Tumwater City Council authorized Mayor Debbie Sullivan to sign the interlocal agreement for the governance and funding of the Deschutes Estuary project.
The project seeks to restore Capitol Lake Dam into an estuary by removing the Fifth Avenue Dam.
It includes reconstructing the Fifth Avenue Bridge, building habitat land from materials to be dredged under Capitol Lake, and building new boardwalks at the south basin of Capitol Lake.
The agreement defines the responsibilities of the project partners and their fiscal responsibilities.
As the Department of Enterprise Services (DES) will fund most of the project, the project partners will contribute to the cost of maintenance dredging activities on Budd Inlet once the Fifth Avenue Bridge has been removed.
Tumwater is projected to contribute around $7.7 million by 2050, when the agreement ends.
The council also authorized an agreement with DES to construct the south basin boardwalks.
DES will still fund this project component but will consult with the city to design the facility.
The boardwalk will be transferred to the city after its completion. According to the contract, the city shall have exclusive control of the facility and bear all costs and associated risks of the boardwalks afterward.
“Upon transfer, Tumwater shall have exclusive control of the South Basin Boardwalks, shall bear all maintenance costs and responsibilities for the South Basin Boardwalks, and shall have all risk of loss related to the South Basin Boardwalks,” the agreement stated.
City Administrator Lisa Parks told the council that the cost to maintain the boardwalk has not yet been determined as the designs have not yet been completed. Parks added that one way they are ensuring that the cost will be minimal is by participating in the design process.
At a minimum, the design for the boardwalk will include recreational and viewing opportunities, as well as path connections to Tumwater Historical Park and other existing pathways, according to the agreement.
According to a previous council meeting discussion, the design process is already ongoing. Projector director Ann Larson from DES previously told the council that public engagement has already gone towards the preliminary design and that DES will continue to engage with the community for the rest of the design process.
Before the council approved the agreement, Councilmember Angela Jefferson raised concerns from some members of the public who wanted the council to vote against it because the project site is not directly within Tumwater.
Parks responded that the project benefits not only the direct area where it is located but will also affect the entire watershed.
“It actually will benefit the entirety of the watershed, particularly when it's viewed in relationship to the work that our stormwater crews – for example — are working on regionally in terms of the Deschutes River watershed areas and restoration projects that are happening upstream,” Parks said.
Councilmember Michael Althauser disagreed with the notion that Capitol Lake is not even in the city’s “backyard.”
“It literally is our backyard, like the project area comes down into our city. Our city was founded on the Deschutes which runs through the heart of our city and often is described as the heart of our city. And it's sick, it's not a healthy river,” Althauser said.
Althauser acknowledged the financial cost of committing to the project but held that the long-term benefits would be worth it.
“The prospect of signing up for an agreement that binds us to spend $7.6 million over the next 30 years is daunting. That's a lot of money, especially for us, but it's also something that I think will pay dividends down the road for a long time,” the councilmember said.
Althauser added the city has responsibility for the sediment that goes into the Deschutes River.
“I think there's also like an element of fairness here for our responsibility to participate in the dredging. A lot of that dirt in the lake is our dirt, right? … If we remove the dam, I think it would just be irresponsible of us to just wash our hands and say, ‘well the dirt left our jurisdiction so it's not our responsibility to clean it up anymore,’” Althauser continued.
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
bhalverson
I have been very vocal on my support for the Estuary Project and just as vocal about the mechanism developed by the Deschutes Estuary Steering Committee (DESC) made up of elected leaders from each of the partners to fund the dredging of West Bay after removal of the dam. The dam was built in 1951 as a vanity project for the State Capitol. As early as the 1990's the Department of Enterprise Services (DES) recognized they had a huge environmental problem with the lake and as the years went by the problem became worse resulting in the lake being closed to all recreational activities. DES was responsible for the lake as part of the Capitol Campus but did little to resolve the numerous environmental problems. For years DES has been working on a solution. The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) identified a solution that would rehabilitate the area by removing the dam and returning the area to an Estuary. A good thing. But then DES had to find a way to fund this $350 Million dollar project and knew that by removing the dam more sediment would be washed down the river through the estuary and into the bay area where marinas, the yacht club and the Port of Olympia were located. All but one Marina had existed prior to the construction of the dam, and they were all dealing with sediment removal (dredging) up to the dams’ construction. Once the dam was constructed the amount of sediment washing into the bay area was reduced significantly and this became the norm for the past 75 years. If the dam had never been built they would have continued to pay for maintenance dredging all along. They had a 75 year hiatus of not having to dredge as often. The legislature had requested DES work with local jurisdictions and come up with a plan that could possibly include funding to deal with the dredging. Our local elected leaders followed the lead of DES. Lambs to the slaughter in the hands of experienced bureaucrats. All the right buzz words were used to entice our elected leaders to buy in to the program and offer to spend our tax dollars. Do you know what those tax dollars will be used for? Most taxpayers don't know, and I would suggest most of the elected leaders that voted to approve the ILA for their jurisdiction don't know either. The millions of dollars alluded to in this article (7.6 Million) and millions more from the other partners will go to help pay for the dredging of the Port of Olympia Vessel Berths and the access areas for the private marinas and the yacht club so these private marinas, the yacht club and the Port of Olympia will not need to pay as much to maintain access to the deeper water from their boat slips. Why should our taxpayers pay to reduce costs to the richest people? They shouldn't. But you can't make the marinas and yacht club pay all of that money, right? Well, they did prior to the dam being built. However, inflation has increased the cost of dredging to a point where the state (Department of Natural Resources) who owns the leases to the shoreline where these marinas are located doesn't feel they could reasonably increase the cost the marinas lease the property for to a level that they could afford. Okay. Who created the problem? The state. So why are local jurisdictions being asked to pay? They shouldn't. Yes, a couple, like the City of Olympia should be paying something into the fund because the City owns one of the marinas and draws income from it. They also collect a lot of taxes from all the waterfront properties along the bay. But even Olympia should not pay 11.5 million. Why are we being asked to supplement the cost of dredging the Port of Olympia? We all pay a tax to the Port of Olympia already. That tax is supposed to include dredging the port when necessary. All ports in Washington State pay the full amount to dredge their Vessel Berths. Why is the Port of Olympia different? All our elected leaders need to excerpt their leadership and push back on DES. Redo the ILA. Some jurisdictions should pay some, but the state should pay for most of it. As I have just explained, they created the problem, allowed the problem to fester and get worse year after year and did little to take care of the increasing environmental issues that now include 12 invasive species. I realize most of the local jurisdictions have already voted to approve this ILA and stick it to their respective taxpayers, but it’s not too late for them all to stand up and tell DES to start over with the funding mechanism. That is what they should do. We will see what they do.
Today Report this