So, not not, I'd like to call to order today's special meeting of the King County Regional Water Quality Committee.
It is August 5, 2026. Today's meeting is a special meeting because the King County Council is in recess, which means that we're not able to hold regular meetings, but we can hold the special meeting.
Thank you all for being here today. I know August is a tough time to pull together the tendons, and I'm very glad that we were able to do this today.
As always, the committee accepts public comments in writing to a dedicated email address, which is committees.
Regular spelling committees at Kingcounty.gov. I know we received one email in public comments in the committee today. It was regarding battery electric storage systems and opposition to citing them in.
And there's no Kwame Valley area. I committed. It's been sent out to all members. I committed to your reading clerk wells. Was there any other written comments that we received?
I know chair. Okay, very good. Would you please call the roll.
It's chair. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Hamilton. Council member Moor.
Present. Mayor Moor. Present. Mayor Rossman. Here. Council member Ameer. Here. Council President Stewart. Council President Hollings.
Council member Lynn. Here. Council. Thank you. Council member Saka. Commissioner Clark. Here. Commissioner Warren.
Commissioner who shanghi. General manager McClellan. Prison. Council member Dunn.
Present. Council member Lewis. Here. And chair.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Moving on there. Our next item is to approve the minutes of our July 1st.
Previous meeting as our motion to approve the minutes which are on page four of the packet.
So moved. Thank you. Council member Moor. There before us any comments.
Questions or changes to the minutes.
Here you've done all those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Please say nay.
Meeting minutes are approved. All right.
Super brief chairs report just about the agenda ahead of us today.
We have scheduled a briefing on the Washington water future initiative that is an initiative of the Department of Ecology and Governor Ferguson.
We're expected to have a briefing for Jennifer Hennessy of DOE on that issue.
Our second briefing is from consultant Ed. I'm going to say the C. Brown. I hope I can put your name to share his review of WTD's financial planning tools and infrastructure sustainability.
And then of course the main purpose of the meeting.
The special meeting is that we need to continue to walk through the regional wastewater system plan update policy areas this month.
And this month we are discussing combined system the combined system.
So if everything goes as planned, which I'll just preview a little bit of a spoiler alert so far it's not.
But if everything goes as planned it's going to be a very full meeting and I may be a little bit aggressive with the time management.
Thank you for that. And let's start with our regular report starting with our new Pat report from chair John McLean welcome.
Thank you chair. I will be as brief as possible as well.
You, in fact, didn't have any regular meeting in July. Instead we had our annual summer tour. The tour was arranged of course by WTD.
And that was to basically explore by some of the sites related to the mouth of the Duwamish project.
We also had the opportunity to hear from staff and ask questions at the Georgetown Weather Facility.
In addition, there was some staff members from the Duwamish River Community Coalition, which attended the meeting and they shared their perspective from people who live and work alongside the Duwamish and are affected by storm water and or flows in that area.
You back at a special meeting on the 26th to discuss the draft discharge permit for west point treatment plan, which includes nutrient requirements.
Following the meeting, we voted to submit a comment letter to ecology, which I signed.
Had a lot of help beyond help, I think most of it was put together by our friends over at WTD.
But these are issues where we are in lock step one in terms of our concerns related to what ecology is wishing to do with some of these permit issues.
And for today's meeting, of course, we're very, very interested in hearing Mr. Siebron's speak.
My agency is one of the ones that brought him in to help us understand and analyze the financial tools and with that.
That is my report shares. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Collin. Any questions?
I have a quick one. It doesn't put you on the spot, but can you give us just the headline of what the letter on the district permit covered from you.
Partly it was timing issues. You know, we always wish we had more time and even more so now with the incredible costs we're facing.
Other things I talked to direct girl about in past weeks was our interest in trying to get ecology to consider adaptive management.
One of the challenges that we see, I think across the board being the regulated community with how ecology carries out its regulating work is that there doesn't seem to be adequate consideration for changing things as we go if we're not getting the outcomes we help for.
So if we can inject a philosophy, explicit philosophy of adaptive management into these permit conditions, that's a win for us and that's a long term win and it is perhaps a change of philosophy, but this might be the time to get it.
So there you go.
Thank you so much again.
All right, seeing whether hands can move on to our regular report from the wastewater treatment division director.
Or are you here and able to give you a report?
I am. Can you hear me okay?
We can. Thank you. Please go ahead. Welcome.
Thank you.
Well, I'm going to cover a little bit of the same ground as the chairman.
Chairman Holland said that I'll I'll had a little bit more.
As was mentioned, we'll hear from that Siegren today. We've been working with Ed for over a year.
Helping him get the information he needs to review our long term financial model model.
We've really appreciated his comments as insights observations from all career in this field.
Things like debt policies and practices and a prudent approach to asset management.
We'll just say I'm sure he'll be open to responding to your questions if any are to be acoustic members.
Also have questions for our staff are happy to respond to those as well.
In the packet for this month's meeting, you have an updated version of our sewer rate capital work plan.
I believe it's pages paid to 13 we keep that updated every month. I just kind of pull a few highlights from that report.
We're working on a calendar for the 2020 for the last quarter of this year through the second quarter of next year, which would be the core of our rate engagement period for the 2027 and 2028 rate.
We'll be sharing a draft of that with the impacts executive board a little bit later this month and then start to get that out to others coming a couple of months.
We have more briefings for me, perhaps rates of finance subcommittee scheduled in October on aspects of our model.
We are also working continuing to work on one of the categories called better visibility and transparency into our capital project plan, especially for large projects two new path members have started to attend our project oversight board meetings and we really welcome their participation.
We're also working on a review of our regulatory obligation. We've been meeting with the Department of Ecology and June July there are more of those meetings to come and there are multiple opportunity areas that we need to evaluate more to come on that coming a couple of months, but that is an active area of work.
We're also continuing discussions with the Senate State Association and city Seattle to follow up on last falls of our regional utility summit and are currently discussing a potential event that would occur in December of this year, so stay tuned on that.
Chairman Clinton also mentioned the nutrient permit.
We do have the public review draft out there. This is a modification to our West Point NPS permit and a reissurance of the Vational NPS permit that would add conditions from nutrients.
Those conditions include an annual nitrogen low value monitoring requirements and then upgrade planning. Many of those are similar to what was in the original nutrient general permit but there are some differences.
We will be looking we are looking very carefully at all the different requirements in those permit modifications that did deadline for some little comments is this coming Monday to 10th.
For West Point and 28th August for a fashion. As was mentioned, we briefed me back on this and we perhaps comment letter has already been submitted. I'm sure we can provide a copy of that into the area we can see records so you can see that directly.
We're working on our letter as I mentioned this week. We're also helping to inform a letter that our National Trade Association is generating to send to the part of the ecology as well.
That's not quite that's the organization that I'm looking up to serve on the board.
I'm Andrew Lee with the City of Seattle. Locate tellies is also on that board. So not what will be something a comment letter as well.
We'll keep your eyes on what we know about when a ecology will issue the final permits.
We don't know when that will be or kind of our crystal ball of fuzzy crystal ball is sometimes this fall. There will be a lot of comments for a college to view so.
We'll keep folks surprised us. We do more. I mentioned not quite a moment ago. This last July. I attended the not quite some of your utility leadership conference.
I had an opportunity to present on new trends.
Our new trends challenges in one of these sessions, which was very helpful.
There are many peer regions around our country that we are working to draw from for their experience working with new trends, how they've navigated the challenge of most particular regions of water bodies and working with either the local EPA region or that relevant state agency.
There's a lot of material out there and there's definitely things we can learn and put the word here.
Not quite also released a communications toolkit during that conference and we'll use that to help inform supplement our home communication practices.
It helps us to stay connected with peer agencies where we can improve our practices here about innovation and learn from our peers and help inform our peers when we've got something to share.
The summer tour was mentioned also by John. We held that.
For me, members, we had one R to be QC member, Council Member Lynn was able to join as well, which we appreciate.
And I'm pleased that John mentioned we had a kind of a special thing here where we had members of the dormitory community coalition.
Speaking about their perspective on certainly the dormitory server writ large the opportunity with investments like the MBCSO project not only for uncontrolled CSOs that were obligated to to control but also how all of our different investments the river clean up that we're doing.
