was it just really one sort of central area or something?

It was a few different spots.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, it was kind of scattered throughout based on the engineers' calculations of which walls needed to do what in the events in real quick.

Um so here are just two other different scope items.

One here on the left, we've got some steel connections to the CMU and one of the stairwells, and then at the fire bay where the sectional doors are, we put steel framing around each one of those doors and replaced the doors as well.

Um had the screening wall, which is um over by the generator in the back parking lot.

We put bracing on to keep that from falling over.

And then we got this beautiful dedication plaque in the lobby.

Um the conclusion for Kids by another shout out to my Mark Mike Harmon for all of his help and coordinating with the contractor and staff furniture and all staff for just being really easy to work with.

Mike my carving star the facility technician.

Yeah, so like spent quite a lot of time over there working, moving, getting things moved and helping sort of uh smooth over things with the team as work was happening.

So now obviously some of this you have to have people and special skills to do, but are were there things out of this like the anchoring furniture that we might apply on our own elsewhere in our well, my understanding from Mike is that we do over a certain threshold of heights that facilities does anchor things, but um the engineer on this project's threshold was lower.

It was four feet or taller needed to be bolted down.

So anything else before we go into solar?

Okay.

Is there uh was there a specific uh um that avoid that they engineered this too?

Was it you know like 9.0 or retroscale or not?

Uh I'll have to find that one out.

I don't I don't recall.

Oh, so it wasn't.

Yeah, I I don't know what that what that was.

Okay, for Jake Johnson Creek solar campus um in 2023.

Again, we got some grant funding from the Department of the Administrative Services, 375,000.

And in 2024, we issued the construction and design RFP and awarded the contract to elemental enmity.

We completed it earlier this year in February, March.

Um as we discussed in the staff report on this one, we really were able to maximize the solar panel coverage based on the roof size and the electrical capacity.

And this resulted in a 164.8 kilowatt system, which was more than what we had proposed in the grants application.

And provided 85 to 90% of the current load.

And I'll say that's like sort of the best case scenario, like when the sun's really shining all day long, and you know, there's not that cloud cover.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I think financial stability.

We had a couple days.

There's been a couple days this summer where you know we've maxed the system out in terms of how it's been able to do it.

That's right about one right about one minute what okay.

So um here's some pictures of just during the installation when we were putting the roof attachments, the racking on.

Um this was again done in February, so I think I remember what maybe one or two days when it was too icy and they had to um avoid going on a roof, but I was not clear that you could do a roof install in a metal roof like this in the dive punch or here.

We are with putting the panels on, and installation overall took about five weeks of the connection, and then I got this fancy video today from the contractor who did a drone video out there on a nice sunny day once everything was installed.

Um yeah, I just sent it to I sent it to Jordan as simple.

And then lastly, we do have a portal on a website that shows real-time data.

Very cool.

So you can go check it out, and that's awesome.

Yeah, so the energy we don't have battery store, it's just going into the grid.

It's just going to it's it's it's behind the meter, so we use it, and then uh we have a net metering uh agreement with PG, so anything that we're not using goes back out into the I would love to think about a second phase and then some battery storage and the resilience house there.

We we have a had conversations, some conversations with PD on doing that.

I mean, they have some uh programs that uh provide incentives to do that.

I think Energy Trust has as well.

We did look at it with this project, but we just didn't have the budget at the time to do that, and we're really sort of the time to get that done, this the iteration.

That's something that we're certainly interested in doing.

Yeah, yeah.

We heard yesterday a couple of us were at Hillside, and they are doing a resilience hub and buildings there in Hillside.

But um we had the uh the uh we heard the um the new head starts center on is also trying to do that, but those are obviously in the small scale, and you know, it'll be nice to have one on the east side of town.

Um when you say it goes back to the grid with PGE, does that mean that that that end would go into households as PG charging households for our power?

Say that again, or they so the the extra energy that we generate from that, so if you don't have better, we'll get paying us okay so I mean it's it's not a whole lot.

So then are they then using the power that we generate to power households and they're making money off of that?

They use it where we wherever that wherever those electrons can most of it.

Yes, and we're using it, of course.

Remember, you're moving soon, so we've had quite a few more laptops coming.

When you have solar charge, I mean you have each other.

And we're adding more.

I mean, that's one of the things that we'll see is uh you know that that 85 to 90 percent probably change as we continue to make adjustments to our fleet and have moving these and what we recharging.

Um that's another project that we've been discussing with PGE on the western side of our campus where our our barn is and where we have the vehicles we've been talking with them about using some of their uh grant programs to build out some additional EV charging infrastructure, which will require some changes to this coming into the into the sun as well.

We've been talking with them about using some other uh grant programs to build out some additional EV charging infrastructure, which will require some changes to sort of so it's coming into the into the site as well.

Like we want to go and replace our uh one of our sweepers and these charging capacity to charge a sweeper.

Well, these are both I'm really excited to have both of these projects done.

There were things we talked about for some years, and um big kudos to Revok for getting up for 375,000.

Uh I I texted him to tell him we're gonna do this today.

Um unfortunately he couldn't be here, but I know he was happy to see that work.

Maybe we'll have some other opportunities down the line.

Thank you, Mandy.

Yeah.

Okay, and now like Hello Creek and removal.

Oops, yeah.

