Loading...
01/28/2002 - Packet FILE COPY TIGARD WATER DISTRICT BOARD of COMMISSIONERS MEETING Serving the Unincorporated Area AGENDA Monday, January 28, 2002 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introductions 3. Approval of Minutes — November 26, 2001 4. Visitor's Comments 5. Intergovernmental Water Board Update 6. Informational Items Special Districts Insurance Services — coverage Staff Report— Insurance payment and settlement for damage claims 7. Non-Agenda Items 8. Set next meeting date 9. Adjournment Executive Session: The Tigard Water District Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(d),(e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. All 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. TIGARD WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONER'S MEETING Monday, November 26, 2001 Members Present: Mary Stobbe, Bruce Stobbe, George Rhine, Norm Penner and Beverly Froude, Staff Present: Dennis Koellermeier and Twila Willson Visitors Present: None 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Tigard Water District Board of Commissioners was called to order by acting chair, Commissioner George Rhine, at 7:04 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Introductions Commissioner George Rhine called the roll. He welcomed Dennis Koellermeier, representing the City of Tigard, to the meeting. 3. Approval of Minutes— September 24, 2001 Commissioner Beverly Froude motioned to accept the minutes as presented and Commissioner Bruce Stobbe seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to accept the minutes of the September 24, 2001, Tigard Water District meeting. 4. Visitor's Comments - None 5. Intergovernmental Water Board Update Commissioner Beverly Froude attended the November IWB meeting and reported on the points of interest discussed at that meeting. The Dog Park Committee requested the possible use of the Canterbury site as a dog park. Commissioner Joyce Patten told them that there were other sites being reviewed as possible dog park sites and dismissed the request for the time being. Commissioner Froude told the Board of Commissioners that the Tigard Water District has a close relationship with the Canterbury site in that the property is owned (except for the actual John Tigard House) by the TWD. The park area where the John Tigard Tigard Water District Minutes - 1 - November 26,2001 House sits is on a lease. The dog park issue is a volatile issue and she thought it was important that Board Members stay on top of the issue. The IWB also reviewed a request for consideration of a credit on a leak at the Annand resident. The Intergovernmental Water Board voted to use the formula to give credit for the leak. Long term water update was the topic of discussion for most of the remainder of the IWB meeting. The IWB reviewed the proposed criteria for the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative. Commissioner Froude left the meeting with the idea that the regional system was still a viable consideration, but according to Sunday's Oregonian article it has been discarded. Dennis Koellermeier explained in more detail the reasons for the abrupt change in direction on the proposed regional agency. The project has involved the managers of the various water agencies in the Portland metropolitan area, which started with an invitation from the City of Portland to explore a change in the Bull Run ownership/management structure and grew into a multi-source/multi agency water distribution and procurement agency. The involved water managers and staff compiled criteria and questions that needed to be addressed in order to go to the next step. Water advocates throughout the Portland metropolitan area criticized the process, however, for not allowing a public process. The concept was presented to the public at the meeting. The clear themes brought up at the public meeting by a major group of people were that this was a conspiracy to get the Willamette River water into the regional water system. A very strong Bull Run advocacy also became obvious. The concept of multi-source/multi-agency was running into stiff opposition. Public opposition was widespread. The water managers of the fourteen agencies involved concluded this widespread opposition made it clear that to continue looking at every option as intended, was "dead on arrival" and a revised regionalization approach needed to be considered. Revised issues include: Intergovernmental agreement form, based on ORS 190 (Legislation is not required to form the body). y Involved agencies would buy into the new agency by designating the amount of Bull Run water they wished to purchase from the agency. • Portland would identify their water needs and receive first options or preferred right (Class A stock). • Remaining entities could then buy the remaining sources from available Bull Run water (Class B stock). Dennis stated it sounded like we would be paying the same amount for a lesser product. • Sources still 'on the table' are the Bull Run watershed and the Portland wellfield. Other water sources are excluded. The Willamette River will never happen. • Services the agency would provide would be supply and transmission of Bull Run and Southshore Welifield water. Basically this puts up back at the beginning. The Tigard Water District (TWD), Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) and the Tigard City Council need to decide if they want to continue to explore this option and under what conditions. It will cost $10,000 to continue exploring this option. Tigard Water District Minutes - 2 - November 26,2001 A joint work session with the Tigard City Council has been scheduled for December 18, 2001. Commissioner Joyce Patton will represent Tigard at the regional negotiations. Tigard was not able to attend the water district manager's meeting when they met to make these conclusions. That was the day of the water main break. The regional agency would now be looking at a single source with multi-agency ownership. The next phase of discussions has a $10,000 fee for participation. Cost and reliability are our main concern. Commissioner Froude said other options are not available to Tigard. There still are no water rights, Tigard is on the fringes with just money to offer. She added that if Portland citizens had to vote on this issue, they would most likely vote `no'. Dennis stated that Portland does not have a choice in spending a great deal of money on the infrastructure for a new treatment plant (approximately $140 million). The City of Portland cannot handle that alone. They need others to help pay for it, but it is not clear if they will give up ownership for that help. Joint Water Commission — Dennis reported that Tigard has started taking water (as of November 21, 2001) at about half the cost to purchase water from Portland. Tigard anticipates taking water from the JWC until mid-June at a daily rate of approximately 600,000 gallons. The feasibility project to raise the Scoggins Dam is underway with a lot of public involvement. This is anticipated to be a sixteen-month process. Beaverton/Tigard Intertie —The least expensive way to build the intertie would be to create an IGA to have one plan with both agencies involved working as one instead of separately. This would save Tigard approximately $20,000 if that method is followed. The new connection will allow Tigard to increase the quantity of water to satisfy ASR for many years. The new connection is a 12 inch intertie connection, putting us at a higher pressure zone and would allow us to take about 4mgd if water is available. Commissioner Froude asked for an update on the Clean Water Services (CWS) meeting. Dennis said that not much went on at the meeting. CWS wants the Scoggins Dam raise to stay on the front burner. CWS needs to build on the west side. Their motives appear genuine. He does not foresee they will take over. They have irrigation and environmental issues with the fish. 6. Special District Best Practices—A Self-Assessment Guide for Special Districts 7. Informational Items • Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue letter to Board Members • Special Districts News and Risk Management Review No action was required on agenda items 6 or 7 (informational items). Tigard Water District Minutes - 3 - November 26,2001 8. Non-Agenda Items Commissioner George Rhine requested an update on two issues: —� main line break -a summer peaking results Staff distributed papers on the peaking information. Dennis reported that the peaking was down. Conservation was a big message nationally and created great success for us locally. Our peaking hit 11%, which was very good. The City of Tigard has many new employees and new ground breaking is being done. There are many to take credit for the success. We are spreading the responsibilities to many others. Mandatory conservation requires 36-hours to get us through the process. Future predictions are being pursued as well. The water main break was from a 6-inch pipe (approximately 30 years old) that was at its highest pressure peak. There were trees that had to be removed to get to the pipe. Erosion created a huge hole where the valves were located. At 2:00`a.m. it took longer than anticipated to assemble crews and shut down valves. Repairs are not yet complete. Police and fire agencies were first on the scene, as is typical. Early concerns were that the main break was caused by terrorism or vandalism, which was not the case. There was a good deal of water lost. The repairs will include replacing approximately 40 feet of 30 year old galvanized pipe that was compromised. 9. Set next meeting date The Board discussed the importance of attending the joint City Council/IWB meeting on December 18 at 6:30 p.m. January 24 is the deadline for meeting with the other fourteen agencies. January 28, 2002, will be the next regular Tigard Water District meeting. 10. Adjournment Commissioner Norm Penner motioned for adjournment and Commissioner Beverly Froude seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to adjourn the Tigard Water District meeting at 7:59 p.m. Tigard Water District Minutes -4 - November 26, 2001 • t B01.41.,IG ' 1' & SONS INC. r tIg P.O.BOX 14130 PORTLAND,ORE.97293-0130 December 18, 2001 Tigard Water District 13125 S W Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Special Districts Commercial Package January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003 Dear Loreen: We are pleased to enclose the renewal of your liability policy with Special Districts providing coverage for the time period of January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003. The annual premium for this policy is $1,270.00 for which you will find Special District's invoice. Please send your payment directly to Special Districts. Also enclosed you will find a copy of our brief insurance summary outlining the coverage provided by this policy. If you have any questions please call us. Seasons Greetings, 11;)_:&- Joni Claveria Bolliger& Sons Enclosures tIF YOU DON'T KNOW INSURANCE, KNOW YOUR AGENT PHONE:503/232-9141 1-800-488-4153 FAX:503/233-3040 info@bolligerins.com Special Districts Association of Oregon Comprehensive Crime Proposal SPECIAL ASSOCIATION CRs, Insured by the Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America 1f Master Policy Number: 81 BY 103126256BCM This Proposal Does Not Bind Coverage Proposal Number: 17P54211-2291 Coverage Period: 01/01/02 through 01/01/03 Named Participant: Agent of Record: Tigard Water District Bolliger&Associates 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard PO Box 14130 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97293-0130 Coverage. Limits of Insurance and Deductibles: Limits: FORM 0 - Public Employee Dishonesty Coverage(per loss): $5,000 *Faithful Performance of Duty at lesser of limit of Coverage 0,or$100,000. 