In fact, we hope positively we think positively for those who live, fish and work along and doing a lot of their comments help us remind us of the why behind this work.
The fact that historically our region has not done right by some of our water bodies and some of our local communities and so these investments didn't make a real difference for real people and real geographies there.
So we appreciate them attending. I would encourage our staff to share a couple of quick PowerPoint slides and so if Olivia you can do that.
Here's a picture from that tour. We did walk around the mouth of the dormitory project site. So if you're familiar with home depot down in the solo area.
A couple of houses ago I spent lots of time lots of money at that home depot down there. So I've got to know that that area a little bit that is not right we're home depot is but we actually have a.
I think it's a regular station there that's right in the corner of that home depot parking lot that was where we started the tour and we walked down to the larger area that we're looking out.
And this is a picture looking into that area where the group chocolates was taken and the other for Georgetown.
We're looking to try to find other opportunities for folks to visit at Georgetown facility and so if you have haven't been there yet would like to go.
Let can come to our staff for now and we'll figure out my further comment making that happen.
The next slide I want to show you is related to our corporate project. This is the project that won the Sam and Safe Award.
You may remember I reported on that sometime.
A very unique project is the only wastewater project that we're aware of that has ever been salmon safe, certified.
And you can see here that we're operating in very tight circumstances. This is co-create Parkway.
The picture on the left there that's aerial photo, co-create Parkway with the power lines going across.
And we have a very small, very highly intensive footprint, which is where this ton of boring machine is.
That's the launch pad, if you will, for that ton of warm machine.
We've been working since July 20th. This machine operates 24-7 under the ground.
And it uses a technology called trenchless construction.
So we are not digging in and disrupting the surface of this ravine that is a salmon-bearing stream on a neck ravine.
We're able to install major portions of new pipeline away from sensitive features and community spaces away from and minimize those noise and other impacts while keeping that we're going along safely.
This project will add about two miles of new sewer pipe and it will improve capacity for an important part of our regional system and our geography mostly benefiting communities of Bellevue and Newcastle.
And I'll be supporting decades of future growth.
This is large pipe 56 inch steel casing in a 36 inch inner pipe. It will carry 18 million gallons of wastewater every day.
And one kind of interesting fun fact. Currently the longest trenchless tunnel in the United States I'm told is about 2,500 feet on this project.
On this completion we'll so pass that by a great deal.
So we will then have the longest project in the country using this technology. It's pretty interesting.
It is like you'd seen with other tunnel warm machines you can steer this and go through it's not just straight.
It will allow you to curve that pipe and follow the direction of that ravine and that's what we need to do.
So really great stuff really strong team we appreciate the partnerships with Bellevue and Newcastle you're out at Newcastle maybe a year ago talking to their city council.
So that we can complete this project on time and on budget we know those communities care a lot about making sure that these investments get done.
And then we do that in the most graceful way for those health communities. And without we can stop sharing and completing my report thank you for the time.
Thank you director girl any questions for wastewater treatment director girl.
Guys two quick things just I when you talked about the utilities some rate summit follow up. Do you say December that's what you're aiming for December.
That's what we're aiming for right now. I won't guarantee it today but that is the target right now.
Yeah, and I wasn't sure if you said the September or December so just so it's like expectations right.
And then on this also timeline question that's a really cool project that coal create sewer upgrade project just so interesting.
And congratulations on the Sam and safe designation that's a really big deal and I know it took a lot of work and it does sort of make you have to do the project in this very specific ways.
Just having worked a good much larger time machines that's an interesting little little one.
Yeah, what is that what is this that means relatively speaking right, you know, like train towns right.
So what is the timeline for completing that project in our is it on schedule.
It is on schedule. We did have a few delays just with some of the early permitting work and the coordination with the cities but we're working hard to stay on schedule.
I think we've got another each of the or construction after this, but I'll verify for the team and get an action.
I'm asking for the hikers, you're sharing down one of the most popular trails on the east side there so.
And if you can get it open for next summer that would be so awesome.
Well, we'll see, we will have it better when it's open at the end of that too.
You may remember we've we briefed a committee on this before there's also ADA improvements that are going on with this project, which is really going to benefit.
Of course, from our community that now can't use some of those trails. So we really have a lot of really thoughtful design going in.
Thank you.
Good work. Thank you very much. And it's a both new pack and WTD. Thank you so much for arranging the mouth of the Duam's tour for the annual tour.
I really had hope to go, but some of you know, I injured myself like just a few hours before hand and I'm not ambulatory at the moment.
So no walking towards for me for a while, but I really I know that those who went got a lot out of it and always do so we really appreciate the effort that goes into getting us out to the system.
All right, let's move on into our agenda topics now.
I have been informed that our first presenter Jennifer had to see from state Department of Ecology had a family.
She had an urgent family issue. She had to go attend to she I think intends to be here, but is not here yet.
So I want to ask if Mr. Seabron is ready to proceed.
I'm taking you out of order and I don't want to, you know, throw you a curve ball, but here it is.
Yes, I'd be happy to.
Very good. Okay. So let me just introduce this presentation was suggested to us by Commissioner Lloyd Warren.
And I would love to ask Lloyd Warren, if you want to introduce the topic, please.
I don't see.
First of all, I'd like to introduce.
Yes, I do do your way.
Many, many people have worked with that in this region.
It's been a financial consultant and economist, primarily working in the utility area.
He's worked with many, if not most of the contract agencies that are part of the wastewater system.
And his previously was a commissioner at Woodenville, Warren Seabron.
And at one point in his career served as chair of the Grace and Finance Committee for New Pack.
So it is very familiar with WKD and the issues surrounding around financial issues.
And the latest job had served as economists for the cascade while I asked.
And the districts through voluntary contributions raise money to bring in on board as a resource for everyone.
All the agencies and to work with WDD on the issues first concerning the long range of rates of finance modeling, which I think you have a few comments to make.
But recently we wanted to focus on, is there a way of coming up with some ideas on linking financial information to asset management or the status of our built systems.
And coming up with some metrics that might make sense for everybody.
And so that's kind of the, the, the genesis of this presentation.
So unless somebody has some other questions not yet in, in what he's been doing for the last 30 years.
I'll just turn it over to you.
Well, welcome and thank you so much for, for taking your time to be with us today and help educate us.
These are issues that are preoccupied in the committee. So this is very timely and helpful.
Thank you and welcome.
My pleasure. Thank you. I will share my screen.
And hopefully that is visible. Yes. All right. Very good. Thank you.
Thanks Lloyd for the introduction and thank you all for your, for your time.
I've been at this for about a year and a half now on behalf of the districts that supported this venture.
And it started out as a review of the financial planning tools, the financial model forecasting techniques, et cetera, and a review on the status of that.
And then moved into trying to, trying to define metrics that inform and can help guide the longer term financial sustainability of the system.
To match the efforts on the infrastructure side to deal with the physical sustainability of the system.
And so when I'm going to go through today is, it's briefing on that and some suggestions on tools that you can find useful as you're evaluating.
Trades and capital development, et cetera, to help keep on track with the long term sustainability of the system.
And perhaps as a preface.
Utilities systems are somewhat different than a lot of the other examples that we might find in practice because there is no option to simply.
To simply stop operating one day and so that idea sustainability is essential and it extends to all fronts financial operational and capital.
So, as we get into this, we really do tend to look long term, we tend to look at life cycles and while immediate decisions regarding rates this year and next are important.
The best made in the context of where things are going longer term and this may be preaching to the choir, but it's an important preface to moving into this.
So looking at the analytical tools that the department has developed or acquired and developed a very robust and capable financial model.
It's very impressive in its ability to address trend analysis for cast costs into the future manage the capital financing program.
And and also track and manage the debt component, which is quite large for this utility.
Given that despite that, the information going in probably needs to continue to improve and evolve in the areas of asset management.
Ultimately, so much of this hinges on what it's going to ultimately cost to replace major system components and over enough time, all system components and improve estimates of those replacement costs are really essential to be able to assess status and progress.
One thing I would note is the information being shared has tended to focus recently on a 10 year period, which is an improvement over the past perhaps in terms of length.