Thanks, Nikki.

One second.

Um he said enough, I'll just keep it going.

I think time's gonna be somewhat limited, so I think we'll get to the meat of this conversation.

Uh have some good uh good discussion.

I'm Joseph Relio from the assistant city manager here.

I'm joined by Patriot LA, works director, Jim Barley, Clario, many very development project management.

Uh we're kind of your many city staff that have participated in the catalog restoration uh community has been project, formerly known as Calog Band Project.

We changed the name to get more than providing.

Um there are many other staff that participated in this uh this endeavor for many years, but this is kind of your main board team, I think right now for some of the bigger ticket items that we've since.

Um staff report.

We have we have been making quite a bit of progress.

You know, I guess all these shout out to our your uh project partners here, Nick Wiggs and Namy.

Good to see you here.

Also, I'll just start off by saying we have ODOT as partners, Jonathan Warowitz, and Billy Romero are great on on the leadership team as well as probably you and we might be on online, but it's river logic now.

It's kind of one of the same thing.

But the team has been fantastic to work with.

We've had a great uh relationship and we've made obviously lots of progress together.

This this conversation tonight is is nothing to do with that, but has something a lot to do with what we do here in the city, which is uh try to do many projects and think about many projects at the same time.

So that is what we're going to be talking primarily about is we have run into some sticky wickets, so to speak, that need a little bit of uh daylighting and discussion to help clear the air and help prioritize staff because we still feel uh comfortable or even it it rises above our pay rate, so to speak.

So that's why we're having this conversation.

Um I won't bore you on the projects.

You I feel like you all are very aware of what the project is.

But I think it's just good to know and see again um how big a project area actually is.

It's not just removing the dam, which is at the farm in the top corner corner of the screen, but it goes back all the way to Oakfield Road.

It's around 14 acres.

It's a huge project area.

And the city owns a substantial piece of um the story behind where we got how we got here today is that there's it's been a funding story, but it's certainly not been um it's certainly also been an advocacy story.

So the city's advocated for this project and aspired to have this project in for decades.

Uh really was over the last five years that we started to get some momentum.

That's been primarily due to funding uh to make things become more real.

Those monies have been uh primarily for permitting and uh getting us through the design phase.

As with any project, um big or small, and when you work with a team, you you hit tension points, and we also hit these points of we thought that problem was not as big as we thought at the beginning, but it's actually pretty critical.

And there's some other pro other problems or issues you thought were going to be huge within our actually not as big as you must thought.

Um so we've kind of run into uh the former, which is we got some issues that we didn't know were gonna be as big as as they're turning out to be.

Uh the first one being sewer line relocation, second one conservation easements and lastly couple of point because it's uh displacement adjacent to the Kellogg project.

We'll take them one at a time, but we certainly feel like the sewer line probably needs a lot more time, so we're gonna start with that.

Uh the other two, I think we can go somewhat quick.

Let's jump into the sewer line location.

Before we do any questions about the project overall manager.

Great.

Uh so in the staff report, uh, as well as um our partners over at Nickwick and American Rivers sent uh some some comments as well.

Uh the sewer line that we've come in a run run into an issue with is over at uh Lake Village apartments, I think is where it starts and runs across the empowerment towards um as the other line departments.

Um that's that's where that's the red circle is in the middle of the screen.

That's kind of the that's the line that we're talking about when we talk about the sewer line medication.

Um this sewer line is has come up as a barrier for design and restoring the whole mountain area up to them.

So the upstream and downstream impacts uh created another little band potentially right here.

Uh there's been some design options that have been thrown out by the design team.

There's three of them.

Uh kind of speak to some of those as well as there's some other potential consideration we have.

Uh when we think about this sewer line.

Part of the issue is or that issue is that we're dealing with this removing that sewer line, so there's no longer a barrier, which is great, is we can get full restoration of the paint mountain area.

However, there's costs associated with products of very substantial project that it creates, and um there's some elements to prioritize prioritizing CIP and where it stands on other projects.

So we talked about how certain projects relate to other projects.

This is this is the feedback we need to get.

Yeah, and and and to add what you have shows up as said, I looked at this like sewer line piece sort of like separate from the larger project and looking at from the context of our affordability goal and what are the impacts to our wastewater ratepayers, right?

So we have a project that's been identified as a need for this coworking hadn't been identified prior.

Uh it's not in our CIP, it's not in our future work plan.

Uh and how how would we handle not just the financial implications related to that uh that project, but how will we handle it in terms of imaging with our with our staff that are working on other projects?

So those are two of the big things that we're looking at.

And then also looking at that uh that line, which is it's in uh it's in good condition.

Uh it does have some some small sacks, but you know, my crew in terms of reviewing it and looking at it through their inspection tools.

Yeah, they've been good condition.

It doesn't work for it.

Might need replacement, but does it need replacement right now?

So it's sort of a left for this project.

We wouldn't be doing this this project, this sewer line relocation.

So the other the other component of it too is uh the thing, I think what's the preferred uh alternative from tour and and the and the team is that's it.

The design team is to you know replace the line with a with a pump station.

So in terms of operational impacts say you know, right now we we take care of five pump stations, uh sanitary sewer pump stations in the community.

We don't have any pump stations uh in in this area.