'Non Compensated Officers,Directors-includes Volunteer Workers as employees Deletion of Bonded Employee and Treasurer/Tax Collector Exclusions FORM B - Forgery or Alteration Coverage: $5,000 FORM C -Theft, Disappearance and Destruction Coverage: Section 1 - Inside Premises $5,000 Section 2- Outside Premises $5,000 FORM F -Computer Fraud Coverage: 'Limit to be lessor of Coverage 0,or$25,000. Deductible: $100.00 Contribution: $100.00 Coverage cannot be bound until review and approval of application for limits greater than $50,000. To effect coverage, please sign, date and return this form before requested effective date. Fax is acceptable. Named Participant must be a member of SDAO to bind coverage. Accepted by: Date: Authorized Representative/Agent Requested Effective Special Districts Insurance ServiceslespR Public Entity Marine Liability Renewal Certificate SPECIAL DISTRICTS Insured by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company/Policy Number: 384FA3778 ASSOCIATION OF OREGON Per subscribing signatures of St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company on file with Special Districts Insurance Services. Certificate Number: 17P54211-1169 Coverage Period: 01/01/02 through 01/01/03 Named Participant: Accent of Record: Tigard Water District Bolliger&Associates 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard PO Box 14130 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland,OR 97293-0130 Coverage Limits: INDEMNITY LIMIT Primary Limit: $500,000 Excess Limit: $2,000,000 ADDITIONAL EXPENSE LIMIT: $2,500,000 INDEMNITY LIMIT is maximum any one accident and/or occurrence. ADDITIONAL EXPENSES as defined herein, to be paid in addition to the indicated Indemnity limit of liability; such additional expense amount to be the total of the above PRIMARY LIMIT and EXCESS LIMIT each accident and/or occurrence. Premium: Included within the Member Participant's Public Entity Liability Coverage Form contribution charged for the indicated policy period. Deductible: $0.00 Conditions: Claims to be reported to: Pinnacle Risk Management Phone: 503-245-9756/ Fax 503-246-1581 This certificate represents only a brief summary of coverages. Please refer to the Master Coverage Document for detailed coverages,exclusions,and conditions that may apply. Countersigned by: Thursday, December 13, 2001 Authorized Representative Special Districts Association of Oregon r AN PP Special Districts Association of Oregon - SPFCIALDI rR,crs Liability Declarations ASSOCIATION OF OREGON IN Certificate Number: 17P54211-1169 Coverage Period: 01/01/02 through 01/01/03 Named Participant: Agent of Record: Tigard Water District Bolliger&Associates 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard PO Box 14130 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97293-0130 Coverage is provided for only those coverages indicated below for which a contribution is shown. Coverage Per Occurrence Annual Deductible I SIR Contribution Limit Aggregate 1 Public Entity Liability Coverage $500,000** $550.00 1 including: General Liability ! Included None None ' Includedl Employment Practices Liability I Included None None Includedl Employee Benefits Admin. Liability Included None None Includedl Public Officials Liability Included j None None Included. Ethics Complaint Defense $2,500 $5,000 None Includedl BOLI Defense Costs $50,000 $50,000 None Included OSHA Defense Costs $5,000 $5,000 None Included Pollution Coverage $100,000 $100,000 None Included!, Applicators Pollution Coverage $50,000 ! $50,000 None Included Y2K Claim Expense ' $10,000 ! $10,000 $1,000 Included Injunctive Relief Defense $5,000 $5,000 None Included Auto Liability No Coverage No Coverage None No Coverage Non-Owned/Hired Auto Liability Included None None $120.00 Uninsured Motorist No Coverage No Coverage None No Coverage, Excess Liability j $2,000,000 None N/A , $600.00 !!Auto Physical Damage No Coverage No Coverage ! N/A No Coverage Hired Auto Physical Damage No Coverage No Coverage I No Coverage No Coverage Total Contribution:, $1,270.00 **$10,000,000 maximum per occurrence limit for all SDAO Trust Participants involved in the same occurrence. Forms applicable to participant: SDAO Liability Coverage Document- 1/1/2002 This certificate is made and is mutually accepted by the Pool and Named Participant subject to all provisions, stipulations,and agreements which are made a part of the SDAO Liability Coverage Document. This certificate represents only a brief summary of coverages. Other conditions and exclusions apply as described in the SDAO Liability Coverage Document. v Countersigned by: Li2t2i— Thursday, December 13,2001 Authorized Representative Special Districts Association of Oregon INVOICE SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF OREGON Mitt 13-Dec-01 Named Tigard Water District AMIE Bolliger&Associates Pir'tkit 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard PO Box 14130 Tigard,OR 97223 Portland, OR 97293-0130 Invoice*: Entity 1 Effective Date: i' :II: invoice Date: Revision#: 17P54211-1169 54211 01-Jan-02 01-Jan-03 13-Dec-01 Coverage: Contribution: General Liability General Liability Contribution $550 Less Best Practices Credit $0 Adjusted Contribution $550 Auto Liability $0 Non-owned and Hired Auto Liability $120 Auto Physical Damage $0 Hired Auto Physical Damage $0 Excess Liability $600 Property $o Earthquake $o Flood $0 Equipment Breakdown I Boilor and Machinery $o Crime $0 Public Officials Bond $0 Make Checks Payable to: Tata $1,270 Special Districts Association of Oregon P.O. Box 12613 Salem, OR 97309 Phone: 1-800-285-5461 Fax:503-371-4781 Your payment evidences "acceptance" of this renewal. Please send a copy of this invoice to help us apply your payment correctly. Thank You. It ®LLIG _ & SONS INC. _ate • ktitivv� Decembe A•% 1 P.O.BOX 14130U KI-PORTLAND,ORE 97293-0130 Prepare Tor TIGARD WATER DISTRICT Underwritten by: Special Districts Insurance Services Policy term: January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 I. PROPERTY NO COVERAGE PROVIDED II. LIABILITY $ 500,000 General Liability (Includes Directors & Officers) III. BUSINESS AUTO $ 500,000 Non-Owned & Hired Auto Liability only IV. UMBRELLA $2,000,000 Excess Liability V. CRIME NO COVERAGE PROVIDED VI. INLAND MARINE NO COVERAGE PROVIDED VII. BOILER& MACHINERY NO COVERAGE PROVIDED VIII. WORKERS' COMPENSATION, NO COVERAGE PROVIDED 7�/ IF YOU DON'T KNOW INSURANCE, KNOW YOUR AGENT 7me PHONE:503/232-9141 1-800-488-4153 FAX:503/233-3040 info@bolligerins.com w IX. BONDS NO COVERAGE PROVIDED X. MISCELLANEOUS NO COVERAGE PROVIDED ****THIS IS MERELY A REVIEW AND SHOULD IN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS REPLACEMENT OF THE POLICY. PLEASE REFER TO THE POLICY FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION AS RESPECTS CONDITIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND COVERAGES**** Phyllis Harris - Bull Mt Property Pmt;doc Page 1 Wr� acie Risk Manageme Services January 8,2002 Bull Mountai - `perties Attn: C isert . 106 ay Street S ood,OR 97140 RE: Our Client: Tigard Water District D/Incident: 11/19/01 Our File#: 01G0281 Dear Mr. Eisert: We are the claims administrators for Tigard Water District. Your claim notice for damage to the sewer line at 11300 Bull Mountain Road,Tigard was forwarded to me for consideration. To assist you dealing with the damage that resulted from the incident,on behalf of the Tigard Water District,we are making a payment in the amount of$2567.75. It is understood this payment as well as the co-payment being made by the district in the amount of 3657.75 concludes any further obligation on the part of the district to deal with damages caused by the incident. Endorsement of this check will conclude this matter. If you have any questions, please call at(503)535-6015. Sincerely, Lynne McKittrick Claims Consultant Cc: i>11141rtr� oreen Mills .44 13125 SW Hall Blvd ' Tigard, OR 97223 P.O. Box 19990 • Portland,OR 97280-0999• Phone(503)245-9756 • Fax(503)246-1581 MEMORANDUM Alto TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ;,,, FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Item #7 on City Council Agenda DATE: January 22, 2002 The following motion is being recommended for City Council approval. The City of Tigard, representing the combined service areas of King City, Durham, Tigard and portions of the unincorporated area of Washington County elect to continue participation in the detailed implementation planning phase of the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative process, subject to the conditions outlined at the work session on January 15, 2002. The City Council authorizes Councilor Joyce Patton and staff to negotiate the Joint Funding Agreement with our local share not to exceed $25,000. The negotiation points are attached as we discussed at the workshop meeting on January 15, 2002. Attachment Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency Initiative Negotiation Points Condition No.1 The Scope of Work - Implementation Phase. To include as a deliverable, the final cost each partner will be expected to pay. This shall include buy in costs and future projected water costs for each member. Condition No. 2 Agency not to abandon concept of regionalization. Understanding the logic that has refocused the current effort to the Bull Run/Columbia Southshore wellfield, as well as the financial benefits for the region to inter-tie the principal sources, it is clear that to include the Willamette River as a potential regional source will not be accepted by the public. We believe that the Clackamas and Trask/Tualatin systems should be considered for inclusion at some future time. Condition No. 3 Our current efforts to develop equitable wholesale contracts to be completed in a parallel process to this project. The wholesale contracts needed by the suburban partners to compare to the costs that will be identified in Condition #1 by August 1, 2002. Condition No. 4 Scope of Work for future phase shall include as a deliverable, a working draft of the 190 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that will form the new agency. The IGA should be complete in that it will address governance, costs, operational rules, etc. Condition No. 5 New agency to provide for equity of supply and cost of sale amongst all members. Condition No. 6 New agency will keep individual options open for local decisions. Condition No. 7 New agency should not consider including distribution or other water delivery functions at this time. To include these issues now will only confuse the issues of equity, ownership costs, etc. . 4, / . Pro@Yess Report .. _ . f.,,;:i- : • Re9JonaL ,. . ,,,,„,„,„,,, tI Yin , ,, , , a er u . 3, ... f , t,_.:,.$, ,,,,,,. . ,.• , , . . 4. I .� is ive ,„_ _: ..1------';------.---. -- -_-.:g ....... . Fd , .9 d 'ik t- 'r- ', 'E, {�1111100 .Ax`"',c m "� , ". "moi =. W Aar Decenhe I2 2ooI ,: F ase _R �„ , e PREPARED BY: aqe. IN ASSOCIATION WITH: 1 ectnne L1e Jec.tne Gc>n.3cttting December 12, 2001 TO: Elected Officials: City of Beaverton Powell Valley Road Water District Clackamas River Water Rockwood PUD Clean Water Services Sunrise Water Authority City of Gresham City of Tigard City of Hillsboro City of Tualatin METRO Tualatin Valley Water District City of Portland West Slope Water District FROM: Your Water Managers SUBJECT: Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Earlier this year, you directed us, your water managers, to investigate the potential for new water utility service arrangements in the Portland Metropolitan Area. In August 2001 we began our work. This report is the product of our work to date. This report provides background on the regional issues, a brief summary of the process we have undertaken, a discussion of criteria we suggest should guide our thinking, a brief discussion of some governance alternatives, and a recommended avenue along which some of our organizations may wish to continue this investigation. We deliberately looked at a very wide range of potential arrangements involving various water sources and various governance alternatives. We felt it was important to take this opportunity to understand others' issues and concerns and to seek the optimum feasible outcome. We have always felt it was too optimistic to assume that an improved model could be developed that would be desirable for all of our organizations. However, we have identified a number of areas of common interest and approaches to the future that may be attractive to some of our members. HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 108th Avenue, N.E. Telephone Suite 1200 425 453-1523 Bellevue,Washington Fax Employee Owned 98004-5538 425 453-7107 t Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Page 2 We have taken public input at several points in our study process. We have presented some interim findings to elected officials as well. In some cases, we have modified or revised criteria in response to this input. In other cases, we have added background and explanatory information in order to make our intentions more clear. This report reflects the responses we received from you and the public, along with our own thoughts. We hope you will find this report helpful as you deliberate the future of water resource and utility services in our region. Sincerely: a.....44 z* 40 David Winship Michael Maley Ed Wegner City of Beaverton METRO City of Tigard etite.74 PAL ki v4^—' . la,//7.. a.