Langley Sewer Bond

City of Langley, Washington, Water Management System Improvement Bonds

Measure Text

The City Council of the City of Langley, Washington, passed Ordinance No. 1056, concerning water management infrastructure to protect public health, property and environment.  The proposition would authorize the City to: construct City-wide water management utility improvements, including upgrading corroded and undersized domestic water lines, extending new and upgrading existing corroded and cracked sanitary sewer mains and extending new and repairing existing outdated and inefficient stormwater facilities; make related street restorations; issue no more than $4,000,000 of general obligation bonds maturing within 30 years; and levy annual excess property taxes to repay the bonds, all as provided in Ordinance No. 1056.

Should this proposition be:

• Approved 
• Rejected 

Ballot Title Prepared by Island County Prosecuting Attorney

This has been the single most contentious issue on the ballot. I have participated in more meetings, sessions, workshops, discussions, conversations, arguments, phone calls, and emails than a normal human being would subject themselves to in a year, all on this one subject. 

What its all about: the city, like so many others, has been rather derelict in regular maintenance and upkeep of its infrastructure. Public Works director Stan Berryman is out hustling grants, loans, and other funding sources to deal with parts of what is called “deferred maintenance.” That’s how 2^nd and 3^rd streets got repaved recently. There appears to have been less attention – and this goes back decades – to the water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure. The upshot is that its pretty much falling apart. 

My greatest concern is the water lines, which are made of asbestos cement. There are arguments about the safety of drinking water being piped through asbestos. Some claim that there is no threat until the asbestos becomes airborne. I won’t argue that here. And there is the plain fact that the system is crumbling to the extent that less than half of the water pumped out of the city’s wells ever actually makes it to an end user. Good question as to just where the rest of that water is going.

My second concern is for stormwater controls. The city has long been charging property owners for installation and maintenance of stormwater systems. The downtown area is not bad, and west Langley is high enough that the water runs downhill and out of their neighborhood. East Langley/Edgecliff, on the other hand, has a serious problem. There is lots of water in the ground there, and unless it is carefully routed “away” (and just where is that?) it will move through the soil and out the face of the bluff. That is what its doing right now, and that is a major cause of the constant slides and bluff failures out there.

The third issue is sewers. Way back in the early 1990s Langley built its current sewage treatment plant, a vast improvement over the tiny system by Seawall Park which caused that area to smell to high heaven, especially on warm summer days. The no longer new system is now operating at 60% capacity. Once it reaches 85% the state mandates that the city begin planning for an upgrade or replacement. That involves some truly serious money. It is not clear how much of that 15% difference would be taken up by the proposed sewering of the Decker/Furman area. There is also the proposal for 112 new housing units on Coles Road. Will the combination of these two proposals push the need for that very expensive upgrade/ replacement? 

The bond issue rolls all three of these systems into a single huge project. The claim is that doing it all at once will reduce the costs by not having to tear up the same streets time and again. I get that, but am not convinced. There are work plans which describe in a general way where the various improvements would go. Both water and sewer are proposed to go out Edgecliff as far as Decker and Furman, but no further. Edgecliff residents east of Decker/Furman are asking just why the water lines are not proposed to be upgraded past their homes. The answer has been “there’s not enough money to do everything.” I agree, but why was that relatively high value, low cost extension not included? Who made the decisions, and why? Late breaking news: I am told that there is money in another pot to deal with the extension of the water lines beyond Decker/Furman. I'd want to see that very clearly spelled out. 

The replacement of the asbestos cement water lines is clearly a public health and safety issue. Similarly, installation of genuinely functional stormwater controls is a health and safety issue. Installation of the sewer is not. There has been a great deal of investigation into the septic systems of East Langley and there has not, in these many years, been any indication of a septic failure or any contamination. Those septics are working. There are people in city government who have, over the years, pushed to increase the number of sewer hookups on the theory that it would spread the cost of operation. I have not seen specific figures on this point but am wondering about the up-front capital costs in comparison with the projected revenues.

I have in hand a Capital Improvement Plan Summary 2019, which puts numbers to the parts of the $7 million total. The Edgecliff/Decker/Furman portion of this city-wide project is estimated at $4.2 million, or 60% of the total. The rest is proposed to be spent mostly in the Al Anderson/6^th Street area. If nothing else, this allocation acknowledges the importance of East Langley and its problems.

I have been told that there is a 30% fudge factor in that $7 million package. Really? Boy does that inspire confidence. I have also been told that the first $1.5 million is intended for engineering studies. Which causes me to wonder where the figures in the 2019 Summary came from. 

I have long been promoting the need for a thorough hydrogeological study of Langley and its watersheds. Hydrogeology is the study of water in the ground. Because of Langley’s topography, in a bowl surrounded by higher ground and tipping out over the bluff, hydrogeology plays an important role in how the city develops. We need to know where the water is, where it is moving, how much of it there is, and how the changes we make, both on the surface and below it, affect that groundwater. I have spoken with various consultants and the cost of such a study is very small compared with the proposed bond work – in the range of $50k - $100k, depending on how much data is already available.

I have been having my arm twisted to the breaking point by passionate people on both sides of this proposed bond. My response has been that the project proposal is premature because we lack sufficient data. The pro faction tells me that funding for the hydrogeological study will be available if the bond is passed. The anti faction responds that there is no guarantee, once the bond passes, that the study will actually be requested. 

My support for the bond issue is contingent on three points:

1) The completion of a hydrogeological study of the watersheds contributing to Langley’s groundwater, done by reputable and competent consultants. Island County hydrogeologist Doug Kelly would be a good source to help write a Request for Proposals, and to evaluate responses.

2) That the study result in a list of recommended actions.

3) That the city commit to following through on the recommendations and implement them. This will involve a determination that the bond, as written, and the $3 million grant from Island County, are flexible enough to accommodate such a change.

Individuals in city government agreed to these points in conversation, but say that no official action can be taken before the election.

So, we are left in a position of having faith. I am very risk averse. I have no faith. If you believe that Langley’s officials will do the right thing with the funds generated by the bond, then you will vote yes. If, on the other hand, you have little faith, you will vote no.

I’ve been pushed too hard from too many sides. Luckily, I don’t vote in Langley. I leave this one to you.