Loading...
09/14/1994 - Minutes Public INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER JM MEETING MINUTES September 14, 1994 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Peggy Manning, Lynda Jenkins, George Morgan, John Swartz STAFF PRESENT: Ed Wegner, Bill Monahan, Wayne Lowry, Randy Volk, Mike Miller VISITORS PRESENT: Judy Fessler, Lou Anne Mortensen, Beverly Froude, John Haunsperger, Paul Hunt, Bob Rolf, Ken Schekla, Wendy Conover Hawley, Gilbert Meigs (EES) , Phil Murray and Chris Uber (MSA) 1. CALL TO ORDER The Annual meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 6: 38 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken and all members were present with the exception of Bill Scheiderich. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the August 17 , 1994 , were approved as written. 4. DIVISION OF ASSETS - GIL MEIGS, EES Gil Meigs from EES stated that EES had completed the Asset and Liability Allocation and had made a presentation to the Tigard Water District. Since his presentation to the TWD, there have been some changes made to the document. Before discussing these changes he discussed the course of study since some of the parties present were not familiar with that. • Used base data provided by the TWD and some by the City. • Use as a source of information, maps of the water distribution system. • Audit by Coopers and Lybrand for six month period ending 12-31-93 . • Asset evaluation study made by a Seattle based company • Personal correspondence, both oral and written. The guiding document for this document has been the Intergovernmental Agreement of 12-31-93 , among the parties of TWD, City of Tigard, City of King City, City of Durham. Asset separation was based upon two general approaches. First was the hydraulic facilities which include: Pipelines, reservoirs, pumping stations, wells, water meters and supplies. Reservoirs were allocated based jurisdictions that were served when the supply system was inactive (reservoirs draining) , booster pumping stations were allocated on the basis of who was served when reservoirs called for water, wells were allocated on the basis of jurisdictions served on peak days. There are 4 wells, two of which are active and produce approximately one million gallons per day. Supply pipelines and associated pumps were allocated on the basis of proportionate share that was given by the formula in the IGA. The proportionate share is 17.59% TWD, 73 . 38% City of Tigard, 4 .43% City of Durham, 4.6% King City. The distribution system allocation was based upon peak day service and engineering. It was agreed upon with the TWD that only lines 12" or larger would be considered shared unless they were associated with pumping or transfer of water from one pressure zone to another. Pressure regulating valves were allocated to the downstream user and all other distribution facilities were allocated by location. There were over 2,400 items that were allocated. Since District records were not compiled by year there are no journals on work or costs. EES came up with a system of computer modeling and drew every pipeline within the system, and put an estimated cost per foot for each pipeline. The value of the reservoirs and pumping stations, supply systems, land, and buildings were known, then the balance of the physical facilities were in the distribution system. Facilities other than hydraulic were all shared according to the IGA formula, except for the deferred compensation for employee retirement. Since the employees were all transferred to the City of Tigard effective 1-1-94 , all compensation went to the City of Tigard. Assets other than hydraulic features are personal property, rolling stock, telemetry equipment, and cash. After completing all manipulations, and since the last meeting where the deferred compensation was discussed, and make the final check of the physical facilities, EES has come up with what the asset allocation is. Mr. Meigs provided the Board and other visitors with some corrected pages of the report. He stated that Table IV-2 summarizes the various assets and shows that TWD has 21.67%, City of Tigard 69 .7%, City of Durham with 4.04% and City of King City has 4.59%. These figures vary slightly from the formula stated in the IGA. On the second page of the handout it shows a comparison of the IGA Interests to Actual Interests. Mr. Meigs stated that EES feels that the expected outcome of the IGA has been attained. Table V-2 the liabilities have been allocated. The liabilities equal the assets. In order to accomplish this, the bookkeeping entry of retained earnings were manipulated to make the liabilities and agency equities equal to assets. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 2 Mr. Meigs stated that it was his understanding that retained earnings are an item that is carried on the books so that the assets and liabilities come out equal. The balance of the handouts are the appendix items that have been changed since the last meeting of the TWD. Mr. Meigs then displayed one of the maps (over 30 in total) . The City of Tigard furnished EES a map in computer form on which they then super-imposed the water system piping. EES's estimate of the piping is within 1/2% of the District's estimation. The symbols on these maps are cross referenced within the appendix. EES will provide maps as part of the final report as well as all computer reports and files. This will enable the City of Tigard to manipulate data as needed. Discussion was held on the EES report. Chair Manning questioned whether the age of the asset was a factor in determining market value. Mr. Meigs stated that they did take the age of the asset when known into consideration in calculating. When an asset did not have a known age or cost a common value was assigned, irrespective of the age. Wayne Lowry stated that all of Mr. Meig's work was directed at cost as opposed to market value. Chair Manning then questioned page 5 where it stated "market value"? Mr. Lowry stated that was assessed value rather than market value which is the Assessors value of property in each of the entities. Mr. Meigs stated that the formula in the IGA required the recognition of water consumption. The base year was 1992/93 , real market value, which is the value from the Assessor, and the number of meters are also entered into the formula. In this report all meters were considered equal. John Swartz discussed the value of all meters being equal, the City of Durham is primarily residential meters and City of Tigard has numerous business meters. Mr. Meigs stated that there were only a small number of large meters. Mr. Monahan arrived at meeting at 7 :10 p.m. Chair Manning discussed the City of Durham having 8-1/2% of the meters and the City's consumption is only 1.85% of the usage. Mr. Meigs stated that he had not written the IGA. Mr. Morgan stated that TWD held several meetings with Mr. Meigs in attempting to understand the language of the IGA and its intent and the work that EES is doing to quantify the different elements of the system so that an allocation can be prepared. Mr. Morgan did stated that there are some areas splitting the asset would produce no result of significance. EES tried to establish the reasonableness of the asset INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 3 allocation system as of 12-31-94 or 1-1-94 and urging that some record system be developed that would allow the maintenance if necessary and updating of that data ten years from now. Mr. Morgan stated that the conclusion reached by the consultant were reasonable and applicable for the purposes as the TWD understood them to be. Tigard Water District as of Monday, August 12, 1994 , tried to establish a target or a reflection of the policy direction that TWD felt should be taken by this Agency and its respective jurisdiction. Mr. Morgan then provided the IWB members with the summary of the findings and conclusions of the Tigard Water District. Mr. Morgan then stated that one of the things that the Tigard Water District Board Members attempted to establish a policy position, whereas, if there was a problem that required resolution there will be some tracking or trail. On behalf of the Tigard Water District, Mr. Morgan would recommend that this report be adopted by the Intergovernmental Board for forwarding to the agencies involved. Chair Manning questioned whether the staff had any comments? Mr. Wegner discussed the records that had been forwarded to Mr. Meig's office on this same morning to reflect changes to the pipeline numbers. Mr. Wegner stated that the handout that was provided tonight reflected these revised figures. Mr. Meigs stated that after the meeting of the Tigard Water District on August 8, 1994 , he had reviewed the allocations figures and found that the following changes necessary; there were eleven pressure reducing valves versus nine and there was a misunderstanding between EES staff members on the allocation of certain pipelines. John Swartz then questioned the rationale of appendix B - Future Reservoir Site Assets remaining with the Tigard Water District and not be separated between the other entities? Mr. Meigs stated that the future reservoir site located on Scholls Ferry Road would benefit the Tigard Water District unless the City would annex in that area. Mr. Meigs stated the fact could be argued that every reservoir benefits everyone as long as they are connected by the same system, but if that reservoir would drain, it will serve outer area toward Fern Street and out Scholls Ferry Road. If at some future date they hook a booster pump station up to this it would then serve the Bull Mountain and the City would also benefit. John Swartz then stated that if several million dollars of revenues were put into putting in a reservoir, these funds will be taken from all users water rates. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 4 George Morgan then stated that after discussion of this fact, the Tigard Water District determined that when the reservoir is built it will be determined at that time how that reservoir is used and the area served. He stated that we are also dealing on a ten year advance time schedule. Something more definitive in terms of asset allocation would be known at that time, should there be a withdrawal from the Agreement. John Swartz then stated that he agreed with Mr. Morgan although in ten years that area will probably be within the Tigard City limits, what if between now and ten years, we place several million dollars in a reservoir, the cost of that reservoir will essentially come out of water charges which are equal for all agencies. Mr. Swartz questioned why those properties were not allocated out now to show that everyone has part ownership in that site, even though it would only be serving the TWD area with the potential of being annexed into the City. At the time that the reservoir is built, the agencies would maintain their respective percentage of ownership. Mr. Morgan stated that with the approval of the Capital Improvement Plan by the representative agencies (which requires approval by 3 of the 4 jurisdictions) , at that time there would be a better assessment as to the requirements of the reservoir. Mr. Swartz stated that a proportionate share should be determined at the onset, which would allow for more credibility for support for the reservoir through the CIP process. Mr. Morgan stated that the Tigard Water District did not pursue this issue any further. John Haunsperger stated that this asset allocation is as of January of 1994 and in the Intergovernmental Agreement there is a section that defines future capital improvement and how they are divided. Chair Manning stated that the $125,000 that shows in the report has been spent and is an asset that belong to the TWD as of January 1994 . Mr. Meigs stated that the TWD had SDC's that was paid by every new customer to recover past investment, supply and storage, and to charge new hook up to the system for future capacity increases that would be for coming into the water system. Many water utilities use a SDC for CIP expenses rather than water rates. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 5 Mr. Lowry stated that the City utilizes both SDC and water rates. Chair Manning stated that she assumed that these charges was not for just the unincorporated area but to include King City, Durham and Tigard. Beverly Froude questioned when the SDC was voted in? She stated that King City and Durham did not have a SDC until after this IGA. John Swartz stated that funds that purchased these out of the SDC were prior to the merger when it was one water district, so residents in the City of Durham did pay a proportionate share. Mr. Wegner stated that there was always an SDC charge for the TWD for the whole area. After the IGA became effective January 1, the other jurisdictions put into effect their own SDC. Wayne Lowry stated that there is still one charge that was adopted by the other agencies. Councilor, Wendy Conover Hawley questioned whether the monies used to purchase this property were paid by the citizens in general and if the funds to build the reservoir will be paid by the citizens in general then how does it make sense to leave as TWD property? John Haunsperger stated that according to Appendix B it is divided up between all agencies. John Swartz commented that on the Baylor Street and Reservoir #2 there are no dollar figures. He stated that at the Tigard City Council meeting the previous night, staff stated that was due to fact that TWD had no records on the purchase of this property, therefore there was no value given. If an agency were to withdraw from the IGA how would a determination be made? Gil Meigs stated that he did not know and also does not know why there is no record. John Swartz stated that this report shows that all agencies including the TWD have basically zero allocation and shows no ownership. Mr. Meigs stated that it shows there is no book value. The f igures came from Cooper and Lybrand which shows no book value for these three locations. Typically utilities record real estate book value at cost. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 6 Beverly Froude stated that they had discussed this issue and questioned whether there was a need to have an appraiser check the records and it was decided that probably wasn't value enough to warrant. Councilor Hawley stated that she hated leaving things open for interpretation at a later date, since there are questions that can be raised in regards to Appendix B. It was suggested that Appendix B be marked and footnoted to clarify how this would be determined in the future. Randy Volk stated that in the past he recalls that it was noted in the meter reading books that Mr. Swingling at that location (reservoir #4) had free water. This may have signified that property was donated. Paul Hunt questioned what the resolution was on the Scholls Ferry and 150th? Chair Manning stated that at this time, there have not been any motions made. Councilor Hawley made a motion to indicate that Appendix B, be revised to indicate the Division of Assets on Scholls Ferry Road