July 29, 2004
Council Accepts Report Of Independent Reservoir Panel
Burial Rejected (For Now), Temporary Measures To Be Enacted
If you checked OPB News yesterday or The Oregonian today (although their "City Council Watch" hasn't been posted online), you know that the City Council yesterday unanimously voted to accept the report of the Mt. Tabor Independent Review Panel.
In doing so, the Council buried the plan to bury the reservoirs and embarked upon a program of interim enhanced security and infrastructure investments (pdf). Here's part of what OPB News reported yesterday:
The council's temporary plan would spend about $400,000 on cameras and security at the Mount Tabor and Washington Park reservoirs. That's a switch for the council, which originally voted to bury the reservoirs to keep the water supply safe.
Commissioner Dan Saltzman voted for the plan, although he still things burial is the way to go.
And on the subject of that temporary plan, today's Oregonian says: "Additional money will be spent on sensors to detect when critical areas have been breached, video cameras for remote monitoring, vehicle access controls, clearing away brush around the reservoir perimeters and other security measures."
What follows, then, is our best reconstruction of the discussion before City Council yesterday leading up to the adoption of the resolution (pdf). For easy reference to the salient points, we also have a presentation on the resolution and "next steps" (pdf) which was made available at yesterday's Council session but was not actually presented during testimony.
According to Commissioner Saltzman as he introduced the resolution, adoption would bring with it several things. It would: Complete the work of the Independent Review Panel; bring an end to all contracts relating to the Open Reservoir Replacement Project; start the City towards developing a mitigation plan to be developed by Portland Parks & Recreation, the Portland Police Bureau, and residents; halt the capping of Washington Park reservoirs with floating covers; and implement an interim plan for security.
"It is clear to me," Saltzman said, "that the ultimate decision ... will not be decided until this Federal rule in finalized." One of the sticking points which helped scuttle the burial project was the fact that an expected Federal rule which the City argued would in essence require burial does not yet actually exist, and likely will not be finalized for at least another year.
The interim plan, Saltzman said, was developed by the Water Bureau, Parks & Recreation, and the Police Bureau, but ultimately doesnot meet the security needs. "[It's] merely common sense first steps to minimizing risks."
In addition to the security measures, according to Morteza Anoushiravani, director of the Water Bureau, the plan contained in the resolution would require "putting into place ... some deferred maintenance," an issue that had come up during the deliberations of the Independent Review Panel. He listed the basics of the interim plan, which we mentioned above, which include an increase in the security force and presence, installation of video monitoring and sensors, upgrading some of the facilities, the addition of a "pressure-reducing valve" in case of contamination, and initiatives regarding vegetation, signage, and traffic control.
Anoushiravani said that during the budget process this Fall, provision would have to be made for capital expenditures at the reservoir sites. He also detailed some of the funding issues. Our notes are sketchy on this, but here's some data from the previously-linked presentation document on this count:
- Rate savings of 0.5% from fiscal year 04-05 previously approved 1.2% rate for the Open Reservoirs Replacement Project deposited in an escrow account in the City treasury and applied to fiscal year 05-06 water rates ($280,000).
- 0.7% of rate used to increase security staff coverage ($392,000).
- Capital investments (security and deferred maintenance) from reprioritized fiscal year 04-05 capital improvement projects.
Previously during the Council's process of reconsidering reservoir burial, it had instructed the Water Bureau to not spend the money generated by the 1.2% rate increase earmarked for the project. In the above 0.5% of that increase would adjust water rates in the next fiscal year, while 0.7% of it would be used to fund part of the interim security plan.
"The interim plan," Anoushiravani explained, "does not provide the level of security from the vulnerability assessment or provide a risk mitigation plan." Previously, the Water Bureau had conduced a vulnerability assessment of the reservoirs. According to the presentation document, there are other "limitations" to the interim plan. It says that the measures will improve detection of site access (yes, it lists this as a limitation, even though it's clearly a plus); that the measures will only partially improve detection of intrusion affecting drinking water; and that the measures do not constitute a risk mitigation plan for the purposes of meeting LT2.
Now, LT2 is the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, which is the aforementioned Federal rule that doesnot actually exist in a finalized or adopted form, and as such (some argue) is irrelevant for the purposes of determining what to do with the reservoirs.
In addition, Anoushiravani said that capital security and deferred maintenance costs come in at around $6.1 million. According to the presentation document, this is only for fiscal year 04-05. Estimates from the document for 05-06 come in at about $4.4 million.
Commissioner Jim Francesconi asked if there was a way to lessen the cost of the pressure-releasing valve, saying that it was half of the whole cost of deferred maintenance. Anoushiravani responded by saying they were seeking to be "as economic as possible" but that the costs of the valve are "reasonable numbers."
Switching to public testimony, Kathryn Notson, treasurer of the South Tabor Neighborhood Association, said that she still has several concerns, amongst them the lack of a geological suitability study to determine any seismic concerns.
