City Council - workshop

Yeah. Yeah.

Good to see you. Thanks for having me.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

That is a very fast. Well, that's what I'm trying to say is that we're monitoring the opposition.

That's your side of the violence. Yeah, I don't want to be honest. I really don't care. I don't really know. Well, you're going to take that.

Well, there's a very sunny model.

I don't know. I don't assume it's the same as you. In our apartment. In conclusion, we've got all of this. And we want to do that. Well, it's very good. Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's also funny.

So it's going to be those of you. Oh, oh, sorry again.

Yeah.

It's so good. I know.

I'm going to have to.

I'm going to need a smoker. In the. Pocket three of these. That's right. All right. Everybody ready to begin? Yeah.

All right, we're going to go ahead and call this meeting in order at 6.30. Let us do the flash. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, and to the nation for which it stands. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And looks like we have was the full Council, we are waiting versus online counselor type of sorry. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I don't know if. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Is lurking about but let him in whenever he's ready, I guess. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay we'll just dive into it that and we're going to dive into work session Fisher partners well development next steps. Did anybody have, or maybe did you want to start us off, Gretchen, with anything?

You know, I appreciated having the opportunity to speak with each of you, and hopefully we're in a good spot to try and figure out what the best next steps are. I did want to thank Matt and Danny for all of their participation and work, and the technical memorandum as well as the staff and board exhibits. So at this point, we are just looking for some direction from you all, some consensus about whether we should move into the next step and start drawing down on the state grant that we have for $1.2 million. And I think that's really where we are. We just need to hear from you before we start pulling money.

Go for it. So just a little bit of some recap stuff. So just to make sure that we're all on the same page, we're looking at this entirety of this project as a 10 to 15 year plan. So, you know, it's going to it's going to help what we have. It's going to make sure hopefully we don't have any water procurement issues. It's not what we would consider a long-term solution, 20, 25, 30, 40 years. We've always kind of been under that assumption that the original water authority is going to be the long-term solution to our problems. And this is that kind of not stopgap measure, but this will allow us to diversify our water enough where hopefully we have less issues in the midterm. I don't, personal opinion, I don't think that this I think we still need to try to afford with those regional water authority conversations. And then, you know, the conversation with Mack, water and life, all that. Personal opinion based off what everything that was presented, you know, bringing wells one and three online, getting that bid, getting that worked here so they can work on the design and bid that in January as soon as possible so that we can hopefully get things really churning and going. Seems really, really pertinent on a timing standpoint. And then, you know, once we know the costing of the design, things like that, and well for, can that fit within the money that we have? Can we, you know, drill a well, plug it, and then leave it for later? If we just another stopgap measure, if the regional water authority takes longer, it seems like that's kind of where we're at. Do we want one three to come online before we offer us in that? And then also, are we often ready to make research into four once we have that, you know, understanding of where I'm going to get after one and three seem a bit more concrete than their costs? How do we feel?

Yeah, I totally agree. I think we need to move forward today, tomorrow, obviously, with one and two or one and three. And getting a plan in place for number four, I think is a terrific idea so that we can, if the funds are there, we can get that one as well and spend as much of that grant money right now.

So that grant money is for the planning of this, not the actual production aspects. It won't pay for the equipment or anything else, right? Am I thinking of that?

No.

So how much of that's going to be left over when we get finished with the preparation and everything else?

Well, that's Denny's question.

Well, I mean, one of the things that we were trying to present to you was what we thought design might cost. So that would be subtracted from the overall $1.2 million. We have not really spent... To my knowledge, much of, if anything, of the $1.2 million at this point, because we did get a grant loan to do planning. So a lot of the work that was behind the materials that you're looking at this evening was paid for outside of that 1.2 so that we could preserve as much of that 1.2 for construction as possible.

Okay. So how much do we expect that 1.2 to cover out of the Senate construction?

Oh, for Wells. I'm free. Yes.

And he's nothing like that.

Well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, a new well for which they're reporting here is called Well 5. But there is not enough to design and construct the Well 1 and 3 site drill well for and construct the new well for methane stricter and plant improvements. What the original grant was for was intended to cover the design and construction of the Well 1 and 3 site And we'll foresight will turn out well for because of this construction is not usable as it as it as well, this has too much sand falling into it and so. If this if the Council is still committed to moving forward with developing the Fisher farm both of them make sense to us. to get as far along that path as we can with this grant money before it runs out. We have to spend, we have a deadline to spend this money by the June 30th of 2020. And the challenge has been with that timeframe is that until we had well testing done and knew what the chlorate and the methane concentration was, we couldn't size the methane strip. The method stripper sizing is what controls the size of the building we're putting it in, and so there's a lot of stuff, you know, there's the kind of forwarding that we have data on what to, what we're designing, so that we didn't design something and end up doing it. So at this point, the Well, Jeremy, before he left, informed the funding agency that this grant, $112 million grant, can be used to drill a new well, provided the hydrogeologist determines that one of the existing wells can't be used, which we've met that criteria.

And a $112 million grant can only be used to make the water, maybe a lot of land, right?

No. Well, I don't know. That's not what it was awarded for.

Well, the grant agreement is very specific.

We would have to negotiate. I don't know what to turn it on. I just wondered why we have a functional water system now that's actually meeting most of our needs. We have a grant for $1.2 million. If we can use that money to update Wells 103, that's great, but I'm just wondering why we're not thinking, why aren't we talking, why aren't we thinking about connecting to McMinn to Waterline as soon as possible? I honestly wonder why we're not doing that.