--; Dal utila Mark Knudson Mike McKillip Clackamas River Water City of Portland City of Tualatin ----?,,,x 4--I*L, ,A4,1,,_: "L----- Bill Gaffi Tom Pokorny g Gre i�to Clean Water Services Powell Valley Road Tualatin Valley Water District Water District '-2- — .1 ,4tcceixt.,4 jr__ *'2. 4-'7 David Rouse arvey rnes erry Arnot City of Gresham Rockwood Water PUD West Slope WD (941 -)h49A4- `ii*-- hompso John Thomas City of Hillsboro Sunrise Water Authority Fa( Table of Contents Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Executive Summary 1 Introduction 7 A Review of the Process 11 Criteria Development 13 Governance Alternatives 23 Recommendations and Next Steps 27 Appendices Appendix 1: Map of water providers in the Portland metropolitan area Appendix 2: City of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten's letter of March 21, 2001 to elected officials in the Portland metropolitan area Appendix 3: Portland City Council Resolution #35994 of April 25, 2001 supporting the initiative Appendix 4: Letters of interest from participating water providers and illustrating key issues and concerns Appendix 5: Public comment- includes notes of proposed criteria from the public workshop on October 18, 2001 and written testimony and proposals from the public comments periods at the meetings of May, June, October, and November, 2001 and as submitted at other times Appendix 6: Summary of Cooperative Water Supply Organizations Appendix 7: Descriptions of regional governance models from Tampa Bay, Florida; San Diego, California; Tarrant, Texas; and Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Fi.iiJeanne 1..e jam Constdtiny Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Executive Summary In March 2001, City of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten issued an invitation to the water supply community in the Portland Region that took many by surprise. In a letter to elected officials representing the 38 water providers, he proposed that the region consider forming a new governmental structure to provide water service. He suggested several reasons for believing that a more regional approach to water supply management in the Portland area would yield substantial benefits to ratepayers and to the environment. In May and June, Commissioner Sten invited other elected officials to attend a meeting where this idea could be discussed and interest could be assessed. In August 2001, interested water providers agreed to join together to research the potential of this regional idea. This group, eventually expanding to fourteen member agencies, assigned senior water managers to work with elected officials to assess the possibilities for improved water service to the region through changes in governance and structure. Over the following six months, these water managers and their consultants carried out a number of tasks to fulfill their assignment, including: ❖ Achieving consensus on the assignment; ❖ Adopting criteria that would be important to positive outcomes; • Investigating other governance models in Oregon and elsewhere; • Exploring the governance alternatives available under Oregon law; :• Taking public comment and input at several meetings and individually; ❖ Presenting a workshop to the public and a separate workshop for interested elected officials; ❖ Agreeing on an assessment of the potential for forward movement on the regional initiative; ❖ Agreeing on a recommendation for further study by some members of the group; and •: Presenting a report to summarize these findings and to request further guidance from elected officials. Jjj . Jeanne L.e jeune Gansa[ting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report The Assignment The managers' group was asked to determine whether a scenario could be found that would meet the key criteria established in response to Commissioner Sten's initiative. In order to merit further consideration; such a scenario would need to have the potential support of a critical mass of participants in the region. The group would attempt to identify fatal flaws in possible scenarios and to determine which, if any, scenarios would clearly fail to earn sufficient support. Finally, the group was charged to report these findings to their elected officials by the end of 2001, in order that further steps could be considered. The Criteria The group identified seventeen criteria that would be important to address when considering the concept of a full, regional water supply entity managing multiple sources of supply. An important distinction should be drawn between the criteria as they might apply to the full, multi- source •'oncept and the criteria as they might apply to a more limited, less bold initiative. These criteria could not be entirely fulfilled by a limited initiative but the group felt it important to stress that short-term steps, perhaps of an interim nature, should not be undertaken in ways that would compromise the ability of long-term solutions to achieve these objectives. The managers undertook this effort with the understanding that they were to think in terms of 50 to 75 years or more. 1. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have responsibility to provide all water supply and transmission to its members. 2. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will develop and protect sources in the region that meet quality standards and quantity requirements established by its members. 3. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have a reliable supply of water to meet current and future needs, with backup supplies to meet seasonal or emergency needs. 4. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will plan for and build capital improvements to meet all supply and transmission needs of its members. 5. Members will assign their water rights and supply and transmission facilities to the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency. 6. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be responsible for meeting State and Federal water quality standards at the point of delivery to its members. 7. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency may contract for the sale of water to non- member agencies. • HR2 Jeanne J.e Jeune Consulting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report 8. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have the authority to modify its responsibilities and services as agreed to by the members. 9. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under Oregon law to have the full and usual municipal powers provided under Oregon law, including but not limited to the ability to set rates and charges, collect revenues, issue debt, hire staff, and enter into agreements. 10. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under existing Oregon law. 11. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will make the most efficient and effective use of water sources to meet the needs of its members, consistent with sustainable development, best management practices, and integrated resource management strategies. 12. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be an enterprise utility, obtaining its revenues from rates, charges, and issuance of debt related to the sale and delivery of water. 13. Each member will have representation on the board of the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency. 14. Individual customers receiving water from the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have direct access to the agency's Board of Directors and to the elected public officials of the members. 15. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency is intended to be organized and operated to minimize duplication or inefficiency resulting from separate supply ownership and management of supplies. 16. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will participate in the programs and activities within the watersheds of its sources. 17. Creation of a new Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will not result in increased overall costs for water by virtue of combining infrastructure and operations. till3 J eunne J.e Jeune Con ttttin Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Governance Models The group studied the governance features of many regional water entities around the U.S. and 3 Canada. Several conclusions were drawn from this investigation: :• No two solutions used elsewhere are exactly alike. It seems that successful governance alternatives must inevitably be tailored to local history, circumstances, and attitudes. • Most of the governance models adopted elsewhere could be accomplished under existing Oregon law. • The range of solutions to regional water issues around the country is very broad. • The managers believe that governance solutions can be devised that will meet the needs of the participants, if elected officials decide to proceed in the attempt to make a new agency succeed. Oregon's existing laws suggest five basic approaches to creation of new governance: ❖ Intergovernmental Agreements ORS Chapter 190 • Peoples' Utility Districts ORS Chapter 261 • Water Districts ORS Chapter 264 • Regional Service Districts ORS Chapter 268 • Water Authorities ORS Chapter 450 The managers found that the ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement approach could best address the needs of a significant number of participating agencies for a limited initiative involving only the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield supplies. A 190 Agreement approach might also provide the foundation to achieve the larger goal of a multi-source management agency in the future. Public Comment At each of its public meetings, the managers group took public comment and input. In addition, a number of individual citizens offered comments and suggestions independently to the managers' group and the consultants. Many of these comments were quite specific in nature but a few themes emerged from the process: ❖ Several people expressed the desire that existing entities not surrender ownership of water resources or capital assets to a new agency. ❖ Several people expressed concern about the relative desirability of various water sources in the region. A significant theme of these views was a desire to avoid the use of the Willamette River as a drinking water source. :• A number of individuals commented that a new agency should offer significant advantages over existing arrangements before being pursued further. i•ii 4 Jeanne j..e jeune Con t[ting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Recommendations The professional judgment of the managers is that a regional entity empowered to coordinate the management of all of the Portland Region's major sources of supply, treatment, and transmission would be very much in the public interest now and well into the future. Such a regional approach would offer the broadest potential economies of scale, environmental benefits through coordinated development and use of the various sources, and the greatest assurance of developing supplies in a manner consistent with sustainable development and integrated resource planning goals. However, input received during this process from some elected officials and members of the interested public, led to the conclusion that a single step toward such an integrated regional water utility operation would be unlikely to succeed at this time. At this time, the managers recommend two immediate steps in this regional initiative process: 1. Renew the region's commitment to increasing transmission interties and additional supply storage among the sources of the region, as proposed in the Regional Water Providers' Consortium's planning process; 2. Proceed in development of a regional entity under ORS 190 that would, in effect, regionalize the control and operations of the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield supplies. The key elements of the recommended ORS Chapter 190 scenario are: - The water managers concluded that no one scenario for change would be likely to attract the support of all the agencies involved - They also concluded, based in part on input from elected officials, that a new governance mechanism involving more than one major source was probably not feasible at this time - Finally, a majority of the managers felt that one scenario had the potential to meet the key criteria for a significant number of the participating agencies and was, therefore, worth recommending for further investigation and development. The key elements of the recommended scenario are: • An organization formed by intergovernmental agreement under ORS 190 • An organization that would have effective management and planning control of water sources and capital assets, but would not necessarily assume ownership of them from their current owners •o An organization that would provide for representation by all the creating entities, potentially through appointment of elected officials from the creating entities to constitute the Board of Directors • The sources of supply to be controlled and managed by this agency would be the Bull Run River and the Columbia South Shore Wellfield. JjJ5 Jeanne jre jeune Consulting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report • Participating agencies would not be required to obtain all their water through the new agency but would be required to establish firm purchase commitments through a nomination process. �o Core services would be supply, treatment, and transmission of Bull Run and South Shore Wellfield water to member agencies and wholesale customers. • Other functional aspects of the water utility business could be consolidated within the new agency, as members desired. Next Steps 1. A meeting of elected officials and the public is scheduled for January 24, 2002 to gather their response to the report and its recommendations. This meeting will include commitment to a detailed implementation planning phase of this process by those agencies wishing to proceed. 