We have one over an island station that that doesn't do some pumping, but we don't have anything in Maryland Lodge.

So once it crosses the the creek, it's all it connects to West's line, trunk line, and goes uh goes to the wastewater.

So we don't have a sanitary sewer pump station that we operate and maintain uh that really puzzles me because if you go down into that Marmont Lodge apartments, and you can think about the level of the creek, it's it seems to me it's considerably lower than the West plant.

Uh um that there's not like already an existing pump station that's getting that wastewater from the Maryland Lodge to the plant I find very puzzling.

Not that wouldn't not that we need to so I mean we I don't believe there is clarify for me my ignorance here.

Explain the difference between a pump station versus uh pipe and what the trade-offs are.

Okay, so what the gravity lines going from the higher elevation to the lower elevation.

So to water now into it's gonna sink the lower wheel.

So we use a pump station or a lift station well.

So right now sewage is flowing from Marmont over up into Lake Road and other way.

Yeah, it's going this downhill there.

Okay.

So everything in that dotted orange is going into that line.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's that everything.

And the lake road?

Pump it up to lake.

Okay.

So and you know, you can't tell from the two-dimensional piece, but there's some sufficient elevation.

There's some substantial elevation change there from where the uh really complex that Joseph was talking about, the link you know the apartments.

So you we were looking at potentially uh a pump station in this sort of general location to be able to take that wastewater there.

And can you explain to me why you wouldn't do a raised pipe or some other treatment that's still like why pump stations those other pipes?

I I I think you know, one of the all other alternatives was a raised pipe with uh going across the group.

I think there's some benefit to uh certainly keeping that infrastructure out of the you know, out of the flood zone.

So you know, that's that's the potential impact.

Uh are you gonna go through the options or not?

I wasn't specifically gonna go over there.

I'll just chime in here.

So the the raised pipe was actually uh I think they were really popular.

They were comparable in covering.

All the options require and we're trying to restore a natural area.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Um cost for me group between 3.5 to 5 million.

And so um yeah, so the the preferred alternative was to pump up to lake round.

So you know, the the consideration and the impact there is the long-term operations and maintenance cost uh involved in operating, you know, the the energy costs that our our crews going out there and inspecting and maintaining and responding in the middle of the night when the bump fails, yeah.

Those those types of costs that we don't have right now.

So uh and and and there's an impact there's that but for this project we wouldn't be doing this uh that's where my question is.

I I I actually two questions that coincide with that.

A what that impact would be estimated on our rate pairs, and then B if we wait 20 years from now, is that a bigger impact on our ratepayers?

Because we waited.

So I'm I'm looking at two.

Yeah, so what would be the impact of the rate?

I've asked our rate consolidates to to look at that analysis.

They've they've given me some preliminary results that I have some more questions on.

It didn't look like in their uh analysis that they had included all of the operations and maintenance costs.

I want to make sure that they factored in.

Okay.

And they don't I don't think that they had factored in the cost associated with the linked view apartments and what what requirements that we're gonna have to provide them service.

Because right now they're all gravity.

There's going to be a component where we'll have to probably uh make some modifications to how that looks uh and as well.

So they're still they're looking at that as part of our water and wastewater rate spending.

And I know I know they can't they don't have a crystal ball.

Is there a way to kind of estimate what it might be and if we waited?

Like what the I know there's not a specific number, but is there a way to estimate kind of what the inflationary costs might be if we waited 10 to 2 years?

We could certainly figure out the inflationary cost, like to replace that pipe.

Or you know I would I would advocate for sort of like uh you know non-excavating replacements, so pipe bursting, uh slip lining, you know, the pipe is structurally sound, and maybe there's some some reinforcement impact, but I think you know, fundamentally there's there's this issue of adjusting the channel, right?

The channel and whatever the pipe rest right now, uh there's there's some it's challenging to be where it is, right?

So uh there are probably some alternatives that uh that could be considered there that probably uh don't don't provide the same restorative uh impacts that we want to see from the uh the overall project, right?

We would have to probably like you said reinforce the pipe, it would probably impact here.

And I know the team spent has spent a lot of time developing this channel design, and uh that's probably a lot of work to to do to go back and completely make that investment.

Uh but there are there there probably are some uh alternatives in that.

Well, a simple description, I think tell people wrong.

Because if you leave the pipe where it is, even if you make some of these uh the edges changes, what should go into eventually impede the flow of the creed?

Is that a is that a true statement?

Yeah, that's potential, but there's under under the under the current channel design.

So I I don't know.

That was one of the questions that I'd have designed to was you know what is the impact of just single channel design?

And I can answer that if you want.

They are in the process of updating the memo or um asked for quest.

Um, and they did look at channel design and the reality in the unfortunately that pipe is just exactly the wrong elevation.

So if we changed channel elevations, then it potentially impacts other infrastructure.

So things like the VP rail line that's crossing the channel.

Um and it also doesn't allow, wouldn't allow us to do the actual floodplain restoration, which is where our funding is coming from.

So you know a fisheries is the one finding the design, and so it puts our funding errors.

Can I clarify here?

We're talking about two different increases, kind of there's the increase to add the project to the CIP where it is not currently, and then there's kind of a separate increase that would be the ongoing operations and maintenance.

Yeah.

How long that first increase that's just add the project to the CIP?