Okay, so go for it. So a couple things. When we went out for the grant, we couldn't get, there we go. Correct me if I'm wrong, those who were here at the same time, but we could not, What we applied to would not be applicable for necessarily a tie-in. What we applied to, even just the funding source itself, if I remember correctly, it was just built differently than what that idea was for. And so when we were looking at applying for this, HAB-Masyn Moyer- We had to do something with the with the fish and farmers, because the only viable option for the application my remembering that incorrectly or correct this this this money actually wasn't a direct appropriation by the legislature yeah.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- The last long session and. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You know, the legislature appropriated it said this, there are there are basically a word they want to do it. HAB-Masyn Moyer- It to the back stage. in order to distribute that money, they distributed it through one of their state agencies. And for what, however it came to pass, when it went to the legislature, the legislature approved it, they approved this $1.2 million for the expansion of the groundwater source on the Fisher-Boss property in the city of Dayton. And If there's really no way that you can get a project with that part of my put together and constructed. Within the next.

And you need to have a great study a huge rip say because my understanding that's not that inexpensive to get water here they're going to charge us an arm and an F in life with price.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- We have had elementary discussions sat down with my partner and why and they have indicated that they are willing to enter into discussions and see date. HAB-Masyn Moyer- To extend their their point four inch pipeline along highway team up to a point where you can kind of you should probably be a lot faster. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And they've indicated that they would design and construct that pipeline similar when they did a lot yet but. Then they will essentially, they front the money, but then they charge the city of Dayton, you pay it off over time. The cost for doing that is not inexpensive. I don't know what, off the top of my head, what Lafayette ended up paying, but it was quite substantial. The one advantage with Dayton, Lafayette also had to build a pump station You know, when the pressure, because backwater light, the water pressure at the end of the backwater lights pipeline is lower than the pressure in Lafayette when they connected it. So they had to go to the booster pump station, pump it over to Lafayette, through their system up to their reservoir at some point in the mountain. We don't have, we don't need a postage. It would just be a direct tie-in And you need more treatment. It will go back through the treatment plant and over to the treatment plant where we have a ground storage room.

So we have a 1.2 million. We should use it. That I think is correct. But I think we should be getting on MACR as soon as you may be possible.

Do I disagree with your whole heart? Here's why. A regional If we do a regional water facility, there are going to be more people to put into the bucket, meaning less money for us to put out. Exactly.

So if we connect our MAC water, we have to, we're going to be, I mean, they have a contract with Lafayette, right? Did you hear what I just said, though? Yeah. But that's the water. So MAC water is owned by the water authority.

HAB-Juliette Boone, No, it is owned by the city. Right.

HAB-Juliette Boone, But they're going to charge it separate from the city. It's a utility. It's a water and electric utility district. It was established HAB-Juliette Boone, Yeah, yes. And they're independent from the city of McMinnville. But they're, you know, they're out there. So like the fire, the Dayton Fire District is affiliated with the city, but it's not part of the city. So in 15 years, what's it going to cost us to get water?

What makes you think it's going to be from there, though?

Where are you going to get your water? Are we going to carry the pail from Willamette?

Yeah, they're talking about cutting into the Willamette. That's what the whole regional water facility is about.

But the transmission lines are going to be somewhere. I'm talking about that.

But again, why do I want to make all customers pay up front now for that down the road? But part of it is this gives us time for funding.

So maybe we can apply it.

If we can find funding for the Mac project, we should have a Mac. That's my opinion. And I'm going to stand with that, regardless of what it is. That's fine. Yeah.

I'm not saying that that's...

I think it's true that our fish and farms is treating ourselves in a funny way. I... You know, if we can get it for the $1.2 million, then spend the money. But this isn't our future. And every day... Nobody thinks it's their future.

But, you know, time isn't standing still.

Yeah. It's not what it cost us 10 years ago to do this. We're not getting 20 times that. Do you think it's going to be any different years from now? Let's just talk about this.

What happens in the next year? We have 10 days of 90 plus degree weather and they're using water and using water. And we have to keep putting people on restrictions or dare I say, Other thing you're going to be in that same position if we develop well running three if we're going to have a little bit more water.

Which allows us some that's not our future, I would like to move towards our future now it's what that's not.

Yes, yeah so I think that we're all in agreement that the regional water authority back water like solution is the long term solution so part of the variables here that. That are important to bring up things like you know, part of our well supply a shared. And so a lot of it's been, you know, historically very generous in allowing us to use the entirety of it, but it's not shared. Well, yeah, we do have our MOU, but that's five-year MOU. And so that's not to say they won't come back and say, we want your water because it's cheaper than the whole, we could get really the weeds on that topic, but let's probably do that in the weeds. But at least at this point in time, but you know, what this does is it allows us some security for the next 10 to 15 years. And it allows us to comment. I don't see it.

I don't see that through at all. Because what we're looking at is inflation is rapid these days. And that's not coming down on you.

Yeah. Okay, so I'm in agreement with updating wells one and three. I think that makes all the sense in the world as far as the piping, the pumps, and getting it where it's pumping at its premium levels. I do have a question in regards to a relationship with Lafayette. and how the water flows. And this is just out of sheer curiosity. If they can pull water from us when they need to, could we pull water from them? Basically, if Mack Water and Light is pumping water into their tanks, could we not draw from them, if need be, if we needed maybe a pump? I don't know how that works.

