SAVE LAKE TAPPS COALITION -- OPTIONS
IDENTIFICATION/RESEARCH COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 MEETING
The meeting was called to order by Ken Castile.
Those in attendance were: Emily Kozie, Don Yeats, Bill
Baker, Don Hanson, Dick Tyler, Bob Young (Mayor of Bonney
Lake), Doug Weston, Ken Castile, and Terry Montoya.
It was announced that next week's meeting is canceled.
On September 22 there will be a joint meeting with PSE
where they will review various options with us. A
speaker for the September 29 meeting will be determined
later.
Our guest was Mayor Bob Young of Bonney Lake. He began
his discussion with us by noting that both Lakewood and
Normandy Park are looking at owning their own generation
in the form of gas fired turbines. They hope to form
municipal utilities. Dick Tyler stated we should still
research the option of becoming a P.U.D. or municipal
utility. This may be the most economic option. The
White River Project would then provide part of the power
required. New generation facilities could be added or
power could be purchased from BPA to fulfill the need of
the entire P.U.D. Dick shared with the committee an
article from the "Tacoma News Tribune" regarding concern
about possible blackouts as loads continue to grow and
hydro projects are removed. This appears to this
committee to be an indicator for not taking such projects
out of production.
Ken Castile shared with the committee a possible list of
options we should continue to consider. These included
the following:
1. Rural Electric Cooperative
2. Municipal Owned Electric Utility
3. Puget Sound Energy Owned -- Homeowner Options
4. Other additional options
Rural Electric Cooperative
***The purpose would be to acquire and operate the White
River Project
***In a Rural Electric Co-op:
1. The co-op members are the customers
2. It is a non-profit organization
3. "Excess" is shared by the co-op members through
reduced rates and/or rebates
4. The co-op is run by a commission elected by members
***Pros -- arguments for
1. There are co-op organizations to help us get started
(an initial study is underway)
a. Washington Rural Electric Cooperative Assn
b. Co-op Finance Corporation
2. It will be a public owned utility (with local
control and access to BPA power)
3. The co-op members would control their own destiny
4. It could lead to lower cost power
***Cons -- arguments against
1. PSE may not want to give up the Power Station System
and/or distribution
2. It will require over 5,000 committed customers (this
is under study)
3. There is an assumed debt/liability by the co-op
membership
4. Would have no power of condemnation (must purchase
project)
Dick Tyler noted there could be a problem if even one
household voted against the co-op and wanted PSE to
provide their service. This could become very
complicated.
Ken then presented the following regarding how proceed
toward a co-op:
***Conduct preliminary study and meet with PSE
***Look at options
1. Acquire the White River Power System and subcontract
distribution to PSE
2. Acquire power system and subcontract distribution to
PSE with option to buy
3. Acquire power system and the distribution
4. Acquire project for generation only (would have to
pay very low price to make this economically feasible
Dick believes there may be precedent for doing this)
Additionally,
there's a question whether co-op members must be
customers.
***Negotiate with PSE
***Conduct complete feasibility study (would require
financing)
***Apply for co-op status
***Apply for loan from Co-op Finance Corp
***Buy the power system plus
Mayor Young asked where FERC ties into the co-op
scenario. Would PSE do all the work FERC is requiring?
Also, what about the ESA listings of salmon and bull
trout? Whoever has control of the project is going to
have to deal with FERC and the ESA. That must be kept in
mind when considering this option.
A MUNICIPAL OWNED ELECTRIC PROGRAM
***The purpose would be to acquire and operate the White
River Project
***A municipal owned electric program:
1. A city would acquire the White River Project
2. A city is a non-profit organization
3. The profits would go to the city to aid in providing
benefits for the community
4. The city administration would run the program
***Pros -- arguments for
1. The co-op and state city organizations would help us
get started
2. It will be a public owned utility
3. The city would control the lake; therefore, the
people within the city would control the lake
4. The benefits would go to the people within the city
***Cons -- arguments against
1. PSE may not want to give up the Power Station System
and/or distribution
2. The benefits would only go to those within the city
boundaries
3. There is an assumed debt/liability by the city
Mayor Young elaborated on this option. He mentioned two
possible scenarios. The first has the city buying the
project and all its assets. They would own and run the
WRP and annex just the project into the City of Bonney
Lake. Of course, there are FERC and ESA issues to be
considered. The second scenario involves annexing
homeowners' property as well. This would involve the
Boundary Review Board. In order to increase the urban
growth area, Bonney Lake must be able to provide all
services for property owners. Sewer is the biggest
hurdle.
Terry Montoya brought up the issue of water rights. The
Department of Ecology would be willing to negotiate
additional water rights to the White River Project in
exchange for greater flows in the river for salmon. If
Bonney Lake acquired the WRP the additional water rights
would pass to the city. The water source would actually
be existing wells not the lake. The city currently
doesn't have enough water rights for all the capacity in
their wells. The rights would have to be changed from
non consumptive (PSE's) to consumptive (Bonney Lake's).
Income from water could balance the generation of power.
If Bonney Lake profited from the water rights the funds
could possibly subsidize additional sewer costs.
It was mentioned the bull trout listing could force
homeowners onto sewers. The existing septic systems
mights be in violation of the ESA listing.
Don Yeats questioned whether the increased tax base
resulting from annexation would generate funds for
additional services which would be required. It was
pointed out that passage of Initiative 695 will reduce
the sales tax benefit for new cities.
Ken Castile mentioned the Corps of Engineers is currently
considering taking action on the diversion dam at Doug
Sutherland's request.
At this point, the committee went into Executive Session
for further discussion.
Bob Young will stay in touch with this committee.
Don Yeats and Ken Castile will work on a timeline.
The cost evaluation needs to be completed. Dick Tyler
indicated this is moving along through the Task Force.
Doug Weston requested at least some meetings be held
without speakers as the time to consider what we've
learned is very valuable. It was agreed we will have a
mix of meetings with programs and work sessions as required.
Minutes by Emily Kozie
