BOARD MEETING MINUTES, February 22nd, 2025 DRAFT

The meeting will be a hybrid format, both in person at the DWA building and online via Zoom. All shareholders are invited to attend.

Link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5160276420 Meeting ID 516 027 6420.

Call To Order: 10:04 AM

Welcome everyone present

Present/Quorum: Patrick, April, Sam, Dave, Todd, Darton, Paul, and Susan.

Guests: Angie Kelly, Frank Z., Kenny the pup, Hal Smith, Bruce Cleland in office plus 10 guests on Zoom.

Consent Items:

Approve: Contents and order of this Agenda.

Approve: Minutes not posted and will be approved at next meeting.

Information Items:

Guest Speakers comments (if any):

• Dave: The reason why Angie is here today is because the bookkeeping is taking more hours for her to do her job. We may want to talk about switching her from hourly to salary.
• Angie: Due to the changes in billing services, we are presented with more bookkeeping work. Billing for re-reads has three reports instead of one report, which means there are more steps to create the bill than there used to be. The tech support that has gone into dealing with the online portal has been substantial. The time going into making bank deposits has become more complex and time consuming. Dealing with programming issues has increased work hours. It takes about 1.5 hours longer to reconcile online payments. Estimating the additional hours are 7-10 hours per month, which means increasing weekly hours from 35 to 42 hours per month. The increased work demand is unlikely to decrease.
• April: We need to put this into the budget and talk about how to adjust Angie’s hours. We’re looking at 40-45 hours per month.
• Paul: Should we back out of online payments?
• Dave: We should continue with the online payment option. Some folks really appreciate the online payment option.
• Paul: We can have a salary line for Angie and have a separate overtime line item in the budget for Angie.
• Susan: Let’s call it “extra time” instead of “overtime”.
• Paul: Is there a better software out there for online payment?
• Dave: Not at the moment.

Board Member comments (if any): None.

President’s Report:

• April:
  • Need to do annual review with Dave.
  • Would like to talk about adding funds to pay for employee health insurance.
  • Follow-Up Survey on Conservation Easement:
    • Preliminary Results indicate continued support for selling the conservation easement. Additional responses still need to be tallied, but preliminary results indicate 44% strongly support selling the easement, 24% support, 9% are neutral, 21% strongly oppose, and 3% did not respond.
    • Remaining questions and concerns for King County Parks include:
      • Liability: Will DWA or King County Parks if someone is injured on the property?
        • At the January meeting, we were assured that DWA would not be liable for any accident or injury on the property.
      • Parking: Where will cars park?
        • At the January meeting, we were told that a parking lot would not be built on the property. A lot on Hake Rd. currently owned by King County Parks was identified as a possible site for a future parking area.
        • At the January meeting, we were told that King County Parks does not foresee significant increased pressure/traffic in the area.
      • Access: What access will the public have?
        • At the January meeting, we were told that there would be a single “in-out” trail from SW 268th St across the property to the Manzanita Natural Area. This would be a walking trail only. The development of this trail will likely take a few years due to the current backlog of trail needs in the larger King County Parks system. The existing network of trails and roads in the Manzanita Natural Area would remain. No additional trail development is planned.
      • Future residential development: Is it guaranteed that no residences will built on the property in the future? Can King County Parks later sell or lease the land to a developer or agent?
        • The final language of the purchase and sale agreement for the conservation can still be negotiated, but the current offer – and any future version – includes express agreement that any and all development rights to the property will be permanently removed. The easement will be granted:
          • “…exclusively for the purpose of removing all residential development rights and all commercial development rights and conserving the Conservation and Habitat Values of the Protected Property. Grantor expressly intends that this Easement runs with the land in perpetuity and that this Easement shall be binding on Grantor’s successors and assigns.”
          • “It is the purpose of this Easement to assure that the Protected Property will be retained forever in its natural forested and open space condition and to prevent uses of the property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation and Habitat Values of the Protected Property.”
      • Conservation easement vs. selling the property: Would King County Parks prefer to purchase the property if we did not need access for a well?
        • At the January meeting, we were told that King County Parks prefers to purchase property and would be interested in doing so if DWA was willing to sell it. However, they would not grant and easement for well development so if we need a well or future water access, we should retain ownership.
      • DWA ability to install a well: What assurances does DWA have that we will be able to install a well and/or associated facilities on the property?
        • The final language of the purchase and sale agreement for the conservation can still be negotiated, but the current offer – and any future version – includes express agreement that a municipal well will be permitted:
          • “Municipal Well. *Note the right to install a well will be retained. Location to be determined.”
      • Signage, maps and website: What signage will be installed to indicate access points? What signage will indicate no access and no parking? How will digital maps and websites but updated to correctly identify boundaries, etc.?
      • Maintenance: Will King County Parks mow the grass apron on SW 268th St?
    • Remaining questions and concerns for DWA include:
      • Funds: How will the proceeds be used? Is this a good long-term investment?
      • Groundwater quality: Will the conservation easement protect the quality of the groundwater? Could activities on the property contaminate the groundwater?
      • Water rights: When will DWA seek to renew the water right on the property?
      • Feasibility of future well: How likely is it that DWA will develop a well on the property? Should the property be retained without the easement to guarantee future use/well?
      • Conservation easement vs. sale: Is it better to sell the property outright (if well development unlikely)? Should DWA pursue a lot line adjustment and sell most of the property instead?
      • Alternative to Dockton Springs: Is Dockton Springs safe from saltwater intrusion? How much must sea level rise to contaminate Dockton Springs (making a new well necessary)?
      • Taxes: What are the tax implications for DWA?
        • DWA does not currently pay any property taxes.
      • Liability: Is DWA confident we would not be responsible for injuries, etc.?
      • Restrict development: DWA should ensure that only a foot trail will be developed, and that no other road or other improvements will be made on the property.
      • Maintenance: Is DWA assured that King County Parks will assume maintenance of the property, including the grass apron bordering SW 268th St?
      • Parking: DWA should not agree to the easement without an express solution for parking from King County Parks.
• Susan: Let’s develop a Q&A for 268^th St.
• Hale: How bad do they want this conservation easement? And are we able to push them to get what we want?
• Paul: They want it. Our approach that we’re going to recommend is that we tie it into the easement that we need for the springs and those folks are different than the folks that are challenging us on the water with the parks (King County parks) and we need to have a giant meeting where we come together on these things. I think there’s an opportunity for a trade off – we need this from you, you need this from us – and everyone get what they want.
• Bruce: My interest is in the viability of the water source. They want these conservation easements. The island is short on ground water management. I think the source on 268^th St is a viable water source, but until we start drilling test wells, and that’s going to be a cost and I don’t think we can afford to do that, I would push the county that in addition to what they pay for the easement to make some financial commitment to work with us to explore that as a viable water source.
• Todd: I think it’s great we’ve spent time on working on how to create an easement with King County. After spending time on this project, I’m not comfortable with the easement at all. King County and Dockton Water do not share the same intentions. I would like to slow down the easement process and look for water on 268^th St. If there’s water, we keep some acreage and then potentially sell the remaining acreage.
• Paul: I think I have the opposite view. We can write an easement to protect our rights and get money from the county for projects that we desperately need. We need to do some exploratory well testing up there. The money from the county is there now and we can’t be sure the money will be there later.
• Susan: We don’t have to rush this opportunity and can be deliberate in investigation and finding language that is useful to Dockton Water.
• Chat question: Do we know if there will be porta potties?
• April: No, we will have to ask King County.
• Chat question: Is the ban on property development on the Dockton property, the Manzanita property, or both?
• April: King County already owns Manzanita property and this 268^th street easement would remove development rights on the 268^th street property.
• Larry: I live across form the 268^th St property and walk my dog along there every day and I hear running water. So, if there’s a question about water on that property, there is.
• Bruce: What’s the easement situation where the water towers are? It’s high ground up there and we could maybe put a well up there.