It doesn't work that way. Denny, would you like to explain to him?

Yeah. And this goes back 20 years ago, 20 plus years ago, when Dayton and Lafayette, and this is prior to our tenure, so I'm just, you know, when I learned. Dayton and Lafayette entered into a partnership to develop the well, the existing well at the airport and build a joint water treatment plant. They also built the, as part of that project, they built the Dayton Reservoir. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Of which why he has the right to pump water out of that present more essentially access to their problems. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Because the two cities when jointly and develop the the well field wells and one treatment plan that project for that portion of the project is jointly on. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Though the rest of getting system watershed area. And the rest of Lafayette system, their in-town system and their watershed area is not owned by the other city. The only portion that's owned jointly is the well fields and the water treatment plant. And that's the only water. The water produced by that portion of the system is the only water that is to be jointly used by the two cities. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Right, there is no piping configuration your water from Lafayette to date, even if you said he's wanting to take that approach. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Or some very significant piping and valid reconfigure the water treatment plan which the year and a half ago, we actually looked at and figured out what it would take to do that back when you guys had the big major leak and you couldn't keep up. We looked at what would it take to do an emergency in our time. Once the leak was identified and fixed, that project got put on the shelf. And there had been discussions at that point on an emergency temporary basis for uh, Dayton to back feed water from Lafayette's system into anywhere reasonable, but only to, only to during this emergency situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that, in order to do that, it would, it would have, if we went that way, required Lafayette to basically turn the water off to their supply, turn it on to our supply. And so it's not, you couldn't function both simultaneously. It was one or the other, in addition to all of the other, you know, losses. Um,

They just required us to enter in an agreement with Lafayette, McMinnville, and the City of Dayton to make sure that everybody was covered under whatever agreement would have came out of that.

So yes, I mean, that option was explored during that emergency situation, but there is nothing in place right now for them to take water from The only place Lafayette can pull water from is from the reservoir that is fed by the water treatment plant. The reservoirs that are up in the watershed, which also feed Dayton's system, there is no physical way that Lafayette can have access to that water. Because once again, there is no piping configuration between your in-town system when it's being fed by the watershed to where their pumps are. So there are separate systems except for that joint supply, supply wells, the treatment plant, and the sewerage response.

Gretchen, did you have something you wanted to add?

One thing I'm noticing in her time too, I mean, when we went to Lafayette and talked to them about it, it had so many costs associated with it. It was, it was not, it was not realistic. On top of all the different aspects of it, just what they were asking for us to pay in addition to this was pretty high.

That's not a good partnership.

Yeah. For that. right now. Because we're going back. Welles 1, 3. Design for, see where that gets us. Then Welle 4 slash 5, depending on the terminology. Well, for now, we're spending a grant.

Yeah. Yeah, I wouldn't, I would not vote for that at all. Yeah. And truthfully, I think we're looking short term, really short term, not 15 years, but I think we're looking a lot shorter term than that in this whole project. And we're also shooting ourselves in the foot that we're really, limiting what our ability is to develop, to be honest with you. I mean, we may be able to take care of the current needs in Dayton, but we're always going to be mired in this, you know, general fund deficit and struggling with money until we can actually get some development in here and catch up with Mac and Lafayette and Newport. The reason those municipalities are thriving is because they have created situations where they have been agents for people to come and develop. And I'm not pro let everybody have everything. But right now, what we're doing is saying, okay, we can keep what we got, but we're not going to be able to do anything. And I think that our future lies sooner within the next four or five years, for sure, if we can find the funding for it. I mean, then later, 15 years for me, it's like, okay, the world's going to look a whole lot different in 15 years. It's going to be a whole lot more expensive in 15 years. And those wells, we're going to be having our back against the wall for those wells reaching the end of their lives in 15 years, conceivably. And so we're really looking at a very, very myopic view of Dayton's growth, honestly.

So everybody's on board with doing wells one and three? Yeah. Yeah, 100%. Okay. Is that the direction you need from assessment? It is. Thank you. You need to move further.

the desire to interconnect with Backwater Light as part of the, in whatever form, as part of the regional system has been something that's been in the planning documents since the 2011 Water Master Plan was put in place. There was a significant discussion in there regarding how, you know, potential ways that that could happen, but the recommendation was that the city pursue that when the when those opportunities. And I think the city has been moving toward that. I would encourage them, you know, in a separate from the question is before the Council today. But I mean, as your as your city engineer, I would encourage the city to keep those discussions going with backwater light. regarding the intertie, and at least figure out what the parameters would be and what the cost would be so that you can make an informed decision. Is this the time to move forward with this, or do we need to hold off for a little bit longer or not?

Didn't they present to us like a month and a half to note their present and costs?

Yes, they did. HAB-Juliette Boone, You did the resolution of support.

HAB-Juliette Boone, And i've been. HAB-Juliette Boone, Nobody saying we don't want to do that, but we still want some backup measure, in the meantime, so.

HAB-Juliette Boone, Just clarification from the Council with respect to your direction your overall consensus if it wells, one of the three were producing water and lucky came back and to the regional part into our partnership. and decided that they wanted to exercise their right to pull as much water as 100%, which, again, we recognize they can under their legal agreement. And please, for the purposes of this discussion, remember that an at-home view is not a legally enforceable doubt in the state of Oregon. So would your position be the same? So your position be the same for spending the 1.2.