2. An agreement by participating agencies to contribute toward the costs of the planning stage of this process. 3. Development of a detailed work plan for research, analysis, documents, and other efforts needed to enable creation of a new organization would be the next step. FjJ( 6 Jeanne j..e jeune Consutting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Introduction Geography and climate bless the Portland Metropolitan Region with an abundance of fine water resources. Until relatively recently in our history, this forgiving abundance allowed communities to plan independently to meet their growing water demands. The need for regional cooperation and coordination was minimal. As the region's population and water demand have grown, the ability of each community to remain independent with regard to water has grown increasingly problematic and expensive. Dramatically increasing pressures from increased regulation and from environmental concerns have contributed to the need for planning and operations beyond a local level. During the 20`h Century, the number of governmental agencies providing water service in the three counties of the Portland Region increased dramatically. In 2001, the three-county area has 38 water providers serving about 1.3 million people. See Appendix 1 for a map of the region's water providers and sources. This is a brief summary of the providers in the three counties in 2001: Washington County has ten water providers, six of which have participated in this study. The six Washington County providers participating in this study serve a population of about 350,000, which is about 89% of those served by all water utilities in the county. Clackamas County has fifteen water providers, two participating in this study. The Clackamas County providers participating in this study serve about 93,000 of the county's consumers, which is about 35% of all those served by water utilities in Clackamas County. In Multnomah County, there are thirteen water providers, including four participants in this study. The four study participants serve some 650,000 consumers, about 96% of those served by all water utilities in the county. In total, participants in this study serve over 1,000,000 customers, or about 82% of all those served by water utilities in the three-county area. Over the past twenty years, the growing need for cooperation and coordination has accelerated substantially. The drivers of this growing pressure fall under several important categories: 1. Population and growth have increased demand on resources substantially. Expanding sources of supply to meet increasing demands will be necessary and expensive. 2. Increased knowledge and awareness of environmental and ecological issues have had two primary effects: a. Dramatic increases in the number and stringency of water quality and treatment regulations have increased the cost and value of water. b. Recognition of instream water needs for a wide variety of purposes have placed effective limits on the portion of the region's water bounty that can LT�`� 7 Jeanne J.e Jean Consulting 1 Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report be committed to municipal and industrial uses. A wide range of regulations such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act drives instream water needs. Implementation of ESA requirements, which are now being developed, will undoubtedly require that more water must be left in streams. Clean Water Act regulations establish limits on discharges to streams and will also require that more water be left in streams in the future. Other Federal and State regulations have a similar effect and this trend can be expected to continue. 3. The natural aging process of existing infrastructure indicates that significant investments in water infrastructure will be needed throughout the region over the next fifty years, thus increasing the cost of water. 4. There is a need for more capacity for storage and transmission from supply sources around the region. There is a long history of water interrelationships in the region, preceding these recent drivers. The City of Portland has provided water to neighboring cities and special districts for nearly a century, through long term wholesale contracts. The cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Forest Grove formed the Joint Water Commission to develop and deliver water from the Tualatin/Trask system, later to be joined by Tualatin Valley Water District. Clackamas River Water has provided water on a wholesale basis to neighbors for many years. Recently, the Sunrise Water Authority was formed through a merger of the Mount Scot and Damascus Water Districts. Sunrise, in turn, has joined with the Oak Lodge Water District to form the North Clackamas Water Commission. These are only a few examples of the increasing trend toward closer relationships among water utilities in the region. In short, sub-regional cooperation in water affairs is widespread and widely successful in the Portland area. But until recently, these efforts have focused simply on developing and delivering water resources from a single major source. In 1989, the Portland Water Bureau invited the region's water utility organizations to join in a regional planning effort. The goal of this effort was to create common, accepted water demand forecasts, water supply and conservation strategies. Over the decade that followed, the group generated studies that redefined the region's demand forecasts, supply alternatives, and strategies for transmission and storage improvements. For the first time, the entire region shared one baseline of critical data. The participants in this planning effort formed an ongoing organization, the Regional Water Providers' Consortium, to continue the work of cooperative water supply planning. In 2000, the Portland Water Bureau joined with its existing and potential wholesale customers to begin the process of negotiating new long-term contracts for the sale of water. The existing 25- year agreements will expire during the first decade of the 21st Century. As the negotiating discussions proceeded, it became apparent that a key goal of several Portland wholesale customers was participation in the ownership of their water supply. 8 Jeanne J.e jeune Consulting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report In response to the challenges facing water utilities as we enter the new century and in response to the desire of others for water supply ownership, Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten offered a new proposal to the region in March 2001. Sten proposed that the region consider forming one or more new, regional water utility organizations, outside existing governmental structures, to manage the region's water needs. Commissioner Sten's March letter to elected officials is included as Appendix 2 to this report. Subsequently, the Portland City Council unanimously endorsed Sten's initiative in a resolution, also attached as Appendix 3to this report. The foundation for Commissioner Sten's interest were: • Despite adequate high quality water sources in the region, we lack sufficient water supply infrastructure to meet future needs effectively and efficiently. A coordinated regional approach to meeting these needs would be most effective. • Increased competing demands for available water resources and increasingly expensive regulatory requirements provide substantial incentives to maximize our best resources as efficiently as possible. . Regional solutions can meet our future needs with the least potential rate impact on the region. •:• The region should focus its future supply on its best sources rather than develop additional sources that are less desirable. The Commissioner cited the Bull Run, Clackamas, and Tualatin/Trask as the most desirable sources. Based on these premises, Commissioner Sten invited water agencies to "join together in an exploration of our regional water potential" and to "join with us in developing alternatives and seeking better ways of organizing and conducting our water utilities in the future." Sten stressed that he entered this exploratory initiative without a preferred alternative in mind and unready to remove any reasonable concept from consideration. In response to Commissioner Erik Sten's proposal, fourteen agencies joined in a cooperative exploration of the potential. These agencies are: Cities of: • Beaverton • Gresham :• Hillsboro • Portland • Tigard Tualatin IDa 9 Jeanne 1...e lame Consulting 1 Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Water Districts: :• Clackamas River Water • Powell Valley Road Water District :• Tualatin Valley Water District • West Slope Water District PUDs • Rockwood PUD Water Authorities: :• Sunrise Water Authority Other Agencies: • Clean Water Services • METRO Together, these agencies provide water to about 80% of the population in the counties of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington. The balance of this report consists of a report on concepts, ideas, criteria, and scenarios. Being staff members, this working group is not a decision making body. Rather, the goal of the group has been to bring information to their decision-makers that would allow key choices to be made on an informed basis. The managers have concluded that a broadly based, regional water supply agency that could coordinate development and management of all the major sources of water in the Portland region would be in the public interest in many ways. In our view, implementation of such a regional approach should be the long-term goal of water providers in the region. As a first step, the managers believe there is a basic regional concept that holds promise for future development for some, but likely not all, of the entities that have participated. The body of this report closes with a summary of that concept. t0 Jeanne LA jeune Consatting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report A Review of the Process Commissioner Sten proposed concepts to the region's elected officials in March 2001. In April 2001, the Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution of support for Mr. Sten's position. In May 2001 Commissioner Sten invited all of the water providers in the area to a general meeting in the City of Tualatin. At this meeting, elected officials and senior staff discussed his concept in general terms, in order to determine their level of potential interest. Observing members of the public were given an opportunity to address the group. A second general meeting was held at the City of Gresham in June 2001 to explore the concept further and to determine a plan for moving forward. Again, public input was taken. At the conclusion of this meeting, entities interested in participating in exploration of the concept were asked to identify themselves by letter. In their responses to Commissioner Sten, each of the agencies identified key issues of interest to them. These letters of interest are included in this report as Appendix 4. Participants would be asked to help fund the first phase of the exploratory effort. Subsequent to this meeting, a body of managers representing participating agencies met to move forward. In order to accomplish the exploratory tasks of this initiative, each participating entity appointed a senior manager to represent its interests and concerns. This group of managers has guided the process through this first phase. The participants are: City of Beaverton David Winship Clackamas River Water Dale Jutila Clean Water Services Bill Gaffi City of Gresham David Rouse City of Hillsboro Joe Thompson METRO Michael Morrissey City of Portland Mark Knudson Powell Valley Road Water District Tom Pokorny Rockwood Water Harvey Barnes Sunrise Water Authority John Thomas City of Tigard Ed Wegner City of Tualatin Mike McKillip Tualatin Valley Water District Greg DiLoreto West Slope Water District Jerry Arnold Through a contract managed by the Tualatin Valley Water District, the group retained Ed Tenny of HDR Engineering, Inc. as a consultant to coordinate and facilitate the process. The City of Portland contracted with Jeanne LeJeune of Jeanne LeJeune Consulting to support the process as well. Staff members and attorneys for participants made substantial contributions in terms of research and insight. 