Like a ballpark of how much that would cost, and how long you adding that to a rate layers bill.

Well, it it depends on uh what the project ultimately costs, what that component costs.

So uh, and it depends on if it's a project that we try to pay through, you know, sort of the pay as you go structure that we've generally used on lots of projects where we finance it through that service, or if we finance it through uh the clean water revolving loan fund, then I think it's an option.

And that clean water revolving loan fund offers some uh some forgivable principal and some lower interest rate.

So you know, I think it also there's the other piece of it, you know, that I I think that as I'm looking at it as like recognizing that we're one of these other projects our water treatment projects that significant has a significant cost component to it uh that will require some financing of some of some sort.

Those are the PFAS projects, or PAS project that we have a regulatory compliance schedule that we have to meet.

So, you know, it's it's looking at those pieces and trying to try to be uh trying to recognize that there's impacts to our water wastewater repayment for that for this problem.

Peter, can I jump in there?

So I I can recognize probably a little frustrating to get it could have a repair impact that we can't tell you an exact work.

Peter's working with the consultant on that, and as soon as we can bring that to you, we've got many CIP milestones coming up.

We've got September 9th, we've got the November budget committee meeting.

So I just want to recognize we wish we could come to you today and say it's gonna be exactly this much, and it's gonna be exactly this, and we can't do that.

But we do want to daylight this from you and get some direction from you on we know this is a priority project, we love this project, we want to see it happen, but we also don't want to hit you in the surprise when we come to those rate designs and say there's gonna be a cost here, and there's gonna be maybe alternatives on how we fund that and some unknowns about whether we can qualify for the loan or not.

So really it's just daylighting that for you and getting your direction so that as these fine folks work with these fine folks, they're knowing they're moving forward with the backing of you all and the direction you've given them.

Does that make any sense?

Interject and I apologize, you know, we keep getting trying to get a gallery here, but we shouldn't have put this on a regular session.

If we um you know, did really just kind of clarify from the leadership team the project perspective.

We don't think additional city funds are gonna be necessary for the construction of this um I recognize it's an increased workload for public works.

There's no benefit.

I think we are hopeful that we didn't help with that, but between the funds the city is already dedicated to the project, the potential for strong potential for two million dollars of loan forgiveness or the greenwater state revolving fund, um metro, etc.

We are going with that at least.

I I will say because I am working with uh and uh department of business development right now on our safe treatment water revolving loan fund application that has some significant uh principal forgiveness.

There's still a payment associated with that.

You still have an interest payments that you have.

There are those costs that are that are impacted, and you know, my understanding with the clean water one, it's up to two million dollars.

Uh there's still sort of that eligibility unless there's billions of dollars on that on that project right now.

You know, and it sounds like there's a good chance that this would make the cut, but there's there's always still like only so many so much funds available.

So recognizing like there's these pieces of the puzzle, but we haven't connected them all together.

Um, in my mind, there's still there's still like a gap, and I don't know what that is, and what's that impact to the rate bears.

So can we talk about the um operation and maintenance?

That's the part I'd like to.

I mean, I I'd like to think between earmarks and revolving loans and things, we could get a lot of the construction costs covered.

I'd like to have a better understanding of the operation and maintenance ongoing costs.

Um the I live across the street from the one in island station.

There are people in city trucks who come most days of the week, maybe five days a week and check on it.

But they aren't there for more than 10 minutes, typically.

Right.

So yeah, so we check every uh every pump station there is a week.

I think it's Monday, you know, one day, Wednesday, and Friday.

Those are the joining days of the two people that go out to make sure things are running and functional.

Uh they are below ground facilities, with the exception of over Brookside facilities.

So there's it does take them some time to get set up and get the permanent safety things set up.

But you know, I think we're looking, you know, every day those five pump stations that two people going out there, it's about uh you know a half hour to an hour that they're spending at different pump stations during that during those rounds.

So you know, three and a half to five hours a day that they spend going out there and doing that.

So we add another one, you know, there's another half hour to an hour in terms of time for two people.

Uh so you know, it's you know, roughly 160 hours a year for the pump station, you know, almost a thousand almost a half of uh uh an FTE per year.

And that's really that's just uh preventive routine maintenance of those preventative maintenance checks.

So then we also do court sort of quarterly cleanings where we go in with you know our some some additional equipment and do some detailed cleaning, uh and then there's the repair and then maintenance that we have to do with this failed.

So uh you know certainly when we have a newer pump stage and I'll do it's contracted right, you know, have issues.

Uh but you know, as as things age, there's there's uh there's costs associated with that.

So we just did the whole SCADA thing that presumably gives you data from all these things.

Are they all 30, 40, 50 years old, or do we have a more newer one?

Uh the technology all the same that it was then, or will a newer one have less uh technology that can go wrong.

Yeah, technology is uh always improving.

It becomes more uh in some cases more complex, which requires us getting additional uh consultants to troubleshoot problems like when we have like SCADA is something that provides a huge benefit in terms of remotely monitoring.

Uh but it also provides some challenges where there's a problem.

We don't necessarily have like all the SCADA issues, right?

Uh we add things to improve energy efficiency and variable frequency we have to do an electric uh uh component that helps make motors run more efficiently by uh turning the motor on open last when it starts or bumps.

So it sort of ramps up the motor.

Those those are to be complex to make sure that they're working.

