A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
Under the proposed rules, council president Jody Carson explained, the two county wastewater districts would remain separate entities, with separate advisory committees, in addition to the new treatment capacity group.
“There are still two sewer districts; this does not combine them,” Carson said, noting: “There is no financial commitment from our city.”
City Manager Chris Jordan said the committee would make recommendations on broader issues concerning treatment and capacity — not on the city systems that collect and pipe sewage to the plants. By law, he said, funds from one wastewater district can’t be used to benefit another.
On the other hand, the two could work together in some ways, he said. For example, if the districts are seeking bids for similar projects at the same time, they could bundle them and likely cut back on some of the costs.
“You’d have a vehicle for having those discussions,” Jordan said. “If you want to have a say in what goes on, you should be at the table.”
But while Tri-City members’ votes would carry a third more weight than those representing the other four areas on the new county committee, giving each district a total of four votes, the mayor worries West Linn could still end up defeated.
“They could change the bylaws if the majority wants to,” Galle said of the group. “West Linn would be a minority.”
In that case, she argued, recommendations could be made against the city’s will, and sewer rates could skyrocket.
Monday will actually be the second time the council votes on the wastewater advisory committee.
At a meeting Sept. 28, Galle and councilors Teri Cummings and Scott Burgess voted against the proposal. Kovash was in favor, while Carson was absent.
But Burgess immediately noted he would call for reconsideration of the issue. Council rules allow for a council member on the prevailing side of a vote to call for review.
On Oct. 12 the council voted 3-2 to reconsider joining the committee, with Galle and Cummings in opposition.
With the odds stacked against her, Galle said, she’d push for West Linn to create a wastewater district of its own if the council votes to join the new advisory committee.
“I would fight it,” Galle said.
In other words, she’s washing her hands of it.
“My reasonable mind can’t wrap itself around this, and if I can’t do it, I’m not going to subject the people to it.”
The council meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Monday following a 5:45 p.m. work session at city hall, 22500 Salamo Road.
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
An open letter to Councilor Kovash;
I appreciate your willingness to serve on the council and I agree with you on most issues but on this issue of the Waste Water Advisory Committee, I'm afraid we part company. I've heard you speak on this issue three times in the past couple weeks and each time I get more uncomfortable and apprehensive about this agreement than the time before. You keep saying we need to 'talk' with the county but all I hear is ambiguity and generality as to why. What exactly do we need to talk about and what exactly do we stand to gain from talking? Your argument that we should 'talk' by having a 'seat at the table' is flawed in several ways and I will try to point out a few.
First of all, if you review the voting guidelines the rural and developing areas have more voting power than the Tri-Cities. The unincorporated area of CCSD#1, Milwaukie, Damascus and Happy Valley all have one vote (for a total of 4) while the Tri-Cities members get 1 and 1/3 each for a total of 3.9. We haven't even joined the committee and we're already out voted. These areas all stand to gain a great deal in terms of infrastructure development, but what's in it for us is a total mystery.
Secondly, you state that all the old agreements are gone and that there are new people at the county, but this is the same Lynn Peterson who told us during the campaign that we need to get used to the idea of urbanizing the Stafford Triangle. Are you suggesting they're going to keep everyone's costs separate? Then what's the actual purpose of having an agreement in the first place? As Mr. Kuenzi says on the county's web site, "This is a significant accomplishment that will eventually save local ratepayers millions of dollars by pooling and leveraging capital investments". So if we're not cost sharing then what does 'pooling and leveraging' mean?
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but our own attorney has advised us this will create new and additional financial obligations. Who do you suppose I'm inclined to believe, the marketing consultant from Clackamas County or our own City Attorney? I fail to understand why you would drag us in to this can of worms. I'm certain that someone as politically astute and savvy as yourself is well aware that Clackamas County has a history of catering to the whims of developers, and as such these areas now require a massive investment in infrastructure. But why is that our problem?
My masters thesis was a feasibility study of a geothermal district energy system, and as with any system infrastructure development costs are minimized when the number of participants is maximized. Spreading the costs over the largest possible geographic area minimizes the costs for the participants. The problem with this logic is that we already have most of the infrastructure we need and our facility has more than adequate capacity for the near-term if not the long term given the current prognosis for the economy. It could be a decade or more before we even need to think about expanded capacity. And given the fact that we are near build-out how can you predict we will even need to expand capacity?
