Gearhart measure asks voters to dig deeper to pay for water project | News | tillamookheadlightherald.com

GEARHART - If voters don't approve a $4 million bond issue tocomplete Gearhart's water system, the city may face a situation of"water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink."

Although voters approved a $7 million bond measure in November2004 to build the system, city officials say that unforeseendelays, construction costs and inflation have reduced the amount ofmoney available to complete the project. As a result, they needanother $4 million to construct a water treatment plant and a watertower reservoir.

Ballots for the special election were mailed out Sept. 3. Theyare due back to the Clatsop County Election Office by 8 p.m. Sept.21.

To win approval for the bond, the city needs at least a 50percent turnout from its 866 registered voters.

As of Thursday, 135 ballots had been returned, according to theClatsop County Elections Office.

While he may be concerned about what voters will decide, CityAdministrator Dennis McNally isn't too worried about theturnout.

"Gearhart residents always have taken voting very seriously,"McNally said. "No matter how small the election is, there's alwaysat least a 60 percent turnout."

The question voters will focus on this time is whether they wantto continue to pay for a water system that will make themindependent of the city of Warrenton's system, which has servedGearhart for 60 years.

Sales to Gearhart account for $600,000 of Warrenton's annualwater revenue of $2.3 million, said Warrenton Mayor GilbertGramson.

If voters turn down the measure, City Councilor Dianne Widdopbelieves the next question they will have to ask themselves is,"What are you willing to pay Warrenton for water?"

Gearhart residents currently pay $6.43 per 748 gallons. Thosewho receive water from Gearhart but who live outside the citylimits pay $9.20 per 748 gallons.

The bond measure also comes with a cost. Owners of property inGearhart pay $1.38 per $1,000 assessed valuation for the bondmeasure passed six years ago. The owner of a property assessed at$300,000 will pay $414 this year.

If the current bond request is approved, property owners wouldpay an additional 45 cents per $1,000. The owner of that $300,000property would add $135 to the bill.

But McNally said, those rates gradually will go down as thebonds are paid off. Water rates also will "plummet substantially"after Gearhart's water system is in place, he said. How much thatcould be, however, McNally won't know until he receives a reportfrom a consultant who is studying the issue.

Despite concerns by some skeptics that the city still may nothave enough money to complete the system, McNally said voters won'tneed to consider additional bond measures.

"I feel these numbers will be good," he said. "I have theultimate faith in our consultants that these are good numbers."

Without the bond, "We'd be out of luck," said Gearhart MayorKent Smith. "The whole system (including eight wells that havealready been dug) would have to be decommissioned. The wells wouldhave to be physically extracted.

"The $2 million we've already spent would be negated, and wewould still have to pay those bonds off. It would be a big waste ofmoney.

"We need this - we need this in the worst way," Smith said.

Council OKs bond measureThe City Council decided on June 30 toseek a $4 million bond measure after McNally presented figuresshowing that a water treatment plant and a water tower, which willstore 1.5 million gallons, would cost $9.4 million to $9.9million.

But the city had only $5.6 million left from the $7 million bondoriginally passed, McNally said.

The city originally had enough money to build the project, andmost of the funds already spent went to dig eight wells and hireengineers to design the water treatment plant. But the city learnedthat another $1 million would be needed to install seismicreinforcements around the 750,000-gallon underground water storagetanks planned to be built below Gearhart's tennis courts.

McNally realized this that unexpected cost, plus the money usedto pay for an attorney to gain water rights from the state waterresources department, would put the city over its budget.

The city applied for the water rights in 2005, but it wasn'tuntil 2008 that the rights were granted. It could have been a yearsooner, but just before the permit was to be granted, the city ofWarrenton filed a protest.

"We never objected to them obtaining a permit from the waterresources department," said Warrenton Mayor Gilbert Gramson. "Ourconcern was the department's requirement that Warrenton supplementGearhart's water usage in the summer and supply emergency backup.We didn't have any agreement with Gearhart at the time. We haven'thad an agreement with them for 10 years."

Warrenton withdrew its protest in June 2008, but two weekslater, Gearhart requested a hearing on the final order issued bythe water resources department, and, later, a reconsideration ofthe order. A settlement agreement was signed in November 2008, andthe city gained rights to supply water for nine months. Warrentonwill supply water for July, August and September, although Gearhartdoesn't yet have a written memorandum of understanding, which isrequired by the order.

Gearhart has five years from the date of the permit to build thesystem; it must be complete before November 2013. However, Wallinsaid, if it is well under way, a time extension could begranted.

If the bond measure is approved, the city will seek bids for thetreatment plant and water tower. If the same company is hired tobuild both structures, construction could begin on each of themsimultaneously, McNally said. He estimated the project could becompleted by the spring of 2012.

During the three years it took to get the water rights,inflation kicked in, and construction costs rose by 20 percent,McNally said.

City officials blame the delays for some of the project's risingcosts, and Tim Wallin, water rights property manager for the waterresources department, agreed the permit process was a "little onthe long side."

"Any time an application is protested, it definitely raisesnumerous technical issues," he said.

But, he added, "I would think people versed in water rightswould understand" the time it could take to obtain a permit.

The final order requires Gearhart to have a physical connectionand to enter into a "memorandum of understanding" with an"alternate municipal water supplier" for backup emergency watersupply. If the wellfield is restricted due to saltwater intrusion,the order says, the city must ensure that "adequate and safe water"is available year-round through that memorandum.