11 Jeanne Le Jeune Consulting 1 Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report The managers took an orderly analytical approach to the issues. These were the steps in that process: 1. Clarify the objective and assignment. 2. Identify criteria that would be important to a positive outcome. 3. Identify and review examples of other regional entities 4. Create conceptual scenarios for possible outcomes 5. Compare these scenarios to the identified criteria 6. Receive and consider public input 7. Report to their elected officials on findings 8. Offer recommendations if appropriate The managers met on a weekly basis from August through December 2001. A workshop for the public was conducted at METRO in October 2001, to outline the work to date and to take input. A similar workshop for elected officials was held at METRO in November 2001, where public input was also taken. In order to assess the solutions that other communities have used to meet similar challenges, we identified and investigated a number of regional water entities in the U.S. and Canada. Two methods were used to identify potential subjects of this investigation: (1) soliciting names of entities from the staff of participating agencies and the consultants to this process; (2) a review of utility websites linked to the website of the American Water Works Association to identify those that suggested that it was the result of a cooperative venture or merger. The entities thus identified were contacted by phone and email to obtain information that was not available on their websites. In most cases, underlying legal agreements and legislation were obtained. This investigation provided a general sense of the concepts and approaches used by others to address issues similar to our own. This investigation was not designed to provide details on each entity. The first phase of this process was not designed to provide answers or conclusions. The task was more modest and could be summed up as follows: - Determine whether a scenario can be found that would meet the key criteria established in response to Commissioner Sten's initiative. In order to merit further consideration, such a scenario would need to have the potential support of a critical mass of participants in the region. Identify fatal flaws in possible scenarios and determine which, if any, scenarios would clearly fail to earn sufficient support. Report these findings to elected officials by the end of 2001, in order that they may consider further steps. Da 12 Jeanne j.e 1 ectne Gon elfin Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Criteria Development The managers spent a great deal of its time discussing criteria that should be applied to various scenarios in order to determine their viability. The group felt that the criteria would, in fact, be the key guidelines for any further work under this initiative. After extensive review and some discussion, the group decided on seventeen important criteria that should be kept in mind as alternatives are considered. It is important that the reader keep the intentions of the group in mind when considering these criteria. The group did not intend to convey the idea that any successful new arrangement must fulfill all of these criteria. Rather, these criteria were designed to provide guidelines with regard to desirability and importance of certain potential features or characteristics. Some criteria are extremely important to a few members of the group but relatively less important to others. A few were critical to all participants. In short, these criteria are intended to be guidelines, not requirements and there was no consensus among the managers with regard to the importance or relative weight of the criteria. Further, the group has assumed from the outset that it was unlikely that a scenario could be found that would be attractive to all participants. Our task has been to determine if there is a scenario (or scenarios) that are sufficiently appealing to a critical mass of participants to warrant moving forward. 1. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have responsibility to provide all water supply and transmission to its members. This criterion proved to be controversial from the outset, within the managers' group, among elected officials responding at the November 2001 workshop, and among some members of the public. A majority of the managers felt that it would be crucial in an entity managing multiple sources of supply and involving joint ownership. Some felt that it would prohibit the further participation of their agencies. The majority of the managers felt that it was essential to have members of a new entity purchase all of their water through the new entity for three specific reasons: A. Sufficient predictable water supply revenue would be necessary to make the agency cost-effective and to avoid redundant capital investments. The average cost of water for all participants could be less if all water supplies were obtained from the entity. B. If members of the new entity took only some of their water through the entity, they would be likely to peak off of the entity's supply, making the water too expensive to remain viable and creating a subsidy of peak users by base load users. C. Planning for future supply needs would be made very difficult by what could amount to the creation of a "market" in wholesale water sales, making it very difficult to predict long term demand on a given supply. MR. 13 Jeanne J.e Jeune Consulting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report An important nuance should be noted in this criterion. The intention is that participating entities would buy all of their water through the entity but this does not mean that all water would have to come from that entity's own sources only. In other words, the entity itself could have the capability of purchasing water from other sources as desirable, making it available to its members. The distinction from today's practice would amount to a group of water providers (those making up the new entity) buying water from other sources of supply under one contract instead of several. Some feedback on this criterion indicated a misunderstanding to the effect that a requirement to purchase all water from the entity would mean that no other sources could be utilized. A substantial amount of comment from members of the public was received on this criterion. Much of this comment emphasized the desirability of an agency that would utilize only Bull Run water. Others added that exploration of future supply alternatives such as Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) would be desirable. Some asked if an individual participating member in the new entity could exclude a specific water source from the supply reaching its users. The majority of the managers felt that the criterion is an important one if a new entity is to be viable but it is a criterion that should not be understood as limiting sources of supply. The question of desirability of certain supplies over others, while important, is not an integral aspect of the criterion. 2. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will develop and protect sources in the region that meet quality standards and quantity requirements established by its members. The intent of this criterion is to assert that the agency's governing body would establish these standards and requirements, rather than having them imposed by other bodies. Obviously, such standards would need, at a minimum, to achieve standards established by State and Federal law. However, nothing would prevent this entity from establishing and maintaining standards higher that those mandated by law, as is currently the case in several instances in the region. The managers felt it was important to make the point that standards and requirements would not be established by individual member agencies or by other entities. The entity would do its own supply planning, as part of the overall Regional Water Providers' Consortium process. Public comment received on this criterion was essentially limited to suggestions that the region's sources should be prioritized and that the Willamette and Columbia Rivers should not be used as sources for any new water supply agency. 14 Jeanne j,e jeune Conautting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report 3. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have a reliable supply of water to meet current and future needs, with backup supplies to meet seasonal or emergency needs. Best management practices for water utilities definitely indicate the need for backup and emergency supplies as an alternative to the primary source(s). Ideally, such supplies should be unlikely to be exposed to the same risks and outages as the primary source(s). This criterion was adopted simply as an assertion that this basic water supply function should be a part of any new entity's mandate. The only public comments received on this criterion were to the effect that Aquifer Storage & Recovery could be a sound backup or emergency supply. Throughout the public input, there are remarks to the effect that water conservation should be a more active part of the supply plan in order to minimize reliance on backup supplies. In Oregon, aggressive water conservation planning is a specific part of "best management practices" for water utilities. Where the managers have indicated the need for best management practices, it is with the understanding that aggressive water conservation programs are an integral part of utility • management. 4. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will plan for and build capital improvements to meet all supply and transmission needs of its members. The background understanding of this criterion includes recognition that capital investments in the region's water supply, transmission, storage, and distribution systems will be necessary no matter how the region organizes itself to meet these needs. We feel that a key goal of the new agency should be to make future capital investment by the region as cost-effective as possible. A broad ratepayer base combined with common planning and investment can control capital costs best, thereby reducing costs to the individual consumer. This criterion intends to make clear that capital investment in the water supply system should be by the agency itself, not by constituent members individually. Public comment on this criterion was limited to issues regarding who should make decisions about source expansion and development. Some specific recommendations were offered to the effect that source development should be specific to expansion of the Bull Run supply, including a third dam in the Bull Run watershed and that the new agency's responsibility should extend only to Powell Butte. Another comment received from the public was to the effect that there should be no third dam constructed in the Bull Run watershed. 5. Members will assign their water rights and supply and transmission facilities to the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency. This criterion proved to be very controversial among all parties. The key to understanding the intent of this criterion is the word "assign." Initially, this criterion was drafted to say that members should "transfer all their water rights and supply and transmission facilities..." The word "transfer" was changed to "assign" in response to public input as well as to concerns among some managers. Fi1 . 