10/23/1995 - Packet BIGOA►vRt .UWniAnOcMErpMRr.I2SD3SIS,IOdT NAEreIR5COFFICE BOaOS
K
:,..,...........„...,...............:...„:....„...,......:I.,......i.,...::::,..........7.....:i.E.i...................„..............„........::::..............................:.......i:.....ii....ii......::„.....,...i........,.........:::...............:::::::::.:.,:::::::::::.;,...........,.:::
TARD F Coorate
•
[N5ein `I M 199E AOctobeFday,` mMon700p
!' Call to Order
2' Rall Call
3./ Visitor Com:--:--7:---:.:---,-::--:.-----..,-,:----::---:-.:----.::.::-::..:--mehts
41 Approval of July 24, 1995 Meeting Minutes
5'- Intergovernmental Water Board Update; - Beverly Froude
6 Operation Manager`s Report Mike Miller
7`f Non Agenda Items
84' commissioner's Comm ents ''
-:--;---L"...:-.:,:...-----:-:_::--:
.::•-:•:----":•:-.,----:::7--'.::.-:::-"'--.....-;.:-::,
9Set Next Meeting Agenda
10 Adjournment
Reminder: TWD Meeting;,11 27 95 7 QQ,`
IWB Meeting 11-08-95 @ 5;3
Executive Session The Tigard Water ;District may go into Executive Session
under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (di, (e3, &'(h} to discuss labor relations,
real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Ail discussions
within this session are confidential, therefore nothing from this meeting may be'
disclosed by those present. Representatives'of the news media are allowed to:
attend<this session but:must`not disclose any information discussed during this
session.
kathy\twd\10-23.agn
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
JULY 24, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beverly Froude, Lou Ane Mortensen, John Haunsperger,
Norman Penner, and John Volpe
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Miller, Ed Wegner, Kathy Kaatz, and Wendy
Hungerford
1. Call to Order
The meeting of the Tigard Water District was called to order at 7:01 p.m. on
July 24, 1996 by Chairperson Beverly Froude.
2. Oath of Office
Commissioners Beverly Froude was sworn into position 5 of the Tigard Water
District, Norman Penner position 3, Lou Ane Mortensen position 2, John Volpe
position 1, John Haunsperger position 4.
Chairperson Froude wanted to welcome John Volpe as a new board member
and requested that the Board members introduce themselves. John
Haunsperger stated that he has lived within the district for the past 24 years
on Bull Mountain (High Tor) and has recently moved to Cabernet Drive. John
Volpe stated that he has lived in the Highlands for two years and was born and
raised in Oregon, his background is in the field of civil engineering and has
worked for Ameron for 35 years which is a supplier for water and sewer
industries. Beverly Froude stated that she lives on Bull Mountain and was
appointed to this position during the transition of the merger with the City of
Tigard. Lou Ane Mortensen who resides on Fonner Street within the Walnut
Island. She stated that she has lived in the area for 22 years and was
appointed to this position and had recently ran for re-election. Norman Penner
stated that has resided on Bull Mountain for under two years where he
relocated from California where he retired as a Air Force Colonel. Mr. Penner
stated that his background has, been in the mental health field with hospital
administration.
3. Visitor's Comments
Mr. Polans was present and had no comments to make to the Board.
4. Approval of Minutes
John Haunsperger made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 26
meeting as written. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mortensen
and passed unanimously.
5a. Election of Officers
Mr. Haunsperger nominated Norman Penner for the position of Chairperson for
the coming year, which was seconded by Lou Ane Mortensen. With no further
discussion, this motion was voted upon and passed unanimously.
Mr. Haunsperger then nominated Beverly Froude to be the representative for
the Intergovernmental Water Board, which was seconded by Lou Ane
Mortensen and passed unanimously. Mr. Haunpserger also commented that
Ms. Froude has done an excellent job in that position.
Mr. Haunsperger then nominated Lou Ane Mortensen for the position of
Secretary/Treasurer which was seconded by Beverly Froude and voted upon
unanimously with Mortensen abstention. The Board discussed that this
position in the past has also been the budget committee chairperson.
5b. Meeting Schedule
Mr. Haunpserger has made a motion that this board begin meeting every other
month, the fourth Monday of the month at the same time. This motion was
seconded by Norman Penner. Commissioner Haunsperger amended the motion
to reflect this change beginning with August. Mr. Penner re-seconded that
amendment to the original motion. Mr. Haunpserger stated that his reasoning
for making this recommendation was that initially this Board was very busy
with the transition and since then some issues have stabilized that would allow
the Board the opportunity to meet every other month.
Commissioner Penner questioned whether there were any legal issues or
concerns with the change in the meeting schedule? Mr. Wegner stated that
there were no legal issues at hand and since Beverly Froude is active on the
Intergovernmental Water Board she can keep this Board informed of any new
developments. Mr. Wegner also stated that Mike Miller can also send out
newsletters or memos if the Board needs to be informed of issues. Mr.
Haunpserger also encouraged all members of this Board to attend other
meetings of the City of Tigard as well as the meetings of the Intergavermental
Water Board.
Tigard Water District Board Meeting - July 24, 1995 Page 2
.
Commissioner Froude questioned since the Board would meet again in August
and then not until October would there be some issues that the Board would
need to be involved in during the fall? Mr. Wegner stated that if there is a need
for a meeting on the off month, Mike Miller could call a special meeting during
that month. Commissioner Froude questioned whether there would be any
concern with the Regional Water Study that would need to be addressed? Mr.
Wegner stated that he felt that September would be a better month to begin
meeting every other month since the Regional Study probably will not be ready
by the August meeting. Mr. Volpe stated that there will be a conflict with the
December meeting since the fourth Monday will be the Christmas holiday. Mr.
Haunsperger stated that since this motion was still under discussion, he choose
to withdraw his initial motion, with no objection from Mr. Penner (seconded
motion).
Mr. Haunsperger moved that the Board meet bi-monthly beginning with the
fourth Monday in September and if any needs arise a special meeting will be
called by determination of the Chairperson,IWB representative or Water District
administration. This motion was seconded by Norman Penner. Mr.
Haunsperger stated that if a special meeting would be called, he would like to
ensure that the proper notice will be provided. Mr. Wegner stated that we
would keep this meeting room reserved for each fourth Monday in case a
special meeting will be called. The Board discussed that the proper notification
will be made with this meeting schedule change. A voice vote was taken and
it passed unanimously.
Mr. Haunsperger made a motion to nominate Mr. Penner to the alternate for the
Intergovernmental Water Board, which was seconded by Lou Ane Mortensen
and voted upon unanimously.
5. Intergovernmental Water Board Update - Beverly Froude
(Misnumbered agenda item number)
Commissioner Froude stated that the last meeting of the Intergovermental
Water Board had been cancelled.
6. Operation Manager's Report - Mike Miller
Mike Miller introduced Wendy Hungerford who will be attending the meetings,
beginning with the September meeting and transcribing the minutes. Mr. Miller
stated that Ms. Hungerford is the Human Resource Assistant for the City of
Tigard.
Tigard Water District Board Meeting - July 24, 1995 Page 3
w:.
Mr. Miller stated that the Lake Oswego negotiations are continuing to move
forward and the City Managers wilkbe meeting in the next two weeks. The
well #2 (reservoir site at SW Gaarde St and 119) has been online since June
28 and is producing a little over .5 mgd. Well #1 should be online beginning
tomorrow (summit of.Little Bull Mtn at 103/Canterbury). Well #3 (135 South
of Walnut Street) should be ready to go back online end of July or the first part
of August. Baylor Street intertie is currently online and have adjusted the flow
and is currently at 1 .79 mgd. Initially the flow was at 800-900 gpm at 50 psi
and the pressure was adjusted down to 48-50 psi. Commissioner Haunsperger
questioned the size of the pump. Mr. Miller stated that this is gravity fed and
is regulated by a cla-val (pressure sustained in flow regulator).
Mr. Miller stated that the Beef Bend Road project of Washington County and
that our portion of the relocation efforts are complete and we are waiting for
the Contractor to raise the road before relocating the 12" water line. Mr. Miller
stated that the month of June water usage showed a marked increase with the
average daily demand being 6.65 mgd with a peak of 11.42 mgd. Mr. Miller
stated that he did not have the July consumption numbers yet.
Commissioner Haunpserger questioned the consumption use from Portland?
Mr. Miller stated that we did not purchase water all weekend from Portland
since Lake Oswego was able to sustain our main reservoirs. Commissioner
Haunsperger then asked Mr. Wegner if he had any additional comments for the
Board?
Mr. Wegner stated that he had received a bill from the Boundary Commission
for the quarterly dues or assessment in the amount of $792.00. He did pass
that along to Wayne Lowry for processing. Mr. Wegner stated that the Water
Division has lost one employee (Ed Wyant) and will be advertising for that
position in next weeks paper.
Commissioner Haunsperger questioned how the telemetry system is
functioning? Mr. Miller stated that all sites are online with the exception of the
Baylor site.
Commissioner Froude requested that if items come up on the Urban Reserve
area enlargement proposal for Bull Mountain that they be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Wegner stated that according to Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard's Community
Service Director, this will be a part of the 2040 Regional Plan which will be
adopted in phases and this will not be adopted until the first of the year. The
discussions will start in August or September. Mr. Wegner stated that he had
ordered maps (scaled down versions).
Tigard Water District Board Meeting - July 24, 1995 Page 4
c4
Commissioner Mortensen questioned the property in Wilsonville? Mr. Wegner
stated that Tualatin Valley Water District had bid on that property which was
being reviewed.
7. Non Agenda Items
Commissioner Penner questioned a tour with Board members of all the various
facilities and sites. Mr. Wegner suggested that we also include the IWB Board
Members as welt. Commissioner Froude suggested that we attempt to do this
while the weather is still good (before November). Mr. Wegner stated that this
could be done on a Saturday morning and could include the Lake Oswego plant,
welt sites, major reservoirs, and the SCADA system.
8. Commissioner's Comments
Commissioner Mortensen congratulated all the Board members on their new
appointments. Commissioner Froude stated that the next meeting of the Tigard
Water District Board will be September 25, 1995 with the next IWB meeting
being held on August 16.
10. Adjournment
The meeting of the Tigard Water District was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
kathy\twd17-24mtg.mi n
Tigard Water District Board Meeting - July 24, 1995 Page 5
-may#
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Tigard Water District Board Members
FROM: Kathy Kaatz
DATE: September 21, 1995
SUBJECT: Schedule of Meetings
The September meeting of the Tigard Water District Board that was scheduled for
September 25, 1995 has been rescheduled for October 23, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.
For those who are interested, there will be three Regional Water Supply Plan Public
Workshops that will be held in September at various locations (flyer attached).
There is also a joint meeting scheduled for October 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the
Water Building to discuss the Preliminary Regional Water Plan. Members of the
Intergovernmental Water Board, Tigard Water District Board as well as members of
the Tigard, King City and Durham City Councils are invited to attend. A light dinner
will provided from 6:00 to 6:45 p.m.
If you have any questions, you can reach either Mike Miller or myself at 639-4171,
extension 395 or 339.
Thanks!
❖ How should future water needs be met in the ❖
- Portland tri-county metropolitan area?
Learn about the choices Express your views
REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Tuesday, September 26, 1995
Tualatin Valley Water District
1850 SW 17oth Ave., Beaverton
Wednesday, September 27, 1995
Oregon Convention Center, Rooms 107 and 108
777 NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Portland
Thursday, September 28, 1995
OIT/North Clackamas Chamber of Commerce
7726 SE Harmony Road, Milwaukee
Open House at 6 p.m. - Workshops from 7 to 9 p.m.
Refreshments provided ❖
sponsored by the region's municipal water providers and Metro
Refreshment" ill be providediiiiv cl to
after each clan the Program OC-T. ��� 99Cj RI I _,.- if U5
About Living Safely series.It's 6,Gcomi M.. & W€ci•
sponsored in part by the Bethle•
hem Lutheran Church,
Ca it a an u � ,
Light-rail work to shut g p , , ,„* . �, , , ,,,,
�;
Beaverton street to traffic or call waiting but � a � ,
BEAVERTON—Beaverton has ” ;k ° G
drivers beware,here's another U S West left ' k d �` ‘ � �'
' a ,i k ".'" '' '' �d y,' .t .Yr,.,. "w� r
light rail related street closure. •44, ��.. , �1�
Southwest 117th Avenue will x rt
be closedtotrafficmany area families •
Wednesday Jt= Rs II
s, sA
through Friday from 7 a,m.to 5 on hold for service . s, Tx ,;;�
T d;asr rr
p.m, while crews install rail and µ
pave the street,It will reopen to
By CRISTINE GONZALEZ
northbound traffic only at night a ,
during these three dates. Normal o1 rhe Oregonian stall
two-way traffic will resume at 5 ��
METZGER — Consider, if you
p.m. Friday, �" , �� . � ��� ti e*a,
In addition,the north driveway will, the Woiski situation
of Canyon Place shopping center There is Patrick, 27, an indepen i i ��
will remain closed forpaving and dent furniture salesman. There is �� • ° x i
Julianne, 29, a speech pathologist ;A k , '� �$
brickwork through Friday, P p gi s; f , k x: g -, '
�� and expectant mother. And there is i, i ,tt-4 " ,, �, as i , �,,
their new home, which they moved ;.