The water resources department accepted an alternate watersupply plan from Gearhart that ensures an adequate and safe supply,according to the order.

Opponents raise objectionsBut two longtime opponents to thecity's water system - Deanna Mancill and Laura Chester - worrythat, in the future, saltwater intrusion will become an issue.

"I'm afraid that, in 20 years or less, the ocean is going torise six to 22 inches because of global warming. If that happens, arise in sea levels is going to cause salt water intrusion into thewells," Mancill said. A Gearhart resident, Mancill worked for 14years as a cartographer for a local engineer.

The city's eight wells are built on the beach between SixthAvenue and Pacific Way. But, McNally noted, they are drilled 160feet below sea level, and the water will be pumped through a pipeto the treatment plant. They are protected from saltwater, andfresh water from rain and streams constantly flow over the area, hesaid.

In addition, several monitoring wells between the ocean and thewater wells constantly check for saltwater in the system.

"We will never allow saltwater to get in here because we havethe monitors to tell us," he said. "We can change the number ofgallons pumped per minute and which wells pump water."

Mancill and Chester also are concerned about pollutants,including arsenic, pathogens and pharmaceuticals getting into thedrinking water from Gearhart's septic system.

But McNally said that the low levels of arsenic contained in thewater can be treated with iron oxide, and in feasibility studiesusing a test well, the arsenic level was reduced to zero.

Those same tests checked for nitrates and nitrites, which cancome from septic systems, and none were detected, McNally said.

"This aquifer is so much deeper than the shallow septicsystems," he added.

The water will run into the new treatment plant, to be builtnear the tennis courts on Pacific Way and Marion Avenue. There, itwill run through a membrane filtration system and be treated withchlorine. While McNally calls the membrane "state-of-the-art"technology used by many municipalities, including Warrenton,Mancill said it was "such a new technology that I don't trustit."

In response, McNally said that "what comes out of the treatmentplant will be perfectly safe."

Mancill and Chester also questioned whether the proposed watertower could withstand an earthquake where it is proposed on an80-foot high ridge off of Salminen Lane east of U.S. Highway 101.But geologic tests indicate the area is safe, said McNally, whopointed out that that ridge is the same as that where the Seasidetower is located several miles to the south.

The city paid $64,000 for the site for the tower, which isexpected to cost between $1.9 million and $2.3 million. "We'redoing additional tests," McNally said. "We're not foreseeing anyproblems."

Still, Laura Chester, who is concerned that more unexpectedcosts will increase water rates, said she would feel morecomfortable if Gearhart gave up on the effort to build its ownsystem and continued to buy water from another municipality.

"I think they need to bite the bullet and buy water fromWarrenton or Seaside, but Gearhart's relationship with those citiesis bad," Chester said.

Both Mancill and Chester say they have heard that Warrenton onceoffered to let Gearhart "buy into" the Warrenton water system. ButGramson, McNally and Smith say the offer was never formallymade.

"We had a dinner meeting in 2008 with Gearhart city officialsand the city manager," Gramson recalled. "What we did offer was a20 percent reduction in the water rate and a guarantee that itwouldn't rise more than Warrenton rates would rise.

"There was some idle chatter about buying into the system,"Gramson added. "The number I heard was $2 million to $3 million,but we would have to hire someone to study it and decide what theright cost would be. There was no formal presentation; I was justthrowing it out."

But Gearhart officials "really weren't interested in seeing aproposal" for the 20 percent reduction in rates," he said. "Theytold us that their citizens had voted for the water system and theyneeded to move ahead.

"If they wanted a proposal, I'd be glad to send onetomorrow."

McNally generally agrees with Gramson's version, but heremembers that those attending from Gearhart asked Gramson to "senda proposal," but the city never received a proposal.

Water, water everywhereMcNally enjoys telling the story abouthow surprised everyone was when the wells were dug last Septemberand the water production was much more than they had everanticipated. Some wells are capable of producing 500 gallons perminute, he said.

Although the water resources department gave the city permissionto dig 14 wells, only eight were dug. McNally estimates that willprovide enough water for the next 20 years.

Because the city has water rights for just nine months a year,McNally plans to return to the water resources board within thefirst year after the system is in operation to seek full waterrights for the entire 12 months. He doesn't expect to have manyproblems. There's plenty of water for year-round use, even duringthe summer tourist season.

"We've been monitoring it for a year," with a test well, hesaid. I don't think it will take long at all because we've followedall the requirements. Now that we have firm data, it should be ano-brainer."

Log In

1. Be Civil. No bullying, name calling, or insults.2. Keep it Clean and Be Nice. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,racist or sexually-oriented language.3. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will notbe tolerated.4. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone oranything.5. Be Proactive. Let us know of abusive posts. Multiple reportswill take a comment offline.6. Stay On Topic. Any comment that is not related to the originalpost will be deleted.7. Abuse of these rules will result in the thread being disabled,comments denied, and/or user blocked.8. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.

View our 10-15-24 E-Edition right here!

We're always interested in hearing about news in our community. Send us your news, photos, and videos and let us know what's going on!

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Sign up today!

We're always interested in hearing about news in our community. Send us your news, photos, and videos and let us know what's going on!

Sorry, there are no recent results for popular articles.

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Sign up today!

Subscribe for just $75.00/year, or claim your FREE access if you are already a subscriber.