15 Leanne lame Ganau[ting .A Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report The intent of the criterion is to assert that the inability of any new regional water agency to provide the benefits desired would be severely limited if it did not even control its sources and means of supply. However, the managers did not intend to limit the means of this necessary control to ownership transfers of water rights or, necessarily, of facilities. While transfers of ownership might be one effective option, it appeared that relatively few participants would be willing to give up ownership, at least for now. Public input focused on the sense that participating governments should retain their water rights and their assets. There was also a good deal of discussion among the managers and some input from the public with regard to distribution systems. Some participating entities have an interest in combining distribution systems and other assets while others are interested in supply and transmission facilities only. The staff criterion is based on the assumption that the bedrock reason for being of a new regional agency would require effective management control, if not ownership, of supply, transmission, and supply storage components. However, the issue of distribution systems and other assets is not crucial to this criterion and could be considered elsewhere as an optional element. A second element of concern that arose in discussion of this criterion is the question of compensation to member utilities for assets that might be transferred to a new entity. Public comment specifically suggested that City of Portland ratepayers should be compensated for the existing and potential supply assets in the Bull Run watershed. This is a complex and controversial issue that needs to be addressed only when and if asset transfer is envisioned. 6. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be responsible for meeting State and Federal water quality standards at the point of delivery to its members. This criterion is intended to assert that a new regional agency would assume responsibility for meeting applicable standards at, but not beyond, the point at which its member agencies assumed control of the water in their own distribution systems. So long as distribution systems themselves were not under the management and control of the agency, it would not be responsible for compliance beyond its point of delivery. No public comment was received on this topic. 16 Jeanne Le Jeune Gondatting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report 7. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency may contract for the sale of water to non-member agencies. The managers adopted this criterion with several thoughts in mind: • It is unlikely that all water service providers in the Region would choose to enter into any new agency. • Some entities that would not be part of a new agency would have a continuing need to purchase water in order to meet their customers' demands. • Continuing to make water available to such providers from major sources is essential to the Region's well being. Wholesaling water will help a new agency manage its rate and debts more effectively, through spreading its costs over a broader base and through the planning tool of long term sales agreements. Some input was received from citizens suggesting that the public should have a right to vote on agreements to wholesale water or to purchase wholesale water in a given area. 8. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have the authority to modify its responsibilities and services as agreed to by the members. If a new agency were to become an ongoing, functionality utility it would need flexibility to modify its mission and scope as circumstances evolve. Some potential members of a new agency expressed interest in combining functions other than simply supply and transmission in the future. This criterion was not intended to assure or outline future changes in mission but simply to accommodate the potential for such changes, should they emerge. As the criterion is written, any such changes would require the approval of the members. To a certain extent, this criterion recognizes the complex, changing definition of water utility's responsibilities. Only a few years ago, the idea that such an agency would be responsible for supporting fish habitat, for efficient plumbing fixtures in support of conservation, or for contributing to the quality of receiving waters in the Region would have been out of the question. Today, this gradual broadening of responsibilities in recognition of the broad ecological impact of water resource development and use is commonplace. We expect changes in the definition of a water utility's mission to continue and with these changes, necessary modifications in the ways that utilities work. Fla 17 Jeanne Le jeune Consulting x Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report 9. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under Oregon law to have the full and usual municipal powers provided under Oregon law, • including but not limited to the ability to set rates and charges, collect revenues, issue debt, hire staff, and enter into agreements. This criterion is intended to indicate that a new agency should be a true, functioning utility operation and not simply a committee of participants. It is also designed to assure citizens that a new agency should not be designed to be insulated from public involvement and input any more than any other Oregon governing agency. The only public comment received on this criterion was to the effect that a new agency should have the ability to expand its authority to utilize the State constitution provision to generate power and use the financing mechanisms from Article II, Section D of the State Constitution. 10.The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be created under existing Oregon law. The managers felt that it would be faster, easier, and least expensive if the outcome of this process were an entity that could be created without the need for new legislation. Oregon law offers a number of governance alternatives. No single alternative is likely to meet all criteria perfectly. Our first effort should be to find ways to make existing alternatives work. New legislation should not be absolutely ruled out as an approach, but should be utilized only if existing vehicles cannot be made to meet our needs. No public input was received on this criterion. 11.The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will make the most efficient and effective use of water sources to meet the needs of its members, consistent with sustainable development, best management practices, and integrated resource management strategies. This criterion is related to three related issues: (1) making the most efficient and effective use of water; (2) sustainable development; (3) integrated resource management. Making the most efficient and effective use of water sources is, of course, one of the primary reasons for initiating this investigation in the first place. An outcome that did not achieve gains in this arena would hardly be worth pursuing. Therefore, it is a bedrock criterion for moving forward. The concern for sustainable development as an approach to managing a water utility recognizes the extent to which water utilities are now classed among the many users of our water resources and can no longer set aside dedicated supplies for their exclusive use. Therefore, resources must be managed in a way that sustains their productivity and quality for all users into the indefinite future. LT1'� 18 Jeanne Le jeune Ganscdtiny Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Integrated resource management is really a reference to management strategies designed to take into consideration all the demands on water resources and to manage them in a way that supports sustainable development. With regard to this criterion, the managers' group discussed the importance of requiring a new agency to work closely with watershed councils and other bodies engaged in resource management. As noted above, "best management practices" for water utilities is an umbrella term for a series of management practices including strong water conservation. A great deal of progress has been made in the Portland Region in water conservation in recent years. This was one of the first areas outside the arid Southwest to consider conservation as a source alternative in water resource planning, rather than as simply a management tool. Clearly, this criterion implies that this emphasis would continue and be strengthened over time. A few public comments were taken under the heading of this criterion. Some citizens said they agreed with this criterion. One person suggested that logging should be banned in the Bull Run watershed. Others said that there should be no clear cutting in watersheds. 12. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will be an enterprise utility, obtaining its revenues from rates, charges, and issuance of debt related to the sale and delivery of water. This criterion was adopted in order to reassure everyone involved that a new agency, as envisioned, would not be a general taxing agency and would be required to operate from its own revenue sources, in traditional enterprise utility manner. The manner in which such an agency might be organized under law would have a bearing on the manner in which it would raise revenues and set rates and charges. However, these variations under different governance forms were felt to be issues that would require research and legal advice, but not likely to constitute fatal flaws in the concept. Some public input was received on this criterion. Some suggestions were made that the agency should generate electrical power and sell it to raise revenues and offset water rates. Others thought that each participating city or district should set its own customers rates. Still others suggested that all members should be "created equal" and pay the same rate for water regardless of geography and cost of delivery. 13. Each member will have representation of the board of the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency. The details of governance for a new agency of the kind discussed here remain to be researched and outlined in specific detail. The managers felt that a bedrock issue was the need for each participating entity to have representation in some appropriate and effective form. The implications, issues, and possibilities within this broad requirement were discussed extensively but could not be resolved pending further legal research and input Fi119 jeunne Le jeune Consulting I40. 4 Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report from elected officials. The broad issues involved are discussed further elsewhere in this report. Several key questions would have to be answered before one could move forward on this idea, including: • Should the governing body of such an agency be elected or appointed? • If appointed, should the appointees be elected officials or not? Does it matter? If elected, should election occur at large or by district? • If elected, should votes be weighted in some fashion? If so, by what criteria? Number of customers'? Assets contributed? Water consumed? • How many members should such a board have? One or more for each entity? One or more per consumer? A smaller number, in a representative structure? i hese are the classic questions involved in creating governance alternatives and would require resolution. The managers felt that it was appropriate, if this process moves into an implementation study phase, to create an outline of the functional organization first and then to consider governance issues, attempting to match the latter to the former as well as possible. Some citizens said they felt that the agency's board should be made up of elected officials from the entities they represent. Others felt that a regional agency board should be elected. Still others felt that a board should be elected by districts. There was one suggestion that each member organization should have representation in the form of an appointed representative but there should be at-large board members as well. One person suggested that the board of such an agency should include a public official representing all water suppliers in the region, not simply those participating in the agency. The broad range of citizen comment reflects the range of possible models. 