Yes. Developing.

Well, well, if Lafayette was pulling.

Well, absolutely.

It would be the same.

It would be the same.

Yeah. I'm not, I'm not on this project at all. I have been funding, but spending on what we've got. I think we should just be about Facebook. Since we get that up and running, I think we should be pursuing funding and really getting the nuts and bolts together to hook up to a more permanent one. I honestly do. And I'll always, I mean, I've looked at this long and hard, thought about it at night and about that. And that's where I set my head then.

And please know that they are already taking our resolution. I've spoken with John. They're working through their process to have all of their members affirm the Dayton's participation regionally. And they're going to be getting back to us Actually, I'm going to be going on a tour of their watershed. So I'll be reporting back to you all periodically as this progresses forward. So that's happening in the background for sure. Simultaneously.

All right. Are we ready to move on?

I think it's important to spend that 1.2. So we get 1 and 3 and then You know, if there's leftovers, we've got to use them for our water. So how... That's it.

So we just start progressing. Now we're going to move everything into design, get a big package out on the street, you know, bring that back to you all, and start spending this money.

Yeah. I had a clarification question I just remembered I meant to ask earlier. So Denny, with the methane strippers, whatever they are, official terminology. So you were saying that you have to see what the flow is from a well in order to judge how big of the methane strippers you should get and then the housing size and all that. So we only know the flow on 1.3. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Does that mean that well for hypothetically wouldn't need it entirely separate housing and separate strippers or we upsize those based off of the best guests.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Know the game plan has always been to have a separate stripper. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Finger side gotcha. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The conceptual discussion early on this process was how many wells does the city plan to throw on. that well-filled property. If the city had unlimited resources and you could drill three or four wells on that property, you would size the stripper to serve that well field. Or you could do an individual stripper for each wells. Out of the airport wells, well-filled wells, there was an individual methane stripper at each well site. Part of the reason for that is that those wells are spaced very far apart. And back in 2004 when it was being designed, they determined that it was not economically viable to run separate pipelines between the wells and have a big stripper. And also the control methodology would be tough because you'd have to look at, you know, which wells you run in and stuff. It's much simpler if you just, you know, keep some A small number of wells or a single well that is going through that circuit because the wells in and on were off. And so that holds true in the specifics of the plan for it.

Yeah. It's more economical that it go to the same housing.

Well, three is the larger of the two wells on the small. Well, one, we've decided that it's big enough to utilize, but it's still fairly small in comparison to well three's production rate. We're going to run a pipeline over from well one over to the well three side into that common stripper. And then the game plan is that when you want to be producing water from that, the controls tell two wells to kick on. And then the control system says we want this much water from well three and this much water from well one. And those two wells run until They get a signal from the reservoir and water treatment plant saying, hey, the reservoir's full. We don't need any more water. Shut it off.

So what do you think would be more expensive? I'm just kind of looking at ideas. Does it make sense for us to drill long-term if we get through 1.3 and then the finances kick in? Does it make sense for us to drill well for without having the housing and the piping in place, or does it make sense for us to have the piping, the housing, and the methane stripper in place and not have the well? Because then we have an old well for however long without being used, or does it make sense to have the methane stripper and the piping in place and then take a new well whenever we want?

Well, the challenge is that if you were to build a well for methane stripper and booster pump, you would be guessing what the production rate of the well would be. Yeah, that's an unknown. We don't, I mean, there are some preliminary tests, testing that was done on the existing wall floor, but nobody has a super high level of confidence in that because of the condition of the metal. It appears from that preliminary testing that was done, some of which was done back in 2015, the other that was done in the spring, that the production rate on that from the new wells should be similar to what Weld 3 is. Possibly, I mean, it could be hotter. We don't know until you put the hole in the ground and test them. And the second thing is, is we don't know what the methane concentration is. And it does vary, even on the small fisher farms property, the methane concentration varies between the different wells on that side. And it also varies when you get out by the airport. All the water has methane in it. It's just different concentrations. So what's most reliable is to dig the well and then it would be a tremendous risk to try to handle the methane stripper piping and pumps and everything before you do what the well was going to produce.

I ran out of time in my hour earlier, so I'm asking Alex.

All right. We're ready to move on to the next item.

This is our representative.

I said when I needed to say this afternoon, it seems like my questions have been answered. The only thing that's left, any part of what we're doing here, can it be built with the thought that we It'll be available later to do the tie-in? Or do we have to just build this for right now? Can we do any advanced prep here so we don't have to rebuild it in a few years? That would be my only question.

This is entirely separate from the tie-in. Yeah. Because now I'm going back almost 20 years here. Early on, there had been discussions about doing a inner time with my car like over by airport. We have a robot for water pipeline runs from the intersection of airport road out there, you know, if I all the way in Dayton. At that point by the Council at the time I can't I can't use that existing pipeline. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Take water from Apple or life do the inner title there and the short answer is, you could use that that pipeline as a finished water pipeline, but you cannot use it as a raw water pipeline and the finished one pipeline. HAB-Jacques Juilland- The other guy because one one is treated water, the other is is not. and you would not run treated water from that water line through the pressure filters of water treatment plant. It would not work out at all. And so where these wells are sited, the raw water pipeline runs along Ferry Street or the Amity Dade Highway and right out at the front of the frontage of these two Fisher Farms properties. We're going to build the methane stripper. We're going to well pump the water out of the ground into the methane stripper, blows air through it, strips the dissolved methane out of it. Then a booster pump pumps it the short distance from the stripper tank and injects it into the raw water pipeline, which then goes to the water treatment plant, goes through the pressure filters and into the reservoir at the treatment plant site. And they're treated. After it's been treated. So no matter how you slice it here, the fisher farms, they truly are the groundwater supply source. They don't have anything to do with the finished water system, which would be what you would be building or connecting with an aqua water device system.