So there's complexity that comes with technology.

Uh yeah, but generally we're making improvements to the system.

We do we have a project in our CIP, uh Brookside pump station, uh I think we have a currently budgeted half a million, and we're just replacing pumps uh uh basically the projects replace the current the water and replace the current pumps with the subversible pumps that will go into the into the system.

But so there are there are costs associated with that as well.

Yeah, so part of this conversation, especially about the sewer line is that is is what you must say.

This is not an insignificant project.

Like this is a significant CIP project for the city of Pinocchio.

Um I I would love to walk out of your understanding of your concerns related to that, or is it operating the maintenance construction itself and also pursuing funding opportunities that are going to be a little bit more expensive?

We if we do pursue any kind of loan that is there's interest, it's that's not pretty details, more expensive.

Um if there's any concern to that, I'd love to hear them.

If not, also do that as well.

So kind of walking away with some of your some of the box planet.

Yeah, you know, I know and I spoke with Neil as well.

Um I I didn't really read the packet before then I hadn't really considered how much it might affect the affordability goal.

And that's kind of where my concern is.

I know we don't really have a lot of figures for that.

Um and I think that's where I'm I'm trying to get more information on because what I don't want, what I'm trying to avoid is for this is part of the I support the project, right?

This is a project that's been going on for a while and is you know part of our green spaces, right?

And and that goal.

Um what I what I want to avoid is for one goal to bleed into another.

And then this potential project minimizing the impact that what we're trying to do on affordability has on our residents.

So that's why I'm trying to figure out I want to know more about what those what the costs what the impact is going to be on the rates, because we are also voting on a public safety fee.

And I think we'll have some information to share, hopefully, hopefully shortly.

So, like I said, I've seen the preliminary analysis of asked for some more questions to make sure we can consider those things, and then once I get that uh we'll get that information to do.

I I do think the the one other piece that I think the other question was you know, incorporating this CIP uh project into sort of our our our larger CIP like one of the things that we talked about when budget committee was you know our as it relates to affordability was trying to make sure that our CIP was you know realistic too, and to do that, that's making sure that using and and there's a funding component to that, and there's also the resource component to that.

So there's there's trade-offs there, so like we're adding another project that's a priority.

That means there's a trade-off on something else that one of our engineers are working on as a project manager.

So that's that's something that we need to consider as well.

So we can share more you know, examples specifically of what those kinds of projects that might have to get funded would be.

Again, we're not asking you to say today, yes, no, sewer project.

We just are looking for that direction so that as staff proceed forward with the project team, they're doing so mindful of what your questions are, your concerns are, and your priorities.

So it might uh speak to this.

Um cover a little bit of ground here, is that um you know the the issue is it's kind of a hard one.

It is it's a hard point really because I see that the decision has to be made fairly short order because it it impacts all the follow-on work for the restoration project.

Okay, all kinds of things we discussed here.

So um, I don't think we have a lot of time, I think we have some time.

But if we're gonna do something here, we're gonna have to proceed uh because the partners that follow on work that could be greatly impacted based upon that decision.

Um secondly, um I understand the concerns about affordability, but I think that the this project leads you know to the other goals, and that is obviously parks and green space comes to mind and actually economic development.

Um because uh if we develop this, this could be quite a draw and could uh enhance the economic development certainly in those areas.

Um I think my biggest concern is the worst case scenario is that if we see a thousand dollars or five million dollars in this project, then the follow-on funding that we're somewhat unconcerned about for the bigger project, the big you know, product uh band removal and restoration project, but that doesn't come that this is some money that you know maybe we didn't need.

So that's a big that's my biggest point of concern and biggest risk.

Okay.

Um you know, that's the worst case scenario.

I don't want that to happen.

But I'm just telling you, things have changed since January on the funding of uh and so that's my biggest concern.

I appreciate that's messy.

Yeah, and just one question.

I'll stop how it's uh 74.

Councilor Matthew, can I just ask a bottom after that you can absolutely say no city managers day where I won't answer this, but to that million dollar question of the worst case scenario or the sort of uncertainty.

Is there and I and I also hear you that we got we can't you can't dither on this for a long time and holds up the whole project.

But is there any kind of threshold or level of confidence or milestone you'd want to see that would make you feel more comfortable?

And I know you're gonna say I'm not answering that city managers anymore.

It's this the universal answer, it depends.

It depends.

It depends.

I mean, I you know, I I like to put on a happy base and be optimistic, but at the same time, you know, it's things and changes.

Yep.

And we obviously have all been navigating all the changes since January and we'll continue to do so is without moving that sewer pipe.

This project might not be able to go.

It poses enough engineering challenges and acquisition challenges if we can't move equipment up the creek across that it doesn't ask that we can ask a question, you know, if we are able to raise funds for the project, but the sewer bank is still there, it creates a lot of big big hearing costs and logistical problems.

Good point.

Why can't the project though be incorporated with the bigger project intent first?

So it's out of the way.

That's basically what we're trying to do.

Um but it's not it's putting it in our CIP because then I'm in charge of delivering that.

That's a good point.

If you're asking in terms of food delivery agency or the booth, I mean I just I feel like that's in the question if like they want the city to take on the project and do it before the dam removal project.