Tigard drinking waters y i�� ,,
into about one month a o. {r i
golden hue perfectly s'..--""‘
afe g \,, _ x y ,. °
There is, however, no phone. �_*' : � � t �_ � ' -� +
TIGARD—Tigard residents There hasn't been for two weeks and i
who are wondering why their there won't be for two more,accord- - :: r ry�.
water has taken on a golden i : a" h`
ng to a U S West spokesman,due to i� c ,
tinge shouldn't be too alarmed. overloaded telephone lines. �� ` ri,, "' $, �,, f
City officials say it happens Patrick, who normally works from ."
every year when alder leaves home, must temporarily rely on atr, ' • s ,,�
start to fall and cedars drop their car phone, voice mail and a local ; r ' ;, 4, 4� i i �':"
needles into the Clackamas River PostNet office to earn his livelihood. _ �"
\ r'. ./' / /
and Bull Run reservoirs.As they Julianne uses her work pager to , 4,.., "�`' 1
fall into the streams,brown pig communicate with family and c § s : '' ' �;' ii`�
ments known as tannin and lig• friends concerned with her health. , "` , �
nin leach out from the debris, �� _ ,
They have also bought a mobile .
There is no health hazard related phone in case of an emergency. kfi ,
to the color change. What should have been a direct �' �� a Ott fi "
Both Portland and Lake Oswe call to 1 800 HAPPINESS has become _ si I.
go, which supply water to Tigard
a veritable all circuits busy for the ,� � �
customers, test for water color,
modern couple. "I'm preparing to go ,
s
year round. Lake Oswego owns a out of town on a business trip and ,�,��: �F,�- ,,�'' ,E, , . ,,
water treatment plant and adds I've got no phone and a pregnant
he color spikested carbon when wife — this is not a recipe for joy," No phone service means Patrick 1Nolskl runs his business from his car, using his car phone. He and his wife are
says Woiski, who thinks the com area,Including 10 families In Tigard,who face a wait for phone service,although the Wolskis applied for a phor
Peer counselors schedule pany should pay for his trouble.
The Wolskis are one of 35 families
coping-With-loss seminar served by U S West in the Portland unfortunately, it's part of the busi- Total costs — cellular phone usage, The serviceman, however, left
KING CITY—Senior Peer area and one of 10 families in Tigard ness no matter what phone company a new mobile phone, use of outside Woiski home to never return, 1
Counselors has organized a free who are victims of the region's it is," says Haynes. "It doesn't affect fax/phone service, and lost income ing the couple without service
seminar on"Coping with Loss growing pains, says Jim Haynes, a a•large group of customers but it's a —will more than surpass$100, yet another weekend.
an
Transition."It takes place at U S West spokesman.•In a given bg issue for those affected. We're At first, the absence of a"ringing '1 was on fire . , . I was irate .
p.m.Oct.25,in the Pacific month the company fills nearly leaving business on the table if we phone gave the Wolskis peace of went ballistic. These
Pointe Retirement Inn at 11777 40,000 new service orders, 2 percent can't get them phone service." mind. Then the lack of technology phrases Patrick frequently use:
3.W.Queen Elizabeth on King of which they expect to miss. Indeed,the company has doled out became downright annoying. conversation. But even he acknc
Wiry.Psychologist Al Siebert will The troubled telecommunications more than $5 million in fines from First there was confncin„ ac r� A����+ham�,>>,�^,� ^°,+ ^>>
licence hnw to har=Aln+i n ln.�nP nnmv n. .• M...•^•._ '
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
800 NE OREGON ST #16 (STE 540) PORTLAND, OR 97232-TEL: 731-4093
NOTIFICATION OF BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL
DATE: September 25, 1995
TO: Tigard Water District
ATTN: Board of Directors
The Boundary Commission has received a proposal (No. 3530) to annex certain territory to
the City of Tigard. The area involved is shown on the attached map. Basic information on
this proposal is as follows:
Area: 1.88 acres
Existing Land Use: Single family dwellings 1
Multi-family units 0
Commercial structures 0
Industrial structures 0
Other: --
Total Estimated Population: 2
Current Assessed Value: $227,110
Current Zoning: County R-6
Reason For Annexation: Applicants wish to receive City services to facilitate development.
Proposed Development: One additional single-family residence.
If you wish to make written comments or recommendations, please present a letter to this
office no later than October 9, 1995, or attend the Public Hearing on the above matter, to
be held on Thursday, October 19, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 602, Multnomah County
Courthouse, 1021 SW 4th Ave., Portland, Oregon.
Kenneth S. Martin
Executive Officer
KSM/kp
enc. 1
d:\wpwin\f orms\annotif
„ .
, PROPOSAL3530
NO
■
SW1/4 NW1/4 SECTION 4 T2S R1W W.M. 2S 1 4BC
Washington County
Scale: 1 ” = 200' • .
uOO
Of
11 m .,o.ei .ro .roN
700 s w . S� 300 200 100
1000 1112K
2 A0 Los .
19050 '.K
LIJX 169 AC LISK .H t.
.ro or
•
TIGARD _ 1l) - 400Ss Ac
Z s 11 .,.9 8 .
0 5 8 12 500 1 Y
iiQ 15 -N I ,1 13 E1 d-\ 11
wcc
4: 1"" 1u MRS/
t
11 Q
I 9O0r 2100
1 ocK "'� 1" \
+ '�-191- -29- , ... SrRF
2.00 .;
•• s _� re
- ....s41' 1 71 2+300 e
L� ./SO or - - 1600 I I^ ' 2 1 .a a. 1, i ,
f.
12 S.w >>" .94 K '�^ f ' ro , 1 2400
r
1500 1 Y 7Y AC '
Ir :Rq:: n borT mo
amox 11400 .91 x. 1900 J
ILa C LW AC Z 5 L:. WO<c L _ —d J - - — yo.,
3 .., 1.I :. x 1 2600
s 0 2 7 3.c
Q. ( 7090 C 2 2200 •
1
21' ""022 ,,
23
0
/zoo xo
24
i2 146 AC _8 19 2000
w
k J f ilk........... -
zo ? AREA TO BE ::
z m ANNEXED
\1, - ,fin
1/ _ /. •
//- 7_//../.". /
PROPOSAL NO. 3530
CITY OF TIGARD
ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2
-1'
M- /
EMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Ron Goodpaster, Amanda Bewersdorff, Nels Mickaelson, Cathy
Wheatley, Randy Wooley, Ran014e,vVa ,David Scott, Kathy Davis
FROM: Ray Valone
DATE: July 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Final Order on Annexation 3475 (Becker)
Attached is the final order on Annexation 3475 (Becker), effective June 1,
1995. Census information is as follows:
Final Order 3475:
Owner:
David Becker 2S103AC-02100, 1 SF dwelling
11340 SW Fonner Est. population - 1
Tigard, OR 97223
h:\login\j erree\annexmem
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
800 NE OREGON ST #16 (STE 540), PORTLAND OR 97232-TEL: 731-4093
FINAL ORDER
RE: BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL NO: 3475 - Annexation of territory to the City of Tigard.
Proceedings on Proposal No. 3475 commenced upon receipt by the Boundary Commission of a
petition from the property owners on April 28, 1995, requesting that certain property be annexed
to the City. The petitions meet the requirements for initiating a proposal set forth in ORS 199.490,
particularly paragraph (c) of Section (1).
Upon receipt of the petition the Boundary Commission published and posted notice of the public
hearing in accordance with ORS 199.463 and conducted a public hearing on the proposal on June
1 , 1995. The Commission also caused a study to be made on this proposal which considered
economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections and physical development of the
land.
The Commission reviewed this proposal in light of the following statutory guidance:
"199.410 Policy. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
"(a) A fragmented approach has developed to public services provided by local
government. Fragmentation results in duplications in services, unequal tax bases and
resistance to cooperation and is a barrier to planning implementation. Such an
approach has limited the orderly development and growth of Oregon's urban areas to
the detriment of the citizens of this state.
"(b) The programs and growth of each unit of local government affect not only
that particular unit but also activities and programs of a variety of other units within
each urban area.
"(c) As local programs become increasingly intergovernmental, the state has a
responsibility to insure orderly determination and adjustment of local government
boundaries to best meet the needs of the people.
"(d) Local comprehensive plans define local land uses but may not specify which
units of local government are to provide public services when those services are
required.
"(e) Urban population densities and intensive development require a broad
spectrum and high level of community services and controls. When areas become
urbanized and require the full range of community services, priorities are required
regarding the type and levels of services that the residents need and desire. Communi-
ty service priorities need to be established by weighing the total service needs'against
the total financial resources available for securing services. Those service priorities are
required to reflect local circumstances, conditions and limited financial resources. A
single governmental agency, rather than several governmental agencies is in most
cases better able to assess the financial resources and therefore is the best mechanism
for establishing community service priorities.
"(2) It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that each boundary commission
establish policies and exercise its powers under this chapter in order to create a
governmental structure that promotes efficiency and economy in providing the widest
range of necessary services in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-
ordered and efficient development patterns.
"(3) The purposes of ORS 199.410 to 199.534 are to:
"(a) Provide a method for guiding the creation and growth of cities and special
service districts in Oregon in order to prevent illogical extensions of local government
boundaries and to encourage the reorganization of overlapping governmental agencies;
"(b) Assure adequate quality and quantity of public services and the financial
integrity of each unit of local government;
"(c) Provide an impartial forum for the resolution of local government jurisdictional
questions;
" (d) Provide that boundary determinations are consistent with acknowledged
local comprehensive plans and are in conformance with state-wide planning goals. In
making boundary determinations the commission shall first consider the acknowledged
comprehensive plan for consistency of its action. Only when the acknowledged local
comprehensive plan provides inadequate policy direction shall the commission consider
the statewide planning goals. The commission shall consider the timing, phasing and
availability of services in making a boundary determination; and
"(e) Reduce the fragmented approach to service delivery by encouraging single
agency service delivery over service delivery by several agencies.
"199.462 Standards for review of changes; territory which may not be included in
certain changes. (1) In order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.410
when reviewing a petition for a boundary change or application under ORS 199.464, a
boundary commission shall consider local comprehensive planning for the area,
economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the
proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would directly or
indirectly be affected by the proposed boundary change or application under ORS
199.464 and the goals adopted under ORS 197.225."
"(2) Subject to any provision to the contrary in the principal Act of the affected
district or city and subject to the process of transfer of territory:
"(a) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to a district
without the consent of the city council;'
"(b) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to another city;
and
Final Order - Page 2
"(c) Territory within a district may not be included within or annexed to another
, district subject to the same principal Act."
The Commission also considered its policies adopted under Administrative Procedures Act
(specifically 193-05-000 to 193-05-015), historical trends of boundary commission operations and
decisions and past direct and indirect instructions of the State Legislature in arriving at its decision.
FINDINGS
(See Findings in Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
REASONS FOR DECISION
(See Reasons for Decision in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.)
ORDER
On the basis of the Findings and Reasons for Decision listed in Exhibit "A", the Boundary Commis-
sion approved Boundary Change Proposal No. 3475 on June 1 , 1995.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT the territory described in Exhibit"B" and depicted on the
attached map, be annexed to the City of Tigard as of 45 days from this date which is July 16,
1995 or at what other subsequent date that the law requires (subject to the requirements of ORS
199:505).
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BOUNDARY COMMISSION
DATE: \ Ij )Re, I ? BY: ' ,L U
.Chair
ATTEST:
Final Order - Page 3
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3475
FINDINGS
Based on the study and the public hearing the Commission found:
1. The territory contains .50 acres, 1 single family dwelling, an estimated population of 1, and
is evaluated at $71,850.
2. The applicant is requesting annexation of the property to receive sanitary sewer service. The
City of Tigard requests that SW Fonner Street, extending from the City boundary on the east
to the western end of 2S1 3 AC, Lot 800 on the west, be included in the annexation to
obtain control of the sanitary sewer line for the purposes of facilitating maintenance by the
City and future connections to the line by residents along SW Fonner Street adjacent to the
line. There are no development plans for this property.
3. The Boundary Commission has three adopted policies. The first of these policies states that
the Commission generally sees cities as the primary providers of urban services. Recognizing
that growth of cities may cause financial problems for the districts, the Commission states in
the second policy that the Commission will help find solutions to the problems. The third
policy states that the Commission may approve illogical boundaries in the short term if these
lead to logical service arrangements in the long term.
4. The site is mostly level with a slight downward slope to the north on the northern half of the
lot. Land use on surrounding parcels consists of single-family residences.
5. The territory is within the regional Urban Growth Boundary and the boundary of Metro.
6. The territory is located within the West Tigard Community Planning area. The County's West
Tigard Plan states:
"The West Tigard Planning Area has been identified as part of the City of Tigard 'Active
Planning Area.' Under the active planning concept, a City accepts planning responsibilities
for areas outside of its corporate limits because the City feels the area will ultimately have
to annex in order to receive urban services for development. Although most of the West
Tigard Planning Area will have to rely on the City for urban services, some portions may be
able to obtain the services for urban development required by the County urban growth
management policies through service districts other than the City. Because of this
possibility for development in both the City and the County, Washington County has
agreed to adopt a plan for the area which is consistent with the comprehensive plan
developed and adopted by the City of Tigard."
The site is designated R-5, 5 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
Washington County has a single designation for planning and zoning.
7. Washington County reviewed its role in service provision in its County 2000 program. In this
document, the County adopted a policy of supporting a service delivery system'which
distinguishes between municipal and county-wide services to achieve tax fairness and
Final Order - Page 4
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3475
expenditure equity in the provision of public services. The County policy states that
municipal services should be provided either by cities or special districts.
8. The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered into an Urban Planning Area
Agreement (UPAA) which is a part of both the County's and Tigard's adopted Comprehensive
Plans. The UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area" within which the City assumes
responsibility for land use planning, and an "Area of Interest" in which the County agrees to
coordinate its planning because of the potential impacts on Tigard. This proposal falls within
the "Active Planning Area" as designated in the UPAA.