But you have that type of bathtub, so you don't have going untreated water into a pipe that could be used for finished water at some point?

Well, there is no interconnection between...

When you connect, will you valve off the other stove or preserve it? You won't have to rebuild another line through there? I'm not sure I understand the question. Well, we're connecting to a line that's right now of finished water, right?

No. We're connecting to an all-water pipe. Oh, okay. Right in front of you. the air door at Wellfield and Wells. So there's a common pipeline that comes, all five Wellfield and Wells go up into that at different points when it comes back to the treatment plant. We're two-thirds of the way between Wellfield and Wells and the treatment plant. We're just tying into that same groundwater pipeline.

None of that water is treated until it gets to the treatment plant at the end of the day. But I thought I thought it was a fish water line and was actually running up to somewhere in.

Well, yeah.

Well, there's another one that's coming.

There is a finishing water pipeline that runs by national people in Lafayette. But that's on the other side of all this, you know, property for more than one time, but we don't know. There are good questions because.

last thing we want to do is that decision to be made based on inactive exemptions page 101 the updated water transmission line conflict that forgot project thank you so uh

I communicated with you all last month, and we briefly touched on, as part of the city manager's report earlier this month as well, we've had a series of communications with ODOT. So my predecessor communicated with them about a meeting that happened in July, asking a series of questions, and then At the end of July, we invited them to come meet with us here in Dayton. It was a good meeting. What has come out of all of this communication is just an understanding of the fact that ODOT now has a full project on Highway 99. They had originally intended to deal with corridor safety. improvement, and it seemed like it was going to be based on the availability of funding. And the intersection improvements were what the Dayton team had been told would happen first, because that's what they were going to design and believe they had construction funding adequate to complete. And then very, very recently they received some federal funding that allowed the entire project, including HAB-Masyn Moyer- Around about traffic circle at. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The mcdougall junction to accelerate so now the whole project, including around about is going out there, and while they intend to construct the intersection improvements first. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Which will give us a little bit of time to try to throw the money together necessary to resolve the utility conflict with the water transmission line it's not that much so. We believe that it would be in our best interest to have that line moved in fall of 2027. So you have about 12 months to figure out how to do that. And so as a result, one of the things that I wanted to make sure we talked about was just the strategy for financing that project. Available funding sources, the fact that I'm looking for a sign and consensus from the Council to utilize West tech to to site evaluation and design or. We really need to get that moving and we can't wait to get a grant as you all are aware that there's a great deal of risk financial risk associated because the. Grants typically do not allow for reimbursement of expenses that were inferred prior to the agreement being fully executed. Even if you are successful with the grant that I presented to you all that I'd like to go after that's due in September, we're probably not going to have a fully executed grant agreement until January. And we really need to have the design done. But we'd like to be able to go out to bid at that time. So there is going to be some expense that is likely going to be borne by the city and non-reimbursable. We'll be looking for your support as well and trying to get letters for any projects that we submit. I'll be providing you with information about that. So any grants that we do submit, we're going to be looking for letters of support from our state reps. from our congressional representatives, as well, if you have those kinds of relationships. And I am going to be going to an infrastructure summit to talk about funding and financing options. Obviously, the ones that I will be pursuing and recommending to the council will be the ones that do not require us to be paying them back. The free money is what we will be pursuing first. If you had any specific technical questions about the alignment, I think there are a lot of good questions that came up in our briefings. Staff report really goes into detail about the costs that Denny put together. Those very preliminary cost estimates are based on some assumptions around specific alignments. And there are a lot of constraints. So we may have to come back to you and refine those cost estimates as we learn more over the next months. But that, again, is something that needs to be done immediately. We can't wait to find a funding source. So, Denny, was there anything that you wanted to highlight that I didn't cover?

I think we pretty much covered it. Good question. So for this, the transmission line that we're moving, we're also upgrading the size to a 12-inch line, right? Yes. From an 8-inch line. Is that an already upgraded line?

From the 90s.

From the 90s. Because we had part of the transmission line that was upgraded to an increased size for flow through the springs, right? But some was not yet upgraded, right?

Let me run through what has been upgraded. First, let me tell you where the system runs from. Way over to the top of the watershed is the springs. There's a pipeline that comes down from there down to the watershed reservoirs. And then from the watershed reservoirs, there's a pipeline that comes down and passes the bugles wells and on into town, comes across the utility bridge that way. That we recently finished up. That original, the majority of that pipeline was a spring. Dipped and wrapped Spiegel's pipeline that was put in the 1930s. In 2013, I believe it was, the city got some funding. They did a design for a pipeline for the pipeline replacement to a new 12 inch line from the reservoirs down to the Spiegel wells. When the bids were open, we had enough money to build about half of that. So we built a lower segment from about halfway across the field up there. between the reservoirs and the wells, from that point down to the wells, and that's the higher pressure portion of the system, and also the portion that went down through the ravine and was in the worst shape. So yes, a portion of that watershed line has been done, but that's from the Google wells halfway up to the reservoirs. And the other portion that has been replaced now is the portion from the PRB station by Lagoon's across the new utility bridge in the town.

