The following comments were lodged by gentle reader Dan S., as he sat in and reported from the 8/20/09 Ogden City Council session, wherein the council took testimony and evidence in support of Boss Godfrey's proposal to deviate from the original Water Horizons plan, and to built two water tanks (at a taxpayer cost of $5-6 million) at the top of 36th Street:
Dan S. said...
I'm here at the council work session, ready to live-blog what I can! All council members are present except Mr. Johnson. Mr. Franke is giving the council an overview of the process.
August 20, 2009 5:38 PM
Dan S. said...
Franke is reviewing a notebook of information on the water tank proposals that has been provided to the council members. The notebook contains a memo from council staff raising various questions about tank locations, storage capacity, etc., plus a summary of citizen concerns. Franke will be looking for "direction" from the council this evening, even though it's just a work session. The notebook also contains copies of two engineering reports, by CRS and Sunrise Engineering. Also a reference to the Bowen and Collins report.
Councilman Johnson has just arrived, so all council members are now present.
Franke is still discussing the notebook, which also contains copies of all the planning commission documents, as well as state regulations on municipal water systems.
Process tonight will be: Report from administrative staff, report from planning staff, with opportunities for questions from the council. After that will be comments from the public, with a 5-minute limit per person. Finall will be discussion among the council.
August 20, 2009 5:45 PM
Dan S. said...
Next up: George Benford, Director of Public Services.
Benford also introduces engineers Justin Anderson and Kenton Moffett, as well as Craig Frisbee and someone else from Water Dept., Fire Marshall, and Rick Grover from planning staff.
Benford emphasizes credentials of the various consultants, and expresses confidence that their reports would stand up to scrutiny of any other engineers.
Benford says there are two goals: Catch up to existing demands and plan for future growth. Looking 50 years into the future. We're not talking about current zoning; we just look at what areas could be built on.
Benford: We try to be environmentally responsible, with revegetation of disturbed areas, etc.
August 20, 2009 5:51 PM
Dan S. said...
Justin Anderson, City Engineer begins answering written questions from council:
* Describe all elements of project and their costs: New transmission line from booster station to 46th Street tanks; air-vac project on Ridgedale and Skyline (in progress); 2 water storage tanks, 5 MG and 1.25 MG. 36th Street tank would include booster station, transmission line to 1.25 MG tank, demolition of existing 36th Street tanks; and pressure reducing valves at a few locations. Not all these have been designed, especially upper tank.
Stephens: Explain the change in tank location from 46th Street to 36th Street.
Anderson: When I came to the city the change had already been made. Previous city engineer must have thought 46th would be better location. But it would be very difficult to put such a large tank up there.
Stephenson: What else is better about 36th?
Anderson: A new tank at 46th would serve only areas served by existing tanks at that location. But the current deficiency is with the 36th Street tanks, according to the CRS report. (Brings out map of city and points to affected zones.)
August 20, 2009 5:58 PM
Dan S. said...
Stephenson: Don't you have to run a transmission line between 36th and 46th in any case?
Anderson: The capacity deficiencies are mostly farther north. The only transmission line in the proposal is a replacement of an existing line from the Weber Basin water source to the 46th Street tanks. (No proposed line connecting 36th to 46th.)
Stephenson: Will the new proposed tank fix the deficiencies in zones 4 and 5?
Anderson: Correct.
Patterson cuts in: News article by Schwebke in May 2008 already assumes tank location was 36th, not 46th (insinuating that the council shouldn't be surprised with the change of location).
August 20, 2009 6:03 PM
Dan S. said...
Stephenson: Might we still need a new (smaller) tank at the 46th Street location?
Anderson: We could. But right now we have bigger problems at 36th, even with the condition of the existing tanks.
Garcia: Which costs more, repair or replacement?
Anderson: Depends. We want something that will last for 50 years. The existing tanks date from 1940 to 1960.
Jeske: We were told earlier that Shadow Valley didn't have enough water pressure. Tell me, how does moving the tank farther north serve Shadow Valley?
Anderson: The deficiencies in Shadow Valley are with flow rates, not static pressure. Air pockets in the lines impair their function. We're installing air-vacs to help this situation. If this works isn't sufficient, we may need to up-size some of the transmission lines.
Stephens: Would we need a new tank at 46th Street?
Anderson: I would propose such a tank (1.25 MG tank?).
[Discussion is getting unclear, regarding which tank is which.]