But one solid recommendation would be to look longer term and the model does that it goes out.
I believe 30 or 40 years I can't recall it off hand, but see more of where the trends are going and there's many reasons for this you have to be able to see through the life cycles of assets that have to be replaced on the horizon.
You also need to be able to see through the life of existing debt to see how the financial trends will progress over time.
And then overlaying on that beyond going need for replacement improvement, you can look at the trends in key financials like debt burden rates, et cetera, and make decisions now in the context of those longer term trends and needs.
And observation is the current financial metrics don't necessarily link the financial and asset management elements.
But progress continues to be made on financial and funding capability and I'm going to divert now to a couple of slides you've seen before that come from WTD.
And it's important to kind of set the framework for where things are at and then discuss where they could be going.
The first looks at debt performance and historically at the time I chair the rates and finance committee for example we had a major initiative to try to improve.
The the debt portfolio by and by that I mean reduced the debt burden relative to the total assets and you can see it over the past decade since that time.
There has been significant progress there was a point in time roughly a decade ago that there was essentially as much debt and perhaps more debt than there were fixed assets in the system.
Now we're down in the 80% range which which means you've created some equity in the system some value in the system that isn't leveraged through debt that also means you don't have as much debt burden.
Forcing your rates as you would if you had stated you know essentially debt financing everything there's been a few reasons that was accomplished one is that.
The standard the policy standard for coverage was was changed roughly a decade ago it was increased.
The debt coverage is essentially a margin that you collect through rates in excess of what you need to repay debt and it becomes a funding source for the capital program so increasing that coverage factor has meant more reinvestment prior to the need to issue more debt.
Since then there was also a focus on looking at depreciation expense how fast or the assets declining in value and ensuring that reinvestment is in current is occurring sufficiently to offset that.
And that further progress both of those are tools that can be used either can be used in tandem or individually but ultimately what thereafter is the level of reinvestment that will allow the utility to sustain itself without always incurring debt to do so.
Another slide that's been shared with you deals with asset management and the replacement strategy.
You know quite as the asset management program evolves and better estimates of costs and.
Deciding of needs, you'll be able to flesh out a more complete capital program for the RNR side or the reinvestment side of the puzzle.
You also have the new project side that you're well aware of that's facing in the future.
The things that are worth noting here in this slide are trying to decide and adequate amount of ongoing reinvestment, trying to protect that, so it's actually being used for replacement.
As you're looking at a major capital improvement program, it's relatively easy to say we'll use the money for that.
We'll worry about replacement later and you create a backlog that ultimately can become untenable.
And so the last point here prior to housing asset are in our projects deals with that to make sure that the criticality is part of the assessment.
And when you have repair and replacement projects that are high priority that they stay on track, even with other programmatic initiatives.
So looking from the modeling and the information now, some basic suggestions and these were shared with me packs several months ago as well in more depth.
One is to extend the forecast period and here the model does go after 2016 now.
That outstrips at the moment you are dead portfolio, which means that you can see a full cycle of paying off existing debt as well as the implementation of new data for the new programs.
Another is to begin to get comfortable with the idea that there is no single answer.
My former boss who's now on your committee is to say the one thing I know about the forecast is it's wrong.
And that'll remain true.
So we have probabilities that we can apply or at least look at optimistic and pessimistic outcomes to bracket where we think things are going.
And ultimately to test specific cases and make sure that those tests include the need for reinvestment because ultimately if you're not reinvesting there you'll be approaching a cliff and that cliff will be when things start failing in use.
And you've lost the ability to manage those outcomes and you're simply a reactive and very expensive reactive mode.
And then finally look at some key metrics and that's where I want to spend some time with you today, so I'll move on fairly quickly.
This is an example of the kind of the clone of uncertainty.
And if I were better at graphics, it would have the shaded area between the extremes that are shown here.
These are actually some scenarios in the the rate and financial model.
The blue one was the forecast a year ago at the time I received a copy of the model.
The others are variations on capital costs high cost very high cost or a low cost and all of these are potential outcomes and what we know now is where we're at is at rough in something on the order of a 60 dollar rate and where we're going to something on the order of 130 to even as much as 200 dollar rate.
And that will evolve as these projects do a lot of times people tend to think well there's only that the dark side there's there's only higher possibilities about come and.
There are a lot of pressures that cause cost to go up but there are also some factors that can reduce the rate forecast from that baseline forecast and that could include things like assistance.
It's it's low in assistance or grant assistance.
It could also include the things that may not seem as favorable to lay in projects because it slows down the rate of expenditure on capital.
Another example would be if the asset management program determines that they're the useful lives of assets are significantly longer at this point than the original estimates of useful lives and that would delay the need for the replacement cycle.
It's entirely possible to do better than the target but the probabilities probably lean upwards in terms of outcomes being worse than the target.
So moving into the metrics themselves there's really two.
The essential parts to how to assess are we doing enough are we doing the right amount or even are we doing too much when it comes to looking at sustain financial sustainability and adequacy and investment.
I wanted to look at an annual basis and how much cash or regenerating for this purpose or capacity or regenerating for this purpose of replacing assets and for that you need to kind of isolate a bit from the improvements side which also has its its needs and demands and schedule.
In an annual performance the depreciation expense that I mentioned earlier is one example of that it is unfortunately of stales statistic what something cost in say 1985 is not particularly relevant to what it's going to cost replace today and you look at the entire system that's true.
So we need to take into account inflation we need to take into account the environment which the improvements would occur.
Even things such as needing to maintain and continue operations while.
instituting major replacements those all tend to increase cost so somewhere we need to get to a very good cost estimate of.
What it's going to cost replace the system.
First cut is assembly index the original cost using something like CPI there's there are construction cost indices that like the consumer price index tried to create past.
Investments are cost to parent ones and on that basis.
The system in place right now is roughly double to replace what it was originally what it originally cost.
So if you have six million dollars of assets it would cost you 12 to replace them that does not take into account those some of those factors in.
That's simple at one there regarding changes in the cost environment for conditions in the field the need to continue operations around replacement activities etc.
So it tends to be low and in the industry we call that reproduction cost the assessment of simply indexing the prior.
expenditure and then replacement cost tries to go one step further to look at now what will it really cost as we undertake a project and the asset management program that's in development should get you to better estimates on those numbers.
So in the annual basis what we want to see is are we matching that replacement base decline in asset value.
And there are elements to that it could be all cash funding that's that's equivalent to that it could also mean that we're retiring debt and doing some cash funding retiring debt but in aggregate if we're not matching that replacement based.
Level of depreciation and then we're losing ground and the liability increases over time and ultimately those costs will have much more profound rate shocks and impact on rates.
The other element is more of a status check and and it will also change over time but it's not based on what you're doing today it's based on where your systems at today and what we look for here is is there a way to measure.
The remaining useful life in the system and there is is there a way to measure whether our funding capacity is tracking with.
Holding that line and not letting it decline and.
As an example if you look at the depreciated value of the assets in the books now.
Roughly for 60% of the useful life of the system has been consumed meaning third and it was a little less than 40 but we'll go with 40% remains.
If that number is going down it means you're consuming more and more of the useful life of the assets and leaving a larger and larger liability when you need to be able to replace and extend those.
So we came up with with is a remaining life index that looks at that percentage of remaining system useful life and gives you the ability to track it over time to see whether you're declining and value holding your own or increasing value.
Before I go on from this it's worth mentioning that another aspect of work these into play once we find metrics that mean something to us and we can consistently apply is thinking about generational equity.
And that refers to ensuring that we're not asking today's customers to pay tomorrow's customers cost but also that we're not kicking the can down the road and leaving a huge larger burden on future customers of the system.
So the two metrics that I'll share briefly with you today one we refer to is the annual reinvestment rate it is simply how much.
How much is being generated out of rates and used to either retire existing debt or invest directly in the system for capital projects and the annual reinvestment rate.
That we're looking for here is one consistent with replacement cost and again replacement cost isn't just in depth original cost but there's some premium to that to reflect real world conditions at the time of replacement.
The annual investment rate is shown at the bottom in this simple table is about 72% right now, which means the amount that you're funding is about a quarter below the amount of asset you're consuming and then it reflects both retiring debt again and some cash over time that goes up some.