14. Individual customers receiving water from the Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will have direct access to the agency's Board of Directors and to the elected public officials of the members. This criterion was added by the managers in response to public comments at the October 18, 2001 public workshop. The public concern was that an agency board might be insulated and isolated from the public and that the public might not have easy access to the board. One person even expressed a fear that an agency board could make decisions in private, without being subject to open meetings' laws. The essential point of this criterion is to assure the public that the managers envision a governance body and system subject to the same public input and involvement as other governing bodies in Oregon. 20 Deanne j.e Ieune Cons ti»y Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report 15. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency is intended to be organized and operated to minimize duplication or inefficiency resulting from separate supply ownership and management of supplies. This is among the basic reasons for considering a regional agency in the first place. To put it simply, this criterion reflects the view that a new agency would have to be more efficient and/or effective than the existing arrangements in order to justify consideration. Obviously, a world of operational and organizational details would necessarily he identified, considered, and resolved before one could be sure that this criterion would likely be fulfilled. This work would be reflected in the scope of further work within this process. Only two public comments were received regarding this criterion. One was to the effect that "bigger does not always mean better." The other observed that despite a tendency to preserve each district and its own jobs, the number of jobs should be reduced and everything would be more efficient. 16. The Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will participate in the programs and activities within the watersheds of its sources. This criterion confirms that a new agency would be a cooperative participant in resource management, along with watershed councils and other responsible bodies. The criterion places focus on the multiple use concept at the broad watershed level. There were a few positive responses to this criterion in general but no specific public input. 17. Creation of a new Regional Drinking Water Supply Agency will not result in increased overall costs for water by virtue of combining infrastructure and operations. The managers' group recognizes that expansion and improvement of services, increased regulation, increased participation in environmental programs and other factors will increase the cost of water services over time. Creation of a new agency will not make that fact go away. To be viable, however, a new agency should provide the likelihood of minimizing the impact of these inevitable cost increases through greater efficiency; increased effectiveness; design and implementation of more effective, regional conservation plans; a broader rate base; and regional planning to reduce redundancy and duplicative investment. This concludes a summary of the seventeen criteria adopted by a majority of the managers working on this project. In addition to comments summarized under each criterion above, these are some additional comments received from the public with regard to criteria: The agency should have effective public and/or regulatory oversight to protect the broad array of ratepayer interests. The agency meetings should be open to the public. At the very least, minutes of closed meetings should be provided. LT>� 21 Iettnne J.e jeune Cansaltintj 4 Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report a • The agency should pursue a diversified portfolio of supply sources and demand management. • How would this agency be approved? Through inter-agency agreement or by a vote of the people? • Is a new agency really necessary? Should Portland just re-negotiate wholesale contracts before considering a new agency? • Couldn't existing Clackamas, Trask/Tualatin, and Bull Run systems be made more efficient now, with more interties provided for emergency supplies, instead of creating a new agency? • There was a question as to why Clark County was not included in the discussions and invited to consider membership. • • There was a question as to whether creation of a regional agency was a prelude to privatization. • There was a suggestion that a regional system should be created with an elected board based on regions or population. We should begin by identifying common goals. Suggested common goals were source protection, equal rates, citizen input to elected representatives. • One person asked that the managers' group take a position on each of the policy positions of the National Sierra Club on water. Information on all the public comments and notes from the public meetings of May,June, October and November can be found in Appendix 5. Fjj' 22 Jeanne 1..e jeune Consulting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Governance Alternatives The attachments to this report include information on a number of alternative governance models in the U.S. and Canada. These details were gathered by staff and are intended to provide a conceptual representation of the solutions that other jurisdictions have adopted to resolve governance issues. This research has not been exhaustive in detail and every nuance of these examples may not be complete. However, the range of alternatives identified, both in Oregon and around North America, illustrates several points about the governance issue: •:• No two solutions are exactly alike. Governance alternatives must inevitably be tailored to local history, circumstances, and attitudes. •:• Most of the governance models adopted elsewhere could be accomplished under existing Oregon law. ❖ The range of solutions to regional water issues around the country is very broad and many solutions that seem to work elsewhere would not be likely to meet our criteria. ❖ The managers have no doubt that governance solutions can be devised that will meet the needs of the participants, if elected officials provide the will to make a new agency succeed. Most of the cooperative or combined entities we have reviewed were formed under some significant pressure. This pressure came in many forms, including water shortages; legislative pressure to rationalize operations; rapid population and demand growth; conflict over source development; dramatic increases in rates; and, most often, combinations of these factors. The largest entity of this kind in Oregon, Clean Water Services (formerly Unified Sewerage Agency), was formed in large part due to an order of the Environmental Quality Commission that no permits for new construction could be issued until Washington County resolved pressing sewer- related pollution problems. Most of the cooperative entities we looked at provide water supply, treatment, and transmission services. The water providers that created the new entities have most often continued in existence as water distributors, buying their supplies from the new entity. In some cases, new entities have taken over all operations and the creating entities were dissolved. Almost all of the cooperative entities are required to meet all of the water needs of their members and all members are, in turn, are required to buy all their water through the entity. The goal of these commitments is to create a new entity with real, lasting authority to address the issues that led to its creation. Interviews show that cooperative entities in which parties were allowed to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to participate in new source development or creation of infrastructure, or could go elsewhere for water, undercut the ability of the entity to meet its mission to fashion regional solutions to the problems they face. Nearly all of these entities have provisions for withdrawal by members, but withdrawal is difficult; this characteristic is deliberately designed to promote predictability and stability. 23 Deanne 1.e Jeune Consu[ting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Most of the regional entities we reviewed have very broad municipal powers. As a rule, they can plan, hire, fire, contract, build infrastructure, buy and sell water, sell bonds and debt, hold water rights, and generally perform the functions of a government agency and water utility. In most cases, boards governing the entities we investigated are appointed. In most cases, the governing bodies of the participating organizations appointed board members. A few have directly elected boards. In some cases, these appointees are utility managers, in others they are elected officials from participating governments. The question of whether appointed board members should be elected officials or not is most often specified in the documents creating the agency. Several entities indicated that this organizational structure of elected member boards appointing members of the agency's governing board is designed to provide accountability to voters and reinforce the role of the members at the same time. Some appointed governing boards have one board member from each member agency, each with one equal vote. In other cases, voting is weighted based on population, capital contribution, assessed valuation or a combination of these factors. In instances of weighted representation, it is common to have multiple representatives on the board so multiple votes are not concentrated in one individual. In a single instance from our sample, unanimity is required for all board decisions. In a very few other cases, certain major capital projects require more than majority approval or have a higher quorum requirement than other votes. Most boards have fewer than ten members but their size ranges upward to thirty or more. In most instances we examined, new entities usually involve the transfer of assets from members to the new entity. In some cases, these assets were exchanged without cost and in other cases they were sold. In the case of assets transferred without consideration, it was maintained that, since all involved entities were public agencies representing the same ratepayers, it was not appropriate to impose charges on the new entity and create new debt. When assets were exchanged for consideration, it was maintained that a particular group of citizens should be reimbursed for their previous investments. A summary of governance alternatives reviewed in Oregon and around the nation is attached to this report in Appendix 5. More detailed information on four agencies thought to be of particular interest for the Portland effort is also included in Appendix 6. These four are Tampa Bay Water, San Diego County Water Authority, Greater Vancouver Regional District, and Tarrant (TX) Regional Water District. In Oregon, the staff identified five potential governance alternatives for consideration: :• Intergovernmental Agreements (Chapter 190) • Peoples' Utility Districts (Chapter 261) • Water Districts (Chapter 264) :• Regional Service Districts (Chapter 268, ORS) • Water Authorities (Chapter 450) IjJ( 24 Leanne I.e jeune Co setting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report These five alternatives offer a widely varying ability to fulfill the criteria outlined above. Each has its own political resonance in the Portland regional context, as well. No single governance alternative clearly achieves all of the criteria we have outlined. The managers' group reviewed information on entities around the country and in Oregon. It reviewed summary, preliminary information on the five alternative governance models provided by attorneys for several of the participants. In essence, the group used a process of elimination approach to arrive at its conclusions and recommendation. In the Recommendations section of this report, the managers suggest that a regional agency that could coordinate management and development of all the major water sources in the region should be our region's long-term objective. The managers recommend a specific first step to create a new agency under ORS 190 to manage and develop the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield supplies. Even if this Intergovernmental Organization approach for Portland's existing supplies were the final product of this effort, it would be worth undertaking. Some of the reasons for identifying this first step option are: The Region already has a Regional Service District (RSD) in METRO, which carries out a variety of regional activities and service under a variety of management structures. If this alternative were desired, it would probably be more efficient and effective to place water supply operations under METRO than to create a new RSD. The managers found little support for this approach among elected officials or the public. .