(Editor's Note: In the May 21 Times/News, Keith Daigle reported on a Des Moines City Council meeting where city officials said Water District 54 staffers had essentially backed out of plans to upgrade the downtown water system. Daigle reported that Mayor Bob Sheckler said the city handed the project to the water district on a silver platter and the mayor had no idea why they would reject it. Sheckler also noted the city may have to take over the water district. John Rayback, Water District 54 commissioner, sent the following letter to the Times/News explaining the district's side of the controversy.)

I am concerned about the misinformation published under Keith Daigle's byline about Water District 54 and its role in the problems facing developers in the Des Moines business district.

Ten years ago, before any of the current commissioners were elected, this District asked the City of Des Moines and its Fire District how much water the City would need for fire fighting purposes at ultimate build-out. The question required the City and the Fire District to predict how many and what type of businesses and citizens (new dwellings) this district would be required to serve, as that would determine the amount of water needed.

The answer, with regard to fire flow, was that we would need to be prepared to provide 3500 gallons per minute, for three hours. We would also need to have enough additional capacity to provide domestic water to all citizens at reduced pressure levels.

The District then drew up plans to increase its capacity and distribution systems to provide the needed capacity. It adopted a water system plan, approved by the City, to build a new 660,000-gallon reservoir, new pumping facilities, and a new well, all of which would meet the requirements the city indicated would be needed. It also entered into an agreement with Highline Water District to provide an emergency intertie which could be activated in an emergency.

This District provides untreated well water to its customers. In accordance with Department of Health regulations there is no need to chlorinate the water, and we have never added fluoride to our water. Highline does chlorinate and fluoridate their water, so we try to avoid mixing their water with ours, except should there be an emergency.

The current Water District Board has had our Engineer prepare a hydraulic model of our system, to see what additional work needs to be done. It tells us that we currently meet all of the fire flow and additional domestic water requirements that we are required to provide. The City questioned the accuracy of that program, and hired another engineering firm (at the cost of $28,000) to review it. The City's consultant agreed our program did, in fact, produce an accurate analysis of our capabilities.

The City and this District seem to have communication problems. In the early 1990's the City rebuilt and widened the "Fill" where Marine View Drive (MVD) crosses Des Moines Creek. One of our then Commissioners asked at that time why they didn't put in a bridge.

Apparently they had gone too far in their planning to even consider a bridge. This District spent $275,000 replacing the water main across the new roadway. We will be paying off the loan we received to do that work until 2014.

Shortly after completion of the "Fill," the City started planning for the bridge to replace the "Fill." We recognized that this would be an expense to the District, and began seeking financing. Then we received mixed messages on whether the bridge would be built, and withdrew our application for financing.

We learned that the bridge was going ahead, not from the City, which is required by law, but from a flyer from the Washington Department of Transportation. Because of the timing of the information, we had to go to the legislature to get a Public Works Trust Fund loan to finance our costs of replacing our water main. That loan won't be paid off until 2025.

Beginning in 2006, District personnel have met with City and Fire District personnel concerning improvements to the water system in the downtown business district. The biggest issue was the City and the Fire District wanted a main down MVD to improve fire flow on MVD. The District took the position that such an improvement should be done by developer extension agreements.

The City wanted the District to bear the cost. I am advised that City representatives contacted both Highline and Lakehaven Utility District about our position, and were advised by both other districts that they would take the same position as this District. Reports on results of those meetings were regularly reported to the City Council.

This District's current water system plan calls for the District to "loop" more of our system. We specifically plan to "loop" 220th, 222nd, 225th, and 226th streets for 8th Avenue to 6th Avenue. That looping would cross MVD with 12-inch pipes, upgrade fire hydrants on the east and west sides of MVD and increase the fire flow at each hydrant.

These improvements will be made with District funds. While we may not be able to go all the way from 8th Ave to 6th Ave on all of the cross streets with currently available funds, we will make all of the MVD crossings, upgrade the fire hydrants, and loop existing lines, so as to improve fire flow.

On April 14, 2010, we met with the City Council to discuss the improvements to the downtown water system. The City wants a 12-inch main running down MVD. The District wants to complete the looping.

The City has received a grant of $486,000 to improve the downtown water system. To get the grant, it needs $398,000 in matching funds. The City doesn't have those funds; the District does. The District agreed to make those funds available to the overall downtown water system improvements project.