Gochnour: Why is Forest Service ownership such a roadblock? Existing tank is on FS land.
Anderson: FS would have to go through a NEPA process, drawn out for a year to 18 months.
[more discussion]
Anderson: Bond money has to be spent by June 4 (2010?).
Stephenson: We'd still need more capacity at 36th.
Patterson: Smaller tank won't be going near 46th Street tank.
Anderson: Site would be south of Strong's Canyon. [WSU property]
Gochnour: Wouldn't a transmission line solve the problem of moving water between the two areas?
Anderson: We'd like to transfer water between the south and north parts of the city, to provide redundancy.
August 20, 2009 6:13 PM
Dan S. said...
Stephens: Would this project lessen our dependence on Weber Basin water?
Anderson: We pay the same for Weber Basin water whether we use it or not. A transfer would occur more in an emergency situation, not on a regular basis.
Gochnour: But you can't transfer water to Weber Basin without a new transmission line
Anderson: Correct.
Jeske reads from CRS report: Future development would be in higher zones... [Confusion over what this implies.]
Patterson: Let's get on with presentations.
August 20, 2009 6:18 PM
Dan S. said...
Anderson: Are there sufficient funds for all elements of project? [Itemizes costs] Bottom line: Yes there's enough for all these items (does not include new connection between 46th and 36th).
August 20, 2009 6:21 PM
Dan S. said...
Franke: What about new line along Ridgedale Drive?
Anderson: Yes, that's included.
Anderson reads question about tank site in Mt. Ogden Park, near golf course. But we don't make determinations on what can and cannot be developed. (Translation: We assume everything under 30% slope will be developed.)
August 20, 2009 6:23 PM
Dan S. said...
Wicks: We intend this space to remain public open space for the next 50 years. If we remove this land from calculation, would cost go down?
Anderson: (non-sequitur) This summer alone, we've had several shut-downs from Weber Basin Water. [So the fear-mongering begins. And as far as I can tell, this issue is irrelevant to Wicks's question.]
Benford cuts in: We have done a calculation on the golf course area. It would remove 300,000 gallons from the reservoir size. Subtract that from 5 million and it doesn't really matter. [He should be talking about the 1.25 MG tank! But I don't think the council is following this.]
August 20, 2009 6:26 PM
Dan S. said...
Franke clarifies, and finally they get it.
Stephens: So it's the 1.25 MG tank that would potentially serve development on the golf course and adjacent open space?
Anderson: Yes.
Stephens: So would it be feasible not to build that tank?
Anderson: Part of the reason we're proposing that tank is to provide redundancy to south end of city. We're having issues with shutdown of Weber Basin.
Stephens: So this tank would serve a present need?
Anderson: I believe so, yes. [I can't see whether his nose is growing.]
August 20, 2009 6:29 PM
Dan S. said...
Anderson goes on to next question: What is purpose of 1.25 MG tank, when WSU's plans are long-range and Mt. Ogden Park is open space? Answer: I don't know when WSU is going to expand. I could just build a transmission line to connect 36th to 46th now. But I want an upper tank that could provide redundancy. [But it wouldn't be connected!]
Franke: Planning Commission discussed this tank serving as emergency backup for hospital. Could you discuss this?
Anderson: Hospital is in a lower zone, but fed by Weber Basin water. We'd like to tie the 1.25 MG tank into existing infrastructure [vague!] to provide redundancy. [Why can't this be done from existing 36th Street tanks?]
Franke: Without 1.25 MG tank, what would be plan for backup to hospital?
Anderson: I don't know. We have no current backup method.
August 20, 2009 6:35 PM
Dan S. said...
Next question is about possible new, higher pressure zone.
Anderson: No, there's no new pressure zone. We would just create a sub-zone of zone 1, served by new 1.25 MG tank.
Next question: CRS report mentions development plans at golf course; what impact did this assumption have on the report?
Anderson: I know of no such plans. That report was done in early 2008. The assumption was that all land under 30% slope would be developed.
Next question: What is the requirement for spending the money by a certain time?
Anderson: June 4, 2011. [Oops, I incorrectly guessed 2010 above.] Franke reads applicable federal regulations on tax-exempt municipal bonds. 85% of bond proceeds must be allocated to expenditures by this date, which means the work must be completed (not merely contracted).
Cook: This is for all of the water projects, not each project separately. So it would need to be determined how much has been spent on all the other projects.
August 20, 2009 6:44 PM
Dan S. said...