Okay. So we really need to connect DuPont 1 and 2 with the section next to the Lagoon. Like that's the other piping. Ask the question again. So the not yet upgraded piping is between the Lagoon And then the wells, McDougal 1 and 2? Yeah. So then what we're moving is not new piping, it's old piping.

What we're moving is the portion essentially from railroad tracks onto across Highway 99 and onto McDougal Road. Perfect. The original pipe was put in in the 1930s. In the early 90s, I think it was 1992, From the railroad tracks, just south of the railroad tracks, across Highway 99 over to McDougal Road. The portion we're replacing is that 1992 pipeline, not the original 1930s pipeline.

But it still impacts flow because it's 8-inch, right? So we've got 12-inch pipe from 1 and 2 to the reservoir, and we've got 12-inch pipe from the pools in the town, but we've got 8-inch pipe between? Yeah.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, so then we're ever in this section to the 12 inch pipe and and we'll set it on each and set it up so this when the additional money is to be able to be able to go back to about and continue this replacement both ways.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- So that's cool because i'm thinking i'm trying to send a water conversation to my head Okay, you know, yes, anytime golden wrong but. you know, if we, for whatever reason, get enough funding to upgrade this transmission line as an option, what would a 12-inch pipe do for us versus an 8-inch pipe if it's the entire length?

It will not get you any more water because you're limited by the amount of water that the springs produce and the wells produce and the reservoirs can store. Right now, that 8-inch pipeline will let about a maximum of 300 gallons a minute. That's 260 to 300 gallons a minute we get through the PRV station into the tank system and down. Because of the friction losses, we're gonna get a long, long eight-inch pipeline. The 12-inch pipeline will allow us to get the water from the watershed reservoirs that head down at a much higher flow rate. We should be able to move about a thousand gallons a minute, which is our fix. So the underlying goal behind the water master plan recommendations is this concept of water system and water storage resilience. If something happened and you had a, I mean, think of the worst case scenario, a water treatment plant blew up in the reservoir next to it without a service. for some extended period of time, you might be able to go on super severe water restriction to keep people in drinking water in town, but you wouldn't have firefills anywhere in town. The intent is, is that you can, by upsizing that pipeline, you can at least, in a worst case scenario, be able to provide firefills from two different directions into town.

So though an unfortunate situation having a booba pipe with silver linings, we get a better pipe. Silver linings.

Very expensive silver linings.

Yeah, very expensive silver linings. The deadline. Yeah, the deadline.

Fast deadline. Turns out we aren't the only ones in the need of moving our stuff. Is there a way that we could work with some of those other ones? Would it be more cost-efficient if we all did this together? Is it even possible? So we're not doing everything alone.

I mean, there are other utilities that are moving, but they're private. We are the public utility that I'm aware of that's in conflict.

Yeah, there's nobody else moving pipelines out there. I mean, the other utilities that are moving is the power company. There's a gas main that runs along Highway 59. And then the various communication companies, Sibley, Comcast, well, 105, they keep buying each other. But there's three or four or five other utilities out there that we refer to in town as franchise utilities. that are relocating their lines as well. But they're either, like PGE is relocating their overhead power lines and setting new power poles out there. Some of the communication companies where they can go overhead and hang on PGE's new poles, they're gonna do that. But there is a fair amount of underground fiber optic lines that run through that intersection as well. And they're relocating those underground fire lines, the new alignments, in advance of the ODOT project. It's a completely different type and class of work than what the city is doing. So there's no other cities or any other entities that are having to redo water pipelines in that area.

No, keep it open. Keep it open. Oh, well. If not.

If not.

So that was a good thought. Oh, thank you. All right. Anybody else have anything on this topic? Is there anything you need from us? Other than direction.

Just looking for consensus that we can begin developing the grants. Because by the time I see you in a regular meeting on September 8th, that grant will be pretty much done.

Okay.

I just want to make sure you all are comfortable with that. And also comfortable with the fact that we're going to be bringing back budget supplemental items to increase West Tech's 26-27 funding plan to assist with this. That's really all I'm looking for.

From the general.

From the general. Well, I mean, if we can find a way to bring it in from the water fund, we will. Because it's allocated right now.

It's allocated across.

The work is allocated across various funds. All right. Page 117 for potential property acquisition discussion.

Okay. So I mean, before I tell him.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- 11 so. HAB-Masyn Moyer- One of the things that I was looking at was your parks master plan and the strategic what the goals and strategies that the Council has adopted and asking for implementation of, and so it just happened that a few days. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Well, a few days last week I started looking at. Whether or not there was any property in the city of Dayton's UGB that was in foreclosure, either a tax foreclosure or mortgage foreclosure. And starting with tax foreclosure. And so we were able to identify your illustrious team at the city. We started pulling together some documents and I was in communication with the assessor And we learned that there were two properties that appeared to be good candidates for acquisition with a little more research. And then over the weekend, I was able to determine that they are actually going up for auction on 28th of August. So we're looking for some consensus from the council that the two parcels, one of which is already zoned public, the other of which is zoned R2 with a floodplain overlay, both adjacent to an existing recreational area, neither a buildable parcel in a floodplain, but would potentially be good for passive park or recreational use. But this is something that the council believes is in furtherance of their goals and strategies around recreation

and um bringing people to the area for recreational purposes um i think that it makes total sense to jump in jump on this property i know it's since it's not available but it's possible we can do trails and there's ways that we can use it as a city um and i So I'm assuming that you want us to give you a range of what you can bid at said auction or how is that?