• Frank: Liability of the water at Hake Springs – We would have to spend more money to use that water. I think we should not pull water out of Hake Springs. It’s a danger to the neighboring homes in terms of what will happen when we pull water out of that land. We should have nothing to do with getting water out of Hake Springs.
• Paul: Over the past decade we’ve been developing wells that were drilled on property we don’t own. It was before the parks owned that property (15 feet over our property line). Those wells we’ve been developing, we’ve working with DOH, Dept. of Ecology, and getting everyone involved and working on the wells to get ready for production and then hit this snag. The challenge is: the wells are not on our property. That’s clearly been identified and the county has come back to us and said pull those out of commission. We’ve done the due diligence in the background, we can clearly claim that we’ve had a bag collection system there in the past. We’ve been utilizing that as a water source for decades. We feel like we have the argument like, hey, we’ve been there, we’ve maintained it, we’ve invested in it, so we think we can get the prescriptive easement with the county. The challenge comes now that this has clearly been identified that we’re pulling water from another parcel where we don’t have a water right and so that has several ramifications. One, it’s not our water to be taking. Two, the county isn’t in a position to be giving away an asset that their taxpayers are not reimbursed for, so there’s going to be a financial component to this that I don’t think we could ever sell them enough water to make it viable that the water we are pulling is not directly supporting their interests, it’s supporting the community. Since then, we have the conservation easement in play and have two hands that are not talking to each other. We’ve got parks and the folks that are dealing with us down there have nothing to do and don’t know about what’s going on with the easement up here, and the recommendation is that we ask for a large King County attended meeting and we can start to cross pollinate these discussions so we have leverage where we need it and they have it where they need it and we can come to an agreement on something long term for both properties. Ideally, we would like to be able to use the five wells that we now have up to current standards. That will buy us a little time. I will say, in my lifetime, we won’t be pulling water from the springs down there. With the changing climate, there are a lot more concerns with the shallow well points we are pulling from right now. Where we used to have less concern on that ground water infiltration, we now have a higher concern and that’s going to continue. Even if we were to put in that bag filtration system that’s come up now that they want us to install there, which we actually agree we should be doing, I don’t think that’s going to be enough long term.
• Dave: The DOH has wavered so drastically on what they’ve allowed and not allowed for water usage. Ground water intrusion is a major issue down there (at the springs). With the intensity of rain that we get, coupled with how wet it is down there, it could be a serious issue regarding surface water contamination. At some point the bag filter system will not be enough.
• Paul: We’ve invested wisely and have Sandy Shores. If we start to pull Dockton Springs out of action, we may need to look at Hake Springs at 268^th St to pull water. If we can explore that are for water and find a deep aquifer, then we can start pulling the springs off line and we would still have enough water to support us through the summer.
• Bruce: There are limited well logs that I’ve seen from up there (268th St/Hake Springs) – 60 ft – which means it’s deeper, but not as deep as Sandy Shores.
• Frank: The surface water cannot get down through the surface at Dockton Springs because it’s up welling. I don’t know about the idea of Dockton Springs not being usable… seems much more farfetched.
• Paul: Old surveys are not reliable and so now we need to look at the new surveys.
• Susan: I think it makes sense, the idea of linking these two issues together and bringing the agencies together, but it does complicate the already complex concepts over the easement. So, is there a Plan B should the powers that be say – No, we will only work with you addressing the springs as one issue and the easement as separate issue – is there an idea to go forward under some kind of claiming eminent domain?
• Paul: Yes, there is a legal path to solve each one independently. We just see a value now to answer a lot of the long term questions. The trails folks with the easement should understand the water guys so we can write the language in the prescriptive easement to say, look, if our bullseye is where your trail is, we’re not paying for anything.
• Dave: We’re looking at replacing the main on Hake Rd. Hake Rd is owned by King County. We’re going to need an easement from them as we work on that road. We need King County departments to work together as we move forward with future projects.
• Bruce: With climate change, the county may be requiring water districts to do some kind of water study. There are a lot of things at play and we need to act as a community, not just Dockton, but the other water districts, too, because we all have issues with the county.
• Paul: The best way to get through this is to get them all at the same table.
• April: Sounds like what we want to do is to slow down with the decision on the conservation easement. We’re not going to decide whether we’re going to respond one way or another. We will send questions to Zach at King County. We can ask if King County is interested in either a conservation easement or purchasing land in the future if we’re not able to come to a decision before June 30th.
• Paul: Before we do that, we need to request a larger meeting.
• April: We can let them know we’re still interested, our shareholders are interested in preserving the property, but that we need to discuss with multiple King County entities. So then we need a meeting with King County parks, King County roads, and us with Duncan.
• Paul: Yes, that’s where we’re heading and I think Duncan is okay with providing us his counsel.
• Darton: Wouldn’t we also need someone form critical areas for groundwater?
• Paul: And to get back to Frank’s point, the springs water is just coming up and, I think, the regulation is going to get to a point where those wells are untenable.
• Dave: And because those wells are so shallow the ability for the ground water itself to filter out what’s coming down is going to dissipate at some point.
• Frank: What’s very interesting about the springs is that the water temp is about 35 degrees below the surface, when the glaciers went away they created this creek that came through Dockton Springs and there are piles of large rocks, which has water, but you can’t keep it running because too much oxygen can get around these big rocks. Then, there’s the water that runs across the surface at Dockton is in the 50s and that tells you that the water is upwelling and is not coming from our rainwater.
• Darton: Right, but the issue is that water, when it comes in contact with the surface water, and it doesn’t sound like we can put a well there, so you have to wait for the water to come up to you, but then the contamination from the ground, the surface water when it meets there is what we can’t deal with.
• Susan: The question of the franchise fee is facing us and all the other water associations. We should come together and join forces.
• Paul: Duncan has reached out to Westside water about that. So, we owe a response to King County to tell them our plan is to move forward with this request for a larger meeting. I’d like to talk to Bruce about potential options for looking for wells at the 268th St property.
• Bruce: There are some potential places. Some are soggy, some are not.
• Darton: I think having a dual water system is a necessity for a water district. It is essential that there is long-term water availability.