Moffett is now describing location of proposed new 5 MG tank at 36th Street. Trails will be rerouted before construction begins. Gib Wallace says trails will be improved. Access road location has been changed twice to accommodate trails and planning commission.
Site of existing 36th Street will be reclaimed. [How exactly?]
Site for 1.25 MG tank is not yet determined.
Wicks: How will you deal with noxious weed invasion?
Moffett's answer is emphatic but vague.
Stephens: What about fault lines?
Moffett: Fault shifted tank location and made existing disturbance larger, to get clear of the fault.
August 20, 2009 6:48 PM
Dan S. said...
Next question is about condition of existing 36th Street tanks.
Clark: Tanks are visually inspected every days. Divers went in three years ago. 15 years ago there was some exterior work.
Stephens: Why concrete rather than steel for new tanks?
Anderson: Concrete used to be much more expensive but now there's not much difference. Concrete can be buried. Maintenance is much less on concrete tank. A steel tank requires major maintenance every 5-10 years, costing $100-200 thousand.
August 20, 2009 6:51 PM
Dan S. said...
Staff are showing fuzzy pictures of patches over bullet holes, bulges in existing steel tanks. You can't tell what any of the pictures actually are.
Stephenson throw another softball: Is it true that steel tanks have no seismic protection but new concrete tanks would?
Anderson: Correct.
August 20, 2009 6:54 PM
Dan S. said...
Jeske: Would 1.25 MG tank be buried?
Anderson: Depends on location.
Stephenson: How old are 46th Street tanks?
Answer: One is only 18 years old; other is older.
Next written question: Would upper tank and transmission line to 46th Street be done at same time?
Anderson: "Yes", but connection would be indirect, through distribution system.
Gochnour: Isn't that transmission line unfunded at this time?
Anderson is hedging: Says he would "like" to put in a 20-inch line to 46th Street tanks, but he doesn't know if there's enough in the budget for that. So he'll just connect it into the distribution system. [And this could be done without the tank!]
August 20, 2009 7:00 PM
Dan S. said...
Franke: Please summarize capacity calculations.
Anderson: There's equalization storage (normal use), emergency storage, and fire flow storage. Fire department is here to explain fire flow calculations.
Stephenson: How many days of emergency storage?
Anderson gives vague answer. Shows graph of actual water level over time, which could be used to extrapolate how long it would last if not replenished.
Franke refers council to fire flow calculations (letter in notebook).
This concludes answers to written questions from the council.
August 20, 2009 7:05 PM
Dan S. said...
Deputy Fire Marshall (Daniel something): The fire flow numbers are based on size of large buildings at WSU. Just to protect one of those buildings would require over one million gallons.
Recent fire on Quincy (condos) used 3/4 million gallons over three hours.
Recent fire on Old Post Road: We didn't have enough water to put fire out, could only defend surrounding area. (This was partly due to winds and high temperatures, and also due to size of pipes delivering water. Doesn't sound like it was a storage capacity issue.)
Rick Grover from Planning staff: Planning Commission approved conditional use permit for 5 MG tank. Shows aerial photo of site.
Stephens: Will PC also have to review site of 1.25 MG tank? Franke says yes, but I'm not so sure if it's on WSU land.
August 20, 2009 7:12 PM
Dan S. said...
Grover: New service road for 5MG tank site would cross Strong's Creek.
Grover is describing efforts to reroute trails around Strong's Creek.
PC did specify that site of existing tanks be revegetated.
PC had reservations about sizes of proposed tanks, and didn't pass their motion recommending approval until size specification was removed (and thus left up to the council).
August 20, 2009 7:19 PM
Dan S. said...
Cook now responds to Patterson's earlier comment about news article from 18 months ago: Cook cannot find anything in the record of the applicable meetings saying that this was ever discussed with the council.
Comment from Jeske: Future development should be funded by developers, not current water customers.
Now it's time for public comments.
August 20, 2009 7:22 PM
Dan S. said...
Comment from Sandra Davies: Worried about safety in earthquakes and from mudslides.
Comment from Jock Glidden: Doesn't seem like we should need so many tanks, scattered along the east bench. Why not a single tank with pipelines to transmit the water? Wants to know what minimum size would be to serve only existing developments, not new developments.
Comment from Deb Badger: CIty should not authorize tanks that enable new development. Preserve as much as possible of Mt. Ogden Park as public open space. Old tank sites should be reclaimed. Doesn't want water rates raised to eliminate open space.
