An Appropriation from Free Cash (account 01-324001) in the amount of $37,000 to the Planning Department (#175) for treating the Towners, Swains, and Ell Ponds.

Transcript (~12 min @ 4:50:31)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 4:50:21 Kimberly Vandiver: Great. So anyone on discussion relative to that movement? Okay, let's vote on that. Counselor Chen? Yes. Counselor Finocchiaro? Yes. Counselor Jamaledine? Yes. Counselor Karamchetty? Yes. Counselor Cole? Yes. Counselor Abramsky? Yes. Counselor Park? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. Counselor Romanul? Yes. Chair Vandiver? Yes. All in favor of motion passes. Okay, so we will now discuss ID number 2026-1202, an appropriation from free cash account 01-324001 in the amount of $37,000 to the planning department, number 175, for treating the towners, swings, and L ponds.

▶ 4:51:04 Speaker 10: Thank you.

▶ 4:51:07 Speaker 14: So, I'm Lori Massa, again, the Director of Planning, and I'm going to hand it over to Ingrid Winkler, who is our very competent conservation agent, to explain this request. Thank you

▶ 4:51:21 Speaker 13: Hi. Thank you so much, and thank you for bringing me up. The Office of Planning and Community Development and the Conservation Commission are requesting the free cash appropriation of 37,000 for continued pond management and restoration efforts at the three ponds, which are managed by the Conservation Commission. Those are L Pond, Swain's Pond, and Towner's Pond. Historically, the city has undertaken more intensive pond management activities than in recent years, including repeated Sonar or Fluridone treatments at both Swain's and Towner's Ponds, as well as hydro-raking work at Towner's Pond in 1998 and again in 2009 and 2010. Sonar is an herbicide. It's a slow-acting, systemic herbicide that targets vegetation as it emerges from the sediment, as opposed to follicular herbicide, which is sprayed on top. It's effective, but it's very expensive. Much more expensive than traditional herbicides that are used. Hydro-raking work that I mentioned, that was done in 1997 and again in the 2009, 2010 period, was quoted at 22,000 for each of those incidents. So the city had spent significant amounts of money for treatment in the past. But since 2015, maintenance of Swain's and Towner's ponds has primarily consisted of herbicide treatments for nuisance level growth of various pond weed species and water lilies using more traditional herbicides, diquat in the case of pond weed, and glyphosate in the case of water lilies. Those treatments were done as needed, using the operating budget for pond maintenance. Towner's Pond's shallow depth makes it especially vulnerable to excessive vegetation growth and organic buildup. In 2025, Towner's Pond was treated with diquat to control nuisance pond weeds. While that was effective at reducing the vegetation, the treatment also resulted in a significant die-off, adding to the muck accumulation at the bottom and the surface of the pond. There was a planned glyphosate treatment for the dense water lilies later in the season, but that would have added even more biomass to the muck accumulating within the pond. The residents that were here earlier and spoke could have borne witness to how absolutely horrible it was last year. So at that point, the commission evaluated the use of Sonar again to target nuisance vegetation earlier in the growth cycle, which would help reduce the overall biomass before the growth becomes established. Sonar treatment costs significantly more than the traditional glyphosate treatment. It costs about $10,000 to treat Towner's Pond with Sonar, as opposed to $1,800 for glyphosate treatment. But it is a more proactive and potentially longer-lasting treatment. The commission decided to defer water lily treatment last year in 2025 and carry forward the remaining funds towards Sonar treatment for this year. The Sonar treatment has begun at Towner's Pond. It started in early May, and there was a follow-up treatment just this week. As part of a broader effort to restore healthier ecological balance to the pond, the Conservation Commission is also considering hydro-raking to reduce organic buildup and reduce the root mass in the sediment. So hydro-raking, however, is very expensive, both operationally and permitting-wise. Current contractor estimates are approximately $2,700 per day for the hydro-raking services alone, and then DPW would have to assist with removal and disposal of the vegetative matter removed from the pond. The commission expects that it will take about five to 10 days over two to three years, so five to 10 days total over two to three years, depending on how much material is removed in order to complete the work. And in addition to that, the expected cost for required environmental permitting was quoted at $10,000. That's how we came up with the requested $37,000 allocation, which would provide necessary funding to advance permitting treatment and restoration efforts and hopefully avoid more significant ecological and financial impacts in the future.

▶ 4:56:13 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. That's it. And I have in queue Councilors Finocchiaro and Cole. We'll start with Councilor Finocchiaro.

▶ 4:56:19 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you for the explanation. So I always say glyphosate, but you're saying glyphosate. I'm obviously pronouncing it wrong. Yeah. Is that Roundup?

▶ 4:56:29 Speaker 13: Yes.

▶ 4:56:32 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. So I'm- Roundup ... shocked that we're using that in water, but then-

▶ 4:56:36 Speaker 13: It's one of the approved herbicides. Okay. EPA and DEP, they have a list of herbicides. It's very commonly used, and it's in very low concentrations. Okay.

▶ 4:56:49 Cal Finocchiaro: But it's not ideal. I mean, the Sonar sounds better to me.