And that's good 100% means that you're holding your own systems not declining it wouldn't be unreasonable to set a target like that as a funding level long term and then a strategy to get to that level.
And what that would mean is it won't mean that you're going to cash fund all the replacement projects because a part of this metric as it's built is recognizing that current customers are paying off existing debt.
But it does mean that you're not losing ground and compounding with each life cycle the amount of debt you have to issue sustain the same level of service and facilities.
The remaining life index looks at how much of the system remains in value 38.7% I mentioned 40% is around the early and over time this gives you another measure is to whether you're declining in your school life or.
Increasing in your school life again the asset management programs critical because it's going to tell you real useful lives not just those use for accounting purposes remaining your school life and then finally what it's going to cost to replace.
The remaining life index, as you see it here is projected to go up over time and that's the kind of trend you might like to sustain a system.
But this projection is heavily influenced by the high level of new capital projects entering during this decade that's forecast here.
And since they're all brand new, they make the system look younger the average age is going down and they're many life going up simply because you're adding.
Billions of dollars of new assets that are brand new and have reasonably long lives.
So it's also important to see through that and develop this index and how you would apply it so that you're really dealing with apples to apples and only dealing with the existing system going forward.
I didn't have full facility of the model to try to do that for this example, but I do want to caution that it.
That upward trend is suggestive improvement but isn't necessarily true if you just look at the existing core system.
So in graphical form they same two metrics.
The reinvestment rate, as you can see, doesn't get up to 100% in this timeframe but is trending upwards and some policy objectives could be established to get it to that level where you're sustaining a level of reinvestment.
Consistent with the long term needs of the system, the remaining life index in the blue line as noted there's the swamping effects of the very large key.
And finally not to be being this drum but both metrics depend on a valid estimate of replacement cost.
What I did here to generate these was simply assume that if I took the original cost and index them to today's cost add another 25% as a provision for the types of cost impacts experience and replacement cycle.
That gets us closer to the mark but it is still just a very rough estimate of slack in fact scientific wealth yes and we need to keep mining the asset management program to get better information.
Kind of taking this to a real world example and for this just buying a house.
You put out a mortgage on the house you're paying off that mortgage and makes it difficult to be funding other improvements or think about funding replacements over time it goes up and value.
It's actually a really good analogy to the system if you think about it you've got structural aspects mechanical aspects hydraulics electro electric.
et cetera where the analogy fails is the value of the house in the future isn't necessarily tied to a depreciating value because it's in an open market.
And so unless we can find people wanting to spend billions of dollars to own and operate wasteful on a treatment plants the analogy doesn't quite connect for us.
But it does help illustrate different ways of approaching replacements and one is pay as you go.
You're right a cash flow because anytime something comes up.
You got to come up with a way to pay for it. And no provisions for future large costs, including full replacement. So when you need to replace the roof on the house, you better have that $50,000 laying around or go borrow again to fund that improvement on down in scale to replacing kitchen appliances and the like.
Another approach is fund appreciation. This is comparable to kind of the perspective that's being used in the in the modeling now. And that is made provision for replacement based on original cost. It's better than pay as you go. It does provide some funding.
Given the scale of debt, though, most of that provision is actually just being used to retire debt and not very much of its available as cash for projects.
You can find the replacement as a reproduction cost, which is kind of an index cost of construction and you can fund it at a higher level, which is more robust estimate of what it would cost to build near.
It's it's interesting in our region that a lot of the school districts that have kind of gone to building new schools on the same properties, the old school as opposed to renovating schools and part of it is that one, they can keep operational during that time.
And to it's it's greenfield construction again, and it doesn't necessarily have the same obstacles that operating within a given building footprint would have would pose for them.
So ability to fund replacement, looking at those three examples, or there are four examples, as you go, you never generate funds towards future replacements.
The depreciation funding barely moves the needle in part again, because on the front end, it's largely repaying debt and not generating a lot of cash.
Reproduction depreciation in this example gets you about 20% replacement depreciation about a third.
What that means is if this were a single asset at the end of it you had to replace it.
The second time around you'd still be debt financing two thirds of it, but that's better than the first time around where you're debt financing a hundred percent of it.
So it's important in this context to recognize none of these are a panacea, but the more progress you can make towards an adequate level of replacement funding the smoother the financial future is going to be.
And so back I'm almost done here in promise back to WTD some of the standards here are you do have to continue essential service regardless of what's happening in replacement run to failure can be a bad strategy when it's a critical asset that you're running to failure ultimately everything needs to be replaced.
The numerous aging facilities suggest that this is an immediate non-going need and inspect the asset management program by identifying through credibility and condition a lot of high priority reinvestment needs.
It is easy at times to avoid this problem and defer addressing it and that does magnify it exponentially.
So, you know, conceptually it's implicitly you know, stop digging the hole and start climbing out a critical objective as you look at sustaining and reinvesting.
So specific recommendations and annual performance measure like the ARR that the briefly showed you ideally you'd have to make that at least one.
And perhaps even then have like a secondary standard that some level of that has to be cash even if you're paying off a lot of debt there's some little cash being funded.
And then a system status measure like the remaining life index and kind of target a balance point where you're holding your own in the system and maintaining adequate useful life that the replacement side of the equation remains manageable.
Along with that have financial steps to get to your targets as you establish them and if if things vary how to get back to them.
I use term repair here.
Evaluate trends in in these metrics without the new CIP and with it so that you can be sure that you're seeing apples to apples but also the full trend of the utility.
And then finally coordinate system planning and financial planning to ensure that the information needed is made available and made available and that the financial strategy can support the needs coming out of the assessment management program.
Some simple conclusions financial sustainability as important as the system's sustainability otherwise you don't get the system sustainability.
Financial metrics can help you understand trends and status.
The large upcoming CIP.
He creates a risk because it can divert from that reinvestment objective and it's important to establish a commitment and a program to sustain the existing assets at the same time that you're spending money on new ones.
Increased reinvestment will sustain those assets and striking a balance with new needs should undermine that are in our side of the program.
And the first step is going to be to find some metrics and objectives the second step is going to be to let that evolve and refine.
Perhaps you can change the metrics over time as you get a better sense of what they mean.
But ultimately the goal here would be.
All right, am I funding at a hundred percent of replacement? Yes. Okay. That's a good first step.
And if it's not then how do we get to that and the same with the with the sustainability index of how much replant mating life is there.
And are we consuming that faster than we're investing in it.
And those are both very valuable pieces of information but can help you make potato decisions in the on the bought broader program and financial structure.
I'll stop there. Thank you very much.
I'd be glad to answer any questions now or subsequently. So I'll turn this back over and stop sharing it like.
Thank you very very much. That was that was really helpful educational information, especially for those of us who are not, you know, experts in this utilities field many of us are just.
Generic policy makers and so super helpful. We have your slides. I believe.
Yeah, very good. You know, it bare a little bit of sitting in and thinking through it and what the applications could be for the kind of recommendations this committee makes.
Any questions, colleagues, questions on the very informative presentation.
Let me set up my screen correctly. May a rustling go ahead.
Thank you so much. This was really helpful. And as the chair just said nothing and expert in asset management. I loved how you express all of this so well for selected.
The part that I am still struggling with a bit is of course we had some months back and I'm sure you've seen this figure.
We've had presentations about the regulatory expenditures, which you in your conclusions talk about as the CIP, right? The TSOs and those are a big chunk of our rate, right?
They're when they're shown. So I'm interested in understanding more just at a high level this concept of asset management apart from that piece of our rate structure.
Is there anything more you could say to me about where I could find additional background or otherwise look into that?
I appreciate how you've laid it out, but it's still not entirely clear to me how to see the overall health of our existing system through this veil that is the regulatory piece.
Yeah, a great question. I don't know that there's a Bible there. There is one document that American water works association.
It puts out the talks about water utility capital financing. It mentions asset management but doesn't necessarily integrate it.
Most of what I've seen are actually practical applications in system as opposed to text footsteps to point to on the outside.
I think the key is that each system has to somehow strike its own balance and find its own path forward.
And the asset management program itself does a lot of that because it goes through a lot of prioritization and scheduling activities to try to get a handle around sustaining the system infrastructure.