Comment from Mike Vause: We've seen activity recently in Malan's Basin recently. Is there a possibility that water from this tank could be pumped up to there?
August 20, 2009 7:33 PM
Dan S. said...
[I commented next and won't try to summarize here.]
Comment from Rob Garner: He has submitted an alternative proposal that would be cheaper and more efficient. Existing tanks at 36th Street do not need to be replaced. Formal tests can demonstrate whether there's a problem, and if there is, it's cheaper to repair an existing tank, and it's better to have 2 or 3 small tanks than one big one (more robust system). How much capacity is needed? CRS report throws in the entire kitchen sink. Existing proposal doesn't solve redundancy issue. City's plan is not cost effective.
August 20, 2009 7:42 PM
Dan S. said...
No more comments from the public.
Patterson offers to have staff respond to public comments.
Moffett defends seismic studies that have been done.
Moffett confirms that according to CRS report, 1.25 MG tank is needed only for future development--but he insinuates that it's actually needed for existing development as well. (So he's contradicting the consultants!) Talks about transmission and distribution lines. A line from 36th to 46th would allow replenishing 46th Street tanks faster. The upper tank would mean you'd only have to pump half as far; this would save money. [This doesn't make sense.]
Stephens: If you could choose between the tank and the transmission line, which would you choose?
Moffett: I'd choose the tank. [Reasons are unclear and not necessarily applicable to this location.]
Patterson reminds us that Weber Basin water was shut off (briefly) 9 times this summer.
Stephenson: What about short-term connection into small distribution lines?
Moffett: You wouldn't want to do that all the time, but it's better than nothing.
August 20, 2009 7:57 PM
Dan S. said...
What about pumping up to Malan's Basin?
Moffett: We're not planning for that; the tank isn't sized for that.
Benford: Two or three years ago we talked to Chris Peterson about his development. It was always understood that he would have to develop his own water resources. Some of the reports refer to Peterson's plans, because there were discussions with Peterson at that time. But none of the capacity is designed to accommodate Peterson. The 1.25 MG tank could serve developments around golf course, but not Malan's Basin.
Wicks: Since WSU is such a large user, wouldn't it make sense to have them build a tank to facilitate their own development?
Benford: If that were the only reason, yes. But there are other benefits to the 1.25 MG tank, and the money is available now.
August 20, 2009 8:03 PM
Dan S. said...
Now Benford is discussing the existing steel tanks, maintenance problems.
Anderson responds regarding the "emergency" storage requirement. The state requires that there be emergency storage, but doesn't specify how much. CRS made a recommendation, conferring with city staff. [So he can't explain the number itself.]
Wicks: What about installing a SCADA monitoring system? Should that be a higher priority?
Anderson: We do have a SCADA system, and anything new would be included in the system. [It isn't clear that this system is being fully used to operate system optimally.]
August 20, 2009 8:12 PM
Dan S. said...
Steve Clark from water department holds up damaged hardware from 9th Street. The point is unclear, but apparently it has something to do with the wear and tear on a system that's supplied entirely by pumps, without any storage reservoirs.
Now the council will discuss where to go from here.
August 20, 2009 8:16 PM
Dan S. said...
Moffett adds that it's cheaper to build two tanks at once, on same bid. Also, rehabbing an existing tank might cost about $250,000 per tank.
Wicks wants to see the numbers on this, in writing.
August 20, 2009 8:18 PM
Dan S. said...
Wicks: Where do you want to put 1.25 MG tank?
Anderson: I would like to put it on WSU property, at the extreme eastern boundary (near city limit and Forest Service land). (He's holding up a map or drawing but I can't see it.) It would not be completely buried, but landscaping could help hide it. The drawing apparently doesn't show the access road.
August 20, 2009 8:27 PM
Dan S. said...
Jeske is concerned that since site hasn't been chosen for 1.25 MG tank, they're not ready to make a decision.
Franke: The CIP ordinance could restrict the location if desired.
Franke now reads list of additional information that the council has asked for. Apparently the administration will be asked to provide this information (rather than hiring a consultant). If council members have additional questions they should get them to Mr. Franke.
Cook: The next opportunity to put this on the agenda would be September 22. Could also be postponed until October.
August 20, 2009 8:32 PM
Dan S. said...
As they wrap up, they're thanking the staff and citizens who commented. Stephens thanks council leadership for allowing public input at a work session (which is more or less unprecedented).
August 20, 2009 8:34 PM
© 2005 - 2017 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved