08/14/2002 - Packet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
REVISED D .
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order Moll Call and Introductions
Motion to call meeting to order, staff to take roll call.
2. Approval of Minutes—July 10, 2002
Motion from Board for minute approval.
3. Document Review— Tom Imdieke/Dennis Koellermeier(20 minutes)
a. Fees and Charges
b. Tigard Municipal Code
4. Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency—Ed Wegner/Joyce Patton (20 minutes)
5. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report—Dennis Koellermeier(20 minutes)
a. Beaverton Intertie
b. Aquifer Storage and Recovery
6. Informational Items
Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed.
7. Public Comments
Call for any comments from public.
8. Non Agenda Items
Call for non-agenda items from Board. Next meeting date Sept. 11, 2002, at Water Auditorium.
9. Adjournment—Approximate time 7.00 p.m.
Motion for adjournment.
A light dinner will be provided.
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1)(d), (e), 69&(h)to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues and
to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. 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.
AGENDA ITEM#
FOR AGENDA OF August 27. 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Amending Resolution 02-06 by Amending, Exhibit A Thereto and
Increasing.Adding-, and Eliminating Certain Water Charges
PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke/Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council amend,add and eliminate certain water charges in the Fees and Charges Schedule to reflect
current practices and recoup actual costs?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Amend Fees and Charges Schedule to reflect the recommended changes.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Chapter 12.03 and 12.10 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides that fees and charges for water and related services
be established by Resolution of the City Council.
During the updating of TMC 12.03 and 12.10, Public Works and Finance staff reviewed current practices and
associated charges. Staff determined that the charges for temporary hydrant usage and meter disconnection were
not recouping the City's costs associated with providing these services. Also, the fees for Meter Out-of-Order Test
and Water Main Extensions were not included in the Fees and Charges Schedule (Resolution No. 02-06). The
current practice of after-hour reconnection of service due to disconnection of service from delinquent account(s) is
being discontinued due to low usage and high cost. The fee associated with this service needs to be removed from
the Fees and Charges Schedule.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Retain Fees and Charges Schedule as written.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Does not apply.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Resolution
Exhibit A attachment
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with this action.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 02-06 BY AMENDING EXHIBIT A THERETO AND
INCREASING, ADDING,AND ELIMINATING CERTAIN WATER CHARGES.
WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code 12.03 and 12.10 provides that fees and charges for water and water-
related services shall be established by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the current water charges are those set by Resolution No. 02-06 as shown in Exhibit A to that
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that existing charges for temporary hydrant usage, and meter
disconnection are not recouping the City's costs associated with providing these services; and
WHEREAS, the current fees for the Meter Out-of-Order Test and Water Main Extension were not included
in Resolution No. 02-06; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has approved discontinuation of the after-hour reconnection of service due to
disconnection of service from delinquent account(s); and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the increased and added fees as shown in Exhibit A are set at a level
designed to recover the City's costs without creating surplus revenues.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION Resolution 02-06 is hereby amended by amending Exhibit A to that resolution to read as
shown in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of 2002.
Mayor-City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder-City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 02 -_
Page 1
City of Tigard EXHIBIT A
Fees and Charges Schedule
Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date
PUBLIC WORKS-WATER
Booster Pump Charge $3.54/bimonthly 2/27/2001
3.89/bimonthly 10/01/2002-09/30/2003
4.12/bimonthly 10/01/2003-09/30/2004
4.37/bimonthly 10/1/2004
Customer Charge 4.00/bimonthly 2/27/2001
(Basic fee charged to customers to have the City deliver water.) 4.40/bimonthly 10/01/2002-09/30/2003
4.66/bimonthly 10/01/2003-09/30/2004
4.94/bimonthly 10/1/2004
Fire Hydrant Usage- Temporary
5/. x8 3/4"hydrant meter dem 60.00 9111200
3"hydrant meter dem 650.00 9/1/2002
3/4"double check valve deposit* 75.00 9/1/2002
2"double check valve deposit* 100.00 9/1/2002
*Deposit is refundable if returned in good condition t
Hook-up service 50.00 2/27/2001
Continued use 50.00/month 2/27/2001
Consumption I R I lss€,,sed '"'�T
Current irrigation water usaae 9/1/2002
rate per 100 cubic feet of water used
Fire Rates(Sprinklers) 2/27/2001
6"or smaller 17.00/month
8"or larger 22.50/month
Fire Service Connection 1,400.00+ 12%fee based 2/27/2001
on construction costs.
Meter Disconnection Actual labor and material 1�23A996
its+10% 9/112002
*Underlined fees are new and strikethroughs are old. 1
City of Tigard EXHIBIT A `
Fees and Charges Schedule
Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date
Meter Installation Fees
5/8"x 3/4" Meter 325.00 2/27/2001
1" Meter 500.00
1 1/2" Meter 850.00
2"Meter 1,000.00
3"or more Meter Actual Cost 5/23/2000
Meter Out-of-Order Test Meter calibration cost+ actual 9/1/2002
labor and material costs+ 10%
Sanitary Sewer Service 6/6/2000
(City receives 21.4%of fees collected)
Base Charge 15.58/dwelling unit/month
Use Charge 1.08/100 cubic feet/month for individual
customer winter average
Storm and Surface Water 6/6/2000
(City receives 75%of fees collected)
Service Charge 4.00/ESU/month
Water Disconnection Charge for Non-payment 2/27/2001
During business hours 50.00
After hours, holidays and weekendsa 99:89
Water Line Construction-New Development 12%of Actual Cost 2/27/2001
Water Main Extension
Designed and installed by others 12%of Actual Cost 9/1/2002
Water Usage Charges
Residential 1.56/100 cubic feet of water 2/27/2001
1.71/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2002 -09/30/2003
1.81/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2003 -09/30/2004
1.92/100 cubic feet of water 10/1/2004
Multi-Family 1.54/100 cubic feet of water 2/27/2001
1.69/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2002 -09/30/2003
2.04/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2003-09/30/2004
2.16/100 cubic feet of water 10/1/2004
'Underlined fees are new and strikethroughs are old. 2
City of Tigard EXHIBIT A
Fees and Charges Schedule
Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date
Commercial 1.81/100 cubic feet of water 2/27/2001
1.99/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2002-09/30/2003
2.11/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2003 -09/30/2004
2.24/100 cubic feet of water 10/1/2004
Industrial 1.50/100 cubic feet of water 2/27/2001
1.65/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2002-09/30/2003
1.75/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2003-09/30/2004
1.86/100 cubic feet of water 10/1/2004
Irrigation 1.93/100 cubic feet of water 2/27/2001
2.12/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2002 -09/30/2003
2.25/100 cubic feet of water 10/01/2003-09/30/2004
2.39/100 cubic feet of water 10/1/2004
*Underlined fees are new and strikethroughs are old. 3
AGENDA ITEM#
FOR AGENDA OF August 27. 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.03 (Billing and Collection of Utility Charges)
of the Tigard Municipal Code Clarifying Procedures in the Collection of Utility Charges and Making Appropriate
Name and Title Changes.
PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council amend Tigard Municipal Code(TMC) 12.03 to reflect current procedures in the collection of
utility charges; discontinue after-hour reconnection of service; and reflect the name change of Unified Sewerage
Agency to Clean Water Services and the title of City Administrator to City Manager?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Amend TMC 12.03 to reflect the recommended changes.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In addition for the need to update TMC 12.03 to reflect the name change of Unified Sewerage Agency to Clean
Water Services and the title change of City Administrator to City Manager, there are clarifications and changes
being recommended to the procedures for the billing and collection of utility charges. The recommendation
includes the following changes and clarifications:
• 12.03.010-Adds the word sanitary in front of sewer to clarify reference.
• 12.03.020 - Clarifies the distribution of collections between funds so that it is proportionate among surface
water management, sanitary, and water when there are partial payments of a utility bill.
• 12.03.030 (d) - There are several methods for a customer to make a payment now, each should be checked
before the cutoff date and time for shutoff.
• 12.03.030 (e) - Clarifies collection of disconnection charge and discontinues the practice of after-hour
reconnection. Service would be reinstated if the customer pays any delinquent charges by 5:00 p.m. on the
shutoff day.
• 12.03.030(f)-No change other than clarifying existing procedure.
• 12.03.050 (a) -Clarifies and simplifies language for the returned check charge. No change in fee.
• 12.03.050 (b) - Clarifies that repair and maintenance of water meters is the responsibility of current owner and
not initial purchaser.
• 12.03.060 - (a), (b), and (c) - Increases the level of authority to which adjustments can be made to reflect the
increase in costs that have occurred since the last revision of the code.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Retain TMC 12.03 as written.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Does not apply.
ATTACHMENT LIST
TMC 12.03, showing the recommended changes.
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with this action.
CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.02-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12.03 (BILLING AND COLLECTION OF UTILITY CHARGES) OF
THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CLARIFYING PROCEDURES IN THE COLLECTION OF UTILITY
CHARGES AND MAKING APPROPRIATE NAME AND TITLE CHANGES.
WHEREAS, the municipal code references the Unified Sewerage Agency and the name of the Agency was recently
changed to Clean Water Services;and
WHEREAS, the municipal code references the position of City Administrator and this position is now titled City
Manager;and
WHEREAS,the municipal code references procedures that are out-of-date and no longer apply;and
WHEREAS, after-hour reconnection of service due to disconnection of service from delinquent account(s) is no
longer recommended due to low frequency and cost.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Tigard Municipal Code 12.03 is amended to reflect current procedures in the billing and
collection of utility charges; the name and title change of Unified Sewerage Agency to Clean
Water Services; and City Administrator to City Manager; and the practice of after-hours
reconnection of service is discontinued,as shown in Attachment A.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the
Mayor,and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title
only,this day of 52002.
Catherine Wheatley,City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 12002.
James E. Griffith,Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 02--
Page 1
ATTACHMENT A
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 12.03 BILLING AND COLLECTION
OF UTILITY CHARGES.
Sections:
12.03.010 Definitions.
12.03.020 Rates,Charges,Fees,Penalties,
Collections.
12.03.030 Delinquent Collection
Procedures.
12.03.040 Delinquency Collection
Procedures-Sewer Only
Customers.
12.03.050 Other Fees And Charges.
12.03.060 Utility Charge Adjustments
And Payment Agreements.
12.03.070 Customer Appeal Process.
12.03.010 Definitions.
(a) Utility Charges.
Any combination of water service charges,
sanitary sewer service charges, surface water
charges or other fees and charges authorized by
the 'Tigard City Council or the Unified Sewer-age
AgenGy Clean Water Services imposed on users
of utility services.
(b) Delinquent.
Utility charges not paid by the due date specified
on the bill for such charges are considered
delinquent.
(c) User.
User shall mean any person who uses property
which maintains connection to, discharge to, or
otherwise receives services from the City's storm,
surface water, sanitary sewer or water systems.
The occupant of occupied property is deemed the
user. If the property is not occupied, the person
who has the right to occupy it shall be deemed the
user.
12-03-1 SE Update: 12101
ATTACHMENT A
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
12.03.020 Rates, Charges, Fees,Penalties, (c) Shut off Notice - For those utility
Collections. charges not paid by the due date stated on the
reminder notice, a shut off notice shall be hung on
(a) Unified Sewenage n genGy Clean Water the front door of the dwelling or place of business
Services Resolution and Order number 95-34 and at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled actual shut
Ordinance Number 26,27,28,and 29 as amended off. The City shall maintain a list of all shut off
are hereby adopted by reference and shall be in notices indicating the time and location the notice
full force and effect as part of this municipal code. was placed and by whom. The shut off notice
shall state the amounts and types of charges past
(b) Collections from utility customers will due and the date and time such charges must be
be applied first to interest, penalties or other fees paid to avoid actual shut off of services.
and charges, then proportionately among the rest
of charges for services billed or as provided by (d) Shutoff Procedure - All accounts
contract with Clean Water Services. te-Suifaee determined to be unpaid 48 hours after a shut off
Water- ^h.,rges then to Sanitary Sewer ^har-ges notice has been placed on the premises shall be
and finally to Water-^har^ec listed and scheduled for shut off. The 48 hours
shall be counted on business days only and shall
(c) All Fees and Charges set forth in this not include Holidays or weekends. On the day
chapter shall be set by resolution by the Tigard scheduled for shutoff, the drop bei daily
City Council. payments shallbeopened and the days mail
ripts will be reviewed to determine if any
12.03.030 Delinquent Collection applicable payments have been received. The list
Procedures. as amended will then be delivered to the
appropriate crew members who will then shut off
(a) Billing Cycle - Utility charges will be and lock those meters on the lista
billed to users every other month or as water
meters are read. Utility bills will be placed in the (e) Water Disconnection Charge for Non-
United States Mail after the water meter is read or Payment - A charge will
60 days after the prior billing for non water be added to each account that has not been paid
customers. Such utility bills shall state the prior to the time indicated on the shut off
amounts and types of charges included in the bill notice been shut e ff b e feFe wat ^^^ e
and shall state the due date for the utility charges. F-eeenneeted. The charge covers all costs
Such due date shall not be less than 14 days from associated with the delinquent collection process.
the date bills are mailed. The sparge-overs the, lest of the. delinquent
colleetieff process-and the-Gest-of the actual
(b) Reminder Notice - For those Utility tun=ing-0€f and—en of the—nor. The
Charges not paid by the due date, a reminder lotion charge shall apply even if actual shut
notice will be sent to the customer. The Notice off is not performed due to the payment of the
shall state the amounts and types of charges past past due balance made to the crew member in the
due and the date by which such charges must be field or in the office just prior to shut off. The
paid to avoid turn off procedures. The reminder eetien eha ge shall be greater- for
notice shall be placed in the United States Mail resc�mee-tion requested after newmal -operating
not less than 14 days after the original due date on hours and on •_eekeads Water service will be
the original bill. reconnected the same day as disconnection if the
outstanding bill and related charges are paid in
12-03-2 SE Update: 12101
ATTACHMENT A
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
full by 5:00 PM. If payment is not made prior to using the following collection methods in lieu of
5:00 PM the customer's water will not be the shutoff procedure set forth in 12.03.020 (c),
reconnected until the next regular business day. (d), (e):
No water will be reconnected after normal
operating hours or on weekends. (a) Delinquent utility charges may be
collected through the use of a collection agent.
(f) Meter Disconnection Charge - A The Finance Director or designee shall have the
Charge shall be added to each account in which a authority to select a collection agent and sign
meter is turned off and locked for non payment if necessary documents.
the customer or other party cuts the lock and turns
the meter back on without prior approval of the (b) Delinquent utility charges may be
City. in addition to the to^v ehar- the The meter collected by filing a claim in the appropriate
will be removed from the ground and the water court. The Finance Director shall have the
service capped off. Water service shall not be authority to request pursuit of such claims by the
reconnected until the customer has paid the past City Attorney and shall have the authority to sign
due utility charges including the ro"^^^e^*i^^ and file necessary documents.
charge- water disconnection charge, the leek
charge and the meter disconnection charge_,-a*d (c) Delinquent utility charges may be
eim-,unseaa the Gity rn.- the ce-st of re-m,,,,;„„ and collected by turning the uncollected balance over
reinstalling-the meter- en.—t...--and-materials to the Washington County Tax Assessor for
basis. inclusion on tax bills as allowed by ORS 454-225
454.225. This method of collection shall only be
(g) Multifamily Housing collection process used if the user of the services being billed is also
- When accounts for multifamily housing the owner of the premises connected to the
complexes using master meters rather than system. The owners approval must be received in
individual meters becomes delinquent, the writing allowing the turnover. Accounts being
company or individual responsible for payment of collected in this manner shall be charged a
the utility bills shall be notified of the past due turnover fee and shall be turned over to the
status of the account in the normal process set Assessor each year by July 15.
forth in section 12.03.030. However, in lieu of
the shut off procedure, the responsible party shall (d) Delinquent utility charges may also be
be notified in writing that the shutoff procedure collected by disconnecting utility services.
will be followed if the delinquent utility charges Disconnection may involve the physical
are not paid within thirty days. Notification will disconnection of incoming or outgoing utility
also be made to all tenants known by the City to service pipes and facilities. Disconnection shall
the extent possible. Accounts not paid within the only be pursued with the approval of the City
thirty days will be notified and turned off in Manager Actual costs of
accordance with section 12.03.030(c)and (d). disconnection shall be calculated and must be paid
by the utility service user before reconnection is
12.03.040 Delinquency Collection established.
Procedures- Sewer Only
Customers. 12.03.050 Other Fees And Charges.
For utility charges on accounts without water (a) Returned Check Charge - A charge will
service, delinquent amounts may be collected be added to accounts for any checks returned from
12-03-3 SE Update: 12101
ATTACHMENT A
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
the bank unpaid for any reason. The charge shall
be set by resolution of the City Council. Upon (a) The Finance Director or designee shall
etumed ..he^L staff v.611 ea t^^t the have the authority to waive utility charges up to
.,,
st^ e,. and ^w if they would prefer- to have the $250.00 $50.00. Such waiver may be made
sheGk redeposited, Y-eplaeed by another check, based upon a written request from the customer
sash of meney order, if t - oaeposite Ghee and for good cause. Good cause may include but
ed h the h^„v an add;*:^„^i ^h is not limited to correction of user or account
=,
he added to the ^^,.,,uat The vei^ted payment information, failure of the City to send a bill,
^.,„i;ed to the ^^^ „„* ,=,:ii he „o,-sad and *ho demonstrated failure of a user to receive a bill,
obligation for-the utility^h^,-gee will be..°:„stated correction of measurement of either fixture units
e fte, he, . t,.RWA t,=,:,.e f 0m the- h^.,v
,��=-a-�n�,�--is�e«-���..�� �=o... �.z� oa�.�� or equivalent service units and adjustments to the
unpaid f- any ash o ^.de, v.411 time in which requester became the user. Waivers
he required to avoid the-t,,,. off p-eeed„reF_ may include returned check charges,
disconnection resennestien charges or utility
(b) Repair or replacement of neA charges. The Fin-Ance-Bire6tor shall make a
oenstmetiierr water meters and services - Once quarterly repeA to the---City—Adninis#ate
installed, new meters ^'^^ed Fr- now ~ '^ ^t'^^ 4xdioating-all-sash waivers giving-theme
ill he the sibil:t=. of the fnetef: ., rehase, and reasons amounts wer-e waived.
Any any costs associated with the repair or
replacement of damaged or missing meters and (b) The City Manager or
services will be charged to the original Mete'" designee shall have the authority to waive utility
pur-ehase- owner of the property. Such costs may charges up to 500.00 $250.00. Such waiver must
include but are not limited to gaskets, meter be made based upon a written request from the
boxes, lid inserts, meters, pressure regulator customer and for good cause as defined in
valves and related labor,equipment,vehicles, and subsection(a). Good Gause may include but is not
materials. limited to eer-restien of user or- aseount
.,f:,..,=.,tio failure of the Gity t send a hili
12.03.060 Utility Charge Adjustments demonstrateda-4-1re of a user to reseive a bill,
And Payment Agreements. Gefreetien of measurement feither- fixilive unit.,
equivalent ^ nits and adjustments t„ the
Errors in billing or collection shall be corrected in time h' h requester- heeame the usen The
a timely manner by the City. Resulting credits on City Manager shall receive a
accounts or refunds shall be made as written report of findings from staff and then
expeditiously as possible. Disputed billings or weigh the evidence presented by the customer and
other collection transactions shall be dealt with as the staff before making any such waiver.
follows:
(c) Any requests to waive utility charges
In recognition of the tev.stempe of- need for above $500.00 $250.00 shall be made in writing
exceptions to normal GiFGumstanres in some to the Intergovernmental Water Board. The
cases, AutheFivy authori is granted as follows for Finance Director or designee may schedule the
adjustments to utility charges and to the request on the next available agenda and so notify
implementation of payment agreements. All the customer at least one week in advance. All
waivers granted under 12.03.060 (a) (b) shall be materials related to the request shall be made
reported to the Intergovernmental Water Board available to the Board and the customer may be
each month upon their request. allowed to make a presentation to the Board at the
12-03-4 SE Update: 12101
ATTACHMENT A
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
discretion of the Board Chairman.
(d) The Finance r- Camay enter
into a payment agreement with a customer to
facilitate the payment of delinquent utility
charges. Such agreements shall not exceed the
term of three years, current charges must be paid
when due, and the agreement must be signed by
both parties and must be a legally binding
agreement. Breach of such an agreement by the
customer shall result in further collection efforts.
Payment agreements for amounts over$10,000:80
must be approved by the Tigard City Council.
12.03.070 Customer Appeal Process.
(a) Customers shall have the right to appeal
billing decisions made by staff. If a customer is
not satisfied with a decision, the customer may
appeal to the Finance Director within fourteen
days of the decision in writing explaining the`
issue and justification for the customers position.
Finance Director decisions may be appealed to the
City Manager Admiaistr-ate-r- within fourteen days
of the decision in a similar fashion. City Manager
Ad-M-iffl-i-st-r-at-OF decisions may be appealed within
fourteen days of the decision to the
Intergovernmental Water Board. Board decisions
are considered final. (Ord.96-02). ■
12-03-5 SE Update: 12101
i
AGENDA ITEM#
FOR AGENDA OF 8-27-02
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amend Tigard Municipal Code 12.10-Water System Rules&Regulations
PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK . CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Council amend Tigard Municipal Code(TMC) 12.10 to update several provisions of water service
to align municipal code requirements with current utility service practices and other TMC provisions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Amend TMC 12.10 to reflect the recommended changes.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
As part of the continuing effort to update the Tigard Municipal Code, certain changes are being
recommended to the water system rules and regulations section of the TMC. These changes are being
recommended to
• Better clarify roles and responsibilities of water customers
• Delete code sections relating to operational procedures or practices which no longer apply
• Align code provisions with current business practices that have evolved over time.
Specifically,changes are being proposed to the following sections;
• Application for Service(12.10.010)
• Service Size(12.10.030)
• Separate Connections(12.10.040)
• Service Pipe Standards and Maintenance(12.10.060)
• Jurisdiction of Water System(12.10.080)
• Temporary Discontinuance of Service(12.10.140)
• Service Connection Maintenance(12.10.160)
• Main Extensions (12.10.170)
• Illegal Use of Fire Hydrant or Meter(12.10.240)
Staff is also recommending the addition of section 12.10.045 titled Master Metering, and the deletion of
sections Fire Hydrants (12.10.220) and Main Extensions, (12.10.170.A and B.) These changes were
considered by the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) at their August 14, 2002 meeting. Upon adoption
of these changes by the City Council, the IWB will need to adopt identical changes to their "Rules and
regulations"so all customers in the Tigard Water service area are under the same criteria.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Retain TMC 12.10 as written
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
TMC 12.10 - Water System Rates and Regulations
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with this action.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 02-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12.10 WATER SYSTEMS RULES AND REGULATIONS
OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.10 of the Tigard Municipal Code establishes the rules and regulations for the
Water system; and
WHERAS, there are code sections relating to operational procedures and practices which no longer apply
that need to be deleted; and
WHEREAS, changes are needed to Chapter 12.10 of the TMC to clarify roles and responsibilities of water
customers; and
WHEREAS,code provisions need to align with current business practices that have evolved over time.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Coucil does hereby amend Chapter 12.10 of the Tigard Municipal Code
as shown in the attached Exhibit"A".
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only,this day of,2002.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2002.
James E. Griffith,Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 02-
Page 1
Attachment#I
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 12.10 WATER SYSTEM RULES 12.10.300 Findings And Declaration Of A
AND REGULATIONS. Water Emergency.
12.10.310 Levels Of Prohibition.
Sections: 12.10.320 Enforcement.
12.10.330 Penalties.
12.10.010 Application For Service. 12.10.340 Water Shut-Off.
12.10.020 Use Of Water. 12.10.350 Definition.
12.10.030 Service Size.
12.10.040 Separate Connection. 12.10.010 Application For Service.
12.10.045 Master Metering
12.10.050 Furnishing Water. No service will be supplied or water
12.10.060 Private Service Pipes. furnished to any premises without customer first
12.10.070 Credit For Water Leaks. requesting service with the Cit_exeept-*q3�ee
12.10.080 Jurisdiction. wr-it4ea appheatien en printed fet:ms of the City.
12.10.090 Waste-Plumbing-Inspection. (Ord. 93
12.10.100 Physical Connections With
Other Water Supplies Or 12.10.020 Use Of Water.
Systems.
12.10.110 Cross Connection Control Water will be furnished for ordinary
Program. domestic, business and community purposes, and
12.10.120 Payment-Delinquency. fire protection only. No water will be furnished
(Repealed By Ord.96-02). for the direct operation of steam boilers,
12.10.130 Water Rates. machinery or golf courses, except on an
12.10.140 Discontinuance Of Service. interruptible basis, and the City will assume no
12.10.150 Interrupted Service-Changes responsibility therein. (Ord. 93-34)
In Pressure.
12.10.160 Service Connection 12.10.030 Service Size.
Maintenance.
12.10.170 Main Extensions. A stmdafd ee-ee eetiefl, with 5/8"X
12.10.180 Limitation On The Use Of "^" meter-, it be installed ffem the main to the
Water.
12.10.190 Temporary Or Transient
Service.
12.10.200 Construction Water. . The-size—ef inete- shall be
12.10.210 Meter Out-Of-Order-Test.
12.10.220 Fire Hydrants. shall pr-eser-ibe the number- of buildings t be
12.10.230 Fire Hydrant-Temporary Use. sem=ea� one meter---a-ad stlehdeteftion
12.10.240 Illegal Use Of Fire Hydrant Or shall be final. Thie eusteme- shall f6fa s water-to
Meter. any family,btisiness, insfitutieft,
12.10.250 Amendments-Special Rules- ,
Contracts. , tha4 the City Geuneil may perfflit -a
12.10.260 Grievances. '
12.10.270 The Public Works Director And iee eenneetien, in whieh event seeh e•s.,.-..,...
Authorized Representatives.
12.10.280 Power To Grant Variances.
12-10-1 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
pefmit may be revoked and sepafate sefviee
eenneetions FeEfair-ed at my fifne. (Or-d. 93 34)
Unon the application for new water service, and
payment of all charges- the City will install a
service connection and meter of such size and
location as approved by the Public Works
Department. Meter and water service pjning shall
be sized as using the fixture count method as
described in the State of Oregon Uniform
Plumbing Code. The minimum size of any water
meter. which connects to the city water system,
shall be five-ei,gths/three-fourths inch.
In new subdivisions, the City may allow the
installation of water mains, valves, hydrants and
water services by the developer as a part of
improvements,as described in this chapter
12-10-2 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
12.10.040 Separate Connection. areas not now served by the City will be made at
the expense of those persons requesting service.
A separate service connection will be Such extensions will be made by the City or by
required for each dwelling, apartment or motel, those expressly authorized by the City. All
place of business, and institution. All outlying applications for line extensions to provide new
buildings and premises used as a part of such service are subject to review by the City Council.
dwelling place or business or institution may be Consideration will be given to the City's ability to
served from such connection, as well as all serve and to eligibility for annexation to the City
buildings on such premises operated under the one of the property to be served. The City may
management. City shall prescribe the number of contract with other governmental entities for the
buildings to be served from one meter and such provision of water. The terms of service will be
determination shall be final. No eust mer— shall defined by agreement and consistent with the
aµ nh atef t� ` it b `it terms of this h )
____� ::�L,I = ', ", s C apter. (Ord. 93-34
ether- than these eeettpied b, that
12.10.060 Private Serviee Pipes. Service
Pipe Standard and
thfetigh ettst;,IIef:'s seFvzGePefflaflieettie . rin m4;iA Maintenance.
nhar-g..a an
addi4 l
menthly fninimufn
fef
e additional
4
supplied. 9tteh petit may be r-e-veked anamust be installed in aeeer-danee with geed
(Ofd. 93 34) ettstemer. Pipes nitist be laid 24
inehes deep, provided with a step and waste valve
12.10.045 Master Metering. €ar—drainage, a-a all stria'dpipes of fittings e f any
kind must be so ,
aneher-ed a*d installed as
The Ci may permit the master metering of
more than one water service The owner shall pipes must be well pr-eteeted ffem ffeezing. (04
designate the ,person who will be responsible for 93-34)
the payment of all water charges and will accept Service pipes of all sizes, within or without
service of all water related notices If any the premises, whether for domestic, commercial
payment is not made in full when due the City or fire protection purposes, must be materials
may terminate service even if partial payment is quality, class, and size as specified by the state
tendered by other occupants of the premises. plumbing code or regulations of the City.
The service pipe within the premises and
12.10.050 Furnishing Water. throu2hout its entire length to the water meter or
to the properly line if the water meter is set behind
The City shall not be obligated to furnish and the propea line, must be kept in repair and
install, at its expense, system facilities for all protected from freezing at the expense of the
property within the City. The City shall, so far as customer, lessee, or agent, who shall be
reasonable and practicable and within its financial responsible for all damages resulting from leaks
means, however, provide adequate source of or breaks,
supply, necessary primary feeder mains, storage 12.10.070 Credit For Water Leaks.
facilities and other improvements necessary to
make water service generally available to all areas When a water leak occurs on the customer's
within the City. Extensions to furnish water to side of the water meter resulting in an unusually
12-10-3 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
high water bill, customers may apply for a credit. building permit and where pressures may become
The credit is limited to the difference between the high on 5/8" x 3/4" and V meters, a pressure
average wholesale cost of water multiplied by the regulator may be installed at the meter by the City
number of water units estimated to have leaked, to control varying pressures. (On meters 1 1/2"
and the total amount of the water bill less normal and larger, customer is responsible for installing a
usage. The average wholesale cost of water is the pressure regulator.) The City will not be
per unit average cost of water as established by responsible for damage from varying pressures.
the Intergovernmental Water Board at the The Public Works Director or authorized person
beginning of each fiscal year. The application to may inspect pipes and plumbing at proper times.
the City for the credit must be in writing and must (Ord. 93-34)
include proof of the leak being fixed within 10
days of discovery of the leak. 12.10.100 Physical Connections With
Other Water Supplies Or
Any applications for credits greater than this Systems.
code section allows will be considered by the
Intergovernmental Water Board. (Ord. 96-39; Neither cross connections nor physical
Ord. 96-02; Ord. 93-34) connections of any kind shall be made to any
other water supply, whether private or public,
12.10.080 Jurisdiction of Water System. without the written consent and approval of the
City Council, and the written approval of the
All sen4ee eenneetions, -ne+er-9, mains and Oregon State Board of Health. (Included in this
category are all pipe lines, appurtenances and
exeept the pipes beyend the meter-, are the facilities of the City system and all pipes,
appurtenances, pumps, tanks, storage reservoirs,
eentfel. Ne per-sea ether- than the Publie Weriks facilities, equipment, appliances, etc., of other
Direetef of ftther-ized per-sen shall install any systems whether located within or on public or
private property, or the premises of a water
effi, or- ether-wise tamper- er- inteffer-e with the customer.)
The operation and repair of the City's water The City's Public Works Director or other
system, including pipes. valves, pumas, authorized representative shall have the right, at
reservoirs. fixtures. etc, is the complete all reasonable times, to. enter upon private
responsibility of the City's Public Works property to inspect the premises of customers for
Department. No plumber, contractor, or other physical connections with other water supplies.
person will be allowed to connect to or operate However, before entering upon private property,
any part of the City's water system up to and the Public Works Director or other authorized
including the water meter. representative shall obtain the consent of an
12.10.090 Waste-Plumbing-Inspection. occupant or a warrant of the Municipal Court
authorizing entry for the purpose of inspection.
Water will not be furnished to premises Any such connection shall be removed by the
where it is allowed to run or waste to prevent customer within ten days after written notice to
freezing or through defective plumbing or remove is given by the City. If not removed
otherwise. Plumbing should be of high test and within the time specified, the City may remove or
first class and in conformance with the discontinue any connection which it may have for
appropriate codes of the jurisdiction issuing the servicing the property.
12-10-4 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Rules,Ch. 333-61.070).
No search warrant shall be issued until an
affidavit has been filed with the Municipal Court C. It shall be the objective of the City to
showing probable cause for the inspection by protect the potable water system from
stating the purpose and extent of the proposed contamination or pollution due to cross
inspection citing this Chapter as the basis for the connections. Water service to any premises shall
inspection whether it is an inspection instituted by be contingent upon the customer providing cross
complaint or other specific or general information connection control in a manner approved by the
concerning physical connections with water City. Backflow devices required to be installed
supply systems violations. shall be a model approved by the Oregon State
Health Division.
No person shall interfere with or attempt to
prevent the Public Works Director or other D. Authorized employees of the City with
authorized representative from entering upon proper identification shall have free access at
private premises and inspecting the property when reasonable hours of the day to those parts of a
an emergency exists or the Public Works Director premise or within buildings to which water is
or authorized representative exhibits a warrant supplied. Water service may be refused or
authorizing entry. (Ord. 93-34) terminated to any premise for failure to allow
necessary inspections.
12.10.110 Cross Connection Control
Program. E. These requirements must be strictly
observed as a matter of public health and to
The purpose of this section is to protect the prevent any possible contamination of the water
water supply of the City from contamination or system. (Ord. 93-34)
pollution from potential cross connections; and to
assure that approved backflow devices are tested 12.10.120 Payment-Delinquency.
annually as follows: (Repealed by Ord. 96-02).
A. The installation or maintenance of any (Repealed by Ord. 96-02, Ord. 96-02; Ord. 93-34)
cross connection which would endanger the water
supply of the City is prohibited. Any such cross 12.10.130 Water Rates.
connection now existing or hereafter installed is -
hereby declared unlawful and shall be rectified as All rates, fees and charges shall be set by
directed by the City or its authorized resolution of the Tigard City Council. (Ard.-93-
representative(s). 34)
B. The control or elimination of cross 12.10.140 Temporary Discontinuance Of
connections shall be in accordance with the Service.
regulations of Oregon State Health Division. The Temoorary discontinuance of service for 30
policies, procedures, and criteria for determining days or more will r with har
appropriate levels of protection shall be in open when the customer notifies the City of date
accordance with the Accepted Procedure and of intent, time period of discontinuance vffit4eft
Practice in Cross Connection Control Manual, appliemien, witheut ehafge, and provided all bills
Amer. Water Works Association, Pacific are paid. (Ord. 93-34)
Northwest Section, current edition (OR Admin.
12-10-5 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
12.10.150 Interrupted Service-Changes and s ,
In Pressure. ,
The water may be shut off at any time for `r stieh main e-xteasiens is ade
repairs or other necessary work with or without
notice. Conditions may cause a variation of the B. Designed by Others, installed by the
pressure. The City will not be responsible for any City:
damage caused by interruption of service or
varying pressure. When service is interrupted,hot When design or- supefvisien e
water faucets should be kept closed to prevent
backflow of hot water or steam. (Ord. 93-34) heensed engineers, subjeet to approval by the
Gity, Emd installed by the City, a fee shall be pai
12.10.160 Service Connection , ' ,
Maintenance. sampling,
The City will maintain all standard service , shall be deposited with the Gity when
connections in good repair without expense to the
customers. Each customer is required to use
reasonable care and diligence to protect the water C. Designed and Installed by Others.
meter and meter box from loss or damage by
freezing, hot water, traffic hazards, and other When design or supervision of
causes, in default of which, such customer shall installation of improvements is performed by
pay to the City the full amount of the resulting licensed engineers, and installation is performed
damage. and paid for by others, subject to approval by the
City, a fee in accordance with the Fees and
Each customer is required to maintain Charges Schedule shall be imposed. ef 129; o
vegetation and other obstruction free zone of a
minimum of two feet around the meter box. Clear .
access to the meter shall be from the street side in
a direct path to the water meter. Failure to Size of such extensions, type of pipe,
maintain the area will result in City personnel location, gate valves, fixtures, fire hydrants and
clearing the area to meet the City's meter reading other fittings shall be under City specifications
and maintenance needs. Customer will be and subject to City approval, and such mains shall
charged any related expenses of the City in be laid from the end of the existing main to the far
clearing the area. City shall have no liability for end of the property to be served. No lines or
trimming or maintaining vegetation in order to laterals shall be laid until the estimated cost
read meters. (Ord. 93-34) thereof, as hereinabove set forth, shall have been
deposited with the City. All such extensions of
12.10.170 Main Extensions. mains and laterals, and installation of fire hydrants
shall be the sole property of the City,without right
A. Designed and installed by the-Qt�- of immediate refund on the part of the person or
persons paying for such extension or on the part
All extensiens e f Mains and laterals of of any person or persons whomsoever. No
the City, and installed by the City, shall be paid extension of main will be permitted, accepted or
for-by the appheant at eest,phis 104; fer-ever-head- served by the City unless such line be at least a 6-
12-10-6 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
inch diameter pipe. Short extensions, such as cul-
de-sacs, can be of small diameter upon approval
of the City.
When a person is required to pay the
cost of extending a water main adjacent to
property other than that person's own so that water
service for domestic use is provided for such other
property without further extension of the water
main, the City shall require the owner of the other
property, prior to providing water service to that
property, to refund to the person required to pay
the cost of extending the water main, a pro rate
portion of the cost of extension. The right to
require such refund shall not continue for more
than 10 years after the date of installation of the
extension of the water main. The amount to be
refunded shall be determined by the City and such
determination shall be final.
Each construction contractor shall be
approved by the City's Public Works Director
prior to installing pipe lines, pumps, etc. Those
installations made by private contractors will be
thoroughly inspected and approved by the City to
ensure compliance with plans and specifications.
Back-filling of trenches prior to City approval is
unauthorized.
If water main extension is necessary to
serve an existing single family dwelling and the
main size required by the City is larger than a 6"
The expense of the installation across the front of
their property, plus the cost of the meterlwi 1 be
with the developer or owner requesting the
extension.
The developer or owner requesting the
construction project shall be liable for any added
cost due to design difficulties. Applicant(s) will
agree to be bound by and comply with the City's
main extension policy and rules and regulations
and any subsequent revisions or amendments to
same which may be made from time to time.
(Ord. 93-34)
12-10-7 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
12.10.180 Limitation On The Use Of 12.10.210 Meter Out-of-Order-Test.
Water.
If a meter shall fail to measure accurately,the
A. Limitation on the use of water as to bill shall be the average for the same periods in
hours,purpose, or manner may be prescribed from prior years. Tests will be made periodically
time to time by order of the Public Works without charge to the customer. A customer may
Director, based on a finding that the limitation is demand a test upon payment of a charge for such
reasonable given the available and projected water test. The rates, fees and charges for this test shall
supply and demand. Any order under this section be set by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 93-
shall be reviewed by City Council at its next 34)
session following issuance of the order. The City
Council may affirm,withdraw or amend the order..'0220 Fire Hydrants.
B. The Public Works Director, the City Fife hydr-Effits will be installed by the Gi�.,,
Manager or the City Council may call for
t of payment in advanee e fl.-
voluntary reductions in water use, including, but , an
not limited to,voluntary rotational watering plans. installafien,
(Ord. 0 1-15 §1, Ord. 93-34)
12.10.190 Temporary Or Transient 12.10.230 Fire Hydrant-Temporary Use.
Service.
Any person who desires to use a fire hydrant
Temporary or transient service for for temporary water supply must obtain
construction work will be rendered upon deposit permission of the City. The charge for temporary
in advance of connection charge and one month's use shall be set by resolution of the City Council.
estimated water bill, and payment on the first of Customer is responsible for repair and/or
each month of all accrued charges. Upon replacement of damaged meter. (Ord. 93-34)
discontinuance of service, refund will be made for
all connection materials usable by the City at their 12.10.240 Illegal Use Of Fire Hydrant Or
depreciated value, less the cost of removal and all Meter.
charges due. No temporary service shall be
installed for any residence or building where Connection to a
permanent service connection may later be fire hydrant or meter without proper authority is a
installed. (Ord. 93-34) $100 c Class 1 civil infraction. (Ord. 93-34)
12.10.200 Construction Water. 12.10.250 Amendments-Special Rules-
Contracts.
Rates, fees and charges for water used via a
permanent meter installation for construction The City may at any time amend, change or
purposes shall be set by resolution of the City modify any rule, rate or charge, or make any
Council. The charges shall be billed at special rule, rate or contract, and all water service
completion of construction, but shall not exceed a is subject to such power. (Ord. 93-34)
period of 6 months, unless authorized by the City.
(Ord. 93-34)
12-10-8 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
12.10.260 Grievances. failure or any other event, the City Council may
declare a water emergency and require that water
Any grievance as to service or complaints usage must be curtailed. The declaration shall
shall be made to the Public Works Director, who include the effective date, the reason for the
shall attempt to resolve the problem. Any declaration and the level of prohibition declared.
unresolved grievances as to service or complaints The City Council may include an estimated time
shall be reported and will be considered by the for review or revocation of the declaration. (Ord.
Intergovernmental Water Board at the Board's 01-15 §2)
next meeting. (Ord. 93-34)
12.10.310 Levels Of Prohibition.
12.10.270 The Public Works Director And
Authorized Representatives. A. Level I — Limited. The following
activities or actions are prohibited under a Level I
The Public Works Director or an authorized declaration:
representative are not authorized to make any
changes in these rules, rates, or regulations. (Ord. 1. Watering, sprinkling or irrigating
93-34) lawn, grass or turf; exceptions:
12.10.280 Power To Grant Variances. (a) New lawn, grass or turf that
has been seeded or sodded 90
A. Except when prohibited by subsection B days prior to declaration of a
of this section, upon application, the water shortage may be watered
Intergovernmental Water Board may grant as necessary until established;
variances from the water system rules and
regulations enacted by the City of Tigard when it (b) High-use athletic fields that
fords that: 1) strict application of the rules and are used for organized play;
regulations create undue economic hardship for
the applicant with no significant benefit to the (c) If the Level I declaration so
water system; 2) the variance requested has no provides, a mandatory
material adverse effect upon the water system and rotational watering plan may
it is consistent with established policies of the be imposed rather than an
Tigard City Council. absolute prohibition on
watering.
B. The Intergovernmental Water Board
may not grant variances relating to annexation of 2. Watering, sprinkling or irrigating
property, fire protection requirements, cross- flowers, plants, shrubbery, ground
connection requirements, fees, rates and charges. cover, crops, vegetation or trees
(Ord. 93-34) except from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m.
12.10.300 Findings and Declaration of a 3. Washing, wetting down or
Water Emergency. sweeping with water, sidewalks,
walkways, driveways, parking lots,
Upon finding that the municipal water supply open ground or other hard surfaced
is incapable of providing an adequate water areas; exceptions:
supply for normal usage due to a drought, system
12-10-9 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
(a) Where there is a and streams, unless the water is
demonstratable need in order recirculated through the decorative
to meet public health and water feature. Water features that
safety requirements, such as: do not include continuous or
to alleviate immediate fire or constant inflowing water are not
sanitation hazards; for dust included.
control to meet air quality
requirements mandated by the 6. Wasting water by leaving
Oregon Department of unattended hoses running.
Environmental Quality;
7. Water line testing and flushing in
(b) Power washing of buildings, connection with construction
roofs and homes prior to projects; exception:
painting, repair, remodeling or
reconstruction, and not solely (a) Testing and flushing of critical
for aesthetic purposes. water facilities.
4. Washing trucks, cars, trailers, 8. Other actions that the City Council
tractors and other land vehicles or determines should be restricted,
boats or other water-borne vehicles, consistent with a Level I situation,
except by commercial including any restriction or
establishments or fleet washing curtailment imposed on the City by
facilities which recycle or reuse the water suppliers or applicable law,
water in their washing processes or regulation or order.
by bucket and hose with a shut-off
mechanism; exception: B. Level lI — Moderate. The following
activities or actions are prohibited under
(a) Where the health, safety and a Level II declaration:
welfare of the public is
contingent upon frequent 1. Actions and activities prohibited in
vehicle cleaning, such as: to a Level I situation.
clean garbage trucks and
vehicles that transport food 2. Watering of any lawn, grass or turf,
and other perishables, or regardless of age or usage.
otherwise required by law.
