Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners express concern and withhold support for PUD water-tank plan as costs balloon
Summary
Skamania County commissioners discussed a proposed PUD water storage tank (Hoover tank) and several commissioners signaled they would not support the project after engineering costs and geotechnical work pushed estimates from tens of thousands to potentially six figures.
Skamania County commissioners discussed a proposed PUD water-storage tank (the Hoover tank) and several commissioners said they would not support the project as currently scoped because costs had risen sharply.
Commissioners said initial engineering estimates for the Hoover tank were in the $15,000–$30,000 range but that subsequent changes to site plans and additional geotechnical work had pushed estimates to $80,000–$150,000 and possibly toward $200,000. One commissioner described the new estimate as “a dent in the budget” and said they could not support the county taking on that expenditure given current fiscal constraints.
County staff and commissioners discussed alternatives including sharing costs with the public utility district (PUD) and the local fire district, exploring different tank designs better suited for fire access, and potential use of cisterns identified in the county's Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) as an alternate water-storage strategy. Commissioners said PUD representative Randy Payne had reached out and that Chief Kreps and the fire district were actively pursuing water-storage solutions.
On the record, one commissioner stated, “Well, I told Randy yesterday that my decision would be no.” The board did not make a formal motion to reject the PUD proposal during the meeting; rather, the remark was recorded as a commissioner position and direction to communicate that stance to PUD.
Commissioners also noted the proposal's potential to delay a related reservoir project if the PUD must withdraw and resubmit permits because of the revised site plan, and they flagged possible downstream budget impacts and timing risks. No formal county expenditure was authorized in the meeting.
Staff were asked to keep communicating with the PUD, the fire district and other partners to explore less-costly options; the board referenced CWPP items and said those alternatives might open other funding pathways to support water storage for fire response.