• A PUD under Chapter 261 could achieve many of the goals outlined by our criteria. However, it is inconsistent with PUD concepts to operate a utility operation without actually owning the assets involved. It would be difficult if not impossible to assure representation of the establishing agencies on a PUD board. Establishing a PUD would require creating another elected body in the region. Most managers felt that a PUD had reasonable potential for achieving the criteria, but was politically more difficult to achieve than an ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement. In part, this is simply because Oregonians are more accustomed to 190 arrangements. There are only three water PUDs in Oregon. Creation of a new water district under ORS Chapter 264 was rejected as an alternative because it would be subject to withdrawals of customer base by cities in the Region, thus bringing its long-term stability into question. Moreover, a District could not assure representation of each participating agency on the Board. :• A Water Authority under ORS 450 could meet a number of the key criteria identified but suffers from shortcomings identical to those of a PUD. 25 Jeanne 1..e jeune Gon3utting I Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report An ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement approach has strengths and weaknesses, which are addressed briefly, in the Recommendations section of this report. For purposes of this general discussion, a few broad advantages recommend this model to the managers: 1. It is a familiar form to Oregonians which people understand and can work with; 2. It has great flexibility in the law and can be adapted by the terms of intergovernmental agreements to achieve more of our criteria than any other option. 3. It is relatively easy to make changes in ORS 190 agreements over time, as circumstances change and/or new members decide to join the entity. 4. An ORS 190 organization structure allows the creating agencies to have direct input and participation in the management of the agency. HT1.-� 26 Jeanne J.e jeune Co s sting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Recommendations and Next Steps After consideration of all the issues touched upon in this brief summary report, and considering the comments received from the public and from elected officials during this process, the water managers charged with investigation reached several conclusions: :• There is no likely scenario for change in the regional structure of water services that will serve the needs of all the agencies involved. Any further steps would need to be undertaken by and for those agencies that perceive a common interest in pursuing a given scenario. :• The professional judgment of the water managers group is that a new regional agency to manage and develop all of the major sources of water in the Portland area would be highly desirable. Such a move would make water supply and service more efficient and cost-effective. It would have substantial benefits to the environment and would represent good public policy. However, the managers recognize that it may not be feasible to step directly from the status quo to a full, multi-source regional agency. :• There is substantial interest among some agencies in pursuing an ORS 190 arrangement that would achieve many of the criteria outlined above for those agencies and could be a stepping stone to further regionalization in the future, should that be desired. + There is the potential among these interested agencies to create sufficient critical mass to enable a new agency to move forward successfully. :• Detailed analysis and review will be necessary to flesh out any possible scenario to the point that interested agencies could make final decisions on proceeding. "Front end" commitments to a final outcome would be unrealistic to expect until more details can be developed and understood. Given these basic conclusions, the managers see the potential for progress toward a new entity along these general lines: 1. Governance Interested parties would form the new agency under ORS 190 through intergovernmental agreements. In order to achieve the key criteria outlined above, the agreements would need to be drawn to give the new agency the maximum operational and governance independence consistent with the intergovernmental nature of the arrangement. An ORS 190 organization could leave assets, including water sources, under current ownership but could make their operational use subject to joint management and control. It would provide for representation by all the creating entities. By appointing elected officials from the creating entities to the new board, a direct connection to the public elective process could be maintained. LTA: 27 femme 1,e jeune Consulting + 'e Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report It will be necessary, if we proceed, to do more research on the limitations and potential of an ORS 190 organization to operate independently. The means by which such an entity could finance capital improvements, for example, must be clarified. We have not asked our attorneys to proceed to this level of investigation without a mandate to move forward in this process. 2. Water Sources The recommendation is that the sources for consideration under this new ORS 190 organization would be the Bull Run River and the Portland Wellfield. While major improvements in cost, effectiveness, and environmental management could be achieved by including more sources, this does not appear to be politically viable at this time. The recommendation is that participating entities would not be required to obtain all of their water through the new agency but would be required to establish firm purchase commitments in order to provide for fiscal stability and sound planning. These purchase commitments are envisioned to follow the model of "nomination of supply" that has been extensively discussed in Portland contract negotiations with its wholesale customers. Under this concept, members request an amount of water to be delivered from the agency over a given period. The agency balances the total of these requests and rationalizes them. Each participant is then provided with an assurance of receiving supply that will not fall below the floor of his or her nominated amount. 3. Services Core services would be supply, treatment, and transmission of Bull Run and South Shore Wellfield water to member agencies and to wholesale purchasers. Flexibility would be included to allow member agencies to place other functional aspects of their water utility operations within the new agency, if desired. Such aspects might include laboratories, operations centers, distribution systems, business services, or any other aspect of their operations that were water-related or ancillary to water services. A "fire wall" could be created in the structure, we believe, that could isolate costs and benefits of services other than supply, treatment, and transmission if desired. I D 28 Leanne 1.e Ieune Consulting Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Progress Report Recommended Next Steps I. A meeting of elected officials and managers on January 24, 2002. The purpose of this meeting will be to gather the response and input of elected officials. Each participating entity would be asked to indicate whether or not they intend to continue with the effort to create a new entity along the lines recommended in this report. 2. Those entities wishing to proceed would enter into an agreement to move into a detailed planning phase of this process. Each would contribute toward the budget for that effort. The first task would be to develop a detailed work plan for research, analysis, documents, and other efforts needed to enable creation of the new organization. The water managers group has found this exploratory work to be important and suggestive of ways in which our region can begin to move toward improvements in water service for the future. We hope that this work will be useful as the elected officials of our region consider the alternatives before us. I1 Lai. 29 Jeanne j.,e lame Consulting .- Portland Tribune Tuesday,March 19,2002 NEWS A3 Group questions consortium Run : _. ,_ .... .,.f. ` '`z The letter was sent Friday to answered before the final deci- Sten's proposal took a major step reasoned these providers would Utilities review board the Portland City Council and Au- sion is made. forward Wednesday when the be willing to help pay the cost of "portlander ditor Gary Blackmer. "It is absolutely appropriate council approved an intergovern upgrading the system in exchange asks for benefits of city Among other things, the letter that the board is asking these mental agreement to develop a new for an ownership interest in it. -..should be . asks why Portland should not re- questions," said Sten, who is in organization called the Bull Run "The finances won't decide the giving up its control fain control of the system,what the charge of the city water bureau. Regional Drinking Water Agency. decision,but the finances will de- . reimbursed transfer will do to water rates and Sten promises that he will an- The group would be responsible for termine whether it can be done," for all the . ByJIM REDDEN whether the city will be reim swcr the board's letter and that providing clean water to more than Sten said. _,.' ... The Tribune . bursed for the hundreds of millions Portlanders will have many 800,000 residents and businesses Sten said the council must de- money of dollars that have been spent on chances to review and comment throughout Clackamas,Multnom- cide whether to hoard water or they've � An official watchdog organi- the system in the last 100 years. on the plan before the council ah and Washington counties. work with the suburbs to plan a It IS zation is challenging city Corn- Chairman Jim Abrahamson said makes its final decision. Sten first proposed such an truly regional water system. But Spent and _ = absolute) missioner Erik Sten's proposal the review board may formally op- "There will be public hearings agency two years ago to help pay Abrahamson said Bull Run pro- there's no ' - .,---,,:.....,-,..7.,.: y to turn over control of Port- pose the transfer if it is not satis- on both the local and regional lev- for more than$800 million worth vides more than enough water to -=- appropriate land's water system to a new fled with the city's answers. els,"Sten said. of maintenance and improvement meet Portland's future needs.He guarantee ": regional agency. "We don't see how this benefits The council created the 15-mem- projects to the system,includingadded that the suburbs could be that the that will � . The executive committee of the city ratepayers,"Abrahamson said. ber board to safeguard the public the construction of a third dam in billed for all the improvements board is Portland Utilities Review Board "At the very least, Portlanders interest on utility rate issues.Most the watershed. necessary to meet their needs. happen." asking these has approved a letter with nine should be reimbursed for all the of the system has been built with Portland currently sells water "If the city wants to serve the —JimAbralkvnso, questions it says should be an- money they've spent, and there's water rate money.It includes two to 19 cities and supply agencies in suburbs,it could keep control of &Ries Rte, questions." swered before Portland gives up no guarantee that will happen." dams in the Bull Run Watershed, the tri-country region through a the Bull Run system and add on a Boardchaff, ,r —Erik Sten control of the Bull Run Water- Sten said the board is raising five storage reservoirs and hun- series of contracts that are due to charge to pay for whatever the shed and distribution system. legitimate questions that will be dreds of miles of distribution pipes. expire in the near future. Sten suburbs need,"Abrahamson said. - 1. A.K _ � :-Z' l'-'7,,,-7-: Sign-in Sheet for Tigard Water District Meeting January 28, 2002 Name (Please Print) Would you like to speak to the Board?