The critical part is to make sure that the financial planning is coordinated with that.
So I know that I didn't answer the question that I can't cite you a document, but I think it is going to be evolutionary.
And the first step is gained understanding of word things are at the second step is word we want them to go and the third step is how we get there.
Okay, thank you. That is where I was trying to figure out is how much there is between us and gaining an understanding of the health of our current system.
I'd like to call and commissioner Clark and then after that I want to give WTDA an opportunity to say a few words and then we're going to have to move on and fortunately we can do this all day and we've got a couple things so commissioner Clark, you next.
Maybe I commented to Mayor Prostman's question a lot of the investments that have been made historically have been based on manufacturers definitions of how long an asset lasts.
So they'll say a pipeline is good for 30 years and so people made the assumption that that pipeline was good for 30 years and started trying to sort out some way of doing replacement based on that 30 year life.
So what asset management really is is how well can you understand the condition of every one of your assets.
How well can you determine the risk of failure of every one of those assets and the risk of what the consequences of that failure are.
And though running an asset that failure doesn't make sense for some assets you can take a higher risk of failure than you can another for some with some infrastructure.
If it fails okay so it takes you a week to fix it for some assets it takes you six months a year or two years to fix it and that's a significant problem to deal with.
And finally trying to figure out a crossover point where what you're trying to make a decision on is it does it make more sense to continue to repair an asset or to replace the asset because it has significant differences in cost.
And so you if you know the condition of your asset you know the risks of your asset you have to make a determination is it better to keep repairing an asset if it fails every five years or are you at that point where full replacement is necessary.
So they're just and that's what I think if Cameron is I'm sure it's still on that's the decision points that they're going through as they try to determine that and then you have to make a decision.
Once you know that how fast are you going to invest in them and that's the are in our funds that the head was referring to how much you repair how much your place and how fast you do that and you have to have that separate from all those regulatory investments you're making and that if you avoid doing that at some points you it's like a hockey stick.
If you think of a hockey stick you just go straight and all of a sudden it bends and goes straight up if you start if you don't invest and don't do the repair and replacement.
You'll get to a point where you have overall system failure and you can't catch it fast enough to be able to repair and replace and so that's the fundamental principles behind trying to do the right things related to asset management.
To be helpful.
I just want to say we're into failure as a new term to me, but it's very understandable because it's how I manage my personal automobile.
But we've got backups right I have a husband and he is a car and I've got an orthocard so anyway to your point.
There's there's analogies.
Right I would like to call on a wastewater treatment division CFO Caitlin Hall who would like to if she would like to share a few things about how wastewater treatment division thinks about this kind of asset management this going.
Thank you chair and those are really great great great segue commissioner Clark we agree with you and are in fact working on a lot of the points that you mentioned.
I don't want to go point for point today I know that we have limited time but I think as review was very thorough this is a really good discussion.
I do just want to remind folks that a lot of this is up for review we are looking at options in the RWSP update.
And the recent topic area we had around asset are in our in particular if you've got that memo handy and we're happy to share it out again if you start on page 21 it starts to describe our current funding approach some of the challenges.
Why perhaps that spending has not kept up and why it's not about funding alone.
It's about prioritization of that portfolio some of the regulatory pressures we have and some of the options we have moving forward to make sure that that funding that cash is really protected we're prioritizing in a way that is the most protective of the system.
And also trying to really define what the appropriate level of asset are in our spending is we are highly aware of the backlog we've tried to be transparent about it and the work that we're doing to address it through the RWSP there are asset management steering committee and otherwise there are a few kind of technical points that I would like to offer.
I'd like to refer to address in writing for the sake of time in terms of some of the metrics we do. And don't do. And ones that we'd be very happy to add. Talk a little bit about our current spending. But overall, I just would like to reassure folks that we are aware of the challenge at hand. And we are investing quite a bit of effort in it and look forward to collaborating more in the future. Thank you.
And as I said earlier, I think this is a it's a fruitful topic for discussion. And we unfortunately don't have the time today to engage in dialogue with wastewater treatment division about.
How they do as management metrics and trajectories, et cetera, but I think with all this food for thought we will try take away Jenny please take a note to try to.
Let's think after this meeting about when would be an appropriate and productive time to bring back that sort of discussion, maybe as we're leading up to the biennial budget and the update to the next CIP, I don't know there might be other opportunities as well.
All right. Well, again, Mr. Siebron, thank you so much for spending your time with us today and sharing your research and expertise. Thank you to Commissioner Clark and chair McLellan for bringing this to our attention so that we could engage in it as well. It was very very educational as I said. Thank you.
Okay, now we'll move back to the last.
The last agenda item, which was item seven.
And so today we have also invited a guest from the Washington State Department of Ecologies Washington Water Future Initiative Jennifer Hennessy is with us today.
I was asked by ecology director six killer to serve on an elected advisory group for this statewide discussion, but it's much larger than then local jurisdictions and elected officials.
And we're they're taking a look statewide.
Among the vast sweep of stakeholders and interested parties to talk about the great water challenges facing our state.
I'm sure you all know that water supplies across the state are under stress.
And we are in the fourth year of declared drought due to snow, low snow pack and governor Ferguson has asked ecology to host the statewide conversations to think through a problem statements.
What a resilient water future could look like and to start to generate solutions that we could deploy for our growing water challenges.
And this issue intersects with our work in several interesting ways as I like to say we are the regional water quality committee, not the regional wastewater quality committee. So of course water as a quality of water as a whole is our concern.
But but also there are really important implications for reclaimed water or recycled water and for the ways in which the climate change that is impacting our water supplies also going to impact water quality.
So I invite a Jennifer to talk to us today about this initiative because I think it would be of interest to all the members and I really appreciate you making the time to be here with us and to help educate our committee.
So Jennifer if you're with us please go ahead.
We've got about 20 minutes for this discussion and we're a little behind so we'll do the best we can but just really appreciate your time to be here and help to tell us about what's going on and how we can engage with it.
I'm absolutely thank you chair ball to she really appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to the committee today and and I'll be sharing a presentation and hopefully help you guys stay on time but also just want to appreciate the adjustment in the time and for me to present this opportunity to appreciate that as well.
So I'll just go ahead and pull up my slides and share my screen and let me get reorganized here.
Okay.
So again my name is Jennifer Hennessy. I serve as Special Assistant to our director at Department of Ecology and in the lead for our implementation of Washington's water future initiative.
And today as chair ball did you mention it been invited to talk more about the initiative.
But also about the the drivers that have let us to this initiative and really is about the integrated water challenges that are in front of our state and communities around our state both on the water quality side as well as the water supply side and increasingly on the winter time flooding side of the equation as well.
And there's just this intersecting set of issues that are at play that we see opportunity for for new and different ways of approaching solutions.
So I probably don't need to tell any of you that you know how and when water is arriving and Washington state is changing.
For those of you who've lived in the state for a while, you know that our snowpack is declining and this last year was a great example of that.
We did declare drought for a fourth year in a row because in April we had less than 50% of the normal of what we normally expect.
And we are seeing warmer winters with more of our precipitation arriving as rain as these extreme rain events with more and more heavy precipitation atmospheric reverse that are causing bigger and bigger floods in the winter time.
So we have more of that water arriving in the winter time when we don't know what to do with it, harming people's public property, public safety and scouring our our river systems.
And then because we have a warmer climate that snow that we do accumulate is melting off quicker in the spring and early summer.
And that really leaves us with this event that we're having right now, which is dryer vegetation a longer time frame for and an increased wildfire risk and.
I just you know the last couple days have been really hard for many communities around our state with the wildfires that have been hitting our our state, but it's been you know for the last month and a half we've been having wildfire season.
And then that leaves us with less of that water in the summer time when we need it for for people for farms and for fish and that leaves our streams with lower flows higher temperatures.
And increase prevalence of harmful algal brunt outbreaks as well.
So this is the picture that increasingly will be our new normal in Washington. These are the changing types of conditions that we need to adapt to and prepare for.
And I did mention drought. We actually have declared drought seven out of the last 10 years in some or all of parts of our state, many of them due to low snowpack.