The City wants to run the 12-inch main down MVD from 219th to 227th streets. It would start from an existing District 12 inch main on 219th ST, (There is also an existing District 12 inch main running north on MVD from 219th to 217th, which will tie into a 12-inch main currently being installed along 216th).

The City wants all of the work on MVD done at one time. Neither the City nor the District have the funds to put the 12-inch main the entire distance between 219th and 227th. The City talked of getting a loan to do all of its work at one time.

The District is unable to comment on the City's ability to obtain loans. Councilman Thomasson did comment that the City would be responsible for its repayment, whether or not it ever received any money back for connection charges to businesses that hooked up to the line, and that this could have a serious impact on the City's ability to maintain its streets, parks, etc.

It was discussed that the Water District would make appropriate charges for hooking up to the line, and that part of those charges would e returning to the City by the District. Unfortunately, I was unaware of a provision in RCW 57.08.005 that relates to charges a district may make for hooking up to its system, which provides, in part, "the cost of exiting facilities shall not include those portions of the system which have been donated or which have been paid for by grants."

It appears to me that the language would seem to prevent the District from assessing hook-up fees that would allow the District to help the City defray its costs. Whether the City could use RCW 36.43 to impose an ULID on MVD, I don't feel qualified to decide. That should be decided by the City Attorney if the City insists on doing the entire project at one time.

In your May 21, 2010 article, your sources allege that the District has withdrawn, or reneged, on its agreement to provide the necessary local match for the City to get the federal grant. That is not true. You referred to our letter on May 4th to Loren Reinhold, which was a response to his draft for an interlocal agreement between the City and the District covering the downtown water system project.

In it, we clearly stated that we would provide the local match so that the City could receive grant money. We also described the work that would be done on the downtown water system project to provide that match.

The District is committed to doing the work on the side streets, even if the City does not put a main down MVD. If our work on the side streets is done without the City using its grant money to do any of the work on MVD, then it may either lose the grant, or lose the use of our funds as matching funds.

I believe that they have already lost the ability to use $26,000 that the District has spent on engineering and design work on what would need to be done to put a line down MVD.

Mr. Daigle has authored several articles relating to this problem. Clearly, the City wants to aid developers. But in your April 30 edition, he notes that Councilman Kaplan "predicts" that the bottom has not fallen out yet, and that the commercial real estate bubble is going to burst in the next year or two, which will affect the City budget.

In your May 14 edition, he reports upon an issue that has been a concern for twenty years regarding the downtown business district-parking and building height restrictions. Until those issues are resolved, developers are going to remain wary of risking their money until they are sure that they can recover their costs and make a profit.

Mr. Daigle might also actually contact developers as to the reasons that they are not building downtown. While the City may want to blame it all on water issues, our limited research suggests that currently it is based more on the economy- three new buildings are still essentially empty- the lack of available financing- at least we are not being blamed for the delays at the proposed business park on airport land- and the changing priorities of developers. We understand that one proposed developer, with plans already approved, is selling not only its Des Moines property, but also others outside the City.

I was surprised at Earline Byers' comment (May 21st edition) that she was told that when new pipes are in on MVD "developers are lined up to build." I would be interested in knowing where that information came from, as it contradicts everything I have heard. Mrs. Byers should also refer to the City's consultant that we currently provide the flow and safety requirements for fire flow within the District.

We concede that the City can take over this District. We do not concede that a take-over would resolve the City's problems. I doubt that Highline Water District would, in "running" it, spend its funds to upgrade the system. If the system belonged to the City, the City would be the one responsible for those expenses, or at least most of them.

As long as I am a Commissioner of this District, one of my priorities will be to do everything I can legally do to assist the City in reaching its goals. Another is to upgrade our entire system for he benefit of all residents and businesses in our District. Another is to provide our services at reasonable rates to all customers. Still another is to continue providing pure, untreated water to our users.

Those goals take commitment and planning. The City told the District what it needed in the way of water availability to ultimate build-out, and the District is providing what we were told was needed. If the City will agree upon, and tell us what their ultimate goals are for the downtown business district, I will work to achieve these goals.

The District is currently working to update its comprehensive plan. It does this every six years. It would be helpful if we know exactly what the City's plan is for the downtown area.

Finally, I understand that you have a Friday noon deadline for press time. It is unfortunate that Mr. Daigle waited until 10a.m. on Friday to seek comment from our District manager, who was not in the office that day, and that he made no attempt to contact any of the Commissioners, before going to press.

John Rayback
Commissioner
King County Water District #54