and future reservoir sites be allocated according to percentages. Chair Manning questioned whether that was a recommendation on her part since the Motion would need to be made by a Board Member? Lynda Jenkins stated that it would help clarify it if it was done by percentages versus leaving as is. Mr. Meigs stated that the answer to this dilemma lies on page 6 of the report on table 2-3 . It was Mr. Meigs recommendation that those figures could be used to clarify who pays for what and who would benefit at the time it was built. Lynda Jenkins restated that Motion to state that Appendix B is not complete and would like to see it carried out in percentage versus the way it is written currently, in relation to Scholls Ferry and 150th. This Motion was seconded by John Swartz and was repeated by Chair Manning as taking the allocation of the Scholls Ferry Road reservoir and the future reservoir at 150th and allocate those amounts by percentages as stipulated in the report. The entire District had bought the property therefore should share in that proportionately. This Motion was voted on and passed unanimously. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 7 George Morgan suggested a footnote that indicates a value for each of these sites (#4, Baylor and #2) to clarify why no value is being shown and that the value be determined at such time as an agency withdraws from the IGA. This Motion was made by Lynda Jenkins and seconded by John Swartz. Vote was taken and passed unanimously. Mr. Wegner questioned what percentage figures would be used, would that be the figures on page 6 from Other Assets? Chair Manning stated that was yes. Chair Manning questioned whether the staff would desire the Board to formally accept this report and the acceptance of fact from the Tigard Water District? Wayne Lowry stated that on page 6, Other Assets, there is no set of percentages. It was his suggestion that they use the proportionate interest or proportion of assets on page 17 . Chair Manning stated the need of clarifying that Motion to reflect the figures on page 17 (proportionate interest) . John Swartz made a motion to move that the IWB Board accept the Report from Economic and Engineering Services on the System Assets and Liabilities with the changes that were provided at this meeting and the two motions incorporated and forward to their respective councils for adoption. This Motion was seconded by Lynda Jenkins. George Morgan stated that it was his feeling that this motion does not fully address a trail that is needed to be created for such time in the future. He also stated that the methodologies are important to determine the allocation of future assets is a base that was used as specified in the IGA as to how the assets would be identified by major groupings and that he doesn't disagree with the Motion, just that he does not think that it goes far enough to say that future allocations should use essentially the same methodology. John Swartz questioned whether Mr. Morgan was referring to using the same formula for the any future allocation based on population? Mr. Morgan stated that in terms of intent, his assumption is that if the future allocation doesn't meet the requirements of the withdrawing agency it will not be acceptable and it will be challenged on the basis of reasonableness of whatever allocation system is approved. If this does identify in more detail the methodology that was employed is being valued. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 8 John Swartz recommended that the Board finalize as it currently stands and work on the future. This document takes care of what is here today, but what is done in the future needs to be defined. Mr. Morgan stated that item 4 indicates that there is some system of recordkeeping that will allow for the early identification of these assets and to whom they belong. John Haunsperger stated that the IGA looks at how future assets are divided and look at page 5 , section 2, paragraph b, defines how the figures were arrived at. Chair Manning requested that the Recorder read back the motion that was on the floor. It was stated that the Motion that was made by John Swartz stated to accept from Economic and Engineering Services the report on System Assets and Liabilities with changes provided and forward to respective Councils for adoption. A vote was taken and this Motion passed unanimously. Chair Manning stated that she would hope that all agencies could get this back to the City of Tigard Water District with separate Council's actions by the next meeting of the IWB. John Swartz commented on the fact that Economic Engineering Services had a difficult job to do and they have done a very good job. The Tigard Water District Board deserves these same kudos as well for making the transition and the assets go very smooth. Mr. Meigs questioned, with the document being referred to the various jurisdictions for adoption whether the Resolutions that come from these agencies should be bound into the document? Mr. Meigs stated that he would wait for the Resolutions and the minutes from this meeting before making the final version of the report. Ed Wegner questioned who this will be brought back to? Chair Manning stated that these Resolutions will be brought back to the City of Tigard. Break. Resumed meeting at 8:20 Chair Manning introduced Chris Uber from Murray Smith and Associates who would be making a presentation at this time. Ed Wegner stressed the importance of the Murray Smith Report and the importance of proceeding with this plan. He then introduced Chris Uber and Phil Smith. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 9 John Swartz questioned whether a presentation had been made by Murray Smith to the Tigard Water District Board? The TWD Board stated they had received the information from Mr. Wegner. Chair Manning asked Mr. Wegner for a wish list from the City of Tigard. Mr. Wegner stated that he would like to see the IWB recommend to the City of Tigard that we accept the Water Supply Plan of Murray Smith and Associates and that the City of Tigard begin immediate negotiation with Lake Oswego for a long term partnership. Chris Uber introduced Phil Smith from Murray Smith and Associates, the Executive Vice President of the firm. Mr. Smith was involved in the project since he provided the quality control, quality assurance of the report. Chris Uber then outlined the findings of the Plan. To begin, he stated that they have recommended that the City of Tigard begin immediate negotiation with the City of Lake Oswego to develop a long term water supply. The City of Tigard currently buys surplus water from the City of Lake Oswego (90%) and the remainder is provided from the City of Portland Supply and from the City of Tigard ground water wells. The following are the seven alternatives outlined in the Plan: • Forest Grove/Beaverton/Hillsboro. Water comes from the Trask. • Tualatin Valley Water District. Water is provided from the City of Portland and the City of Portland gets water from Bull Run watershed and the Columbia River ground water wells. • City of Portland. • City of Lake Oswego. Water source is Clackamas River. • South Fork Water Board which serves City of Oregon City, City of West Linn, Claremont Water District. Water source is the Clackamas River. • City of Tualatin. Water source is through the City of Portland through the Washington County Supply Line. Murray Smith spoke with each of these developed entities and narrowed it down to the potential for long term supply would be through the City of Portland and City of Lake Oswego. They also looked at the Willamette river at Wilsonville. MSA also looked at two additional alternatives, one being water treatment plant owned and operated by the City of Tigard and second a regional water facility. MSA went through a process that ranked each alternative with the following ranking criteria: • Opportunity for City ownership - does the supply the City of Tigard the opportunity to gain ownership of its water supply facility? INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 10 • Water Supply Agreement - currently have existing water supply agreements for surplus with the City of Lake Oswego and the City of Portland - What is the opportunity with each of these four alternatives to get a better long term contract? • Developed estimated cost for each alternative and total project cost to develop the supply alternative • Estimated the cost of water (per 100 cf) . • Water rights issue • Water quality • Supply implementation timing • Certainty of supply Mr. Uber discussed Appendix B from the MSA Report which is a document prepared for the City of Lake Oswego by a Consultant that examines the supply question from Lake Oswego side. This is an outline of the Plan and how the two cities might join together to develop the City of Lake Oswego's water supply and provide service to both cities. When each alternative was scored Lake Oswego ranked the highest. MSA has developed recommendations to implement this long term supply which is included in the Executive Summary. The following were the recommendations by MSA: • Begin negotiations with Lake Oswego immediately. • Adopt the Plan that MSA has developed and adopt that into the Comprehensive Plan. • Talk with the City of Portland and the Tualatin Valley Water District which can both provide water in the interim period while developing the Lake Oswego supply which will take 3-5 years. • Develop a financial plan. Tigard's share of the total capital improvement project with Lake Oswego will be 16.4 million. • Ground water wells - use as much as can • Regional Water Supply Plan - Twenty seven local water providers to look at water supply for the Metro region. Chair Manning stated that she felt that MSA had made a very complex presentation seem understandable. She wanted to thank MSA for their efforts. Lynda Jenkins questioned Ed Wegner in how the discussions with the City of Portland are going? Mr. Wegner stated that initially there was thought to be some potential problems with the Contract with the City of Portland and the IGA. This has since been worked out and is resolved. The City of Portland concerns that the City of Tigard is managing it's system to the best of their abilities and are not storing surplus water or selling to someone else. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 11 George Morgan questioned in the interim it was suggested to talk with Tualatin Valley Water District. Is there much money involved in making an interim extension assuming that the parties get together. Chris Uber stated that he does not have the answer to that at this point, but it is worth talking with them. The supply from Tualatin Valley relates to a project identified in the CIP which is the 24" diameter transmission main from Bradley Corner to Tiedeman Corner. This would be required if the City chose to go to the City of Portland. There is an opportunity to avoid building that, if we can get by until the supply comes online with Lake Oswego. Randy Volk stated that he had spoke with Gene Sibel and that the City of Beaverton and the City of Hillsboro had agreed to make up the percentage that Forest Grove (4%) would not be supplying to Tualatin Valley. George Morgan questioned the economic feasibility issue as it relates to a relatively short term major investment amortized over a short term cost of water. Chris Uber stated that they had extended the discussion with those entities that could provide long term supply. John Swartz questioned Randy Volk in regards to when the Water District supplied the area on 72nd which is now supplied by Tualatin Valley, if that could be reversed so they can supply the City a portion of water coming from the other direction? Randy Volk stated that they could reverse that, but there is not much water there. Paul Hunt commented at one point the top alternative was to go with the City of Portland and in the last six months it seems to have turned around and he is not sure who it is that deserves the credit for that. Chair Manning questioned whether MSA would continue to be active in guiding the Water District through this process. Chris Uber stated that they would be happy to have the opportunity to help the City in anyway possible. John Haunsperger asked about the Tualatin Valley line by Tigard Fred Meyer and the size of that line and is it possible to tap into? Randy Volk stated that line is the same size line but was just lowered 12" . The larger line that is in there was also the existing 30" line that goes down to the City of Tualatin and they also had to lower that to accommodate the excavation of new roadway. John Swartz made a motion to accept the Murray Smith and Associates Report including the Appendix B, previously mentioned in regards to the Lake Oswego Report. This Motion was seconded by Lynda Jenkins. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 12 George Morgan stated that his concern in that we accept this as a policy decision on a preliminary basis subject to the development of the agreements that are acceptable to the parties (agencies) within the service area. This motion passed unanimously. John Swartz questioned whether this needed to be formally adopted by the respective agencies? Ed Wegner stated that according to the IGA, the IWB recommends to the City of Tigard for their adoption. John Swartz made a motion that stated that the IWB send the recommendation onto the City of Tigard, City Council for adoption. This motion was seconded by George Morgan and passed unanimously. John Swartz then requested to talk about future plans for long term water supply. Since he was interested in pursuing the long term supply with Lake Oswego and having part ownership in that system, he questioned whether Lake Oswego could give Tigard part of their water rights in conjunction with an agreement? Phil Smith stated that generally water rights go with a piece of land. When a City is involved this really does not apply because the City is growing and the boundaries are expanding. The last couple of sessions, the Legislature has modified the laws relating to municipalities regarding water rights. In this case, he does believe that Lake Oswego would be able to apply to the Oregon Water Resource Department to transfer ownership of those rights to the Intergovernmental Agency. After beginning the negotiations with Lake Oswego, it is MSA's recommendation that we begin to get this answer from the Oregon Water Resource Department. Discussion was held on why Lake Oswego would want to relinquish those water rights? Mr. Smith stated that their motivation is financial. Bill Monahan stated that this is an issue that would need to be resolved with Water Resources Board. The City of West Linn has done some research into this issue and it has become an unresolved issue. This issue would need to be resolved up front since this will factor into the cost of the final negotiation. Mr. Uber did state the Lake Oswego has in their report attached a dollar value to those water rights. They have assessed their total value of their system at 13 million dollars and Tigard's buy in would be 6.5 million