9. The City of Tigard has a "city limits" plan. The County's plan and ordinances remain
applicable unless the City takes other action after the annexation is effective. The City has
policies requiring new development to be serviced with sewer and water.
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Polices relevant to this case are polices 2.1 .1 , Citizen
Involvement; 10.1 .1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria. The pertinent
Tigard Community Development Code sections are Chapters 18.136, Annexations; and
18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification.
10. There is an 8-inch Unified Sewerage Agency (U.S.A.) sewer line located in SW Fonner
Avenue, adjacent to the property. Upon annexation that line will transfer to the City for
purposes of ownership and maintenance responsibilities.
The territory is within the U.S.A. of Washington County as is the City. The Unified Sewer-
age Agency has a standard agreement between the Agency and the large cities within the
Agency (Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood). In
that agreement the Cities agree to: 1) comply with the Agency's construction and mainte-
nance standards for sanitary and storm water sewer facilities, 2) follow and accomplish the
Agency's work program for storm and surface water, 3) obtain the Agency's consent before
issuing construction permits within wetlands, floodways and floodplains. The agreement
provides that the city owns and is responsible for sanitary sewer lines under 24 inches in
diameter within the City limits and for storm water facilities within the City limits as identified
on a map (virtually all facilities). The Unified Sewerage Agency is responsible for all industrial
waste discharges, both in and out of cities. The Unified Sewerage Agency agrees not to
extend sanitary sewer service to areas outside the City within the City's Urban Planning Area
(as identified in the City-County UPAA) unless the City approves.
The City is responsible for billing the customers after service is installed and for collecting
sanitary and storm sewer connection fees. If the City imposes the same connection fees and
user charges as U.S.A., it simply passes these monies on to U.S.A. to pay for the costs of
treatment and transmission of the sewage or storm water. The City may impose higher costs
than U.S.A. charges and keep the difference to offset City costs.
As of July 1 , 1995, monthly sanitary sewer user charges are proposed to rise to a base rate
of $14.59 per month plus a consumption charge of $1 .00 per 100 cubic feet of water used
Final Order - Page 5
Exhibit A
• Proposal No. 3475
by the customer. These City charges are the same as those charged by U.S.A. in the
adjacent unincorporated area.
U.S.A. assesses a property tax which goes toward payment of bonds sold to construct
district-wide major improvements and regional treatment plants. Subsequent to annexation
this tax, which for the 1994-95 tax year is $.0681 per thousand assessed value, would
remain the same since the City is in the District.
11. The site can be served by an 8-inch water line located adjacent to the property in SW Fonner
Street.
The territory is within the boundary of the Tigard Water District. The City of Tigard, which
used to be served by the District, has withdrawn the territory within the City from the
District and established a Tigard Water Department. The City of Tigard has an intergovern-
mental agreement with the Tigard Water District which provides for services within the
District by the City. Tigard also has an agreement with Durham and King City, which have
also withdrawn from the District, to provide water services within those cities. Subsequent
to annexation, it is the intent of the City to withdraw the territory from the District as
provided for in ORS 222.
The term of the City/District agreement is until December 31 , 2018. The City of Tigard has
established an Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) consisting of five members: one from
each of the city councils (Tigard, Durham, and King City) and from the Tigard Water District
Board, plus one at-large member. The IWB makes recommendations to the City Council on
water service issues. The District agreed to transfer to the City of Tigard assets that are
necessary to the operation of the City's water system, including water supply contracts, but
to retain its other assets located within the remaining district. Alt District employees were
transferred to Tigard. The District agreed that the Tigard Water Department would manage
all the assets. If the District or Durham or King City terminate their agreement with Tigard,
the system assets will be proportionately distributed. The agreement provides that the fees,
rates and charges for water service to the District, Durham and King City will be the same as
those charged within Tigard. However, the charges may be higher when the cost of providing
service is higher because of unusual circumstances, including added costs to pump water up
hill. The agreement covers the original boundary of the District, at the time of the Agree-
ment/withdrawals. It specifically provides that Tigard has no obligation to serve water to
areas annexed to the District after the date of the agreement.
Currently the City charges $14.30 for the first 800 cubic feet of water and then $1 .32 per
additional 100 cubic feet of water.
12. Upon annexation to the City, the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the Washing-
ton County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the District's $ .8367 per thousand
property tax will no longer be levied against the territory. The County Service'District
provides a level of service of .51 officers per 1000 population which in addition to the
general County level of .43 officers per 1000 population means that the current level is .94
officer per 1000 population.
Final Order - Page 6
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3475
Subsequent to annexation, the Tigard Police Department will provide police protection to the
territory. Tigard provides a service level of 1.3 officers per thousand population. Emergen-
cy response in Tigard is under five minutes.
13. The territory is within the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. Annexation will not affect
this service because the City is in the District.
14. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Urban Road Maintenance
District. Upon annexation the territory will be automatically withdrawn from the District and
the District's levy of $.3229 per $1000 assessed value will no longer apply to the property.
The parcel has approximately 94 feet of frontage along SW Fonner Street, which is classified
as a minor collector.
15. The territory is within the boundary of the Washington County Vector Control District.
Tigard is not a part of the District. Upon annexation, the territory will be automatically
withdrawn from the unfunded Washington County Vector Control District.
1 6. The territory is within the Washington County Service District #1 for street lights. The
District provides services to areas within its boundary which request street lighting services.
The District uses local improvement districts to finance the service. The District does not
provide street lights in the subject territory. Upon annexation it will be automatically
withdrawn from the District.
The City provides street lighting service out of its Street fund which receives State shared
gasoline tax revenues as its primary revenue source. Street lights are required by the City in
residential subdivisions. Upon installation of street lights by a developer to City standards,
the City accepts dedication of the street lights and takes on ongoing operation and mainte-
nance costs.
17. Tigard operates a park system funded through its tax base which finances the general fund.
Tigard has 6 developed recreation park sites as follows:
A. Cook Park, has 51 acres. It is the City's largest park and is located on the Tualatin
River. The site is heavily wooded along the river and the southeast portion of the park.
Improvements to the park include ball fields, play equipment, paths, shelters, cooking
facilities, a boat launch and natural areas and trails.
B. Summerlake Park, has 27.82 acres. It has a shelter, cooking equipment, paths,
ballfields and 2 tennis courts.
C. Woodard Park, has 26 acres. It has play equipment and paths.
D. Fanno Creek Park, has 20 acres. It has a large filed, play equipment, paths, and
basketball and volley ball facilities.
Final Order - Page 7
Exhibit A
Proposal No. 3475
•
E. Englewood Park, has 15 acres, It has fields, play equipment and paths.
F. Jack Park, 5.62 acres. Has play equipment, a shelter, paths, a basketball court and a
volleyball facility.
Tigard does not provide swimming pools, which are provided by the Tigard School District.
Tigard provides recreation programs (through a contract with a private company). The
programs provided include tennis, basketball, soccer, volleyball and other special interest
summer camps for kids. The city also provides year round classes such as crafts and
painting classes for adults.
There are eleven public libraries in Washington County, nine of which are provided by cities,
including Tigard. The two unincorporated area libraries are in West Slope and Cedar Mill.
The West Slope Library is a county library and the Cedar Mill Library is operated by a non-
profit corporation.
The Washington County Cooperative Library System (WCCLS) levies a tax of $0.3826 (fiscal
year 1994-95) on all properties in Washington County. The revenues from this levy are
allocated to each of the eleven libraries based on circulation. City residents pay, through
their City taxes, an additional amount to support their libraries.
18. There is natural storm drainage located along SW Fonner Street, adjacent to the site.
The Unified Sewerage Agency levies an annual assessment for storm drainage services of
$36 per dwelling unit of which $24 goes to the City.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the Findings the Commission determined:
1 . The proposal is consistent with City, County, and Regional planning for the area.
2. The City can provide an adequate quantity and quality of public services to the area.
3. The proposal is consistent with the Boundary Commission Policy On Incorporated Status
(OAR 193-05-005) and the Policy On Long Term/Long Range Governmental Structure (OAR
193-05-01 5).
Final Order - Page 8
Exhibit B
Proposal No. 3475
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ANNEXATION TO
City of Tigard
A tract of land located in the Southeast and Southwest one-quarter
of the Northwest one-quarter of section 3, Township 2 South, Range
1 West of the Willamette Meridian; Washington County, Oregon,
described as follows :
Beginning at the center of Section 3 T 2 S, R 1 W thence N 00°
00' 00" E , along the center line of section, a distance of 462
feet to a point on the center line of S .W. Fonner Street; thence
N 87° 46' 00" E, along said center line, a distance of 491 . 0 feet
to a point; thence S 00° 53' 00" W, a distance of 20 . 00 feet to
the true point of beginning, also being on the southerly right-of-
way of S .W. Fonner Street; thence N 87 ° 46' 00" E, along said
southerly right-of-way, a distance of 732 . 72 feet; thence N 24°
32' 30" W, a distance of 21 . 62 feet to the center line of S .W.
Fanner Street; thence S 87° 46' 00" W, along said centerline, a
distance of 179 . 98 feet to the west line of the John L. Hicklin
D .L.C . ; thence N 24 ° 32' 30" W, along said west line, a distance
of 21 . 62 feet to the northerly right-of-way of S .W. Fonner Street;
thence S 87° 46' 00" W, along said northerly right-of-way, a
distance of 690 . 19 feet; thence S 00° 53' 00" W, a distance of
40 . 06 feet to the southerly right-of-way of S .W. Fonner Street;
thence N 87° 46' 00" E, along said southerly right-of-way, a
distance of 64 . 73 feet; thence S 00° 53' 00" W, a distance of
230 . 26 feet; thence S 89° 53' 00" E, a distance of 94 . 00 feet;
thence N 00° 53' 00" E a distance of 234 . 12 to the true point of
beginning.
Final Order - Page 9
. : .,
-p 3475
NO .
SW1/4 NE1/4 SECTION 3 T2S R1 W W.M. 2S 1 3AC
Washington County
f-•
Scale: 1" = 200'
L.1
0 MC MICH AI
23-7 �`� I so- z
9 w .1'-
• ,.,,a••• I 2900 v>..
UD soi ' 7 j 3000" ?�. ` 2900 sT
•" 'd 202 z.ff.< f <wm d _r :'':1
1 n)
£ cc
1..f a<. 3200 1- — {--1 I3 .�A F �7
7
...1 W _3300 _ •
_{ _ - 6 F•_ i
4700•an-t i... (1: clt1 r .,... I
II * t 3300 — _ 3100 1.
...TIGARD=41 "*"'"3.1V.-
. aRROL`�' STREET s
•
14 l- F- 't 3900�� =1 � ..,< awT cr for w
Q (`un. 7 11 i 1 Sot ttw 10 I✓tt.o .cw.r:
co
T.r =3900 I 1
__ '4000 '! „ (�. PROPOSAL NO,, 3475
S� 4100' "..."/ "" CITY OF TIGARD
,�® 000 600
�a2oo -'�" ANNEXATION
001 it `.\ 900 ,.'� .I.:,-ti.-
FIGURE 2a
.67�t./
EE MAP \ - 2 `•' '�" / _ �_ -_I r...-<�'r sa a�
i 16 A.7: �' :i w .I t
.P'� •-Z:4. / I: psi- .1 I<
•
•
? 23-78 r ..a
'I: _u - -r % .tsor
` 1300 I ' ,•.�r
1200 o.1.as ' ZSwr'
1. . 1 o.•ua �- :I I I'1503 ,'i304 • i'1302
i -I.
:.;1333� '= :': ;.:.
` _ .<•.<< -:: t oo r
2000 1x900 ' 1 BOO 1701
''-'2'_d0 '2200 1 2101 ''2106 :}- io.a.. i 1o.c cro-<
j .suc I •;� i i
` f :-m o::- I 1 t I a
I:, :r ::0 X:� C
1 _ _...-..f.. _ - 7' ' LLI:� I -.1' 'f e\
!I_ —I- ::w z;,: f_ a. 1a
.. • I ii FII ,. •.-
I .40, ;as," i '
i V f+a :; {
i i° ..r
-7 -74
1.
-- 1 .,J 75 1300 ... .<
,.
_ PROPOSAL
3475
NO .
SE1/4 NE1/4 SECTION 3 T2S R1W W.M. 2S 1 3AD
Washington County
Scale: 1" = 200' 7
I 2S t Su ^- / 8
. - S.W. -ERROL -I *STREET _ .b . �. r
kr 1,4 (t(t(t CO
� 302 400 404 401 200 -TS.c l04 107
\. .1s.e. 307 506 503( 30S «x o-.s..t __ -N/r '�"
.Ix. 4)ie. -t •...q ..TK ••4 .17 t I t ��X i .1 ttt
•
r c :J JI la. I 300 '
0 11 ? J ._rimae. .ae
>.o - I i ____ ,_ 103 1 103 ,
•••. - ...._,,.. y g 106 .11.=r. s..c
.••sl �� •
.� 2 12 Ar IS .
6200 ., 61oo � y../3.. L. I; (.-V j Hl II 3
e 7 6 IN ^ '/ _ .0 ..It.. I lIx I4 � 2 I t.> el
.02 ri
t • 00~ \( 1 r f�.: ,C-,,// 3 _.. I .t _'_ ax El ,.�'''I: 1 ..
3 Tw n9 4_,_„, =t+s'u,Et 4QS •403 1 r t I $ fr TRACT-C.
ri • .7
tow t _ 3800 -.ilx fr., •r '• •»>.11 I
T .a t•I 600 .1
Irre e: .1 1 .16r.e ,1 ; - ,ems 1000:-
>6500 •r s 1..0...I.A..