It's a great question because I can't find any evidence that you all have ever done this. And so I reached out to our city attorney and to the city planner. They said, interesting. Don't really know much about it, but let me look into it. It's doable. It's allowable. And, um, It's just a matter of what level of risk you all are comfortable with as well. Because as I mentioned in the staff report, these types of properties are auctioned as is. So doing due diligence is difficult. I mean, we'll do the best that we can, obviously, between now and then. But the amount, the opening bids are provided to you in your packets. If it's the preference of the council that we make one bid That's it. That's fine. I would like to give a range that you think is reasonable to go up to in order to zero to 100. In order to try to acquire the parcel, that's also fine. It's really honestly, I'm out of my depth in this one. I've never done anything like this and I don't know what the right answer is. I just know that time is of the essence and HAB-Masyn Moyer- And also, we have very limited budget, so I want to be respectful of that as well, because these are not parcels that are going to be. HAB-Masyn Moyer- buildable utilized for anything other than a passive part of that which.

HAB-Terry Palmos- I got a lot to say on this one, so just to clarify for the originally listed are to parcels that are actually public we have clarification on. What is able to be done on a public zone space versus an R2 zone space, generally? Out of curiosity.

Well, thank you. These two properties, part of the challenge is the one that's small and public. It's literally the bank of the river. Totally. And it's 8 to 12 feet below the nine-year flood level. Not even asking about these two, though. Just generally out of curiosity. Probably generally... Stonie Cooper- In public, so the public, so you can build parks and public buildings and stuff. Stonie Cooper- Residential you're limited to simply building housing. Okay. And there are two is your is statements medium density residential zone, you have our one or two or three or three is more for like apartments identity. residential development. R1 is single-family homes. R2 is like a duplex. Duplexes, triplexes. I'm not a planner, so I don't know to what level it allows, but it's medium density residential, but you're limited to that type of development and associated improvements.

So I'm going to zigzag a little bit, but we're going to come back together here in a second. Bear with me. This is all going to make sense in a minute. So when it comes to zoning, can a city decide, if I own something that's a certain designation and I want to change it to another designation, can the city just say no? There's a process. There's a process. So is it a relatively difficult process? Yes. Perfect. So the reason I'm kind of going down this pathway, the original map here that shows R2 for those front four parcels, where did that map come from?

It was online.

Okay.

It was a county map.

County map. So our Dayton map supersedes the county map?

It was just an older, it was an inaccurate map.

For sure. But would the Dayton map supersede the county map?

You only have land use authority here.

They have land use authority here?

Not inside the city limits. It's the city of Dayton. Dayton's code and zoning designations control. Okay. When you're outside of city limits, the county's zoning designations control.

So now you're going to ask. Now I'm going to ask. So does an appraisal take zoning into effect? Okay. Do we know when the date and landing appraisal which zoning they use? Yeah, we'll get it back down. Because if I'm a buyer, I'm looking at appraised value of land, I'm going to appraise R2 higher than purple, personally, based off of usage. So where I'm getting at here is I think date and landing being publicly zoned instead of R2 zoned, changes the conversation with the county and title about that space.

We can review the appraisal, but it was done under the assumption that it is public property when the appraisal was done. We can look back at the documents, but my understanding is that it was done in the understanding that it was public.

Excellent. Okay. Because it might be good for us individually as a union, we're having HAB-Masyn Moyer- To make sure that everybody in this conversation within this room and not in this room are aware of that because there may be curiosity about usage of that space that may not be possible based off of the actual zone. HAB-Masyn Moyer- So you're talking about the lantern or the R2 plot? HAB-Masyn Moyer- Talking about the lantern. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Oh. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Because to me, this all ties into one thing. For me, the public space that's zoned against the river, the R2 space that's zoned tucked back, That is all part of a landing park that we have as a long-term goal.

May I offer something? Please. I believe that's in the floodplain. I don't think anybody can build in there anyway. That one over there, walk that property. It isn't. And you walk, you enter the property, how slow it goes down. And I happen to know it's under eight feet of water. Yes. It's not a buildable lot. And so therefore, it's not a buildable lot because it's a wet zone or it's a floodplain. It's not a buildable lot. They're kind of innovating the building.

Exactly. And to Councilor Pearson's point, make a great space for trails, things like that. So if our goal is to end up essentially having that entire area as a city park, to me, this is a shoo-in. It is. Yeah, I agree. It is.

That was a very long way to my opinion.

Since it's near the river, we'll all go in over our heads.

We know you'll get there.

Yeah.

And we...

Me to dodge. Not me, I just take a punch. Interesting conversations.

I like the idea of $2,000 capping it.

Bid as much as you want all the way up.

Up to $2,000.

I hope I figure out how to do it.

So do you have a cap for each property or do you want just a $2,000 overall?

Did you say something, Chris?

No.

Oh, okay. What is your opinion, Chris, since you have a fair amount of knowledge about these kinds of things?