Owners/operators of these 3. Watering, sprinkling or irrigating
vehicles are encouraged to flowers, plants, shrubbery,
utilize establishments that groundcover, crops, vegetation or
recycle or reuse the water in trees.
their washing process.
4. Washing of vehicles other than in
5. Cleaning, filling or maintaining establishments that recycle.
decorative water features,natural or
manmade, including, but not 5. Power washing of buildings,
limited to, fountains, lakes, ponds regardless of purpose,is prohibited.
12-10-10 SE/Code Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
6. Any additional actions that the City 12.10.330 Penalties.
Council determines should be
restricted consistent with a Level II A. First Violation—Warning letter.
situation.
B. Second Violation of the same type —
C. Level III — Severe. In addition to the Class 3 infraction$50.
restrictions imposed under Level I and
Level 11, the City Council may impose C. Third violation of the same type—Class
any other restriction on water use or 2 infraction$100.
activities that may require the need for
water supplies, consistent with the City D. Fourth and subsequent violations of the
water supply contracts. Activities that same type — Class 1 infraction $250.
may require the need for water supplies (Ord. 01-15 §5)
include fireworks displays and other
events that create a risk of fire. In 12.10.340 Water Shut-Off.
imposing a Level III restriction, the City
Council shall consider any restriction After the third violation of a curtailment
recommended by the Public Works restriction, the Public Works Director may order
Director or by any Fire District serving that the water service to the location where the
the City. (Ord. 01-15 §3) violation has occurred shall be shut-off or
reduced. A shut-off notice shall be posted on the
12.10.320 Enforcement. property at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled
shut-off or reduction. The shut-off notice shall
A. Warning. The City shall send a letter of specify the reasons for the shut-off or reduction.
warning for each violation of a Any person wishing to avoid a shut-off must
curtailment restriction if no previous provide the Public Works Director with evidence
letter of warning has been sent to the that the shut-off will create a health or safety risk.
person responsible for the violation. All shut-offs imposed under this section shall be
The letter of warning shall specify the temporary, not to exceed thirty (30) days,
violation, may require compliance provided the applicable charges are paid prior to
measures and shall be served upon the reconnection. The reconnection charge and, if
person responsible for the violation. applicable, the meter disconnection charge
Service may be in person, by office or imposed under Section 12.03.030 shall be paid
substitute service or by certified or before the reconnection. (Ord. 01-15 §6)
registered mail,return receipt requested.
12.10.350 Definition.
B. Civil Infraction. After the person
responsible for the violation has As used in Sections 12.10.180 through
received a warning letter, any 12.10.350:
subsequent violation shall be treated as
a civil infraction under Chapter 1.16. "Rotational watering plan" means a plan for
(Ord. 01-15 §4) watering lawns and/or gardens on specific days or
at specific times and not on other days or times.
A rotational watering plan may be voluntary or
mandatory. (Ord. 01-15 §7) ■
12-10-11 SE/Code Update: 12101
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order/Roll Call and Introductions
Motion to call meeting to order, staff to take roll call.
2. Approval of Minutes—July 10,2002
Motion from Board for minute approval.
3. Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency—Ed Wegner/Joyce Patton (20 minutes)
4. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report—Dennis Koellermeier(20 minutes)
a. Beaverton Intertie
b. Aquifer Storage and Recovery
S. Informational Items
Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed.
6. Public Comments
Call for any comments from public.
7. Non Agenda Items
Call for non-agenda items from Board. Next meeting date Sept. 11, 2002, at Water Auditorium.
8. Adjournment—Approximate time 7.00 p.m.
Motion for adjournment.
A light dinner will be provided.
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1) (d), (e), (fl& (h)to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues and
to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. 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.
Intergovernmental Water Board
Meeting Minutes
July 10, 2002
Members Present: Patrick Carroll, Bill Scheiderich, Jan Drangsholt, George
Rhine (for Norm Penner), and Joyce Patton
Staff Present. Ed Wegner, Dennis Koellermeier, Kathy Kaatz, and Richard
Sattler
Visitors: Roel Lundquist
1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes— June 12, 2002
Commissioner Patrick Carroll motioned to accept the minutes of the June 12, 2002,
Intergovernmental Water Board meeting and Commissioner Joyce Patton seconded the
motion. The vote to accept the minutes as presented was unanimous.
3. Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency— Ed Wegner/Joyce Patton
Mr. Wegner reported on the progress of the Phase II negotiations:
• Policy Steering Committee (PSC) made the decision on the asset list to be included
in "the system". Approval for"the system" consists of Powell Butte east to the
reservoirs on the mountains, including the Washington County Supply Line (Florence
Lane, etc. will go through the distribution system).
• After considerable deliberation the PSC recommended that the IGA 190 would be
the preferred option and one that could be changed or corrected in the future through
legislative action.
• The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met with representatives of the Legal,
Finance and Governance work groups to review the principles of agreement. A
completed second draft may not be ready before the next PSC meeting because
there are still many questions and principles to define. Some items may have
several options to negotiate, i.e., water rights, buy-in ranges or methodology.
• Copies of the media packets were distributed with information about the three
scheduled Open Houses. The same PowerPoint presentation will be given at all
three meetings and time will also be allocated for the public to address any questions
and comments. Public input will be presented at the PSC meeting in August.
• July 24, 2002, 6:30-8:30 p.m. —Tigard's Open House
• Gresham, on July 17th
• Portland, the week following Tigard's Open House
The media packet included Phase I summary, Phase II outline, and project overview.
Possible controversy may be between the 190 Agreement versus a PUD.
The Citizens for Safe Water group has joined with the Bull Run Heritage group and
another group to work together to promote the PUD. Several agencies (Rockwood
Intergovernmental Water Board 1 July 10,2002
DRAFT COPY
PUD and Sunrise Water Authority) would go by the wayside with the organization of
a PUD. Participating agencies wanted to keep their own identity and not create
another layer of government, which is why the 190 Agreement has been favored.
Commissioner Joyce Patton continued by stating that there has been an underlying
concern to slow down the process, to be deliberative and not jump to conclusions. The
governance discussion would help create the process slow down. The PSC meeting
had lengthy discussions regarding the governance issue. The representative from the
Tualatin Valley Water District had differing personal opinions from other TVWD
personnel. Following a recess to discuss the issues, several motions were proposed
and the second motion was unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Saltzman has been placed in charge of the Portland Water Bureau
instead of Commissioner Sten and he attended the PSC meeting for the first time. He
remained neutral through most of the discussions, however did vote in favor of
continuing. The members are ready to move forward with Phase II.
Mr. Wegner added that Commissioner Saltzman was given this new appointment without
the benefit of orientation from Commissioner Sten and was somewhat uncomfortable
because of that. However, Commissioner Sten has since spent a lot of time bringing
Commissioner Saltzman up-to-date on the issues. Commissioner Saltzman has
indicated he is comfortable in proceeding with the timeline and is in favor of remoyrfng all '= �77'
of the Water Bureau, including the distribution. All indications show that mome tum will
not slow down during the transition time.
Commissioner Jan Drangsholt asked what the agency enthusiasm was like. Mr. Wegner
stated that of the thirteen TAC members, at least ten are at the weekly meetings (some
not in attendance because of vacations) and all have a lot of enthusiasm. The PSC
meetings have good attendance (about 90%). Reviewing the agreement has generated
a lot of controversy; however, there have not been many negative vibrations.
4. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report— Dennis Koellermeier
Beaverton Intertie —The project is running ahead of schedule and on budget with no
apparent changes or problems. The Beaverton side of the pipeline is almost complete and
the Tigard side of the pipeline is about two-thirds complete.
ASR—The water quality tests have confirmed that the stored water meets potable water
limits. As of yesterday, ASR water was being used in the system at a rate of 700 gpm and
has been step tested up to 1000 gpm.
Water Rate Adjustment Proposal —The City Council acted on the issue and Resolution
information was distributed for reference. Billing stuffers will be distributed to Water
customers before the effective date and press releases are being prepared for publication.
Canterbury Hill — Monday night there was a `hiccup' in the pressure-sustaining pump,
which caused pressure inconsistency problems. The pump was switched to manual
operation while the problem was resolved. There were a few low-pressure complaints, but
no real problems or damage claims.
Intergovernmental Water Board 2 July 10,2002
DRAFT COPY
5. Summer Operating Plan— Richard Sattler
The summer supply plan and color graphs were distributed for review. Mr. Sattler stated
that the demand had greatly increased over the last few days with the 900 weather. He
indicated the document he distributed might seem familiar as it was produced last year.
Updated information was included in this handout about ASR water, conservation and
rebate programs, what the City of Tigard was doing to conserve water, the 24-hour
monitoring of the system and a list of staff from other agencies that could be contacted in a
water issue emergency.
Mr. Sattler explained the graphs and how forecasting and the historical demand data could
provide information on what to expect in months to come. He explained how we can track
on a daily basis the demand, temperature, each water source's information, storage
capacity and consumption, and explained how this helps us meet the summer demands.
Mr. Wegner invited anyone who was interested in observing how we keep track of all this
through our office computer to call Rich and arrange to visit him at the Public Works Office.