;I >.>'. - ;.o
23 74 F I , e1 I.
66� 3 shoo 3 S.
t ~' '> •b6 O T.
.. ,RACT•3
t 2� 1 I '130° 3 + t.� Q� • .0 S E
•
34C . " 1
."•'
` i I •14C0 4 .ea 2$
$,00 A - •• •t • ,t, t{••. 7e 3
13 1 Y 7 >� .. "".(}00-.' >a �....1 '2'7- 7.8.r.1
Yr :% '>/ 1600 6 ~� _�+ I.
....�-t• .` •'I .O ! ` 5100
Ix
.:•.•r.•r::•:::•:: 1800' • 9 40:2,,..,,,,
``,�� - ee n
( :7::''.47.7.'• \ , eol,ri:\ 5Oi 812 \803 .\.•'soo =;� t 2 z6c• c, }coo
lox Offer '� S.
i ...•:•.....
\\`G f i \ : meq\ a 3°° - <�'• I8 r
23-78 tg°--..--,Ji- °° 0 16 0;0 24..:; �= 14900 >
"IP."' ..:. \ 1..
> .J ' TIGARD,.3000 .. t. .y 4800 of
VIF4 2[00' ; 13'• .:� 20 . .t1 Sae
- 807�� A.
a�' ''' 23 4"� 21 r 1 4700 _.
to •••'S.SOP 309 •:��
....••:s•:,a Z." ' . •s•oil hn•.r,. ,3t
.3300 • 3200
AREA TO BE a ^� r� ,600 .•(.1 3400 3300 I
y / 6 'i. 23 23 .� •:600
ANNEXED 808 ..1 , 3700 • .>. 'i 4 �t :i
:I >.. "<,`• . re S.W. , 45`0
/ •f „� os300`
310 V .11 3800•, ` .4000 14100 4200 (04300' 0•,, .1
. // �` 1T s. 29 ``: ... ▪ 'O ?t 1 - 32 - S4 ..a.c.t.w«
1 A.
•
_'_�---— .t _ hitt!.320 '_� k...!..41;;-!••••• "�or'.A! ,.
� c.� r�� Ti w:�..7 — nn_
PROPOSAL NO0 3475
CITY OF TIGARD
ANNEXATION
FIGURE 2b
6i_ACKAMAS. Fxa—
MJLTNOMAH
WASHINGTON
:",r4IORTLANG METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY -COMMISSIO.
800 NE OREGON STREET k 16(SUITE 540) PORTLAND,OREGON 97232 PHONE 731-4093
October 9, 1995
TO: Affected Units of Government And Other Interested Parties
FROM: Ken Martin, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Metro Study of Boundary Commission - October 2, 1995
MPAC Committee members present were Judie Hammerstad, Charlie Hales, Rob
Mitchell, Linda Peters, Jeannine Murrell and Alice Schlenker. Others present were
Metro Councilor Susan McLain, Metro staff members John Houser & Jody Wilson and
approximately 15 other persons.
Judie Hammerstad summarized the reasons for the study and stated that this was the
first of two public hearings to collect information. She said the Study Committee had
prepared a list of issues to be considered and she hoped that those testifying would
provide suggested changes and solutions as well as just commenting on the issues.
Duane Robinson, Rockwood PUD manager said he believes there is a better way to do
this function. He said Rockwood became a PUD in 1990 and in 1992 they attempted
to dissolve the old Rockwood Water District since the PUD had now basically taken
over the District's tasks. He said the PUD folks appeared in support of the dissolution
and the City of Gresham did not appear but because of the Boundary Commission's
bias in favor of cities the Commission put the matter over and solicited comments from
Gresham. Then the Commission denied the dissolution, he said.
Duane Robinson said the Boundary Commission is like the IRS. It answers to no one.
It treats cities better than districts. He said he believes the counties or a hearings
officer with appeals to the Metro Council would be a better approach.
Charlie Hales asked if the county board made the decisions where would the appeal of
their decision go? {Duane Robinson responded the Court of Appeals would be the
appropriate spot for either county board or hearings officer decisions.
Alice Schlenker asked why did Duane think the county board would be better,. what
about Metro? Duane Robinson said his dealings with the [Multnomah] County Board
always resulted in a level playing field so that is why he prefers them.
STAFF COMMISSIONERS
RAY BARTEL.Chair MARILYNN HELZERMAP
KENNETH S-MARTIN.Executive Officer SY KORNBRODT
DENIECE WON.Execut-,ve Assistant TOM WHITTAKER.Vice-Chair
KELLY PAIGE.Executive Assistant BOB BOUNEFF SUE LAMB
Affected Units of Government and
Other interested Parties
Page 2
October 9, 1995
Greg Frank introduced himself as an ex-Commission member and chair who has also
subsequently represented clients in front of the Commission. He said he has seen both
the controversial and the mundane in terms of proposals. He feels the Commission has
had good staff which were always trying to find solutions to issues. He said you
cannot do that type of mediation work with a hearings officer. He said he thought "turf
battles" is a term which might have been invented for the Boundary Commission.
Greg Frank said from the outside sometimes he wished the Commission wasn't there
because it took the time and money of his clients. But from the larger perspective
what he was seeking sometimes did not make sense and that was the value of the
Boundary Commission. He said when he first came on the Commission he wanted a
little tighter set of rules but as time went on he found the discretion allowed by the
Commission's criteria to be more and more valuable. In his opinion the general criteria
have served the Commission well.
Charlie Hales said he would accept Greg's premise that the Boundary Commission has
worked well and should be independent. But in the future if people want it to do more
things like help facilitate the formation of a city - how can it make those kinds of tough
decisions independent of regional planning? Greg Frank said he did not have a good
answer to that.
Alice Schlenker asked Greg what criteria they used for islands and what about the
Commission's bias towards cities? Greg Frank said there was a bias toward cities. He
said he had not done many island annexations so he could not answer that question.
He said if it were up to him to decide how to do such things as play a greater role in
implementation of the 2040 Plan, he would use the staff to mediate mandatory
solutions. He would give the Commission more authority.
Linda Peters said with the SB 122 process, how did he see the role of the Boundary
Commission in implementation of these agreements? Greg Frank said if history was a
guide there would still be a significant role for the Boundary Commission. He believes
that the Commission may work itself out of a job eventually but that time has not
come, notwithstanding the promises of SB 122. Linda Peters asked if the Commission
should only do what the SB 122 agreements allow for or should the Commission be
able to overrule the agreements. Greg Frank said yes to the latter notion.
Don Carlson introduced himself as a former staff member and staff director of the
Boundary Commission. He emphasized that the first purpose of the Commission as
stated in the statute is to improve governmental structure. He said he feels the
Committee may be a little overemphatic on the Commission's relationship to the
regional plans. He said there are a lot of other issues (like fiscal equity) that relate to
government structure but not to planning.
He said one of the original missions of the Commission was to reduce the confusion
caused by too many governmental units. [He passed out some charts.] He said these
Affected Units of Government and
Other Interested Parties
Page 3
October 9, 1995
statistics are one rough indicator of improvement of governmental structure. He noted
that the Commission is a state agency and that the statutes do favor cities. He said he
understands that many special districts don't like to hear that but it is true.
Don Carlson pointed out that one of the underlying fundamentals of the Boundary
Commission operations is that the Commission is supposed to be impartial so that turf
and politics do not enter the fray.
He said the statistics also show that the population of cities has risen dramatically in
relation to the population in the.unincorporated areas and said that this is another rough
indicator that the Commission has been successful in meeting its statutory mission of
improving governmental structure.
He said the easier governmental structural issues have been dealt with. The defensive
incorporations which took place before the Boundary Commission came into existence
no longer take place. The merger of many special districts have created a few mega -
districts.
Don Carlson said he thought SB 122 was not very well thought out. He said he feels
the Boundary Commission should play a major role in making decisions on urban
services. He suggested the process should be structured so that cities make an
application for an urban service territory to the Boundary Commission. They should
have to submit land use plans, financial plans, urban service plans and any other
necessary documents to show why the area they have applied for should be their's.
That way there would be a forum for everyone to have their say about the matter. He
said the way the SB 122 process is laid out the citizens are being left out of the
process. He said what is needed is a way in which an urban service plan can be
brought through a public process to a decision and that the Boundary Commission
could do that. He said you can plan all this out among the units of government ala SB
122 but ultimately the power to implement rests with the people in the area.
Don Carlson said he would increase the size of the Commission and would retain it as a
citizen commission. He would not favor a hearings officer approach. He thinks the
criteria as they are are good. He would suggest going to an appointment system where
the Metro Executive appoints and the Council confirms. He said during his tenure as
Council staff director it was difficult to get the Council members to submit nominations
in a timely fashion urSder the current system. He strongly recommended the statute
specify some members of an enlarged Commission be from outside the Metro bound-
ary. He said do not=bifurcate the jurisdiction. Leave it at the full three counties. It will
be too confusing otherwise. It is efficient now and doesn't need changing.' H.e
recommended strongly against trying to distinguish between "controversial" and "non-
controversial" proposals as has been suggested. He said that kind of discussion will
just get bogged down in disagreement. You have an efficient system which can
•
Affected Units of Government and
Other Interested Parties
Page 4
October 9, 1995
expeditiously process the proposals. He said he saw the Commission as being in the
grand tradition of citizen committees in this state and that it should be left that way.
Alice Schlenker said based on Duane Robinson's statements that the Commission
would not dissolve an unneeded unit of government and some comments in a letter
from the Boring R.F.P.D. saying the Commission was insensitive to leaving small pieces
of districts in the wake of city annexations, is the Commission really doing the right
things? She said did he think the Commission's criteria should be tightened to resolve
these problems. Don Carlson said he knew nothing about these two situations but
that he would look to the facts of the cases not the Commission's general criteria to
answer the question.
Charlie Hales wanted a little more deltail about Don Carlson's suggested method of
identifying urban service areas. Don Carlson said the quid pro quo for a city going
through the process he described would-be that any subsequent annexations in the
area which were remonstrated against would be voted on by the people in the area to
be annexed and the people in the city. Don Carlson reiterated what he is suggesting
provides a process for the three parties of interest - the citizens, the city and the
surrounding affected units of government.
Jeannine Murrell asked Don Carlson if he favored retention of the Boundary Commis-
sion basically unchanged. Don Carlson responded yes but its powers and functions
with regard to improving governmental structure should be increased.
Rob Mitchell asked Don Carlson if he thought there were no controversial boundary
changes. Don Carlson said that what he meant was that you should not get into a
definitional quagmire. He said if the proposals are not controversial then the existing
system can still process them in an efficient and economical manner. Rob Mitchell said
he did not see where Don Carlson could read that the policies section of the Boundary
Commission statute favored cities. Don Carlson said one place is where the statute
talks about preferring a single unit, a city, over many units. He then cited the Oak
Lodge as an example of an area served by a number of units overlaid on one another.
Shirley Fox said she owns a house in the Welches area on Mt. Hood. She said she
opposes removal of the Boundary Commission's jurisdiction over that area. She said
she has her own well and wanted out of the Wildwood Water District. She said she
tried various courses til get her problem addressed but to no avail. Then she found the
Boundary Commission staff. She said they came up to the area, remained neutral and
helped her wend her way through the process. She said it would be a sad thing to
remove the Boundary Commission from this area.
Judie Hammerstad asked if the Boundary Commission process should be expanded to
outside areas [apparently she meant either outside the Metro boundary or outside its
Affected Units of Government and
Other Interested Parties
Page 5
October 9, 1995
current role]. Shirley Fox said she thought the Commission's operation ought to be
state-wide.
David Tvlie said he was from the Pleasant Valley area [between Happy Valley and
Damascus]. He opposes any Metro or Boundary Commission decision which might get
in the way of a unified and sustainable city including Happy Valley and everything out
to Boring. He said he doesn't want to see a split city at 172nd down the center of the
Pleasant Valley community. He said if both Clackamas and Multnomah Counties would
initiate a change of areas inside Metro but outside the UGB, then a city could be
initiated firstbefore problems arrive. He said they are putting together a Commission
which will be Happy Valley standing with the County. It will eventually replace the
Boring Area Task Force group.
Judie Hammerstad asked what legal status the County would use to make this designa-
tion outside the UGB? Would the Boundary Commission provide the authority? David
Tylie said he did not know. Judie Hammerstad said maybe the SB 122 process will
help. David Tylie said he wants to find a way for both sides of the UGB to incorporate.
Susan McLain said that what he is asking for cannot be done. She said what about the
Boundary Commission status? What does he have to say about that? David Tvlie said
rumors are that cities would like to get rid of the Boundary Commission.
David Tvlie said they have a grant put together to start a Commission. Alice Schlenker
said she doesn't think cities are trying to get rid of the Boundary Commission but they
are trying to see if it can fit with the 2040 Plan, etc.. She praised Mr. Tylie as being on
the cutting edge in terms of working cooperatively to get a city in the area eventually.
David Tylie said he doesn't want to see Portland or Gresham taking just a part of the
area.
Alice Schlenker said if he could get the cooperation of other cities, then how would he
see the Boundary Commission fitting in? Doesn't this mean the Boundary Commission
should come under Metro instead of the State?
Charlie Hales said that Metro changes the UGB and the Boundary Commission assures
adequate services afterward. The question is, is there a greater role for the Boundary
Commission now?
Susan McLain said it appears your main issue is streamlining the transition of urbaniza-
ble land into a city-and you don't want this done with an incremental approach. Can
anybody change that?
David Tylie said then the Boundary Commission should be under Metro.