And I have the same concern as Counselor Massey is that but the project doesn't move forward, we spend all this money moving this you know, this pipeline and putting in this low station, and it doesn't move forward.

So I'm just why why can't we align that so the project actually does the work, does the engineering, and does the construction of it.

The plan is for the LI design team to do all the to do the engineering and the design and the in-water permitting, and that would just be the city with the above ground, you know, outside the waterway permitting the my understanding, not an engineer, obviously, it would be the that's mostly city permits uh right away.

Um the reason for doing it earlier is obviously take up well, the to have uninterrupted sewer service during construction.

Obviously, people will still be fussing their toilets when we're in construction, so that that line can get capped and just left in place, and then the project will remove it when we do the in-water work period, but we'll remove it empty.

Um so I don't know if that answered your question.

I'd be helpful.

I want to bring it back to this table.

I appreciate the comments.

This is you can also see part of the tension and part of the like the complexity and the nuance of this issue.

That there that there are actually um there's having the same goal and having some different conditions at the same time is is challenging.

So that's what we're trying to expose, and also provide some understanding as it relates to this project.

Yeah, there is there is a timing issue.

There's also a lot of questions about funding of the future.

That's that's why I don't feel comfortable going to yell as right now, all this letters.

That's why so I will say when I first heard about this pipe, I thought, oh, there's hundreds of people living on you know, in Maryland Lodge, there's hundreds of people living in apartments on the other side, and it's a great opportunity for uh pedestrian bridge across the new uh creek and the pipe attached to the pedestrian bridge.

I guess what I'm hearing is that either way you have to have a pump station, so that's not a that doesn't solve the need for uh having a pump station.

Um if that's true, then the pedestrian bridge, you know, where the paths of pedestrians go is is probably better resolved on its own timeline.

Um I guess I'm for getting for moving forward on it because I do feel that yes, we're in a weird uh we're not gonna see funding as soon as we hoped, maybe on the federal scale.

But I you know, this is if you read the uh the temperature report, this is a huge contributor to this will make a huge difference in the Willamette River temperature and the and the outputs that we're putting in in the Lamet River getting rid of this lake and having the creeks flow through will um address the temperature thing that was just raised earlier tonight by our stormwater.

I do think that that and other things will mean it will get funded.

It will maybe not get funded as soon as we'd hoped.

Um but I I mean I do think it will eventually get funded.

So I feel like we should deal with this and get it out of the way so that it doesn't become a hiccup in future funding requests.

That's that's my take on trying to understand the I don't quite understand the exchange about who's the who is the best partner responsible for delivering this project.

And I think I would want to see I think frankly that's outside of what we're responsible for, but I'd like some clarity there on who would be best suited to deliver the project.

I think I'd see what Jen get this can be included in the scope of the grants that our partners are going for in this.

I I just I think don't understand that we'll have to explain a bit more.

I'm still a little confused.

If we add a five million dollar project for CFP, how long if we're doing pay as we go?

Is it same for a month period?

We have to raise five million dollars in our sewer rates.

It could be, or or we're not doing other projects that we have identified CDP.

So I mean that could be our our leader, our leader one.

Yeah, that's a project that we have under design, you know.

If if if that's that's one way you can we can push and see the projects that we have identified in our CIP that we have you know, paperly is under design, then that would be one or other five percent because we want to uh many four that maybe you know if this was the priority.

Uh those projects might get deferred, but there's there's impacts to them, right?

So and we can pursue the revolving loan, which could sort of forgive some of that principle.

It's just I think thankfully it's not a full guarantee.

And and there you be on you'd be uh also assuming ongoing uh loan payments.

So the loan we would have to repay in full over time.

Yeah, no, it's over it's a there's a portion of loan forgiveness.

Um you're still paying one percent interest on what's not forgiven, right?

It's one more it's more than that.

It's more than that, yes.

Could be up to four.

So the revolving loan right now is at 3.3% uh interest rate and two million dollars of it's and I I guess what I'm trying to understand is we if we add this CIP, we'd have to bump a product or increase costs on rate pairs.

So I it's a map can have if we want to add five million dollars for CMP over 24 months.

The handy numbers we have about the number of um different rate pairs from our public safety fee that we're doing later over a 24 month period that would be 21 dollar increase over those 24 months.

Is that accurate?

Is that like what is the ballpark of funding that we're asking?

Just given time and given I I really I I think these are great questions, and I know it's so frustrating.

I think though, like from what I'm hearing is you you really care about impact ratepayers.

You want us to proceed with this work with our rate design consultant to look at scenarios here and bring that back.

But I'm not hearing the Vermont America, no, I don't want to entertain it.

Bye-bye.

I think I'm hearing this is still a priority.

We do have some concerns.

We want greater greater information on ratepayer impact on options for who manages the project and how that would be funded, both in the construction phase and the OM phase.

Um I also think we ought to be thinking about congressional appropriate appropriations, both congressional and state.

Um we shouldn't give up.

I mean, the they have been the state and the and our legislators have been handed money the sandy for their sewer system and Malala and all kinds of cities.

You can see big lists of the cities that are getting appropriations.

We haven't tried to go to that well, and maybe we need to go to that well.

I mean, even that though, is there's a lot of uncertainty in funding right now, it seems like.

And either one is gonna cost us either it's gonna either the one certainty though is that it is gonna cost our ratepayers.