But that's not the only time that we've we've declared drought in 2021 with the heat dome. We lost almost all of our snowpack in the space of a week due to extreme high temperatures.
So there's a variety of changing climate trends that are leaving us with less water when we need it most.
In our infrastructure and our ecosystems were designed for the precipitation and temperature patterns of the past and that is no longer a predictor of what we will experience in the future.
So this really gives us an opportunity to talk more about what are those integrated water solutions that are going to be right for different parts of our state.
And the University of Washington climate impacts group has given us a wealth of data and information to help us understand what the future might hold.
And just in the next 25 years or so we expect to be in snowpack drought more often than not so about 70% of the time we will be facing low snowpack years.
This is a look at statewide projections around flooding and I mentioned that more of our water is arriving in the winter time.
I think for people in the west side of the state that seems like that's normal, but really we are projected to see an increase in in the amount of rain that we get in the winter time.
And with those higher temperatures in the winter less of that will be locked up and snow and more of it will be running off into our rivers and potentially causing flooding and bigger flooding.
And these projections show that by the end of the century we expect to see up to about a 25% increase in that two year peak run off.
So in many of the watersheds around the state.
This is a projection around snowpack for the DeWamish green watershed and in here we're looking at both low emission scenario and high emission scenario.
Recognizing that models are just that they're just projections to not predictions.
There is a range but regardless of the emissions scenario that it will be ours in the future to inherit.
Our future in Washington will be one with us now, so this is showing the change in April 1, snowpack in the last in eager feet of water.
That is equivalent. So over time we expect to have less and less of that snow available to us to melt off slowly and help support our streams and use for people and communities.
This is layered on top of a whole host of other pressures that you all are well aware of and grappling with every day.
And some of them were mentioned by the previous presenter state and local requirements water quality challenges meeting the needs of housing and population and economic growth and balancing that too with the need to restore and protect our ecosystems.
So we know that these are challenges that climate change is just exacerbating and providing an opportunity hopefully we think for looking at these with a fresh perspective towards the future and how we sustain the things that we care about with new ideas about solutions.
And we know that many parts of our state have already begun to look at and implement different types of solutions.
Folks, we're talking about water reuse. We know King County has been a leader in advancing the water reuse through bright water.
And conservation and efficiency will remain important tools, but we know that there are additional things we'll need to look at on the water supply side as well.
Finding new ways of storing that excess water that we have in the winter time and ways that can help protect communities and ecosystems.
Well, allowing that water to be available for the future and thinking really broadly about other solutions that that might not be on this slide.
Right, there's there's new and innovative ways of thinking about these challenges and we hope that we have the fortunate thing is that we have time on our side.
I'm like the Southwest in California where the Colorado River basin is really running out of time and out of water.
We know that we have we have the time to put in place the kinds of solutions, but the time is now to start those conversations.
As was mentioned before, the types of water infrastructure that communities around the state might be interested in takes time and money to put those in place.
And so we want to be talking about all about what are the types of solutions that are right for different parts of the state and and how do we move forward.
So that really brings us to Washington's water future and and the governor's announcement in May and charge to ecology was to lead the set of conversations really starting with listening to and learning from communities around the state.
And really grounding ourselves in what are those greatest water challenges that different communities are facing we know just like the solutions the challenges vary.
And so wanting to better understand what folks are dealing with and what do they need for their future and really beginning to start talking about those integrated solutions.
Especially ones that can help solve more than one problem solving for water supply well solving for water quality challenges.
So really beginning that set of conversations.
Over this summer we are doing a wide range of outreach and I'll talk about some of the ways that we've been doing that outreach already.
And then we are developing a tool to share some of the information about the climate projections that you have a question of climate impact group have developed for us.
We are working with a facilitation team that's producing meeting summaries from each of our events and they'll be compiling a report that synthesizes the key themes and findings across that this fall.
And we'll hope to also release our online tool this fall as well.
And next steps that we take will really be determined by what we hear from folks what's right then ready.
And we know that this is a complex set of challenges so that will undoubtedly be more conversations to be had as we take those next steps.
In terms of the types of outreach we're hosting eight regional round tables around the state those are in person convenings with diverse group of stakeholders and interested folks.
We've held I think about six of them or no five of them so far three more to go.
And including the one in central pizza town.
We've held seven interest group and tribal input sessions including one today for environmental groups and environmental justice groups.
We've held two public virtual input sessions.
And then we've also been heading around the state and learning from existing collaborative that are working on integrated water plans like the ECMA basin.
The wall wall a dung nest and others so we're trying to gather input from them and what they are learning and where they're existing challenges remain.
So, just to note that there is an online survey that's available to the public through the end of the month and ask some of those key questions that chairball did she set up about what's your vision for a water resilient future, what are some of the key challenges that you're seeing on the ground, what are the barriers and what solutions are you interested in. So it's a really quick survey that folks can take and it is an additional way for us to get input.
We also have two more interest-based virtual convenings. The water utility's local government's one is next week, next Thursday, and we have a tribal input session coming the week after that.
You can sign up for email updates on our website and find out more there as well, and we will be posting, like I said, those meeting summaries as they come available throughout this process.
And so with that, I'll close and see what questions folks have and again, really appreciate you giving you the time it's based today to share about the initiative.
Well, again, thank you so much for coming in for sharing with the group. I wanted to introduce folks the listening sessions have been really interesting. I've been able to attend a couple of them.
And I know others have attended some of the others and just hearing all the different thoughts and ideas and interests about what are the problems, what are the solutions statements, what are the barriers, the solutions it's been very very very very eye-opening statewide water policy.
Any comments or questions from members of the committee?
Councilmember Moore, please go ahead.
Just wanted to say thank you so much. This is great information. I'm so glad the governor is doing this so important to what we do and thank you.
Thank you. Yeah, it's it's definitely an important topic and a difficult one and then the governor and the department taking it up is a very worthwhile and important effort and they deserve our support.
All right.
Okay, well, thank you again so much and thank you for your flexibility to be here and present during our committee meeting with with your family obligations. We appreciate your you're pulling it off and we'll see you.
It's a future meeting. Thanks again. Thanks so much. Thank you.
All right. Now this brings us to our last big substantive item which is the item nine, the regional wastewater services plan update.
This is the sixth set of policy issues to come before the committee today as we look at the combined system.
Just as a reminder, I know you're probably all aware of UDD has prepared the usual memo and PowerPoint regarding this topic.
They'll do a presentation today and members will have the rest of the month to provide comments on this set of policy questions. So let us dive in.
I will call on Darren gravy to walk us through it. Welcome, Darren.
Thank you. Madam chair and good afternoon members of the committee.
Let me share my screen quickly.
Okay, can folks see my screen.
Great.
Okay, Darren gravy government relations with King County WTD.
I'm joined by a colleague fan of Connor and and Janice Johnson.
Today we are talking with you about the combined system topic of the RWSP.
As I like to do for all these RWSP presentations and briefings.
This slide shows where we are in the process.
Last month in July we briefed you on affordability metrics and rate relief approaches.
Today we're talking about combined system and next month in September we're going to be talking with you about treatment levels and treatment capacity.
The two policy questions we are addressing today are shown on this slide.
First, how should WTD best upgrade the combined system to address regulatory requirements, regional water quality and West Point operations.
And the second, how should combined system costs be recovered.
I will address this cost recovery question very briefly today.
If time allows but the substance of this will be addressed and covered in the November briefing to you where we'll be talking with this committee about a range of alternative rate structures.
You're meeting packet contains like the chair said the full policy memo and the full this the full presentation given time today we're going to provide you a truncated version of this presentation.
So I just want to let you know that we're not going to be covering all the slides in the presentation meeting packet.
We're going to give you a short inversion of that.
So before I pass things off to fan.
I need to set some context around the RWSP.
It's policy work on the combined system and the CSO consent to creep.
The the RWSP is our regional wastewater systems general sewer plan.
And this plan must be submitted to and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
This means that what is in the plan must meet or exceed our regulatory and legal obligations.
In short, we can't submit an unapprovable plan to the Department of Ecology.
So the policy options that fans are going to walk us through today regarding the combined system.
Meet or exceed our CSO obligations.
Separate from this RWSP process.
