Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Fees Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs design study for removal of aging underground fuel tanks near river
Summary
After an engineering update showing underground diesel and gasoline tanks past their expected life and located near a river, the board directed staff to pursue a survey and design proposal to remove and replace the tanks with above‑ground units; engineers gave a preliminary cost range of $130,000–$160,000 for construction and $45,000–$60,000 to remove existing tanks.
The Taylor County Board of Education directed the superintendent and its engineering team to move forward with surveys and design proposals to decommission two aging underground fuel tanks and install above‑ground replacements.
During an extended presentation, Jonathan Martin of Williams & Shriver told the board the site contains a 10,000‑gallon diesel tank and a 5,000‑gallon gasoline tank located parallel to the river and that both tanks have passed expected service life. Martin recommended decommissioning the underground tanks and installing above‑ground tanks in a new location so the district can continue fueling during construction.
The recommendation included environmental precautions: ground‑penetrating radar and geo‑probing to confirm there are no additional undocumented tanks, and a full decommissioning process in coordination with state permitting. Martin gave preliminary cost estimates and cautioned the board these are early numbers. "We're looking at a potential construction cost at this point, looking at it within the past week of 130,000 to a $160,000 construction cost," Martin said. He also reported removal costs computed at roughly $3–$4 per gallon, or about $45,000–$60,000 for extraction and disposal.
Board members pressed for options to avoid a fuel interruption during excavation, discussed alternative tank sizes, and asked whether above‑ground tanks could be relocated later if the district acquires a different site. Several trustees urged rapid action given the tanks’ proximity to the Tigard Valley River and the environmental risk if a failure occurs.
Trustee comments and the superintendent’s remarks led to clear direction: staff should proceed expeditiously to prepare a proposal that includes a site survey, finalized scope, permitting needs and a more detailed cost estimate to present at the next meeting. The engineering team said it could prepare a design proposal for board consideration in time for the board’s next scheduled meeting.
Next steps identified by the board include authorizing a formal scope and proposal from the engineering firm (survey and design work), obtaining necessary DEP or state decommissioning permits, and returning with a bid‑ready package that will include soft costs, permitting fees and any contingencies.
No formal procurement contract was awarded at the meeting; the board’s action directed administration to develop detailed plans and costed options for future approval.