Don't you find it curious that Lake Oswego and Oak Lodge have opted out of the agreement? The two most urban areas of Clackamas County have decided they are not interested in having a 'seat at the table'. Why? Are you the least bit curious? Commissioner Peterson's own city has decided they don't want to participate in her grandiose plan to regionalize the sewer system. I don't know about you but that sends up a huge red flag for me. Why are they getting different advice from their city manager than we're getting from his former assistant? Is our situation that much different from theirs?
You've mentioned several times we can get out any time we want but the question is will our additions to the agreement be legally enforceable? My understanding of contract law indicates this creates a new agreement which the county can either accept or decline. This is just one of a myriad of reasons as to why this agreement is to be avoided rather than entered in to. It's vague, ambiguous, poorly written and of no benefit to the citizens of West Linn.
West Linn already has adequate infrastructure. We already have adequate capacity. We already have some of the lowest rates in the region, which is obviously part of the reason why Clackamas County wants us to play ball. So pray tell, just exactly what do we stand to gain by participating in this agreement? Please provide specific and concrete examples of how we will benefit from this agreement, because from where I'm standing right now I feel pocket being picked and you can bet I'm not too happy about it. Let me be perfectly clear. I don't want to hear about how we need to talk or have a seat at the table. I want to know how we stand to benefit.
I strongly encourage you in no uncertain terms, to respectfully decline the county's gracious invitation to participate in this debacle. Having a 'seat at the table' is totally and completely irrelevant when you have nothing to gain, and in this situation we would actually have a compromised position. But if you feel it's so important to force such a divisive and controversial agreement upon us then for god's sake have the courage to put it to a vote of the people who elected you in the first place.
Respectfully submitted,
Curt Sommer
http://www.riverhealth.org/commboard.cfm
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:50 AM
Terri, West Linn's sewer rates are quite low because the people of the United States paid for most of the plant, the state then loaned us the rest of the money.
Curt
You do realize the Tri-City Service District serves 3 cities and are very interested in long range planning that serves the entire district. They already have an agreement with CCSD#1 extending to 2030 and for which the Tri-City Service District receives monthly revenues which helps keep our low rates. It appears we have already successfully derailed what appeared to be the intent to consolidate and adopt a uniform charge throughout the serviced districts of CCSD and Tri-City Service District by being part of the process and participating. I agree the current language appears murky and needs to be revised. I believe that the best way to protect our interest is to participate.
The risk is that if we do not participate and Oregon City and Gladestone do, then we will be along for the ride with no voice. If we can be certain that one of the other jurisdictions will also oppose (and continue to do so) regional planning, then we might successfully avoid for a time, effective regional management of the wastewater challenges. However ultimately, possibly not in our lifetime but certainly in the lifetime of the kids in school now, the tables will turn on this issue and West Linn will again be looking for solutions to a failing wastewater system like we did in the early 1980's.
If you think the County's efforts to try to solve the future wastewater challenges for the region is a "debacle" you are wrong. If you want to protect our colloquial interest, the best way to do that is at the table. Councilor Kovash is doing exactly what he was elected to do.
As best I can tell, this proposal has the support of all the professional staff hired by the city and the support of the majority of the city council. While you may not agree, this should tell you something.
I could go on about why I feel this is the right thing to do but that would be a restatement of arguments you have already heard.
Continuing to disagree
Mike
PS your math appears to be suspect, 3 x 1/3rd is 1 not .9. However the concern is valid. If a yet unknown entity, say Oak Lodge, joined the Committee and received a vote, we probably want to make sure the Tri-City district maintained equitable position.
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:22 AM
Mike,
Thank you for sharing. This sounds like the same Mike who once told me the taxpayers would have to pay to have the waterline in Wilderness Park removed. What a bunch of sewage that turned out to be. (Notice the pun?)
Is this the same city staff you're referring to that botched the Holiday Inn application? Yes, I can see where you're going there.
I had no idea Gladstone had growth aspirations. I always thought they were landlocked. According to Matt Green-Hite they're waiting for us to take the lead. So where does that leave OC?