There is an effort that is well underway with WTD and our regulators that is exploring options to balance regulatory requirements with options to address financial sustainability and affordability.
Like the bullet point on my last bullet point on this slide indicates.
So I just want to be very clear at the outset what the RWSP is doing and then this separate track about regulatory options with our regulators.
And with that said, that context said,
Fan are you available and ready to walk us through some a little brief background again, not all the slides some of the slides.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
So just to keep us grounded, this is the category that's looking at our combined sewer management, which means it includes our combined sewer overflow control program.
So this map is reminding us of the 38 outfalls that the county has responsible for controlling to the state standard.
And 82 outfalls also exist within the city of Seattle.
Those fall under Seattle's CSO control program.
So when we're talking about the future of counties combines sewer management activities.
It's with that focus on the 38 outfalls that the county has responsibility for controlling each of our agencies.
Our subject to consent to create requirements and permanent requirements and we work closely together.
Next slide, Darren.
We have made a lot of progress over the decades that we've been managing our combined sewer overflow control projects over a billion dollars has been invested since the early 90s.
We are currently at 21 controlled outfalls as of our latest annual report.
And we have brought the volume of untreated discharges that.
We're $2.3 billion in our baseline.
1979 down to 10 year average of 1 billion gallons.
We're continuing on that trajectory towards control.
We see here on this map, we've a lot of activities in this space.
This is a large area of of activity for the county and for WTG.
Next slide.
That's reflected in our portfolio activities in our rate path.
Right now, our regulatory portfolio includes $6.5 billion for 2026 to 2046.
And.
Here. Oh, I think I think we're Darren, were you going to speak to this.
I just kept going.
No, please go ahead.
So so we have reflected all of our consent to create and permanent requirements in that sewer rate projection we continue to do so.
So this is an area of substantial commitment and and regulatory requirement for regulatory portfolio.
So when we're presenting these policy options.
We're really thinking first about this policy question.
How are we going to continue and best upgrade the combined system to continue to address these regulatory requirements.
Our regional water quality objectives and West Point operations.
We have three policy options that we present here and I'll go into a bit more detail.
To present different potential futures for the for the combined system management policy option number one is focusing on continuing to complete all of our consent to create and permit requirements on the schedules that we have.
Following current code using green stormwater infrastructure when it's cost effective policy option to expands on that with proactive opportunities to invest in peak low management to reduce.
Close that are coming into the system that are not wastewater based flows and potentially to redirect some combined flows.
The way from the West point treatment and to see what could go to other other regional treatment plants.
Policy option number three takes that challenge further and matters of future where there are no untreated CSO just charges.
Which would be achieved through meeting those required CSO control projects.
And going further on the next side we have a bit more about policy option number one.
Which is really focusing on these regulatory requirements in in the next 11 years in particular.
So continuing to meet these requirements and maintain CSO control in our system now we're all aware of the challenges that comes with the stacking investments.
So this is consistent with what's currently in our rejection.
On the next side policy option number two depicts some of that additional activity that we could do to further remove non wastewater flows.
In the combined system or redirect flows away from West point with the objective being to further improve water quality.
And also have some capacity benefits at West point which could help us meet potential future regulatory requirements.
Then on the next slide.
We confirm that the objectives the outcomes that we're really looking for in policy option number.
We would take that water quality benefit even further by ensuring that there would be no untreated discharges of compliance to restore mark flows from those 38 county CSO outcomes.
This would be characterized with a substantially higher cost it would exceed granular requirements.
And would also likewise have great water quality benefits.
And is that I think I'm passing it back to you, Darren.
Yeah, and I will add on this on this option three just going back to this window here.
So as I mentioned at the outset all of these meet or exceed our CSO consent decree legal and regulatory obligations and requirements.
Option one meets it option two goes somewhat past it option three goes significantly past it and option three is really a book end scenario that we're putting out to consider in the context of the RWSP update process and.
It really is kind of we're going to be we are asked and will be asked an RWSP process that you know one CSO outflow every year under the CSO consent decree is one too many.
And so option three is really addressing that perspective.
And as fans said the cost to achieve that we're going to be significantly high potentially prohibitively high.
And so, but it's a range of options remember we're in the ideation.
Build the buffet of options stage in the planning process this is a far outbook end to eliminate completely all CSO discharges but there is a.
Group of folks out there that that suggests that one CSO on average per year is is one too many and so we're going to look at that what what that entails in the in the RWSP process.
And.
Now I'm sure I don't know if you want to take hands now or I've got a little bit to do and then I'll be done and then we could open it up to questions up to you.
Let me check in with commissioner Clark first can you hold off on the question.
I can hold I can hold off until till Derson.
Okay. Thanks. Director McClone you two can you wait.
Okay.
I'm taking that as a yes please keep going down.
Oh well.
All right. So the second part.
Part of this policy analysis, again, completely in your policy memo, how should combined system costs be recovered?
I want to point out that currently WTD has a uniform sewer rate, and we have had a uniform sewer rate, since the founding of King County Metro, now WTD, when the combined system was designed into the regional system back in 1961.
And under that uniform sewer rate, the combined system costs are shared by all the local sewer agencies.
In November, like I mentioned, we are going to be bringing Caitlin and her team.
We're going to be bringing a policy analysis to this committee on alternative rate structures.
And that will include analysis of a CSO sewer charge, as well as an INI or inflow and infiltration search charge, as well as a volume based rate.
Amongst other things, like the low income rate classification we talked with you about last month.
So, most of this kind of answering this question about combined system costs are going to be addressed in that November policy analysis.
For that work and so there's more information on the slide and in the memo on this, but I am going to stop there and open it up for questions and stop sharing my screen if I could find that.
Okay, thank you so much, Darren.
Let's start with Commissioner Clark.
Darren, one of the things that would be helpful for me, there's always somebody that doesn't want any CSO that will never get away from a core group of people that want to prevent any of those.
But when I start looking at the trade offs between those options and the volume reductions, I'm not really sure other than the regulatory impacts, I'm not really sure what I'm gaining from an environmental perspective.
I don't really, it would be helpful, because I'm sure you guys have looked at what the consequence of a billion gallons of CSOs and the receiving waters.
What the impact is or 150 million gallons, if you're able to do that by I think was 2037 or whenever it was, having that information as part of the discussion.
Particularly when we start trading it off with what you have a dollar here or you have a dollar nutrients and I know the regulators don't like to hear that, but a dollar in nutrients or I have a dollar in nonpoint source.
And we're looking at doubling our rates every five to six years.
It would be really helpful to understand the environmental consequences of these choices, not just the regulatory consequences.
So I would find it helpful if when we looked at the options, I could see what gain I'm getting.
Even though I know I'm subjected to the consent to increase, subjected to the regulatory issues, really what are we gaining from a environmental perspective.
And I'm out of touch now and I don't spend as much time on it as I used to, but.
It used to be that looking at nonpoint source scared me a lot more than the CSOs did for the what we were introducing into Puget Sound.
So I just think that would be helpful to me to have to be able to understand that support is worth.
Yeah, maybe they don't try to respond to that mountain chair. That's a kind of fan you could you could support me a little bit on this.
The concept of building in some water quality metrics to these options.
We've heard and I think that's doable and the in the step to body of work when we put costs on these and figure out hey what are the trade off and what are the benefits.
So absolutely we've heard that and fan eyes I believe we're planning on doing that.
I don't want to speak miss speak here, but I believe we are.
And in the final point I want to say on on this option to and fan can speak a little bit more about this.
It might be as it might be even more I would venture to say about what fan said about redirecting flows away from West Point to free up.
The ability to do something there with future reg.
I might might overshadow the water quality benefit from further reduced CSO beyond one per year, but I'll let fan add to that.
Yeah, we'll take that step to development of these policy options to characterize what we're representing as the different activities that would be taking place, but we would certainly want to characterize.
What the why is behind each of those.
Hey John, please go ahead.
So if we're considering policy option three, which is kind of extreme, especially in light of Commissioner Clark's comments in terms of really what's the value.
We're looking at system separation and again, you know, a lot of this is relying on since it's a combined system in Seattle that's contributing to this.
What is the cost of creating storm water at a wastewater treatment plant and what is the.