Affected Units of Government and
Other Interested Parties
Page 6
October 9, 1995
Nancy Thorton introduced herself as a member of the Board of Directors of the Oak
Lodge R.F.P.D. She read into the record a statement from the Board (copy attached).
She stated that the Board's position consisted of four points: 1) Should the Boundary
Commission be modeled to regionalize things better; 2) The BC or its staff should
mediate issues before disputes arise in boundary change proceedings; 3) The Commis-
sion should pay greater attention to the financial impacts of city annexations on
surrounding units of government; 4) The assessment method should be made more
equitable.
She stated that the current administrative rules which favor cities as service deliverers
in the urban areas should be totally redone.
After stating the Board's position Nahcy indicated she would make some personal
remarks. She said over the years she has had a love-hate relationship with the
Boundary Commission. Several years ago she said she testified at the Legislature in
favor of abolishing the Boundary Commission. She said she now supports the Commis-
sion's continuance. She stated that the Commission's decisions on the Oak Lodge area
have improved, not based on the administrative rules but because the Commission used
good sense in reviewing proposals. She said she does not read the statutes to support
cities. She noted the need for the mediation function. She said Oak Lodge R.F.P.D.
does talk with its neighboring units of government and sometimes could use the
Boundary Commission and its staff to help. She said their District does see things
regionally. The 2040 Plan is visionary and what the Boundary Commission needs to do
is to rewrite its administrative rules to be visionary. She said she thinks the Boundary
Commission can help local governments to understand and accept the 2040 and
Regional Plans.
Judie Hammerstad asked Nancy to give the Committee the numbers of the rules she
doesn't like and Nancy said she would do so.
Judie Hammerstad asked Ken Martin to respond to the question Alice Schlenker had
asked about the apparent discrepancy between the Commission's mission of improving
governmental structure and the comments of Rockwood PUD and the Boring Fire
District. Ken Martin explained that on the Rockwood Water District dissolution it was
not the criteria that caused the Commission to deny the proposal but the facts of the
situation. He noted that Gresham had pending court cases on this matter and that the
City felt their position would be unfairly weakened if the Commission dissolved one of
the entities they were suing before the legal issue was resolved. A second important
fact was that there were only a few lots left of Rockwood Water District which had not
yet been annexed to a city. Once all the District was annexed to a city, he said:, the
District would be automatically dissolved without having to go through a dissolution
proceeding. Given those facts the Boundary Commission decided to deny the dissolu-
tion. On Boring R.F.P.D. Ken Martin said he had not seen the letter and could not
properly respond.
Affected Units of Government and
Other Interested Parties
Page 7
October 9, 1995
NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing the Boundary Commission has received copies
of two letters sent in response to a request for input from Committee-
member Alice Schlenker. These are attached.
KSM/Imr
Attachments
L-\w ip\w pwin\metr o\studYmin.102
otor, 1-000
~ `.� , Oak Lodge Fire Protection District No. 51
���7777_ .sem_...
jr J K, _
.. .._ _. .. �L.. . f lw_f llb`l aJ - .-i
"Prevent Protect Preserve"
INPUT ON FUTURE OF BOUNDARY COMMISSION
October 2, 1995 PORTLAND METRO
Public Hearing BO111kin^ov f'r A.„
FROM OAK LODGE FIRE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SP 2 9199
Presented by Nancy Thornton, Vice-President
i
The Oak Lodge Fire District Board of Directors supports the continued existence of the
Portland Metro Boundary Commission, and applauds MPAC's efforts to update its future
functions and methods of operation.
The Board is greatly concerned, however, that MPAC's minutes do not seem to reflect
consideration and discussion of the following points:
1. Shouldn't the Boundary Commission be modeled to address issues of
regionalization? Think about the many services that require larger
resources than even mega-cities (such as an expanded Milwaukie or
Gladstone) can provide, for example: water supplies; storm water runoff,
and certain fire district functions like hazardous material abatement. The
Boundary Commission is the body to work with these issues, many of which
cross county lines.
2. The Boundary Commission or some other body (and its staff) should be
able to act as a mediation/arbitration body when it is requested by either
party. This function should begin from initiation of the proposal to the
hearing process, where a "yes" or "no" is expected from the final product.
3. The Boundary Commission must address in detail the financial impact of
all parties concerned. and find ways to alleviate negative impacts, especially
where service districts and city annexations (such as involving Milwaukie or
Gladstone) are involved. These should be creative. positive,solutions that
will alleviate long-range problems.
4. The fee structure which supports the Boundary Commission needs to be
studied and made equitable (citizens of special districts in the Oak Lodge
area pay five and six times for the Boundary Commission, and seem to be
paying much more in proportion to the city folks).
Under Metro administration, the Boundary Commission guidelines need to meet the
above new rules. The current Administrative Rules are very outmoded and should be
totally rewritten.
•
Clackamas River Water •
(503) 656-0668 = '
rr C ! Y Y
•
C� �o ,r
• 4
AL 'ppZYr •'� 'r �' '� .j � ? t ��Y ti�l"'�t��%-.f; r'�•IE'fi�pF�� �^/` �0
3;7;
3_}�� 'ti ' '�� r Y; '�fxc"�-^#�F��`�4c `-S •
... --�": _ <-.Ya 1•fix ".q` i ._r i?'--� ' , �.. .,P Y.33'' _. . c, �° Y. __. -�' "'a_.k _. •i+.i L/f?'d'��, 1 K.1tr.�.
September 15, 1995
The Honorable Alice L. Schlenker
Mayor of the City of Lake Oswego
P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Re: Comments for MPAC Boundiry Commission Work Group
Dear Mayor Schlenker:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MPAC work group's study of the
Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (Boundary
Commission). As you may know, Clackamas River Water(CRW) is a recent consolidation
of the Clackamas and Clairmont water districts. Our comments are reflective of the
formation process we undertook as a requirement for consolidation and some general
observations that we hope are of value to the committee.
Clackamas and Clairmont Consolidation
Our recent consolidation brought to an end a five-year evaluation and consensus-building
process to form a Basin-wide water authority. While the collective will was not in place to
move forward with a greater formation, the Clackamas and Clairmont districts were
encouraged by the positive economic benefits of consolidation.
Our proposed consolidation was uncontested and desired by both entities. This mutual
agreement to consolidate, together with a host of economic and operational projections,
showed it was a good business decision- All of our in-hand decision-making information
then had to be supplemented by an extensive economic report and public proceeding. Our
consolidation, while already approved by Clackamas County, ended up costing our rate
payers an additio9al 515,000 and months of needless process.
Looking back on our ordeal (not an uncommon one in the region) helps frame our first
position, that uncontested mergers, consolidations, and annexations should have a process
separate from more complex or disputed boundary changes. If a Boundary Corttmission is
the proper body for such an approval, an abbreviated process should be available.
Mayor Schlenker
September 15, 1995
Page 2
Another consideration is to take the Boundary Commission out of the loop on
straightforward, uncontested mergers, consolidations, and annexations leaving the approval
process with a local County commission.
General Comments
As mentioned, having a complex and lengthy government process for uncontested boundary
changes does not make sense. CRW believes the Boundary Commission's proper role is in
dispute resolution. When mergers, consolidations, and annexations are contentious and/or
not generally supported by those affected, e.g., local government and the public, an
impartial Boundary Commission can'play an important role.
Of course, the key to impartiality is an even-handed, non-biased approach in form and
function as well as a decision-making criteria that fits with today's world _ Currently, the
Boundary Commission is limited in its impartiality by its administrative rules, adopted
policies, and the historical trends of Boundary Commission operations
Service provision today, especially in water, waste water, and surface water management
are complex, highly regulated, and capital intensive. The Boundary Commission's
predisposition for only promoting general purpose government as an ultimate service
provider is unwise when considering cost and efficiency.
Flexibility and more reflective criteria for determining long-term service provision are
required in order to provide the most efficient and cost effective service to the public.
Incorporation is not the issue here, rather a more reasonable acceptance that service
districts (county, special single-purpose, authorities, etc.) may be the best way to deliver
services_ Obviously, that service delivery must work in tandem with general purpose
government to ensure the best deal for the customer as well as overall coordination.
One way to begin this more reasonable process is to look at the SB 122 urban service
agreement processes that are occurring in the Portland Metropolitan region today. In
Clackamas County, local governments came together not to debate incorporation, but to
look toward enhanced long-term service delivery. Our process hs resulted in a mas Countyabut with overlapping general
acceptance of incorporation within urbanized Clackamas
subregional service provision for water, waste water, surface water management, fire, and
parks--all in order to maximize efficiencies and provide for cost effectiveness. . :
In the SB 122 process, it is our preference that such subregional service providers be
legitimized, for reasons of public interaction and local voter control, by maintaining a
jurisdictional entity, not a loose consortium or quasi-municipal organization
Mayor Schlenker
September 15, 1995
Page 3
However, under today's Boundary Commission polices, such common sense alternatives--
even if agreed upon by all parties--would meet with prejudice due to the encumbrances of
its polices.
To take our thinking one step further, should the Boundary Commission even be involved in
service delivery issues? Or, if such arrangements are agreed upon through the SB 122
process and uncontested, should they be processed in an abbreviated fashion or handled by
a County commission?
Clackamas River Water is committed to working with our neighbors to provide for the most
cost efficient and reliable service delivery while remaining progressive in planning and
governance matters. With this, we urge the MPAC Boundary Commission Work Group to
fully consider our comments and remain open to finding common sense solutions and
alternatives in Boundary Commission processes. Through open and impartial consideration
of jurisdictional and boundary change issues, the Boundary Commission could be an
effective tool in the consolidation and regionalization of service delivery in our area.
Thank you for allowing our comments. Please feel free to call on us for additional
information and/or active participation in your review process.
Sincerely,
CLACKAMAS RI ' R WATER
G� w i
Alan W. Fletcher
Water Resources Manager
cc: CRW Board of Commissioners
BORING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 59
PO Box 85 * 28655 SE Hwy 212 * Boring, OR 97009
Telephone 503/663-4638 * FAX 503/663-5792
OCT 021995L
September 29, 1995
Alice Schlenker
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Dear Ms. Schlenker:
Enclosed you will find a map of Boring Fire District No. 59. The areas
being studied for the Urban Growth are highlighted. As you can see,
our Fire District will be greatly affected by the proposed change.
How do we provide for the growth and the coordination of services so
that the changes do not decimate the remaining Service District?
The citizens of the Boring Fire District have worked through the years to
provide high quality service at an affordable price. We have located
stations for response times that best serve the community. Growth
and change are inevitable, but what about the remaining portion of
the Boring Fire District after these changes occur?
At one time, Fire District No. 10 was one of the largest Fire Districts in
Oregon. Annexations by Gresham and Portland separated and
isolated areas of the District. The Boundary Commission played an
important role in allowing this to happen.
Of primary concern is the annexation of an area of a Service District
leaving the r4maining portion having to deal with what is left over.
Higher tax rates result if the District is to maintain the same level of
service. Once you have a system in place, you cannot reduce the
system by whatever area percent you are losing. It is all tied together.
If the Boundary Commission is going to allow the annexations, then
they need to deal with the problems that they create. Don't leave a
District with islands. Don't decimate a system. Force cities to take
areas that may not be the most cost effective for them to serve.
Make them take the bad with the good.
Thank you for taking the time to address our concerns. If you have
any questions, please call me at 663-4638.
Sincerely,
Dan O'Dell
Fire Chief
Boring Fire District No. 59
Enclosure
111ULT4NIOMAH
WASHINGTON
PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
800 NE OREGON STREET#16(SUITE 540) PORTLAND,OREGON 97232 PHONE:731-4093
August 15, 1995
TO: Affected Units And Other Interested Parties
FROM: Ken Martin, Executive Officer ,
SUBJECT: Metro Study of Boundary Commission -August 7, 1995
MPAC BC Study Committee members present were Judie Hammerstad, Rob Mitchell,
Jeannine Murrell and Jane Heisler sitting in for Alice Schlenker. Others present were
Metro Councilor Susan McLain, Metro Staff members John Houser, Dan Cooper and
Larry Shaw, Clackamas County R.F.P.D. Chief Conrad Kristensen, Brent Curtis from
Washington County Planning, Happy Valley Mayor Randy Nicolay, Tigard Planner Ray
Valone, Clackamas River Water District Manager Dale Jutila, Portland Annexation
Coordinator John Bonn, Boundary Commission Staff Director Ken Martin, John Kelly of
ODOT/LCDC, Burton Weast of Western Attitudes and Mike McKeever of
McKeever/Morris.
Dan Cooper presented his memo (copy attached) in response to an earlier request by
the Committee Chair that he sketch out several conceptual notions the Committee
members had raised. There was some general discussion of these ideas. John Houser
asked which could be implemented now and which would need further action of the
Legislature or some other body and Dan Cooper went over that.
John Houser began a summary of his memo which outlined the various issues relating
to Boundary Commissions and divided them into two general categories. The first
category consisted of "nuts and bolts" issues such as appointment authority, appropri-
ate actions for review by the Commission, funding levels, etc. The second category
consisted of more philosophical issues such as the relationship of the Commission to
the 2040 Plan. John stated his intention in presenting the memo was to spark
discussion of the direction the Committee wants to go, the specific issues it wants to
examine and establishment of an agenda and timetable for the study.
At one point in John's summary of the memo a question was asked about whether
sewers could be withheld from an area until the area agreed to delayed annexation.
Much discussion ensued on this general idea. During this discussion Dan Cooper noted
that the old triple majority method of annexation was more effective in this area
STAFF COMMISSIONERS
KENNETH S.MARTIN,Executive Officer RAY BARTEL,Chair MARILYNN HELZERMAN
DENIECE WON,Executive Assistant TOM WHITTAKER,Vice-Chair SY KORNBRODT
KELLY PAIGE.Executive Assistant BOB BOUNEFF SUE LAMB
LANA RULIEN,Administrative Assistant NATHALIE DARCY
- ti
Affected Units of Government and Other '=
Interested Parties
Page 2
August 15, 1995
because it allowed the accumulation of petitions for later use. Now with the require-
ment for registered voters signatures, developers can no longer effectively bind future
property owners to eventual annexation.
John Houser completed his summary. Susan McLain questioned whether some of the
listed issues, particularly in the second general group, were really relevant to a discus-
sion of the future of the Boundary Commission. John Houser said he tried to just list
all of the possible issues which had been mentioned at one time or another by this
group. His real point in doing the memo, he said, was to get direction from the
Committee on where they wanted to go specifically. He noted that to date the group
has been mixing discussion of the "nuts and bolts" points with broad philosophical
brain-storming sessions on the more general issues.
Before moving to the second major itsue for the day Judie Hammerstad noted that
there is a real problem figuring out how to provide key urban services to areas before
they are ready for full service city operations. She said this discussion has demonstrat-
ed to her that not all committee members share her view that eventually urban areas
need to be in full service cities.
Larry Shaw summarized Senate Bill 122 as it is now codified in ORS Chapter 195. He
noted that the existing law had long included the requirement that special districts
needed to coordinate their activities with those responsible for land use planning but
that that had not happened. He explained that one purpose of SB 122 was to clarify
how that coordination should happen and to bring the special districts into the game to
a greater extent. He noted that the "devil is in the detail" and said it took a lot of
meetings and negotiation to arrive at the language which actually spells out how these
cooperative agreements are to be created.
Larry Shaw then went on to say that the meat of SB 122 is really in the sections
dealing with the requirement for urban service agreements. He noted that the law
requires such agreements between all providers of a number of different services such
as roads, sewer, water, parks & recreation, etc. He explained that the counties are the
conveners but that Metro has a role as well. He said this requirement brings special
districts into the planning process and establishes a timetable.
John Kelly described the background of SB 122. He said it was part of a package of
ten or so ideas for improving the growth management process but that only two of
these ideas (urban setvice agreements and the "annexation plan" method of annex-
ation) necessitated legislative action. The other ideas were all capable of implementa-
tion through adoption of administrative rules by LCDC. John said one issue that the bill
dealt with was to more or less recognize the legitimacy of large scale service districts
as opposed to the more traditional view that special districts were essentially interim
service deliverers until cities were able to annex the territory.
Affected Units of Government and Other
Interested Parties
Page 3
August 15, 1995
An explanation was given at this point of the "annexation plan" method of-annexation
which is authorized by this new law (i.e., SB 122 which is now a part of ORS 195).
That provision allows a city or district to annex an area with a single vote including all
voters in the city or district and in the area to be annexed if the city or district has
completed alt of the urban service agreements required by SB 122. Such annexations
are not subject to veto by the Boundary Commission. Jane Heisler asked what the rote
of the Boundary Commission would be. Burton Weast explained that the Commission
had an advisory role in that it could review the proposal only to assure that it complies
with local planning. Ken Martin stated that while it is true the Commission cannot
unilaterally deny such a proposal, its role and the process is greater than that of
"review of planning compliance."
Judie Hammerstad asked if service districts annex territory in the same manner as
cities. Burton Weast answered yes.
Jeannine Murrell asked with SB 122 what is the role of or need for the Boundary
Commission. Ken Martin said that the Commission's role might be reduced if all the
urban service agreements are in place and if folks chose to use the annexation plan
method. He said these agreements are not in place, that processes to negotiate some
of these agreements are just beginning. He noted that many units of government have
a long standing aversion to forcing anyone to annex and therefore are not likely to
utilize this method of annexation. He also stated that the agreements may not settle all
issues of who is going to serve where particularly since the agreements are not
mandated for all services.
Jeannine Murrell asked what happens if a unit of government refuses to cooperate.
Burton Weast said LCDC has the power to impose sanctions such as the state with-
holding state entitlements.
Mike McKeever described a project his firm has been involved with in the north
Clackamas area the goai of which was to develop a model process for implementing SB
122 agreements. He said they quickly decided that they could not get to a discussion
of detailed agreements without first having a discussion about long term governmental
structure. They did that and have produced some possible governance scenarios for
north Clackamas County. Susan McLain asked if Mike thought the KOLTT (long term
sewer treatment needs) study was a good model of a similarly cooperative process. He
said yes.
A question was posed as to whether the urban service agreements process could
produce an annexation plan for north Clackamas County which would obviate the need
for Boundary Commission review and therefore for the Commission itself.. Mike
McKeever said he thought that might be possible. Ken Martin stated this did not make
sense purely from a numbers standpoint - no city in north Clackamas County is large
enough to overwhelm even a significant portion of the much larger unincorporated area
Affected Units of Government and Other
Interested Parties
Page 4
August 15, 1995
in a vote. He further cautioned the group about ascribing panacea status to a process
which has not even been begun in most areas.
Judie Hammerstad asked about what the future role of the Boundary Commission
should be focused on. She listed the 2040 plan, what the Commission is currently
doing and questions of whether the Commission should even be involved in certain
decisions as possible areas for review. She suggested the group should look at the
idea of eliminating Commission review of proposals in which all parties are in agree-
ment that the proposal should occur. She gave mergers as an example. Ken Martin
said the Commission review of mergers, even when both boards agree, is important.
He said the Commission process provides the impartial forum for the general public and
other affected units of government to have input. He noted also that the state has an
interest in making sure that what is created is in the state's best interest and the
Commission looks out for that interest.
Susan McLain said she believes this group is to look at what the future role of the
Commission should be and that that may be significantly different from its current role.
There was some general discussion about whether the group should focus on the
Boundary Commission's role in so-called "undisputed" decisions but no consensus was
reached.
Someone noted that the group has not yet invited input from the units of government
and others affected by this study and that maybe this would be the appropriate focus
of the next meeting. John Houser noted that the next meeting was only a week away
and that would not give adequate time to get out invitations.
Susan McLain said she was concerned that not enough time elapses between meetings
and that the group perhaps needs a little more one-on-one contact between each
member and the staff about what the focus should be for the coming meetings. It was
decided to cancel the August 14th meeting. Between now and the next scheduled
meeting on August 28th John Houser will contact each Committee member to talk
about what they want to study and where they think the study should be heading.
KSM/lmr
Attachment
!-twpwin metrobtudymem.87&
M E M 0 R A N U U w►
METRO
Date: August 7, 1995
To: Judy Hammerstad
Boudary Commission Study Committee
From: Daniel B. Cooper, General Cou
Regarding: BOUNDARY COMMISSION STUDY/CONCEPTS FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
Our file: 2.§11
You have asked me to put down on riaper several ideas that were discussed at a recent
meeting of the Boundary Commission Study Committee.
1. Establish minimum service levels for cities.
Cities may not be created nor may existing cities annex territory unless the city meets
yet to be defined minimum standards for services, i.e., fire, police, parks, sewer,
water.
As a refinement to (1) above, cities with agreements with
special districts pursuant to SB 122 process will be considered
"full service" cities if city services plus special districts will
provide the minimum service level in the territory to be
annexed. Require SB 122 process to guarantee full service
within all urban or urban study territory.
2. Provide a clear path for overlapping service districts providing different services to be
merged so that a single entity can be providing multiple services in one territory.
As a refinement to (2) allow county service districts which
already exist with county commission serving as board of
directors to be spun off into independent entities with board of
directors elected from within district territory.
3. Allow special districts to initiate a process by which a district can become a full
service city within its territory.
g12ar3
cc: Study Committee Members
John Houser
t r.Wisef Conservation Matters
vim_ _ - -
Fundamentals of Implementing a Water Conservation Program
by Rick Albani dramatically. Generally, more punitive measures have been
associated with curtailment conditions.
For the past 21 years, I have helped many utilities
initiate, develop,and implement water conservation plans Supply and Demand Management
and programs.Although most of the utilities'programs Water conservation is most effectively achieved through
began as a result of regulatory requirements from various a balance of both supply and demand management tech-
state agencies, some utilities initiated their plans without niques. It has proven ineffective to focus entirely on either
regulatory prodding. Motivated to establish good public of these management approaches while ignoring the other.
policy and a conservation ethic for long-term societal In fact, some supply management activities may be more
change, these utilities chose to begin conservation programs cost-effective than demand management activities during
rather than wait for regulatory agencies to require them_ the program's initial years. Repairing leaking pipe and distri-
Developing a water conservation program is not a simple bution storage tanks, for example, frequently achieves large
matter.There are many technical and policy issues that water savings at relatively low costs.
drive the process.These issues should be identified and eval- . It is important to encourage conservation among all customer
uated jointly by policy makers and technical staff at the classes through various demand management techniques such as
project's inception.This article highlights these key issues rate structure changes,distribution of-water-saving devices,and
and concludes with examples of two Rhode Island water public education.These techniques increase customer awareness
utilities that have recently implemented different types of and participation in water conservation over time.
water conservation rate structures.
' Public Involvement
Basis for Conservation Program The composition of water users in your system will also
Clearly establish the objectives and reasons for your dictate which water conservation methods will be most effec-
utility's conservation efforts. It's important to understand tive for you. Your customers can be important allies as you t
why your utility wants and needs to pursue conservation. develop an effective water conservation program,as was the I
The most common reason a utility starts a conservation case in Edmonton,Alta., and other cities in recent times.
program is because its water resources are legally restricted A conservation program, if developed properly, can create
or otherwise limited,either on a seasonal or annual basis. If a positive, proactive image for your utility. By involving key f
a utility's water resources or water rights are limited during community leaders, regulators,a cross-section of customers,
peak periods, then its conservation program should target and agriculture and industrial interest groups, it is possible
peak period users, outside use, and irrigation activities. to create a broad base of understanding and support for
State agencies generally view water conservation as a water conservation activities. Interactive sessions, such as
viable long-term mechanism to reduce demand and, there- advisory committee meetings, workshops, focus groups,and •
fore,eliminate or defer the need to develop additional public presentations, promote an understanding of the 'i
supplies. In fact, in areas where new sources of supply are specific needs for water conservation in your system. Early l
scarce or not available,water conservation and other means involvement with these groups can help you design a better
of controlling growth in consumption may be the only strategy to launch your conservation program. f'
viable options for the future.
Another common consideration for starting a conserva- Regional or Solo Efforts
tion program is to reduce wastewater flows at overloaded A third issue, whether to participate on a regional basis or
wastewater treatment plants. It is important to communi- a solo effort, is usually evaluated when developing a water
cate with your local wastewater utility when starting a conservation program. The economies of scale associated
conservation plan. Water utilities frequently initiate conser- with regional advertisements, notifications, and water-
vation efforts without adequately involving and informing saving device distribution support a coordinated regional
their wastewater counterparts. approach to conservation, particularly where utilities share
common media outlets.
Conservation Versus Curtailment On the other hand, it's possible that a utility could inde-
Another issue—the difference between conservation and pendently accomplish some of a conservation program's
curtailment—should be examined before program imple- financial and administrative requirements effectively. Each
mentation. Water conservation reflects'the long-term utility must decide which is more important—the
sustained reduction in the supply and demand patterns for economies of scale with the regional approach or the inde-
the utility. Water curtailment, on the other hand, reflects a pendence and flexibility of controlling conservation activi-
temporary reduction in either the supply or the use of water. ties and budgets with the solo approach.
Curtailment usually occurs during a resource or facility
emergency- Once the emergency has passed, however, Measuring Success
curtailment efforts generally subside as supply and demand Monitoring a conservation program's effectiveness and
patterns return to normal. making needed improvements is key to a program's success.
The approach and methodologies used to reduce water
consumption under conservation and curtailment can vary 1 cut/turned on,pare 4
September 1995 3
-- -Fundamentals of Implementing a Water Conservation Program, continued from page 3
Plans should be reviewed and updated at least every five either no reduction in consumption or in a short-term
years, more frequently if required by your state regulators. decline and then a return to consumption patterns prior to
Plan to revise your water conservation strategy in order to the increase. If revising traditional rate structures,use
incorporate new technologies and to discard conservation caution to shield customers from rate shock, to provide
practices that prove ineffective. revenue stability to the water utility,and to avoid the confu-
sion that can result from changing a long-standing system.
Rate Issue Approaching change gradually, in this regard, appears to be
The final issue relates to the revenue stability of the in everyone's best interest.
utility. A utility implementing aggressive water conservation For traditional water rate structures, the amount of water
measures is justifiably concerned about conservation's included in the meter charge before the per unit commodity
effects on revenue and cash flow. Many conservation rate was applied was known as the minimum commodity
measures have undesired revenue and cash flow effects, allowance. In recent years, several utilities and public service
which can negatively influence a water utility's financial commissions(PSCs) have advocated the elimination of the
performance and, in some cases, its creditworthiness to the minimum commodity allowance as one step toward imple-
investment community. menting water conservation rates. In lieu of a meter charge,
Effective management of conservation's undesirable several utilities and PSCs are implementing a customer
revenue and cash flow effects concentrates on minimizing service charge or a base facility charge with no consumption
revenue and cash flow shortfalls and reducing the uncertain- allowance.
ties related to these financial impacts.These impacts can be The customer service charge or base facility charge is usually
handled effectively if anticipated and factored into the rate- based on the size of the meter and collects a portion of the
making procedure. For more information about strategies to fixed costs of the utility, providing a level of revenue stability
mitigate conservation's revenue and cash flow effects, refer to the utility. Ideally, the customer service charge should only
to AW WA's Managing the Revenue and Cash Flow effects of include costs directly related to debt service and customer-
Conservatioag_ related costs of accounting(maintaining customer accounts
Pricing water is only one demand management technique and obtaining meter readings),billing,and collections.
available to water utilities. Yet, pricing alone will not Reducing the service charge or base facility charge to Iess
achieve permanent reductions in water consumption. In my than $10 per quarter for 5/8-in. meters may require signifi-
experience, some water utilities using substantial price cant increases to the commodity charge to collect total
increases, some in excess of 100 percent, have resulted in revenues.