And thanks for the math lesson. My calculator says 3.9 but I guess 4 is close enough for government work. Keep up the good work Mike!
Curt
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Mike writes;
"I agree the current language appears murky and needs to be revised. I believe that the best way to protect our interest is to participate."
Sign up now and work out the details later? Hardly a recipe for success. Mike, there is nebulous language in this agreement that takes control away from the ratepayer. Who ever goes into an agreement without understanding the fine print is a fool. Am I wrong?
I advise we reach an understanding first, then an agreement second. I expect the Council to read the fine print and understand all potential outcomes before binding ratepayers to a "0 percent" based credit card. History proves this is a disaster in the making.
And another point? Ratepayers know nothing is for free. Ever join a health club for free? How well did that work out?
Mike, even you know this is a bad idea. If someone offered me an insurance policy as a hedge against increased sewer rates, I'd take it without hesitation.
What is the goal for West Linn?
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM
After a review of both agreements, there is STILL no practical reason why West Linn should EVEN be seeking a seat at any table!
West Linn's wastewater is handled by TriCity Service District Wastewater Plant located in Oregon City. This is a modern up to date wastewater treatment plant ($75 million, 26 employees) that effectively serves West Linn, Oregon City and Gladstone. It is currently and for the foreseeable future completely adequate to handle our wastewater.
The plant is controlled by the BCC (Clackamas Board of County Commissioners) which serves as the Tri City Service District Board of Directors. Good information can be found by searching the web on "Tri City Service District".
Wastewater is partitioned into two separate functions: (1) Collections (from our homes and businesses - our sewer lines), and (2) Wastewater Treatment. Collections (our City sewers) is operated by the City of West Linn, while Wastewater Treatment is handled by the Tri City Plant.
I contend, by failing to enact adequate SDC collections over the past 20-25 years in acquiescence to the demands of developers, the BCC has created a long term financial disaster in the making. This disaster is now looming large and immediate as they attempt to accommodate massive unrealistic growth in Happy Valley and Damascus and prepare to service newly designated "urban" lands now under consideration by METRO. The State, County, METRO and COWL now are attempting to solve the problem (which they created) by saddling West Linn and sister cities with the huge costs of providing wastewater treatment for the above growth areas.
Furthermore, the document under discussion for Council approval is legally flawed to the point of being incomprehensible, and possibly sets a new record for drafting incompetence. Poetic, given our new Planning Director was around when Thurston County upgraded their wastewater capacity. (Surely, he has experience that would inform all of us, including the council!) And after 12 years of both executing and drafting MOU's for public projects, I am confident the agreement as drafted would potentially raise significant cost to ratepayers.
This is the same City, along with Burgess and Carson, who mismanaged the Holiday Inn Review. To add to my claim of City incompetence, LUBA noted, in their latest ruling, of City misstatements and erroneous information provided by the City. Fortunately for West Linn residents, mistakes at LUBA are forgivable. Who will say that there are no mistakes hidden into this agreement?
IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM! WE SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE! WE DO NOT NEED A "SEAT AT THE TABLE".
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:04 PM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The West Linn Tidings
News feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Sewer advisory group creating big stink
West Linn's sewer rates are quite low because our bond to build Tri-city is now nearly paid off.
Can we reasonably assume our rates would go down after "collective investments" for expansion needs outside our city are pooled into a "common rate"?
No, not that I can tell.
The basis for concern is found in "foundational assumptions" of the "Partnership task force findings 2008" in the following link:
http://westlinnoregon.gov/communications/wastewater-and-sewer
The goal, apparently, is to embrace the concept of a "regional infrastructure strategy" for increased capacity by making "collective investments".
It was to permanently bind signers to unknown terms with "yet to be determined" bylaws. What a deal!
Our nice low separate Tri-city rate would cease once partners "choose to establish a new form of governance" that would set a "common treatment rate".
As a "regional partner" member, West Linn would merely advise Board of County Commissioners decisions but there would be no veto power. Binding decisions for the "common good" I presume, but West Linn is not expanding.
Is it reasonable to sign on considering these "foundational assumptions"?
I hope we can do better than that.
"Teri Cummings"
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:36 AM