Mr. Koellermeier commented that in reviewing the plan he noted the statistic about the
number of days demand that would exceed capacity was listed at 25 days last year and it
has dropped to 10 days this year. The ASR project has allowed for this drop.
Commissioner Patrick Carroll asked if water would be pumped from the ASR well all
summer and Mr. Koellermeier stated that the plan was to pump continuously until all 97 mg
was utilized.
Commissioner Bill Scheiderich asked if there were any pending annexation areas that were
not already being serviced by the Tigard Water System. Mr. Koellermeier indicated that
King City was the next big annexation, however, they were included in the projections.
6. Informational Items
Informational items were distributed for review by the Board Members.
7. Public Comments— None
8. Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Wegner briefly reported on the time he and Mr. Koellermeier spent with the Indonesian
delegation. The tour included visits to the following:
• Hagg Lake —The dam raise was discussed, they met the Water Master and
operated some of the valves. The delegation was surprised and impressed
with the blue color and clearness of the lake water.
• Treatment Plant—The Indonesian plant is very old, built by the Dutch in 1934
or 1944, and they don't have funds for maintenance of their plant.
• Willamette Treatment Plant—A 3-hour tour of the new facility was provided.
Citizen involvement and participation was discussed, as well as successes and
failures, to help the delegation with the set up of their new government.
• Park tour
Intergovernmental Water Board 3 July 10,2002
DRAFT COPY
• Wastewater Treatment Plant—The Indonesians have corrosion problems with
their plant and distribution/transmission lines.
• Fire hydrant replacement and sanitary sewer tour
The Indonesian delegation was very fascinated by all the computerization of our
operations, i.e. the dam, water treatment facility, Tigard's water system that Rich Sattler
controls since they said they have valves they were not able to even turn manually. Only
2/3 of their city has water provided and the rest of the people must find water wherever
they can. They bathe and clean their clothes in the water, have open sewer systems that
flow into the river right next to the intake to the plant and have no `federal' regulations.
They were fascinated with the little things. The Indonesian's explained that they not only
take care of city government, but also have inherited other regional government employees
and have nowhere to put them to work. They saw two men here working on a paving
project at the water treatment plant, whereas that project would have been a twenty-man
job for them. They saw a grading stake and asked what it was, then told us that they would
just eyeball that type of work.
Commissioner Drangsholt asked what other long term water resource possibilities were
being worked on for Tigard. Mr. Wegner reported that the feasibility study still was slowly
continuing. The Bureau of Reclamation had taken some funding cuts, but the project is
moving forward, and we also buy up to 2 mgd of water from the Joint Water Commission.
Commissioner Drangsholt asked how the costs would be covered to upgrade Portland's
reservoir water system against terrorism. Mr. Wegner said that the regional agency was
still about two years away. If the reservoir work was completed within that two-year period
of time, our O & M rates would pay for covering the reservoirs; however, if the work was not
done by that time, it would then be up to the new agency to fund it through bonds or rates.
It is planned to complete the filtration plant, which will be located on Powell Butte, by 2011
for the price of$220 million. The plant construction will involve a membrane and ultra-violet
combination. The membrane will provide extra capacity because it allows us to go deeper in
the reservoir to withdraw water.
The next IWB meeting will be August 14, 2002.
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Drangsholt motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 p.m. and Commissioner
George Rhine seconded the motion.
Intergovernmental Water Board 4 July 10,2002
DRAFT COPY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner, Director of Public Works #1
RE: Proposed Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
Draft#2 Principles of Agreement
DATE: July 29, 2002
Attached you will find two documents relating to the draft Principles of Agreement for the
Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency. This material was received by elected
representatives of the participating agencies at the July 25, 2002, Policy Steering
Committee (PSC) meeting. Councilor Joyce Patton is the chairperson of that committee.
The first document is a copy of the Power Point presentation the consultant used to
highlight the principles. The second document, with a cover memo from me, is the
actual draft Principles of Agreement.
Prior to the August 22nd PSC meeting, members of the committee will review the
document. During the August 22nd PSC meeting the "final' recommendations on the
Principles will be made, then adopted at the September PSC meeting. All participating
agencies will hold meetings during October through December to discuss the final
report outlining the details of Phase 11 and how to proceed.
After you have read the documents, please feel free to contact Councilor Patton or
myself with your comments. Thank you.
Cc: Bill Monahan
Jane Turner
Roel Lundquist
Presentation of Draft Principles
of Agreement
Policy Steering Committee
25 July 2002
Members of Governance/Legal
Working Group
• Dave Rouse-Gresham—TAC Representative
• Todd Heidgerken-TV WD—TAC Representative
• Clark Balfour-several wsle.Customers
• Brenda Braden-Tualatin
• Dan Cooper-METRO
• Jerry Linder-CWS
• Tim Ramis-Tigard
• David Ris-Gresham
• Bill Scheiderich-Beaverton
• Ruth Spetter,Terry Thatcher,Pete Kasting-Portland
Process of Developing Principles
PSC Criteria Finance Working Group
JWC TAC
A ement -' Legal WG Reviews Legal WG
Develops & Develops
PSC interviews Draft#i Revises Draft#2
& Draft#1
Statements g weeks 4 weeks
1
What these Principles
Represent
• Identification of all the key issues needing to be
resolved
• Decisions on key Principles needed to guide
development of an actual Agreement
• General statements of intent rather than
detailed legal language
• Short(20 pages)
• Format of an actual Agreement to make the
next step easier
Organization of Principles
1)Definitions
2)Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
3)The System
4)System Use
5)System Expansion and Improvement
6)System Operations
7)Rates and Charges
8)Water Sales to Outside Parties
Organization of Principles
(continued)
9) Withdrawal,Termination of Membership
and Sale of Assets
10) Liability of the Parties
12) Amendments to Agreement (to be
inserted)
13) General Provisions(to be inserted)
2
Highlights of Sections
Section 1: Definitions
• System: the supply and transmission
system as defined by the Engineering
Working Group
• Nomination of Supply: annual process to
allocate water among the Parties
• Units: similar to stock--represents what
you own in the Agency
Section 2: Agency Organization
• Board appointed by the Parties-one per
member
• Board has full powers to act--as limited by
ORS 190 statute and the Agreement
• Voting:
—Supermajority of double-majority for major
actions(e.g.issuing debt,setting water rates,
dissolution)
—Simple majority for routine actions
3
Section 2: Agency Organization
(continued)
• There will be a transition process to the new
Agency
• Staff transferring into the Agency will be
under state law provisions;Agency can
retain staff it needs
• Clear separation of Agency staff dedicated
to operating the System and staff working
on contracted services
Section 2: Agency Organization
(continued)
• Agency is an enterprise utility,getting funds
from rates,revenue bonds,SDCs,grants,
but not GO bonds or property taxes
• Agency will establish a regional SDC to
finance growth
Double-majority Concept
Total Number of Percent of
Members Members that Total
Must Ownership
Approve that Must
Approve
10 6 or Over 50%or
supermajority supermajority
4
Section 2: Unresolved Issues
• Definition of Supermajority
• Actual process of transition to new Agency
• How PWB Staff would be transferred to
Agency
General Agency Organization
Member Agencies
Board of Directors
Agency Director
Supply System Staff for Contracted
Staff Services
Agency Functions and Assets
Principal Functions Principal"Assets"
1. O&M on System 1.Portland Supply
physical assets System
2. Contractual services 2. WCSL
for others
3. Cash or in-lieu
3. Wholesale contracts funds from members
4. Plan,finance,build 4. New projects built
system improvements by Agency
5
Section 3: The System
• An appendix(not included)lists agreed
value of the System and the System
components
• Bull Run rights to water not part of assets,
but Agency has use of them
• Parties own an undivided interest in the
System,represented by their units
Section 3: The System
(continued)
• The Parties authorize the Agency to bond
and build defined list of capital
improvements
• Units in the Agency are valued as their
book value
• New parties can buy into the Agency,with
Board approval by supermajority
• Existing Parties can increase/decrease units
Section 3: Unresolved Issues
• What is the value of the System assets?
• What will be paid for the use of Portland's
Bull Run rights to water?
• How will the Agency be capitalized--three
options?
6
Section 4: System Use
• Parties are not buying a right to a defined
amount of water
• Parties agree to a minimum allocation of
water for rolling 10-year periods
• Parties"nominate"water needs each year
and the Board adjusts them to fit available
water
• Parties can buy interruptible and firm water
Section 4: System Use
(continued)
• Agency supplies only Bull Run or well field
water,except in emergencies
• Parties have first right to water available,
subject to wholesale contracts
• Portland agrees to wheel water through its
distribution system to westside Parties
• Board establishes conservation and
curtailment policies
Section 4: Unresolved Issues
• How much water will the Agency be
required to sell under existing wholesale
contracts that are extended?
• Will the Parties nominate more water than
the System can deliver?
• What will be the remedies if a Party
overuses the System?