Table 1 Examples of Conservation-Oriented Rate Structures
Meter Size United Water Rhode Island(UWRI) Kent County Water Authority(KCWA)
(inches) Customer Service Customer Service Customer Service Customer Service
Charge(Quarterly). Charge(Monthly) Charge(Quarterly) Charge(Monthly)
5/8 , $15.90 $5.30 $9.90
$5.75
3/4 - "21.00 7.00 9.90 5.75
1 30.00 10.00 14.88 7.41
1Y2 51.00 17.00 24.21 10.52
2 78.00 26.00 32.31 13.22
3 144.00 48.00 • 42.89 16.74
4 234.00 78.00 63.43 • 23.59
6 459.00 153.00 108.87 38.74
8 729.00 243.00 187.93 65.09
UWRI Commodity Charges Quarterly Customers Monthly Customers ,
Residential(Inclining Blocks) First 24 ccf @$1.46/ccf First 8 ccf @$1.46/ccf
Over 24 ccf @$2.05/ccf Over 8 ccf @$2.05/ccf
Commercial(Declining Blocks) First 1600 ccf @$1.35/ccf First 533 ccf @$1.35/ccf
, Over 1600 ccf @$1.02/ccf Over 533 ccf @$1.02/ccf
Municipal(Declining Blocks) ' First 1600 ccf @$1.35/ccf First 533 ccf @$1.35/ccf
Over 1600 ccf @$1.02/ccf Over 533 ccf @$1.02/ccf
Industrial(Declining Blocks) First 1600 ccf @$1.35/ccf First 533 ccf @$1.35/ccf
Over 1600 ccf @$1.02/ccf Over,533 ccf @$1.02/ccf
Wholesale(Uniform Block) $0.66/1,000 gal $0.66/1,000 gal
KCWA Commodity Charges Quarterly Customers Monthly Customers
Small Meters(5/8 in.-2 in.) $1.213 per ccf $1.213 per ccf
Medium Meters (3 in.-4 in.) $1.054 per ccf $1.054 per ccf
Large Meters(6 in.and up) $0.924 per ccf $0.924 per ccf
4 Op flow
•
A utility's rates are determined based on several factors, their approaches and rate structures are vastly different,as
including total consumption. Proportionately,the higher shown in Table 1.
the unit price, the greater the effect on water conservation, Both utilities have combination rate structures,which .
i seasonable fluctuations, and climatological uncertainties consist of a customer service charge based on meter size,
will have on total revenue. For example,when 1,000,000 gal with no consumption allowance,and a commodity charge.
` priced at $2 per thousand is not sold,the effect on revenues These charges apply to both quarterly and monthly
is much greater than if the L000,000 gal were priced at $.50 customers.The customer service charges for the larger size
1 per thousand. meters appear to be related to the 51s-in. meter by flow-
Rate Structures capacity ratios.
The commodity charge for KCWA is a uniform block
There is an array of opinion as to which water industry structure,differentiated by size of meters.The small meter
rate structure is best suited to stimulate conservation and rate is applied to residential,small commercial,and munic-
maintain revenue stability. ipal accounts.The medium rate is applied to large commer-
Until recently, penalty rates and inclining block rates cial and small industrial accounts.The large meter rate is
were implemented only when the demands placed on a applied to large industrial and wholesale accounts.The
system were approaching or exceeding the safe yield. These effect of the design of these rates is a reduction in average
rate structures have been used as last resort or punitive day demands and less dramatic peak demands. Large users
efforts to induce conservation. Now,utilities are experi- are also discounted to minimize rate impacts on those
menting with inclining block rates more frequently but customers.
without regard to revenue stability. The commodity charge for UWRI is also differentiated by
Seasonal rates, which address peak seasonal demand customer class, with three different types of rate structures.
issues, are somewhat favorable,but implementing this rate The residential class, the largest group of customers, has an
structure, universally, is premature. Each utility should be inclining rate structure commodity charge, meaning the
evaluated before deciding whether this structure should be price per block increases as consumption increases.Since
applied to curb seasonal demands that might be straining a there are a significant number of commercial, industrial,
particular system. and municipal customers in UWRI's service area, the
As automatic meter reading technology advances, commodity rate for those customers remains a declining
seasonal surcharges may find their place in the rate strut- block structure, meaning the price per block decreases as
tures of water utilities nationwide. consumption increases. Finally, the wholesale customer has
The most commonly used rate structure—the declining a uniform block structure commodity charge, meaning the
block rate—has been criticized as consumption-oriented and price per unit is constant as consumption increases.
at the same time praised for its ability to achieve revenue Since these rates are in effect year-round and not just
stability and for reflecting the true cost of service to the seasonally,they are designed to minimize rate shock, reduce
various customer classes.This rate design appears to promote average and peak demands,and minimize economic hard-
waste, however,since the price of water decreases as consume- ships for the commercial, industrial,and municipal customers.
tion increases. In practice, blocks of consumption are usually
designed to price the commodity to a class of customers based Conclusion
on the use by,and the load factor of,that class. I applaud these utilities and the RIPUC for using non-
The concept of a uniform commodity rate for each class traditional rate structures to achieve their conservation
of customer is the most favorable for promoting conserva- goals. Other utilities with similar goals can benefit from
tion. Movement toward this type of structure could be their experience.
accomplished using cost of service methodology and by
modifying the present declining block structures of utilities I Rick Albani is Director of Technical Services for Vista
using this type of rate structure. Each customer class would Consulting Group in Arlington, Va., and a member of the
have a customer service charge and one commodity charge, AWWA Water Conservation Committee(Government
which would simplify the billing process.The customer Coordination Subcommittee). He is also a member of the
would be billed for a service charge based on meter size and National Association of Water Companies Committees-on
a single per unit charge for all water consumed, which could Rates and Revenues and Conservation. For more information
be different for each class of customer. Consequently, this on this subject, contact Rick at(703)524-1888.
structure would achieve water conservation results without
severe rate shock.
Rates in Rhode Island To Get More Information
Rhode Island is nicknamed the "Ocean State" because a
significant portion of its 1,214 square miles fronts directly Contact WaterWiser for more information about this topic
on the Atlantic Ocean and Narragansett Bay, which empties and other water-efficiency activities.
into the Atlantic Ocean. Both United Water Rhode Island 1-(800)559-9855(phone)
(UWRI), an investor-owned water utility, and the Kent (303)795-1440(fax)
County Water Authority (KCWA), a publicly owned water
utility, have implemented water conservation rates to Web Server—http:!lwww.waterwiser.org
reduce or level their very high seasonal peaks_ These peaks Gopher Server—gopher.waterwiser.org
are typical for seashore communities. E-mail—bewiser@waterwiser.org
Both utilities are regulated by the Rhode Island Public
�A�,
Utilities Commission (RIPUC) and have similar goals, but WaterWi$er'
me water Eeoe.ny Gta.ngnuse
September 1995
5
AUGUST 1995
WATER MONTHLY REPORT
Revenues/Expenditures:
Month of August Year to Date Prior Yr_ to Date % of Budget
Revenues:
Water Sales $534,457.04 $937,162.60 $851,339.81
Meter Sales 40,707.41 84,797.41 70,640.00
Developer Fees 0.00 9,970.88 11,199.72
Other Income 28,619.31 46,856.12 13,128.17
Total Revenue $603,783.76 $1,078,787.01 $943,307.70 27%
Expenditures:
Personal Services $68,693.22 $119,548.43 $123,466.00
Material Services 270,828.21 282,429.74 263,463.85
Capital Outlay 37,265.87 i 62,518.92 54,256.44
Cap. Proj. Res. Fund 00.00 00.00 00.00
*Total Expends. $376,787.30 $464,497.09 $441,186.29 12%
SDC Fund: $49,716.25 $109,030.26 $81,728.00 29%
SDC Fund Balance: $1,763,699.85
* City accounting system is on a cash basis
Meter Installations: 5/8" x 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" Total
Durham 0 0 0 0 0 0
King City 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated Area 24 1 0 0 0 25
City of Tigard 17 10 0 0 1 28
Total for August 53
Water Consumption and Loss:
Total 100 cubic feet of water purchased or produced 317,761 ccf
Plus amount of water from storage during August and
consumption not billed in July 140,500 ccf
Total 100 cubic feet of water billed <354,279 ccf
Net amount of water in storage < 10,100 ccf>
Amount of water consumed but not yet billed < 75,000 ccf>
Total Water loss 18,882 ccf 6%
,.,.
Work Accomplished:
Durham
• Water Division personnel responded to a few routine requests to check for
water leaks or low water pressure at the customer's service.
• Water Division personnel replaced a defective 5/8" x 3/4" water meter and
3/4-inch pressure regulator in the Kings Gate neighborhood.
King City
• Water Division personnel responded to a few requests to check for low or
no water consumption.
• Water Division personnel replaced a defective 3/4-inch pressure regulator
and raised one meter box within King City.
Unincorporated Area
• Water Division personnel replaced two 3/4-inch regulators that were
malfunctioning; replaced three 5/8" x 3/4" water meters; responded to 19
requests to check for low or no water consumption and three requests to
check low or high pressure.
• Water Division personnel repaired one 1-inch water service on SW Beef
Bend Road and one 3/4-inch water service on SW Chardonnay Avenue
that were damaged by a contractor.
City of Tigard
• Water Division personnel replaced 22 3/4-inch pressure regulators and
six 5/8" x 3/4" water meters that were malfunctioning. In addition Water
staff also responded to 50 calls to check on water leaks at the meter,
replace damaged meter boxes or checked reports of low water pressure.
• Water Division personnel replaced and relocated a 2-inch water service
located on SW Grant Avenue for St. Anthony's Church. This
relocation/replacement was necessary due to the City's Grant Street Bike
Path and Sidewalk Improvement project.
• Water Division personnel installed a 2-inch water service located on SW
North Dakota Street for a new Boston Chicken. Water personnel also
installed a l-inch water service for the Kenny Rogers Roaster located on
SW Pacific Highway; removed a 3/4-inch water service on SW Mcl onald
Street; and installed a I-inch water service and meter for the new Chevron
Station located at the corner of SW Pacific Hw_y. and McDonald Street-
s
• Water Division-personnel relocated a fire hydrant on SW Landmark Lane
that was damaged by a moving van.
• Water Division personnel relocated two 2-inch water services, three 3/4-
inch water services, one air release and adjusted water valve boxes that
were impacted by the City's Bonita Road Improvement Project. Also the
Water Division had personnel standby as the pilings were driven for
the new bridge over Fanno Creek. This was a precautionary act in case a
transmission main was damaged.
• Water Division personnel removed a water service along SW Burnham
Street that was for the tavern located on the corner of SW Main and
Burnham Street. The tavern was demolished to make improvements to this
intersection.
• Water Division personnel raised and repaired valve boxes due to street
overlay projects on SW Main Street, SW Wilton Drive, SW Bonita Road,
SW Scoffins Street, and SW Hunziker Street.
Status Report:
On August 18, we increased our water purchases from TVWD to 2.1 million gallons a
day. We were able to sustain this flow with no negative effects to the TVWD system.
The average yield, during the remainder of the month, was 2.06 MGD.
The combined average water production for Wells 1 and 2 for August was 1.16 MGD.
This is an increase of approximately 16% from last year.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 10, 1995
TO: Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director
FROM: Michael Miller, Operations Manager
RE: Water Supply
The attached spreadsheets show our water purchases, productions and demand
patterns on a daily basis beginning, June 1, 1995, through October. As we examine
the spreadsheets we can identify the periods in which Lake Oswego could not meet our
entire supply demand. On June 23, after repairs had been made to Lake Oswego's
transmission main from the treatment plant to Lake Oswego, is considered to be the
beginning of the summer demand season and also the start of a hot dry weather
pattern.
Our summer demand period was shorter than most and appears to have ended mid
August. However, we did continue to experience a few 8 to 9 million gallon days during
the latter part of August. We even had a 10.5 million gallon day September 1. As we
can see, water usage during the summer season is greatly determined by weather.
Although the City of Lake Oswego can supply 100% of our winter demand, they can
not, however, provide all of our peak season demand. This is why we constructed a
intertie with Tualatin Valley Water District prior to the summer demand season;
performed upgrades to our wells; and purchased additional supplies from Portland.
To give you a little perspective on how much water we purchase, during the winter
months we purchase 4.7 million gallons of water a day. This last summer, we had a
system peak demand of 13.535 million gallons, which is more than two and a half times
our average winter demand.