I'm with Drew on this one. I think the opportunity is right there for us, especially that larger lot and the trails. It would absolutely tie into the rest of the nature trail down the road. As far as going for it and capping it, I'd Yeah, I'd say maybe start, because what, the larger lot, they're saying 680, I don't have it right for me.

I think there's a minimum bid.

Yeah, start there. I don't think we're going to have very many people out there bidding on these things. So I think we got a really good shot.

Everything will always start to work our way.

We could conceivably get the whole thing for 708. Yeah. Oh, that's right. Yeah.

Okay, so that's good. Did you have anything? No. Well, maybe we can put, you know, one. Well, we'll leave things in there someday. Yeah. Well, not necessarily.

Not if they can put plants.

like wooden planks that you can actually rope on. They do that in the national forests.

If the council is interested in acquiring that larger parcel, I don't know that it is a safe assumption to assume that everybody's going to realize that that's in a floodplain and it's not developable. We have some, there's some other property here in town over by 2nd and- Oh, that one. That has changed hands a number of times there. And I mean, somebody will buy it, come in and sit down with the city and say, hey, I want to go find houses on here. We say, well, you got this little tiny corner of one block that, you know, half of the block that's above the flood level. You can build on that. The other ones are down in floodplain. They're not- they're not gullible about raising the whole property of, which anymore is almost impossible to do. But we sit down and talk to somebody and give them all the documentation. Next thing we know, they turned around and sold it or put it on the market. The city gets half a dozen or a dozen phone calls from potential buyers that kind of look at the property, they call the city, the city gives them this information and they walk away. But then there's somebody who doesn't ask the questions and looks at it and goes, oh, this looks great, and they buy it. Then they come in and sit down with the city and find out what the real thing is. So I guess the only thing I'm saying on that is there may be somebody that looks at this and doesn't ask questions, it's sold as is, and is willing to bid several thousand dollars for it. So if the city wants to buy it, wants to acquire that property, I'm just saying, and I'm not telling you what to use as your upper limit, but I wouldn't, I don't think it would be safe to assume that everybody is going to look at it through the same lens that the city has that in.

So inform them when it comes up for bid. To be clear, this is the floodplain property, right? Just making sure I want to, I'm looking at the right one. This is the one in the floodplain. I don't think it's like a live auction like that. Seriously, it's a live auction. I would say it.

Isn't it a live auction? Yeah, you should come with me though.

I will. Seriously, I will be there.

I'll coordinate. I got no issue. No, he doesn't. That's not beautiful, right?

Let me add on to this. Okay. We let somebody come along and buy it, and they figure out they can't do anything with it, then we buy it from them.

Well, it'll be the same situation that we're in. They won't pay their property taxes because they'll realize they can't build on it, and they'll go back into its tax structure. And that's why we have this piece of property coming.

Yeah, I think we should do what we can, within reason. Well, congrats for funding me.

So you think it should be a higher amount?

Well, I know the original number that you guys had in here originally was $5,000. So let's do $5,000. It got dropped down to $2,000. I don't know how much money you guys have available. I'm just saying that unless there's a way to educate people Maybe you show up there with an excerpt from a FEMA flood map and say, I'll bring it back.

Well, find out if it's a live thing. If it is, then I can bring it back. You've got to go.

Bring out the FEMA flood maps and present them.

I'm going to have it off.

I'll be there.

Not even kidding.

I've got nothing scheduled. It's a problem. Yes, it was a problem.

So it is conceivable and probable that somebody, even though it's steep, somebody could build a house on stilts on the upper corner.

We need it for a bathroom for our car. They can't.

It's actually pretty good. Yeah, I would want to be in there on that. So for somebody who may think that they could do that. Yeah. I mean, do you guys know where Elizabeth Fort is? Right next to the high school? Mm-hmm. There is a lot, a legal lot down there where a bank drops off that's been a legal lot since 1998 or something. That's been sitting there. Somebody could come in and build on it, build a house on pilings or stilts or whatever and build a house there. So at least a couple of times a year, the city gets inquiries from potential buyers now. If somebody has owned it for a long, long time and pays the taxes on it and potentially might sell it to somebody who will actually own the house. So if somebody buys it, if somebody's owned it for a long time already, they just now don't pay their taxes on it.

But that's a protected area, right? Is that a protected area or is that just on a floodplain?

Right now, it's a floodplain. But remember, we're also having the local wetland inventory that's starting. So I don't know if that's going to change.

I don't think there's going to be wetlands on that, because it's a somewhat fairly steep slope. I wouldn't be surprised if there were. Well, the bulk of it's on the flood.

That'd be creepy. If you walk that, which I just did, it's just a steep back. It's very steep. And I almost kept myself going out against the road. Yeah.

That's what Peter said. There are numbers between $2,000 and $5,000. We would like to give her permission to go higher than $2,000, but maybe not as high as $5,000. So I mean, I think maybe we should say $3,000 or $35,000, something like that.

Any combination of the properties or one? Any combination. Any combination. Yeah.

And I guess technically, do you only get one of them?

Yeah. The one over by the bridge, it's literally nothing there. I mean, you could put a dock there, I guess.

Yeah, it's the bank where people fish.

Put a dock with people and kayaks.

Sure, people down there.

Yeah, they just fish off a dock back to people. Cool. So was that suggestion three?

I suggested three.

Cool.

I'd rather go with four. Four.

42.

Give her a limit from zero to five and just make sure you get it and try not to spend five. Only spend two if you can. Okay.