And we just don't have to.

I don't think that's well I mean it is.

Well, the increased operation and maintenance is gonna cost something.

Right.

And then depending on you got that depending on the interest rate of what you get paid because the forgiveness isn't guaranteed.

We're also put in an application for the PFAS stuff, right?

So isn't that like double dipping in the same way?

It's a different different different fund.

Okay, good.

So I guess my big thing here, the reason I raise these funding questions.

I want to get yes.

Because I frankly don't see a way that the project goes forward without addressing the sewer problem.

And I do not want to be the city that unilaterally fills what would be an amazing project for green space for like connectivity over across the highway.

But if we're talking about raising like $21 a month, are utility bills for residents or like huge impacts on our CIP.

I am a little worried.

I don't think we will see something like that.

And I guess more what I'm saying is I want to understand exactly the trade-offs as soon as possible before I don't want I don't want us to get to a position where we've implicitly said yes, and we have no choice but to say yes when it comes to setting our rates or redesigning our CIP.

I I think that would what I'm also hearing what Emma's uh moving forward yes, making having great rate payers in mind, sure, which means honestly on funding instructions.

And I I think you know, also there's maybe some direction to our project team liaisons that to go back and say, well, we talked to our council, trying to look at that in the room right now.

When you go back to the council, we we heard, you know, they've you know re-re-emphasize their support for this project, but their legitimate concerns are ratepayer impact, uh CIP capacity impact, and certainty.

And so we need also, I mean, I I think you put it all.

You want to know those trade-offs as soon as possible.

So then we also need some we need some deadlines from the project team side about when this needs to make, we need to make a call on this, so that you know I think that's the exchange that happens between the pro between the project team based on this feedback.

And I will say, I I think if you look at the wastewater fund and the water fund, you know, they're they're they're both in different places, right?

So the water fund has a lot of capital needs that we don't have to do uh understand we want to pay cost and treating and treating that on our wastewater side, our CIP there is a little bit smaller.

And I think when you look at big picture, just to maybe big picture, there's I think there's more wastewater reserves available than water reserves.

So I I don't see a 21 dollar impact.

I think I think there's some ways to sort of massage it and and it may look better than we think it then it's not necessarily one of daylight that and make sure again as these folks go forward, they're not saying something that's out of set with your concerns, questions, and quality.

I already say that with with what I know now with the information I've gathered, I'm leaning more towards with this new information.

There's a lot of projects on our CI on our CIP list that have been made so long that people have been waiting for.

And I just I don't know how comfortable I am with putting the responsibility where the project may not, well, you know we might not see funding for a while, putting the cost of that on on the residents right now without with so much uncertainty.

Um Donald Trump's still president, so I'm not looking to the feds.

And it might again it could change, and again, there's just been so much more information given to me just from the packet and from what we're talking about now that there's more uncertainty, and I just think we have to protect our residents from uncertainty as well.

And if if I were to speak to the partners directly, they were hearing this ring.

I think we might say something like all of us here want to get to yes, but there are some real uncertainties that we see.

But like knowing if we say no, we are likely to film this project, which is really a serious blow to people in our community who've worked for years making this happen.

Especially at a time when like it seemed like such a whimsical idea.

Suddenly now it's remotely possible, amazing.

And so I think know that like you have four plus one remote people who really want to get yes, but it is just ironing out these logistical challenges as quickly as possible and telling us what we need to do to be able to meet that.

We have five minutes left or two other.

So I mean the basic question was do you want us to proceed?

Is that right?

Well, I knew that you wanted us to proceed.

This is how, which I feel like I I have enough.

And also some good questions from the body that we need to go back to provide.

I think we know the box to be usier analogy.

I think we know the box with which the staff can go back and engage with the project team to get further information.

Great.

Um topic two.

Uh I think it's going to be all joined.

Um that's really helpful.

We're going to talk about conservation easements, but if you look at this kind of overview of the project area, so obviously the impact when we take out the DM, we had we we lower the water level.

The water's been hitting our property and private property and certain level for many, many years.

So when we remove that, it's gonna drop that water level and change.

It's gonna impact the property.

Um as part of that is part of the consequence of how we want to put it to this project.

We have to it wasn't it, it was at the very beginning, it was nice to have us possibly asking um property owners to have conservation easements so that we could expand the project area and actually restore what we have envisioned this to be.

Um it is now become a little bit more uh weighty of an issue.

There's ODOT requirements for contracts and federal funding requirements that as we move forward with this project that we need to have these types of labor um instruments on private property that when there's impacts in order to construction.

But the city has been in contact with Metro because they have dollars for this, they have expertise for this.

We do not.

Um, and we've been working with our partners in Metro to help find to begin the conversation and start in IGA read the scope to go out and have negotiations, conversations with all these private property owners, uh potentially getting a conservation easement, which the city would would be the holder of, and we would use partners as well as ourselves to maintain um in perpetuity of the product.

Um that's fast.

I don't know if that even makes sense at this point.

But do you have a list of parcels?

We do, not as part of this.

There's about 20 plus properties.

I mean, if we're doing this, I guess just harkening back to like conversations in 2008-2009 around this.

I mean, I assume if you're a stream side owner, you couldn't just put up a fence and fence what's your property.

You don't have to do SNEs.

Correct.