The Lake Oswego Treatment plant has a production capacity of 16 million gallons of
water per day. During a peak day in the summer, Lake Oswego residents consume 12-
14 million gallons of water. This only leaves 2-4 million gallons available to be sold to
Tigard. In order to make up the difference, Tigard has had to increase its purchases of
Portland and Tualatin Valley Water District water in addition to our own well water
production. This fact is nothing new. Because of the growth over the years in both
communities, Tigard has been receiving less water from Lake Oswego during the
summer months_
Sheetl
•
Date Lake 0. in Bull Run TVWD in Well#1 in Well#2 in Well#3 in Total MG MG in Demand
MGD in MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD Pur./Prod. Storage in MG
9/1/95 5.18 2 0.576 0.588 8.344 16.54 10.554
9/2/95 4.39 2 0.583 0.593 7.566 17.31 6.796
9/3/95 3.23 2 0.58 0.587 6.397 17.91 5.797
9/4/95 2.46 2 0.582 0.589 5.631 18.14 5.401
9/5/95 2.5 2.06 0.577 0.584 5.721 18.62 5.241
9/6/95 2.63 2.1 0.583 0.592 5.905 18.84 5.685
9/7/95 2.72 2.1 0.579 0.584 5.983 18.74 6.083
9/8/95 2.25 2.1 0.581 0.587 5.518 18.2 6.058
9/9/95 2.33 2.1 0.583 0.59 5.603 17.6 6.203
9/10/95 4.85 2.1 0.581 0.587 8.118 17.21 8.508
9/11/95 4.89 2.06 0.581 0.585 8.116 17.38 7.946
9/12/95 3.96 2.1 0.581 0.586 7.227 18.02 6.587
9/13/95 4.29 2.1 0.582 0.587 7.559 17.75 7.829
9/14/95 4.81 0.334 1.5 0.582 0.589 7.815 18.11 7.455
9/15/95 5.33 0.342 1.49 0.581 0.586 8.329 17.5 8.939
9/16/95 4.4 1.35 0.581 0.585 6.916 18.51 5.906
9/17/95 3.41 1.4 0.57 0.583 5.972 17.77 6.712
9/18/95 3.83 0.229 1.1 0.58 0.582 6.321 17.54 6.551
9/19/95 3.91 0.81 1.1 0.581 0.583 6.984 17.97 6.554
9/20/95 3.04 0.698 1.4 0.581 0.582 6.301 18.08 6.191
9/21/95 4.33 0.883 1.43 0.581 0.583 7.807 18.22 7.667
9/22/95 3.33 0.771 1.4 0.581 0.585 6.667 17.5 7.387
9/23/95 5.33 1.51 0.581 0.586 8.007 17.96 7.547
9/24/95 5.88 1.48 0.578 _ 0.578 8.516 17.59 8.886
9/25/95 3.41 0.424 0.691 0.579 0.578 5.682 18.42 4.852
9/26/95 3.83 0.58 0.58 4.99 18.15 5.26
9/27/95 3.87 0.581 0.583 5.034 17.83 5.354
9/28/95 3.36 0.58 0.577 4.517 18.12 4.227
9/29/95 3.79 0.58 0.588 4.958 18.1 4.978
9/30/95 3.54 0.579 0.587 4.706 18.55 4.256
Averages 3.836 0.561375 1.70684 0.580467 0.585133 6.573667 17.93933 6.580333
Page 1
Sheet1
Date Lake 0. in Bull Run TVWD in Well#1 in Well#2 in Well#3 in Total MG MG in Demand
MGD in MGD _MGD MGD MGD MGD Pur./Prod. Storage in MG
8/1/95 3.53 3.24 1.46 _ 0.535 0.602 9.367 15.43 _ 6.757
8/2/95 5.99 0.876 1.71 0.531 0.606 9.713 15.03 10.113
8/3/95 6.39 1.72 0.535 0.564 9.209 15.97 8.269
8/4/95 4.79 1.29 1.71 0.531 0.601 8.922 14.75 10.142
8/5/95 6.41 1.72 0.534 0.601 9.265 15.49 8.525
8/6/95 5.65 _ 1.72 0.529 0.599 8.498 14.84 9.148
8/7/95 6.18 1.78 0.537 0.597 9.094 15.44 8.494
8/8/95 5.81 1.78 0.534 0.599 8.723 17.06 7.103
8/9/95 6.3 1.78 0.532 0.601 9.213 17.95 8.323
8/10/95 5.14 1.78 0.537 0.597 8.054 17.75 8.254
8/11/95 3.32 1.78 0.584 0.593 6.277 18.18 5.847
8/12/95 2.91 1.78 0.584 0.596 5.87 18.02 6.03
8/13/95 5.37 1.78 0.583 0.594 8.327 17.44 8.907
8/14/95 4.27 1.78 0.584 0.596 7.23 17.76 6.91
8/15/95 4.65 1.41 0.585 0.595 7.24 16.77 8.23
8/16/95 4.8 1.41 0.585 0.595 7.39 17.75 6.41
8/17/95 3.4 1.78 0.5811 0.592 6.356 18.2 5.906
8/18/95 2.55 2.1 0.585 _ 0.595 5.83 17.91 6.12
8/19/95 3.05 2.1 0.584 0.594 6.328 18 6.238
8/20/95 3.2 2 0.584 0.594 6.378 17.6 6.778
8/21/95 4.71 2.05 0.585 0.594 7.939 16.49 9.049
8/22/95 5.61 2 , 0.584 0.595 8.789 16.77 8.509
8/23/95 5.29 2 0.583 0.59 8.463 17.32 7.913
8/24/95 3.38 2.1 0.583 0.59 6.653 17.88 6.093
8/25/95 4.3 2.1 0.583 0.596 7.579 18.2 7.259
8/26/95 4.84 2.1 1 0.583 0.592 8.115 18.39 7.925
8/27/95 4.22 2 1 0.582 0.591 7.393 18.03 7.753
8/28/95 4.03 2.1 0.58 0.579 7.289 17.59 7.729
8/29/95 2.93 2.1 0.584 0.595 6.209 18.28 5.519
8/30/95 3.57 2.08 0.583 0.593 6.826 18.17 6.936
8/31/95 1.87 2.1 0.583 0.593 5.146 18.75 4.566
f Averages 4.466452 1.802 1.864839 0.567419 0.594161 7.667258 17.20032 7.475968
Page 1
Sheetl
Date Lake 0. in Bull Run TVWD in Well#1 in Well#2 in Well#3 in Total MG MG in Demand
MGD in MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD Pur./Prod. Storage in MG
7/1/95 3.39 6.73 0.615 10.735 10.26 10.305
7/2/95 2.24 5.2 0.61 8.05 11.66 6.65
7/3/95 5.24 0.76 0.609 6.609 12.5 5.769-
7/4/95 6.55 0.609 7.159 13.29 6.369
7/5/95 6.08 0.611 6.691 12.44 7.541
7/6/96 7.5 0.612 8.112 10.9 10.462
7/7/95 7.06 0.611 _ 7.671 11 6.761
7/8/95 6.3 0.611 6.911 12.08 5.831
7/9/95 4.9 3 0.609 8.509 11.96 8.629
7/10/95 7.11 0.611 _ 7.721 14.43 5.251
7/11/95 6.14 0.216 0.609 6.965 15.76 5.635
7/12/95 7.12 0.609 7.729 15.94 7.549
7/13/95 6.95 0.613 7.563 15.77 7.783
7/14/95 6.46 0.615 7.075 15.66 7.185
7/15/95 5.26 1.3 0.612 7.172 14 8.832
7/16/95 4.13 5.5 0.611 10.241 13.78 10.461
7/17/95 2.62 3.85 i 0.609 7.079 14.84 6.019
7/18/95 2.19 4.03 0.609 6.829 12.66 9.009
7/19/95 5.63 3.85 0.611 10.091 12.15 10.601
7/20/95 4.45 3.9 0.605 8.955 12.58 8.525
7/21/95 5.24 3.07 0.598 8.908 12.81 8.678
7/22/95 6.91 0.607 7.517 12.61 7.717
7/23/95 6.86 0.609 7.469 11.05 9.029
7/24/95 6.82 1.02 1.01 0.61 9.46 10.3 10.48
7/25/95 6.15 5.07 1.71 0.605 13.535 13.12 10.445
7/26/95 6.6 1.53 0.224 0.605 8.959 14.6 7.479
7/27/95 5.92 1.43 0.539 0.611 8.5 15.49 7.61
7/28/95 6.36 1.46 0.532 0.603 _ 8.955 13.62 10.825
7/29/95 7.01 1.64 0.538 0.605 9.793 13.32 10.093
7/30/95 6.78 1.64 0.535 0.608 9.563 14.18 8.703
7/31/95 4.09 1.73 1.45 0.532 0.603 8.405 12.82 9.765
Averages 5.679355 3.281733 1.48375 0.483333 0.608871 8.352613 13.14774 8.257774
Page 1
,
• Sheet1
Date Lake 0. in Bull Run TVWD in Well#1 in Well#2 in Well#3 in Total MG MG in Demand
MGD in MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD Pur./Prod. Storage in MG
6/1/95 6.26 6.26 12.58
6/2/95 4.46 4.46 12.75 4.29
6/3/95 3.3 5 8.3 13 8.05
6/4/95 0.52 5 5.52 14.76 3.76-
6/5/95 4.99 4.99 14.52 5.23
6/6/95 2.09 2.65 4.74 13.46 5.8
6/7/95 4.48 3 7.48 12.58 8.36
6/8/95 5.42 5.42 14.42 3.58
6/9/95 7.18 7.18 12.5 9.1
6/10/95 8.19 8.19 13.5 7.19
6/11/95 7.59 7.59 14.2 6.89
6/12/95 7.14 7.14 14.72 6.62
6/13/95 6.51 6.51 14.75 6.48
6/14/95 6.226.22 15.25 5.72
6/15/95 5.84 5.84 16.23 4.86
6/16/95 4.51 4.51 16.6 4.14
6/17/95 4.41 4.41 15.75 5.26
6/18/95 5.59
1 5.59 15.49 5.85
6/19/95 4.59 4.59 15.63 4.45
6/20/95 5.75 5.75 15.03 6.35
6/21/95 6.32 6.32 15.73 5.62
6/22/95 I 5.21 5.21 16.3 4.64
6/23/95 5.47 5.47 15.14 6.63
6/24/95 6.62 6.62 13.94 7.82
6/25/95 4.15 3.8 7.95 13.25 8.64
6/26/95 2.63 5.8 8.43 12.43 9.25
6/27/95 3.67 5.7 9.37 12.17 9.63
6/28/95 4.06 5.04 0.3 9.4 12.19 9.38
6/29/95 2.63 3.7 0.61 6.94 11.27 7.86
6/30/95 3.83 5.54 0.61 9.98 9.83 11.42
Averages 4.987667 4.523 6.546 13.999 6.65069
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Ed Wegner
FROM: Mike Miller
DATE: October 11, 1995
SUBJECT: Facility Use
This is a status update of the facility use survey that was requested by the IWB. Attached is a
spreadsheet showing the Water Building, Operations and City Facilities, and the Canterbury
building square footage's. Also under, each heading is a listing of the current department
occupancy or usage.
Because of the overlapping responsibilities, it has been difficult to detemline exactly the percentage
of chargeable usage to a department. Additional time is necessary to evaluate all aspects of facility
use. For example Human Resources and Risk Management is a City wide function which is head
quartered in a city of Tigard owned building. Although the majority of issues are City wide, there are
also specific Water Division matters that they handle. Chargeable time spent on water related
issues, personnel or otherwise, is adjusted once a year during the budget process.
Another area is Fleet operations. Fleet is now housed in the shop bays at the Water Building and
spends approximately 70% of its time maintaining the Police fleet. The remaining 30% is divided
up amongst the rest of the City's departments. If we are just talking about routine and preventative
vehicle maintenance, the Water Divisions share would be less than 5%. However, with the size of
the Water Division fleet a major failure of a piece of equipment will skew the percentages.
Although we need additional time to complete the analysis, here are some of the preliminary
findings:
Canterbury Facility
The Tigard Tualatin School District has lease agreement, originally with
Tigard Water District, to utilize 1200 square feet of building area and
additional outside area for their mini bus operations.
City of Tigard utilizes a small portion of the upstairs offices at Canterbury for
record storage. The rest of the shop area is utilized for storage of
Maintenance Services equipment. Most of the equipment belongs to the
Parks division, however some of the equipment is used to maintain water
reservoir sites.
Community Use
Farmers Market utilizes the Water Building Auditorium and parking lot along
SW Bumham Street on Saturdays from June 1 through October 31. The
Farmers Market pays no rent, but has paid for additional electrical service
Severe Weather Shelter utilized the Water Building Auditorium for 71 nights
during the 1994-95 fiscal year. They do not pay rent, although they do
provide their own cleaning services.
Other community usage's: City of Tigard Office Services is currently
checking the registration list for out of house usage of the Water Building.
This information should be made available sometime next week. In house
usage is not tracked the same way as out of house usage's, plus the
number of attendees are not tracked. No fees are collected for use of the
Water Building, however, after November 1, 1995, certain uses will be
charged a rental fee.
One last item. Although the carpet in the Water Building Auditorium is in excellent physical
condition, its appearance, due to food stains, is unacceptable. New carpet for the Water Building
Auditorium will be purchased by the City Building Maintenance Fund.
Sheet1
% SF Charged Adjusted SF
Occupied SF to Water Charged to Water
Water Building
Water Operations 7,485.95
Fleet 3,036.58
Finance (A/P PR) 560.00
Finance (Customer Service) 1,152.18
Finance (Finance Director) 203.71
Finance (Accounting Mgr) 265.25
Copier/Mail/Printer room 252.88
Inside Conference room 217.00
Office Lunch Room 401.64
Vacant Office 195.00
Public Use 2,562.76
Halls, Mech. Rm., Gen. Rm 1619.05
Operations/City Facilities
Maintenance Services Dir 195
Directors Sec. 175.5
Utility Manager 148
Operations Manager 126
City Administrator 204.35
Canterbury
Leased Section (TTSD) 1200
City of Tigard -record storage
and Maintenance Services
equipment 2496
Page 1