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.