Yeah, exactly.

So that's that's what that's one answer.

Yeah.

The other side, which is a little even heavier, is it is I still don't know if we can't get 100% of those impacted if we if we don't get 100% um to agree to conservation easement or some kind of indemnification.

I don't know if we have to pursue or at least consider the pursuit of imminent domain.

Which I I've been I've been sharing that that's something an appetite um the onset of this project.

I don't know if that changes, but I think it's no it's that's that conversation out there.

Um of four grants do not do not allow it.

So it would be right now, it would be that would be city cost covering the acquisition and those proceeds and all possible legal disputes.

So that's also kind of in the background.

So are you saying that?

I mean, if let's assume all of them said we're just gonna put up a fence on our property line.

Does that impact our ability to get does that impact the grants and the restoration?

Maybe maybe we're working on potential, but we're figuring out now, and maybe that came out the right way.

We're trying to figure out what the um what the legal instrument needs to be.

If they can just say, I don't want the city to have any pieces of property, I want my property to be the type of line and the book fence.

That's great, and they sign some of them, that's one way.

But if it needs to be an easement or it needs to be some kind of um acquisition in some sort, um that's something we're we're figuring.

So this is me letting you know that we're trying to find the best use of expertise and money that's ours to pursue this and try to find a good solution here.

But there's a lot of us.

Yeah, yeah.

Like the sewer discussion, this is us not really asking for a yes no on something.

It's a day lighting something, so you there's no surprises down the road if this becomes a thing that should.

Not we, but the project team hasn't been having these conversations with the landowners.

Yes, a good good comment.

Um also my understanding it wasn't imperative.

Yeah, it wasn't inherited to me at least, and to a few others on the project team that this was even a thing that we absolutely needed for public success.

Um that's a bit new.

If it if we knew this yeah, two years ago, at least was happening to do this, then yeah, certainly be talking differently and engaging differently with property others.

I was surprised by the number too.

I thought there was probably three or four.

It's that's kind of where we started, and it's from over the last properties in the second strip.

Yeah, impact very some are a lot, some three.

Yeah.

Uh this um coho.

We have we have at one time coho is gonna be done.

Yeah, at least kind of construction, right?

And then Calog would come and it'd be built around what was ever.

They're kind of on these two similar tracks now.

Timing is we don't know actually, we don't have full sense of yet of one's struggle and the other.

So um trying to design around conceptual, it really did.

We've been uh we've tried to put those two the two teams together, the project team, design team on both sides of the table together.

And we had some good conversations at first, but um with some moving conversations that we're gonna have with Farid, uh, BlackRock and Yelper in October, open more thing will come to light.

But there's just a little, there's a lot of um very we don't have clarity on where this is at.

Um and we don't have clarity of when catalog will be fully funded or so.

There's just this the tension between designs and there's impacts.

We have been at this point, staff has been at least presenting it as if we hear about all these projects.

Let's see, my gosh, we've been talking about you know the catalog for decades, we've been talking about coho for almost 10 years now.

Um so for having us to be to say one is more important than the other right now, is um we're trying to find other ways to get to yes.

And if that is not true for this council, just let me know if that's concerning us to change our approach there.

Um, but again, you also will find out more information of code points and its status, hopefully 20 seventh or the seventh of October, I think.

So it's over the November.

Well, they use that is that issues, or are they projecting issues?

Right now.

But as far as the two projects interfacing, it's designed.

It's the conceptual design from Coho.

That wall is honestly significant, basically.

Yeah, and that has connected issues with how we're approaching the testrian underpass what's gonna connect to the news building around.

It's it's design issues to the two.

So you said um you made a statement that I thought I heard you say was one project is more important than the other.

That's well, how we've been approaching meetings.

I'm not sure I would agree.

That's what we would love to hear tonight.

And again, we want to make sure we represent the view of our policy makers when we're at these tables.

I would say I would continue with the approach.

Have they had any talks about scaling that back though, potentially to avoid the wall issue?

Uh not that I haven't agree to, but I mean, I know structural engineers.

I understand they're gonna need a wall either way.

Right, um I guess in my mind, October 7th isn't that far away.

If we hold the course of, you know, they're both important to us until October 7th, and maybe we know more about what's going on with Coho.

Yeah, I'm not saying that we wouldn't, you know, continue to have this conversation, but the big picture catalogs like the mayor.

Let's see what happens on the seventh.

I think the one other thing I might add is it's not two parties.

I think the city and our TSP, one of the projects that we've listed, is um helping fund some of that on the task.

I think the city and our TSP, one of the projects that we've listed, is um helping fund some of that on the past so they sent to a tree can help find some type of concept between the two absorption.

Okay.

That's great.

Four minutes over.

Thank you.

I know it's it's uh it's a it's a weighty conversation because it's such a important part.

Yeah.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for providing something there.

And uh we'll probably be back with more conversations in the year.

And I just want to say again, because I know it's an odd dynamic.

I thank our partner for being here.

Joseph and I come out for like this and sort of family dinner.

This family cares a lot about this, and we care a lot about some other things.

We had to have a family dinner where we sort of daylight some things.

Appreciate you coming to our family dinner.

And I apologize for uh it's easy to get dirt or do you stuff.

Actually, I appreciate it.

Oh, yes.

Uh we are adjourned.