▶ 4:56:51 Speaker 13: The Sonar, and they haven't used it in a very long period of time, I think because of the cost of it. But it does make a lot of sense. And there is another option instead of glyphosate. There's also Imazamox, which is another herbicide that some communities prefer. That's an additional $550 per treatment.

▶ 4:57:16 Cal Finocchiaro: So the $37,000 would be for the glyphosate treatment, or-

▶ 4:57:22 Speaker 13: No ... for the Sonar? It would be for the hydro-raking. Hydro-raking. Yes.

▶ 4:57:26 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. I like that. I don't know. It just...

▶ 4:57:33 Speaker 12: But anyway, okay, I'm not going to get into it, but thank you.

▶ 4:57:35 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. Next I have Councilor Cal, followed by Councilor Chen.

▶ 4:57:40 Elizabeth Kowal: Does the fountain in L Pond also help keep down the vegetation, or is that serving just sort of water flow issues?

▶ 4:57:45 Speaker 13: It aerates the pond- Okay ... so that can help with water quality, but-

▶ 4:57:51 Speaker 12: But not necessarily with the vegetation that you're discussing? No. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 4:57:56 Speaker 10: Okay, Councilor Chen.

▶ 4:57:58 Jason Chen: It sounds like we do a lot of different things over the years, and then when we don't do them for a while, then we have to pay extra, right? Is there an optimum level that we pay a little bit and just keep it under control, and then the overall cost

▶ 4:58:15 Speaker 15: of doing it just stays the lowest?

▶ 4:58:19 Speaker 13: I'm not sure, because- It's a combination ... there's a lot of influence from First Pond. First Pond at Mount Hood is hydraulically connected to Towner's Pond. Like, whatever they treat, pesticides, everything can flow underground and can affect Towner's Pond. That's one of the suspicions that we have. One of the... And then also, Towner's Pond is extremely shallow, so anything that dies off in there, anything that falls in there, also decomposes and adds to the muck. And then there's droughts, which also affect the water quality because... The sonar treatment, though, is supposed to be longer lasting. It treats the vegetation early on in the growth cycle. It reduces the amount of biomass that is produced. And it's also longer lasting. It's supposed to keep it at bay, the vegetation and the overgrowth at bay, for a number of years. So, investing in that seems like a really good idea. Mm-hmm. Having the budget in order to be able to do that kind of treatment.

▶ 4:59:39 Jason Chen: I guess where I'm going is, it seems like 37,000 is more than usual- Yes ... and we're cleaning it up, and I'm wondering, what do we have to do to take care of this so we don't have to spend 37,000 again and again? And maybe this is one of those capital outlay recurring items that we can be more efficient with. So, don't have to answer now, but something for the long term.

▶ 5:00:00 Speaker 14: I could just add that, so with, L Pond is a good example of, it wasn't technically hydro-raking, as Ingrid- ... has explained, but similar. And L Pond from three years ago to what you see today is a very different story. And so, Ingrid and the Conservation Commission have installed new kinds of filters for L Pond to have a more effective way of catching the inflow into the pond. And so they're trying to figure out a different way, a better solution. But it is kind of historically the city has spent larger amounts at certain periods to do more intense treatments, and then the kind of annual maintenance is what it is, and they can use that more effectively when they have these larger projects come up to then maintain what's there. But you have, yeah, a lot of effort and into figuring out this issue, so...

▶ 5:01:10 Kimberly Vandiver: So I have Councilor Williams followed by Councilor Finocchiaro for the second time.

▶ 5:01:14 Ryan Williams: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve. You said we're not doing glyphosate, right? We're doing sonar? Right, hydro-raking. Hydro-raking.

▶ 5:01:26 Speaker 13: Well, we are doing sonar right now. Yeah. We saved up last year. We didn't do the glyphosate last year- Right ... and we're doing sonar this year, which is- I think sonar is better.

▶ 5:01:36 Ryan Williams: I'm sorry? I think sonar is better. I think it's preferable. Yeah. It's more purpose-built for it.

▶ 5:01:41 Speaker 13: It seems. But then also, I think the commission was talking about not using glyphosate in the future and using the imazamox- Yeah ... if necessary, but hopefully it won't be- Mm-hmm ... if we can do the sonar treatment- Mm-hmm ... every so often.

▶ 5:02:01 Cal Finocchiaro: So you still- So second. I was just going to make a motion.

▶ 5:02:03 Speaker 10: Okay. So, motion to recommend, Councilor Williams, second Councilor Finocchiaro. Anyone on discussion? Let's vote on that. Councilor Chen. Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes. Councilor Karamcheti. Yes. Councilor Cal. Yes. Councilor Abremski. Yes. Councilor Park. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. President Freeman. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Chair Vandiver. Yes. All in favor, motion passes. Thank you. That will be recommended back to full council. Councilor Williams. I'd like to make a motion to conjoin ID 20-26-1205, ID 20-26-1206, and ID 20-26-1207. These are the three water and sewer enterprise fund budgets that we- ... already

▶ 5:02:44 Kimberly Vandiver: talked about, and it will technically save us one round of voting. Motion to conjoin those items, the several enterprise funds. Anyone on discussion? A vote about that.