The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/20/2001 Adjourned Meeting / Study Session 119. FEBRUARY 20, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING - STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 20, 2001 - 7:30 A.M. POLICE STATION /LEGAL CENTER - 200 SOUTH 3 STREET 1. ROLL CALL Present: Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, Larry Mattson, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager; Dueane Calvin, Water /Irrigation Manager; Dave Brown, Water /Irrigation Engineer; Bert Tabayoyon, Customer Services Manager; Cindy Epperson, Accounting Manager; and City Clerk Roberts Others: Arthur Fleming, Golder Associates; Bill Huibregtse, Huibregtse Louman Associates; and Pete Butkus, Executive Director, Washington State Public Works Board 2. IRRIGATION STUDY • Introductory remarks given by Dueane Calvin Dueane Calvin gave a brief synopsis of the history of the Irrigation Committee and its tasks. For the past three years the Committee has studied the options for irrigation and now presents the results of their efforts. • Video presented by Dave Brown Dave Brown prefaced the video by commenting that the options being discussed in the second half of the video only pertains to the General Irrigation System (308). The video, "The Year of Water Decisions ", provided a history of the irrigation systems; outlined the goals of the plan; listed the accomplishments of the Citizen Irrigation Committee; provided options to rehabilitate the systems; and listed decision issues. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure the system is sound and provides an adequate supply of irrigation water to the system's users. The options provided by the Committee are: Original Alternative: Rehabilitate the existing systems and continue to use existing diversion on Naches River Alternative 1a: Rehabilitate the existing system but eliminate existing diversion on Naches River and drill new ground water wells Alternative 1 b: Eliminate use of existing irrigation system, use domestic water system and drill new ground water wells Alternative 2: Convert irrigation system to domestic water system, but utilize existing diversion on Naches River (build new water treatment plant) 1 12.0 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING • Arthur Fleming uses Power Point presentation to review alternatives analysis Arthur Fleming, consultant from Golder Associates, stated they analyzed the existing pipelines throughout the City and found that a lot of wood stave lines are leaking; however, most of the steel pipes were fine. Three - quarters of the cost relate to rehabilitating the General Irrigation System, which is one of the largest and oldest systems. They looked at all the alternatives and determined that all of them would provide increased flow and increased pressure in the system. The main difference between the alternatives is how the water would be delivered to the customer. They developed three additional alternatives: Alternative 3: New General System diversion downstream of Nelson Dam Alternative 4: Split the General System. Service half the system by a new well; rehabilitate the other half. Alternative 5: Implement conservation program • They then looked at the costs associated with the alternatives. The M &O costs narrowed the alternatives to the Original, 1a, 1b and 2. Alternative Total Cost Construction M &O Original $25.2 Million $14.5 Million 10.7 Million 1a $26.1 Million $14.2 Million $11.9 Million 1b $24.0 Million $13.1 Million $10.9 Million 2 $31.6 Million $20.0 Million $11.6 Million • Council discusses the alternatives Art Fleming recommended Council accept Alternative 2 and outlined its advantages: - A new water treatment plant is needed anyway for domestic water and could be built bigger and also be used for irrigation purposes - It will result in high irrigation pressure - The water use would be metered and encourage conservation - It will minimize customer disturbance since the irrigation mains will not be replaced — wont' need to tear up the streets - The costs can be spread over a larger customer base - It does not require a change in the point of diversion - It may provide water rights flexibility by having them combined - Only one pipeline system would have to be maintained - It will improve operator safety - It is less risky than Alternatives 1 a and 1 b that rely on rehabilitating the existing pipe system - The old irrigation pipes could be reused in the future for new utility lines He stated the next step would be for Council to select their preferred alternative and then finalize a funding mechanism. 2 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING 12 1. Pete Butkus, Executive Director of the Washington State Public Works Board, commented that the options involve repair or replacement of the system. There are two funding options: either pay as you go, or go to the revenue bond market. There is a small source of grant money but it comes with such strict water conservation requirements that no one in the state could qualify for the grant. If you look at the domestic water alternatives your options for financing increase dramatically. The Public Works Trust Fund is available at 1% interest up to $10 million each two years. It can be used for the water treatment plant or for the well options, but not for rehabilitation of the irrigation system. It is possible to obtain multiple year financing. Council Member Puccinelli stated his main concern is that the City could lose water rights under Alternative 2. Mr. Brown assured him that according to our attorneys our water rights would not be in jeopardy. Council Member Beauchamp asked about the possibility of securing federal funding since there is a new administration in office. Mr. Butkus responded that he sees limited possibilities since there is no money for that now. Council members discussed the various aspects and costs associated with Alternative 2. Council Member Mattson narrowed the focus of Council to needing to make a decision on whether or not to maintain a separate distribution system or roll that into a domestic system with four options. We need to decide on a direction. He believes Council needs to consider the option with the least long- term cost. He recommended adopting Alternative 1 b that has a cost savings per customer of approximately $400. Staff responded to Council's questions about the availability of using wells for irrigation water since there is a moratorium against drilling new wells in place. Council Member Puccinelli stated he would support Alternative 2 as long as the water rights are not in jeopardy. Council Member Barnett reminded Council that Alternative 2 is the most expensive option. Council Member Sims requested an overlay of the irrigation system and the domestic water system. He commented that Nob Hill Water is taking care of citizens west of 40 Avenue and the 308 system goes to 16 Avenue. Council Member Puccinelli stated he would like a breakdown of cost to the 308 customers for Alternatives 1 and 2. Mr. Calvin stated the total cost for Alternative 1 is $25 Million and the cost per customer in the 308 District for Alternative 2 is $2,291. Additional discussion ensued about the costs associated with Alternatives 1 and '2, how much the customers in the 308 District would have to pay and the policy decisions needed from Council. Council Member Barnett requested a list of policy issues that Council needs to consider. Council Member Sims agreed. • Council expresses support of Alternatives 1 b, 2 and the Original Alternative Council Member Sims stated he is heavily favoring Alternative 2. Mayor Place and Council Member Puccinelli also expressed support for Alternative 2. Council Member Buchanan commented that the citizens have indicated a preference for the Original Alternative and he supports their decision. Council Member Barnett also favored the Original Alternative. Council Member Mattson selected Alternative 1 b as his first choice but indicated he could support Alternative 2. 3 • 122 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING Council Member Beauchamp stated he would like more information in terms of the cost to the citizens. • Council gives direction to staff Following continued discussion regarding the cost to the customers in the 308 District and the need to educate the public about these costs, staff was directed to prepare additional information for Council, meet with Council members individually to review the information, and finally, schedule a public hearing. 3. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: 7 4, 7 , ��.��, -� L //W7/(9 C UNCIL M ; BER DATE I , COUNCI M DATE ATTEST: ' 1 17 ) 1 (0-est."--- , 5 ,3 I /.4 CITY CLERK MARY PLACE, MAYOR An audio tape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office 4