Manager/Operator Report:

• Dave: Scope and contract for G&O, April needs to sign it, survey crew is going to survey Hake Rd. and that will give us the info we need to talk to King County Parks. Survey has to do with replacing water main and nothing else (to be put in Friday news letter to community members).
• Susan: We need to communicate to the community that we reallocated funds to the Hake Rd project.
• Dave:
  • I can communicate that through the Friday letter. We have $30K for the start of that project.
  • G&O is still working on the Dockton Springs filtration issue. Hopefully, G&O will present an option at the next board meeting. This project would be part of next year’s budget proposal.
  • Pumps down at Dockton Springs are failing. Mechanics will be out next week to replace one pump and will take another pump to fix or possibly replace. We’re looking at doing a pump repair project in September/October.
  • We have a water share for sale.
  • Mt. Baker Silo is coming out next Tuesday. They will inspect the silos and give a report.

Water Production Committee:

• None.

CIP Planning Committee:

• None.

Finance Committee:

• Financial summary reports for Q2 and First Half ’24-’25
  • Q2 vs Prior Year:
    • Overall, our revenue got back on track (there was very low water usage in Q1).
    • However high utility costs and Unscheduled Maintenance costs took some of the shine off.
  • First Half – ’24-’25 vs Prior Year
    • It would be good to promote the Good Neighbor Fund, again, to recruit more donors, or higher donation amounts.
    • We end the half with quite a bit more money in the bank than last year as we continue to rebuild our capital funds.
  • First Half ’24-’25 vs Budget
    • Impact of delayed price increase will be about $10,000 — we can manage that AND it means shareholders kept a bit more in their pockets.
    • We will go somewhat over budget (negative) for Operations, but we’ll be under budget for capital projects.
    • Note bottom line that we already, at 6 months, have more money in the bank than expected at the end of June.
    • As we get into budget season, we’ll put out a Forecast for the year.
• Dave: Have you taken into consideration what’s happening down at the springs with the two pumps?
• Todd: Forecast only looks at operations. Pumps will go into system updates.
• Susan: Wants to send out summary of Good Neighbor Fund and would like to assemble info from Todd and Dave. It will be a bit of a promotional flyer.
• Todd: Went over forecasting numbers.
• Susan: Thanks, Todd, for all your work. The question will always be: How can we [as Dockton Water members] pay less? We need to keep membership payment in mind.

Community Outreach Committee:

• None.

Old Business / Carryover Items:

• April: Let’s able ideas of what to do with money from easement for now.
• April: Doxo email to online payment options.
• Paul: The Doxo email is legal. If we want to push back on this, get rid of our logo and stop Doxo from representing DWA, we can reach out and try to ask for them not to do so. Duncan may be able to assist with other legal representation to get these emails to stop.
• Susan: We can email shareholders that these emails from Doxo are not ours. People can use it, but it’s not coming from us.
• Dave: We’ll put a note on the bill about it.
• Todd: Called to try to get these emails to stop. By using Doxo, they end up paying a higher fee.
• April: Let’s put a note on the bill and a note on the website that Doxo is not affiliated with DWA.

New Business / Discussion Items:

• None.

Other Business:

• None.

Follow-up for Next Meeting

• Darton: Updated CIP list.
• Dave: Email King County Parks.
• Patrick: Will work on AV for meetings.
• Paul: Email King County Parks.
• Sam: Meeting minutes past and present & call for candidates to join board. Add surnames to meetings.
• Susan:  Move forward with folks who want to do something with the Dockton Water building space.
• Todd: Start a draft of budget for next year. Prep for annual meeting.
• April: Annual meeting – will send out file that Dave sent out. Will put up FAQ re: 268^th St easement. Send questions to Zach at King County. Will summarize votes from last survey and send out results. Will set aside time for performance review with Dave.

Meeting End: 12:10 PM

Next Board Meeting: Saturday, February 22nd, 2025 @10AM

Board meetings are usually held on the fourth Saturday of the month at 10:00 AM. The November and December meetings are often combined into a single meeting in early December to avoid conflicts with holidays. Upcoming meeting dates are on April 26 and May 24.