Comments delivered at city council meeting last night: October 27, 2014 I am here to share an observation and to offer a constructive suggestion. Aspen prides itself on being in the forefront in many areas. But in city management and city council practice, there is room for improvement. First, the observation. I have wondered why city council so often virtually rubber stamps proposals from the city’s management without what some feel is appropriate probing of the proposals. Recent events relating to the $750,000 proposal to build a tailrace at the end of the hydro plant penstock turned out to be a good laboratory illustrating why this occurs. Staff presented CC with a proposal to spend what to me looks like a lot of money. Yet when the matter was discussed at last Monday’s work session, council’s questions of staff were not based on reports and analyses. As so often happens, they were oral reactions to an oral presentation. This made me wonder, had any member of council read the 2014 dam inspector’s report that staff characterized as the reason for the $750,000 request? How about the reports from previous inspections? Had any member of council developed information apart from what staff had provided? It didn’t appear so from the questions asked of staff. Instead, staff made its presentation based on points that appeared to me carefully selected to support its request. Information which, while mostly true, omitted key facts that might call staff’s recommendation into question. This made me think about the red team / blue team concept. So here is the constructive suggestion. It isn’t about politics. In the military and in some of the best run companies whenever a major initiative is proposed two teams are formed: one to advocate the proposal (the blue team) and the other to critique it (the red team). In this way the proposal’s flaws are revealed. Bad proposals get rejected. And if a proposal is adopted, it has been improved as a result of the red team / blue team exercise. In Aspen city government there is only a blue team. Staff is on it, and from this citizen’s point of view, so is city council. Staff makes a proposal, then gives CC information that supports the proposal. Staff coopts CC onto the blue team through selective information supply. CC hardly questions the information. There is no red team to critique the proposal But CC ought to be the red team. Without a red team, bad proposals get adopted without improvement. If CC had been a red team last Monday, what information might have been revealed and discussed that was not? Here are some examples: Dwayne asked when was the last dam inspection before May, 2014. He was told in the 1980s. If that were true one might expect the most recent report to reveal new problems. Yet I hold in my hand the inspection report from April, 2012, much more recent than the 1980s. Failing to mention a report only two years old deprives CC of important information. It prevents CC from comparing the 2 year old report with the one done this year. What does the 2012 report say about “outlets” from the reservoir? It finds no problems relating to outlets and marks the conditions observed “good” and “acceptable.” Since CC was falsely told there had not been an inspection since the 1980s, of course Dwayne did not ask to see the 2012 report. Dwayne trusted staff to answer honestly and fully. Dwayne did ask what had changed at the reservoir since the last report. I do not remember the answer as being particularly informative. But he was not told of the 2012 report when asked a simple question to which the answer should have been, “April, 2012.” City council was told that the May, 2014 report described a dire condition about the absence of an outlet. Staff told you that the reservoir is classified as a “significant” hazard, but didn’t tell you that “significant” is only the middle hazard level below “high risk.” Nevertheless, that aroused safety concerns because we all want a safe reservoir. Could that have been staff’s intention? It led to several members of CC saying, in effect, well we just have to do this project. I might have said the same thing if there were not other relevant information that I have discovered. For example, I have the 2014 report right here. Yes, the inspector does say in the cover letter that “the main issue to be addressed is to provide a low level outlet.” However, the “outlet” section of the report only says “no outlet was found.” More curiously, the inspector marked the outlet situation as “acceptable.” Further, the inspector invited the city to provide evidence of an outlet or a bypass from the water treatment plant, which is situated next to the reservoir. If CC had been shown the report, maybe someone would have noticed the inconsistency between staff’s “alarm” about the need for an outlet and the inspector’s finding that the condition is “acceptable.” And maybe someone would ask, “why does the 2014 inspection report say the overall condition of the reservoir is “satisfactory” (the highest possible rating) if there is some dire problem with a drain line? And why does the 2014 report, the one that the city claims shows a dire problem, rate the overall condition higher than the 2012 report did. Maybe CC would conclude that, before spending 3/4 of a million dollars of our money, they ought to speak with the inspector directly. And the previous inspector for that matter. Maybe they would try to find out just how serious the issue is and indeed whether there really is any issue after all. After all, section 5.9.6.2 of the Colorado dam rules gives the inspector discretion over the drainage arrangements of a dam in Thomas’ category. She seems like a pretty important person for a red team to talk to. When the inspector was contacted this morning by a citizen, the inspector said the need for a low level outlet could be satisfied in other ways, including pumps and siphons. Even in her report she mentions installing a bypass (much less cost than $750,000) before water enters the water treatment plant. She did not explain why she called for such an outlet anyway, when there is an existing 12 inch low level pipe outlet right now. I confirmed that in a visit to the reservoir this afternoon. Apart from overstating any hazard at the reservoir, staff led CC to believe that the reservoir could be drained rapidly in the case of an emergency. It turns out that earthen reservoirs such as Thomas cannot safely be drained at high speed because the earthen structure can be undermined if they are not drained slowly. See page 16 of the October, 2014 edition of Western Dam Engineering Technical Notes. Further, on pages 14 & 15 the same publication explains that the low level outlet that staff described as so urgent actually is the last means to be used in draining a reservoir. Other outlet systems should be used first, the publication says, because of the high hydraulic pressures on an outlet located at the lowest levels of the reservoir. Draining Thomas Reservoir is not like draining your bathtub. The publication explains that a reservoir typically will have more than one means of drainage, each appropriate for different uses. This was confirmed at my visit today. Perhaps the most glaring example that the blue team had captured CC was this. Several CC members asked in the clearest, simplest terms, “is there any other way to satisfy the need for an outlet?” On each occasion the response given was an infommercial for spending $750,000 to build the tailrace. That is, by the way, the exact same design of tail race that has been proposed before the the hydro center. CC never was told about the existing 12 inch outlet or about other options that the inspector would permit. The city manager said the city would have to condemn property to drain the reservoir by any means other than the penstock. He said that wouldn’t be possible since the hydro penstock is available for the purpose. Yet there is an existing drainage down the hill, under Castle Creek Road, through private property, and into Castle Creek. Could this be an alternative to using the hydro penstock? CC is expected to reject it without analysis. Another question a red team should consider is that when the hydro penstock and spillway were built the reservoir had to be drained. Did anyone on CC ask how that was accomplished to gain information about alternatives to using the hydro penstock? Did staff volunteer the information? From this observers point of view it appears that CC is being played by staff. Looking for opportunities to build out the hydro project, the dam inspector happened to mention the need for a drain line that somehow was overlooked in her inspection. Instead of correcting the inspector’s misunderstanding, staff jumped on the opportunity, set off alarms, and tried to ram through a ¾ of a million dollar project that was designed as part of the hydro project. I have given you recent examples of why it is important for CC to be the red team on significant city proposals. Become that red team, and the city will make much better decisions about which projects to undertake and how to undertake them. Maurice Emmer
Posted on: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:42:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015