Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Options topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears three governance options for West Glen water: city‑owned, county‑run or hybrid partnership
Summary
Presenters outlined three governance models for extending water to West Glen — a city‑owned extension, a county‑managed system, or a hybrid where the county owns mains and Boardman operates the system — and recommended the middle option as most balanced.
The Clean Water Consortium presented three governance options for a West Glen water extension at the May 13 workshop. Jared Tesh described Option 1 as a full Boardman ownership and operation of the extension; Option 2 would leave ownership and management to the county; Option 3, the consortium’s preferred approach, would have the county own the pipes in West Glen while Boardman operates the system under contract.
Tesh said Option 1 could make the city the asset owner and could influence future bond calculations; Option 2 could be more expensive and require the county to build management systems it does not currently run. He advocated Option 3 as the pragmatic middle ground that preserves Boardman’s operational expertise while keeping long‑term ownership with the county and creating a legacy fund for maintenance.
Councilors raised concerns about community consent and long‑term obligations. The chair said the city had not yet asked West Glen residents whether they wanted to buy water from Boardman: "Nobody's told me they want it from Boardman," the chair said. Council requested further comparative cost data and sample agreements before endorsing any option.