Lost opportunity of the volume that that storm water takes up where you could be treating wastewater.
I think we've talked about these things very sufficiently before, but I think the analysis of those kind of questions is going to be important in the policy discussion in this particular issue.
And again, if we're looking at this policy option three zero discharge, why aren't we looking at system separation, which, you know, could you do it is more practical.
And I don't know what the costs are because I don't know if the analysis have been done on that and I think it probably hasn't yet.
But also I do not want to lose sight of the cost of creating storm water to wastewater treatment plant and again we've asked those questions before and I understand we're in the analysis stage we're not at the cost stage yet, but I just want to highlight those couple points and you know stack those on top of Commissioner Clark's comments. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you chair.
I just wanted to confirm option two where part of the idea is to divert storm water out of west point.
I wanted to make sure that the I and I component that we're talking about for everywhere outside of Seattle would also include Seattle who has the significant amount of separated conveyance.
So that that can be analyzed, you know, part and parcel.
Yes, the policy option number two does explore removing the storm flows in a in a prioritized way not all the way to what to be represented in policy option number three, but having a prioritized way to address.
Non waste water based flows coming into the system that may be I and I that may be other system separation that may be flow shedding from the west point system.
And I think it's an important area for analysis and I want to make sure that previously Mr. gravy had suggested that Seattle did not have I and I.
And I wanted to make sure that it that it was included there separated system was included in the overall I and I and houses.
Is that true did I misunderstand you.
I I don't I don't think I would say that the separated system in Seattle is not part of the separate system of I for I and I consideration, but but.
But yeah, your note is taken, um, customer more apologies if that was if I misconstrued that, but yeah, when we're considering I and I and an I and I surcharge the entire separated system, including the portions in Seattle will be evaluated.
Thank you.
I really appreciate it.
And the secondly chair, I was wondering if there is, you know, I have some questions about our obligations and the consent decree and I.
If you felt it was appropriate to discuss them in an executive session, I would have some questions there.
Yes.
So we're prepared to do that.
I would like to just finish the questions that could be done outside of executive session before we do that.
And and then we'll have a few minutes to to switch over to the other zoom meeting.
Thank you.
I want to call myself and just say this topic has been kind of like a step up in terms of how it raises some of the really big picture questions of the entire RWSP for me anyway compared to some of the topics we've been working on over the last several months.
And it's listening to this discussion here and having some discussions leading up to this meeting.
What really does start to raise the question.
What is that end state that we are hoping to achieve when it comes to water quality in our region with this plan.
And how do we structure the plan to best achieve that.
So when it comes to the combined system, I'm hearing and seeing a whole lot of desire for understanding the benefits of what's being proposed not just as an analytical piece of stage two of the analysis.
As the ultimate goal like why you do you do option one here because we have to by law.
You do option two possibly because we have to by law option three.
Like why what is the what is the reason option three is on the table when I've asked that question before I heard before and I heard again today it's stakeholders want it.
And it's the first time I've really seen an option that I thought I don't know that we want to get people's hopes up by proposing it when it seems to me that it's DOA like how could we possibly be talking about.
Completely separating the combined system in Seattle who's going to pay for that on top of what we already can't afford with the consent to Korean top of what we have coming which is not we're back into bigger with the nutrient permit and then we're going to.
I hear that everybody's kind of signaling well it's unlikely because it's probably in practical but it's really in practical why waste time and energy spending it and why get people excited about it so.
I think maybe turning this one around and thinking in terms of outcomes not out for not the number of overflows but the water quality impact what you said so.
I feel like I would like to see another around of what could we do with this one before giving the blessing to say yes agree these are the option please go study because I feel like.
Maybe we don't quite have this one yet and at the first time I felt this on the topic that you brought so it's just I think a success of the program right you're asking us for feedback and here it is and as a rife.
So I'll there and give you an opportunity to say anything back to each choose to that or you can just take it on board and then I would like to take up councilmember morks.
Request for a brief executive session.
I'll just comment quickly chair that thank you for the feedback committee for the feedback that's what that's what this is all about right now that's what we're doing we're taking.
You see a new tax feedback on this and we will take it to heart in terms of the options that we move forward into a draft plan thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, with that I did ask staff to send out before the meeting another link that you can use to go into an executive session because I thought that this topic might lead us to questions that were best answered in executive session.
And so I'm going to now call us into executive session the grounds are to discuss with legal counsel legal risks of a proposed action when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in adverse legal or financial consequence to the county.
I'm going to say it will be an executive session for approximately 10 minutes until about by the time I get us out of here for 55 and what I will ask is the committee to leave this room call and then any county employees necessary for the discussion.
Please leave the zoom call and enter the other link that you had for executive session and when the executive session is finished we will come back into this zoom call.
So there we go we will be committee will be an executive session for approximately 10 minutes.
Thank you.
I'm working from the clock.
I thank you all.
Mam неeud yu o'r chwfys,
a herwn bydd dd"...
I dogrwm o'r trawtyfys ydd i dhyg yn y bwynekd.
I dogrwms o'r chwim ennydd i ddyl i ddyd i ddyd i ddau-u,
Wyddy Evet, yw i'r funfysdwl cymneith Billarneolau'n yws peth o'n peth i'r amd yw i'r amthynffen, o'r amydlu'n
hynny doedr o'n ddeflil yn bryd yn arrdu i'r adwiaen cymnaol am.
Wyddychnydd yn cymnydd ydryw, weddim yma, o'n mynd, meithiau,
dd birthday un Cyng.
Mae'n cymnydd yw i'n cyd yn ffysdwl ydw iud yn anagoln o'r yn iawn jund,
OALAum NIFFIDDS fylem na'r sydyn fy ellef fyl hawlph follower,
oedd, byn boorell mewn o'r Pèm yn eu chww photos,
eun yn dim honler dweud o dda Euchyn wnaith y Acid.
E您au playngi, where Eg….
Mae'n ar o yn llwyddd greister?
R exciting, as e 영oda, yrγάw,
iąau, spoedio mae'n llw Otropdwr'n Gael am yckergedon.
Ry Mae'n mwy sem yn gerodrednaud?
Mae'n cy embedeta meniw Seanen oedd ydeu wywn oedd lyodiwns
wrth oweddneaudwne. Mae'na'n ddewnefydwneid dynewtod nhw'n ddefo pet o'n rhyngyfydwneud.
Mae'n rwdd yn rydym yn eeth'n awr fawith.
Ydyn yw'n fawith yn yr yw ywneud bwnywneud bwneud bwneud bwneud bwneud bwneud bwneud bwneud bwneud glymos
Pweud y bydd yw hynlyl wedi yn y ndefnyddiau yn y feathersu diwynw hynlyl wedi yw hynlyl wedi'n Defence
Eweud yw hynlyl wedi mae'n yw hynlyl wedi'n amed mor hon yr i'n fwyr,
fwryn i'n inw hynlyl wedi'n ddeodau zwn ydbwr rydym ddwr,
e'n gymnyddr wedi'n ddwr, McF Ond ydyddr,
Ew Ewneud mynd gwnaud fyth ydwr yn gydim yw gwntddododu gwntddud again oedd ysg yn yddiwr.
o'n dwi'n fywr yn y bifu atwch'r ymnydd.
Dyna fywr yn yrад y llun i'r llun gwawn ar ri'n aifu yn hyn yn dsodd.
O'r iawn y'n hewnsodd hwyfydda wedi'u ein fywr yn ryfiau yn howm yrergfd.
A'r llun ywydd yn dadfodd y i'n gwawn ar ylwyfydda wedi'n fwydda ywydda'r hwydda'r
yn ym yn fywd dda'r mwyfydda'r atwynul.
A'r llun i'l ywydda'r yio'rをwnwwydda'r o'r souffrwhich...
arms esprwyfdan yma, am hyl hyn i'r testiadau.
I'r symb o'r iawn am ymneud, a'r sewn o'r ronawn,
ond byl fy pobl Jamie Siddhol, Mae'n i'r Felly a'r arnyl o'r ffall.
A'r refan i'r ronawn, o'r ronawn o'r ronawn,
a'r ynawn o'r ronawn, a'r ronawn, a'r ronawn, a'r ronawn o'r ronawn.