Readers may recall that nearly at the last moment and somewhat out of left field, the Independent Review Panel was confronted with alleged seismic issues. Presumably with that at least partially in mind, Mayor Katz asked if Notson had been the one to raise the seismic issue before the Panel. According to Notson, however, it was contained within a Water Bureau presentation.
This appears to be somewhat in conflict with an earlier exchange between Mayor Katz and Sandra McDonough, who served on the Panel and is now head of the Portland Business Alliance. Here is what that particular exchange indicated:
Mayor Vera Katz asked jsut when the seismic issues come up, and who it was that introduced the matter.
McDonough said it was mentioned early on but only briefly and without detail. It came up again near the end of the panel's work. It turns out that this issue was rasied very mysteriously: "A member of the panel received an anonymous note that she should ask the question," McDonough said.
(Not long before the panel concluded its work, we received email from a reader about this seismic issue, and how it had suddenly been thrust into the conversation at the moment it was becoming increasingly clear that a majority of the panel liekly was heading to oppose burial. Clearly, someone was trying to get the panel to "stick to the plan" and come back around the supporting the burial option into which so much time, money, and attention had been invested.)
So it would seem that the question of just how and why the seismic issue suddenly had been thrust upon the Panel remains open to debate. Moving along, hwoever, Notson also argued that there were specific elements of reservoirs 5 and 6 that were not, in fact, historic, having been added much more recently, and (we presume) do not have to be taken into consideration during any work as part of the interim security plan.
Diane Redd, president of the Mt. Tabor neighborhood Association, offered thanks to Commissioner Saltzman, and asked the City to "affirm that any future Water Bureau actions reflect the Mt. Tabor Park Master Plan, the Advisory Committee's guiding principles, and the reservoirs' and Park's historical status." In addition, she urged adherence to public involvement best practices, and the principles developed by the Public Involvement Task Force.
Charles Heying, assistant professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University (and member of Friends of the Reservoirs, called the resolution "as good as it can be at this point," and urged the Council to adopt it as is. "We have come to a resolution," he said, "that at least for the interim does address the issues that need to be addressed."
Cascade Anderson Geller, also a member of Friends of the Reservoirs, who was active in the National Historic Register process, warned against "[seeing] the reservoirs as burdens ... instead of seeing them as assets to the City." She urged the Council to add a "whereas" clause to the resolution noting the City's water quality and the fact that it meets current Federal regulations.
Commissioner Francesconi listed four "very important" elements of the entire discussion over the reservoirs. Those lements, he said, are saving money ("as much as $50 million"), safety, the "historic nature of the Park," and the fact that "there will be more fights." He pointed out the need in such disputes to "listen to each other but not personalize it," and lauded the opposing parties for doing just that. "We worked through the process, tried not to personalize it, and resolved it."
Commissioner Randy Leonard restated an argument he said he has made before: That "working to require safety measures" has tended to happen only "after a major event." He said that it was important to be "mindful" of the issue at hand when it comes to the reservoir issue, which he said was to prevent a calamity. Praising Saltzman's integrity, Leonard said: "There is nobody I hold in higher esteem."
(Incidentally, and very very parenthetically, this exchange led Matt Hennessee of the Portland Development Commission, during a later agenda item, to state that he was tempted to introduced himself as Dan Saltzman. To that remark, Leoanrd replied: "You're my second favorite.")
Saying that Saltzman's goal was "to prevent some horrible thing from occuring," Leonard added that he was "greatly sympathetic to the hits [Saltzman's] taking."
"I wish I could say this is the end," Saltzman himself said. Rather, it was "closing one cahpter and beginning another." As indicated in the OPB News item with which be began, Saltzman stated that he has "strong beliefs on this" and that he agrees with the minority of the Independent Review Panel that burial is an option that will need to br brought forward in the future. Calling the resolution to adopt the Panel's report and embark upon interim measures "a solution I'm certainly prepared to carry forward," he nonetheless said of other issues that "they are out there and they need to be addressed."
"There's been some low points and some high points," said Commissioner Erik Sten of the reservoirs debate which had brought the Council to this point, adding that there were "rational arguments on both sides." In the end, he said the debate had been about "a community value choice," and that both potential decisions cost money.
"The community's values are such that they would rather keep things as they are," he said, take the risks involved in that decision, and move forward.
We won't go into it all here, primarily because we didn't take notes on it, but after admitting that he had opened by saying he was "going to be brief," Sten then said he'd "changed his mind" and offered an explanation of how the dispute over the reservoirs ties into a larger picture of questions regarding Portland's water system.
"There's nothing left for me to say," said Mayor Katz. "I still feel we probably should move on covering the reservoirs," she said, "but the community had an opinion."
With that, the Council had adopted the resolution by a unanimous vote. Again, interested readers can check the above-linked files for more detailed information on the resolution itself, an exhibit explaining the interim plan, and a brief presentation which offers facts on both.