in which a portion of this is the cost of those water rights. Ken Schleka questioned how Lake OswSgo acquired those rights? Mr. Smith stated that their is no cost for acquiring these rights. Lake Oswego cost of obtaining those rights was the cost of filing for those rights (First in time, first in INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 13 line) . They have set the value of those rights as if they had to purchase that water from storage. Chair Manning questioned whether the negotiations would be done by staff or City Council, or a combination of the two? Bill Monahan stated that he would assume that staff to staff with direct contact on a regular basis with Council. John Swartz stated that after getting into the negotiation there may be a need for outside advise. Mr. Swartz stated that the Tigard City Council had a meeting with Lake Oswego on I-5/217 interchange and at the end of the meeting the Mayor of Lake Oswego stated that they would be having several meetings in the near future regarding water. Randy Volk stated that when the Joint Water Agency was formed the Tigard Water District had water rights and gave them back. Mr. Swartz stated that they had minimal water rights at Scoggins Dam (approximately 1978) they figured financially that Tigard would never use the water, and these water rights were given to Hillsboro and Forest Grove. George Morgan stated that although the recommendations in the report are quite comprehensive, we need to remember that there are four agencies that need to be kept current on progress and development of a CIP and costs information. Additionally there is a need to develop a public information program that would be informative to people who ultimately will be expected to vote on this issue. Discussion was held by the Board that there is an important need to keep all agencies informed. Ed Wegner stated that he has prepared and has ready for distribution dependent upon the outcome of this meeting, a news release for the three parties who have newsletters and media about the Water Supply Plan and it's adoption. Also in the month of October, the City of Tigard CIT's have the water supply plan on their agendas. After a recommendation is made to move forward with this document, it will then be made available in the Library. Discussions was held on the process and how it would proceed. John Swartz stated that possible Ed Wegner could put together a plan that would show the kinds of public contact and input. Chair Manning stated that this advisory Board could be the appropriate party to accept this input. John Swartz made the motion that although the Board has accepted this report there has been no motion to recommend to the Tigard City Council to proceed with negotiations with Lake Oswego for long term water supply. This was seconded by George Morgan and passed unanimously. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 14 A motion was made by John Swartz to adjourn and was seconded by George Morgan and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. kathy\iwb\iwbmtg.917 INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - PAGE 15 TIGARD WATER DISTRICT (From 9/12/94 Meeting) System Assets and Liability Allocation Report (Draft 8/8/94 ) Findings and Conclusions: 1. Report appears to represent fairly and completely the assets and liabilities of the TWD as of January 1, 1994. 2. Report appears to represent and provide reasonable and equitable allocation methods of the principal components of the District's assets and liabilities among the four agencies. (The absence of definitive records and proven methodology of distributions are not considered significant or important to the results reported. ) 3 . Report includes, identifies, and/or references invaluable information regarding the resources of the agencies in the water service area and imposes a major responsibility on the Water Department's management to utilize this data and information in its planning and operational functions. Recommendations: 1. TWD accepts the report as an adequate response to the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement and the provisions of the District's contract with Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 2. TWD approves the methodologies employed in the identification of all the assets and liabilities of the District on January 1, 19941, and further approves the allocation recommendations advanced by the consultant to the agencies involved. 3 . TWD recommends the acceptance of approval of the report to the cities of Tigard, King City, and Durham as a document to hie utilized in the identification of the interest of each agency in the assets and liabilities of the district as of January 1., 1994. 4. TWD recommends that the City of Tigard in the operational management of the Water Department maintain an accounting and recordkeeping system which would allow (permit) the updating of the report at such time as may be required by reason of termination of the Intergovernmental Agreement by one or more of the signatory agencies.