7
Section 5: System Expansion
• Agency will expand System to meet needs
of the Parties
Section 6: System Operations
and Maintenance
• System will be operated to meet generally
accepted utility standards
• Agency may operate distribution systems of
the Parties or others,and provide other
water-related services
Conceptual Approach to
Contractual Operations
Aeencv Functions Contractee Functions
1. Continues to own its
1. O&M on Contractee's system
System 2. Pays fee to Agency to
2. Monthly billing for operate system,and for
services other functions,as agreed
3.Other services as 3. Sets rates for services to
requested:e.g.capital its customers
planning,construction j 4. Provides capital for
system improvements
8
Section 7: Rates and Charges
• Parties pay for water on cost-of-service
basis--no subsidies or excess profits
• Growth pays for growth
• Contract services pay full costs
Section 8: Water Sales to
Outside Parties
•. Portland will assign existing wholesale
contracts to Agency
• Agency will develop model wholesale
contract
Section 9: Withdrawal,
Termination
• Agency guarantees to buy out anyone
leaving at a defined unit value and terms
• Parties may be removed as owners
involuntarily if they fail to meet terms of the
Agreement
9
Section 10: Liability
• Liability for backing the revenue bonds and
other debt of the Agency is apportioned to
the Parties according to their ownership
• Agency covers tort liability for Board
members and staff
Section 11: Dispute Resolution
• Three step dispute resolution process is set
up
• Decisions by supermajority of the Board are
deemed final--appeal to the courts
Sections 12 and 13: To be Added
• Agreement Amendment Process
• General Provisions
10
Proposed Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
July 25, 2002
To: Policy Steering Committee
From: Ed Wegner, Chae
Technical Advisory Committee
RE: Transmission of Draft#2 of the Principles of Agreement
At the June 27h meeting of the PSC you were provided with a briefing,on the analysis of various
governance options. The PSC selected the ORS 190 inter-governmental agreement as the preferred
option and directed the staff and consultants to develop principles of agreement for an ORS 190
Inter-governmental agreement. The TAC and working groups, with input from the public, have been
very hard at work over the past few weeks to prepare this for you.
Attached you will find the"Principles of Agreement"for a proposed regional drinking water agency.
This is NOT an inter governmental agreement,but forms the basis upon which an ORS 190 inter-
governmental agreement would be written.
We are asking the PSC and the public,to review this Draft#2 of the Principles of Agreement and
provide feedback to the Technical Advisory Committee.. We encourage you to discuss your
comments, questions and concerns with your representative to the TAC We suggest that within about
two weeks the PSC may want to hold an additional meeting with the primary agenda item to be
receiving public comment on the principles. The TAC,with the assistance from the Governance
Working Group would then prepare a final draft for the PSC's review and approval at your August
22, 2002 meeting.
Under the guidance of consultant Bill Blosser and TAC liaisons Todd Heidgerken of Tualatin Valley
Water District and Dave Rouse of the City of Gresham, the Governance Working Group members
who have so ably assisted us are:
Clark Balfour. Cable, Huston, Benedict, Haagensen&Lloyd, representing
several water providers
Brenda Braden, City of Tualatin
Dan Cooper, Metro
Jerry Linder, Clean Water Services
Tim Ramis, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan and Bachrach, representing City of Tigard
David Ris, City of Gresham
Bill Scheiderich, City of Beaverton
Ruth Spetter,Terry Thatcher and Pete Kasting, City of Portland
Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9 Principles of Agreement
10 Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
11
12 Draft #2
13 25 July 2002
DRAFT r2 0
1 Table of Contents
2 1) Definitions.......................................................................................................................2
3 2) Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency..............................................................3
4 3) The System.......................................................................................................................8
5 4) Source/Transmission System Use..............................................................................11
6 5) System Expansion and Improvement.......................................................................14
7 6) System Operations........................................................................................................15
8 7) Rates and Charges.........................................................................................................16
9 8) Water Sales to Outside Parties...................................................................................17
10 9) Withdrawal,Termination of Membership and Sale of Assets............................18
11 10) Liability...........................................................................................................................19
12 12) Amendments to Agreement (process description to be inserted)......................20
13 13) General Provisions (to be inserted)...........................................................................20
14
15 List of Appendixes.................................................................:......................20
16
DRAFTt2
1 Draft Proposed Principles of Agreement
2
3
4 1. Definitions
5 1.1. Agency: Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
6 1.2. Agreement:The Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency agreement dated
7 ,as amended from time to time.
8 1.3. Board: the duly appointed elected officials who constitute the governing body of
9 the Agency.
10 1.4. Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency:An ORS 190 agency created under
11 the Agreement.
12 1.5. Capacity:the drinking water producing capability from the various components
13 of the System,measured in acre-feet,gallons,million gallons per day or gallons per
14 minute or other comparable measurement(including their metric equivalents),
15 available based on operating conditions consistent with generally accepted
16 engineering and operating practices.Such practices may be defined formally by the
17 Board in case of disagreement.
18 1.6. Equity Account: the account of each Party that records its number of units in the
19 Agency and the unit Value.
20 1.7. Cost-of-Service Model:a computer model adopted by the Board annually which
21 allocates costs to the Parties based on generally accepted cost-of-service principles.
22 1.8. Demand:the amount of water used by a Party and imposed on the System to
23 serve a Party's customers measured in acre-feet,gallons,million gallons per day or
24 gallons per minute or other comparable measurement(including their metric
25 equivalents).
26 1.9. Firm Water Delivery: (to be added)
27 1.10. Initial Capacity: for purposes of establishing initial water delivery allocations
28 and units of ownership,it will be assumed that the System,as of the date of
29 establishment of the Agency,has a peak-day capacity of 300 million gallons per day
30 (MGD).
31 1.11. Interruptible Water Delivery: (to be added)
32 1.12. Nomination of Supply:the document submitted by the Parties in accordance
33 with Section 4.1.4 which shows the Demands of each Party to be imposed on the
34 System.
35 1.13. Operating Agreements: the Agency may from time to time enter into agreements
36 with the Parties,or others,to manage and operate drinking-water-related facilities,
37 such as distribution systems. Such systems are not considered part of the System.
DRAFT#2 2
1 1.14. Ownership:the value of the units in the Agency owned by a Party to the
2 Agreement.
3 1.15. Parties: the signatories to this agreement,as amended in accordance with Section
4 12,from time to time.
5 1.16. Secondary System Facilities: supply and transmission facilities that are not part
6 of the System but which are necessary or used to provide water to one or more
7 Parties.
8 1.17. System: stored raw water,water treatment facilities,transmission system,treated
9 water storage system, and other facilities necessary or used for the treatment and
10 conveyance of water to the Parties.The System is more specifically defined in
11 Appendix A,attached hereto,as amended by the Board from time to time.
12 1.18. Unit Value: the value of a unit of ownership in the Agency,as determined by the
13 Board according to the procedure provided in Section 3.5.
14 1.19. Wheeling: the transmission of water to a Party over another Party's Secondary
15 System Facilities.
16 1.20. Wholesale water: refers to the drinking water sold by the Agency to a Party.
17
18 2. Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency
19 2.1. The Board :
20 2.1.1. The Board shall consist of one member from each of the following Parties:
21 (insert list).
22 2.1.2. Each Board member shall be appointed by the governing body of its
23 respective Party and each shall be a sitting elected member of the governing
24 body of the Party.
25 2.1.3. Members shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing bodies.
26 2.1.4. Alternates:a governing body may appoint an alternate to a Board member,
27 which alternate shall be an elected official and shall serve when the principal
28 Board member is absent. Said alternate shall have the same right to vote as the
29 principal member. However,in the case where the absent member is an
30 Officer,the alternate shall not exercise the role of Officer.
31 2.2. Board's General Powers and Duties:
32 2.2.1. The Board shall govern the business and affairs of the Agency created by the
33 Agreement.
34 2.2.2. The Board shall adopt such bylaws,rules,regulations and policies,as it
35 deems necessary to carry out the Agreement.
36 2.2.3. The Board shall have the power to retain such employees as it deems
37 necessary and to contract for the purchase of property and services.
DRAFT t 2 3
1 2.2.4. The Board shall have all powers necessary and incidental to the execution of
2 its specific duties,which powers shall be consistent with the Agreement and
3 law.
4 2.3. Board's Manner of Acting:
5 2.3.1. Meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions
6 of the Oregon public meeting law,ORS Chapter 192.
7 2.3.2. The Board shall hold an organizational meeting within_weeks of the
8 signing of the Agreement and shall hold regular meetings at least quarterly.
9 2.3.3. Special meetings may be called with forty-eight hour's notice by the Chair or
10 a majority-less-one of Board members.
11 2.3.4. Voting: An affirmative vote of a supermajorityt of the Parties and an
12 affirmative vote of a supermajority of the Parties owning the majority of the
13 System shall be necessary to decide any issue related to the following major
14 actions: issuing debt,setting Wholesale Water rates,taking in new owners,
15 capital improvements or other asset additions to the System over$_that are
16 not included on the list in Part 1 of Appendix B,signing water sales agreements
17 to non-Parties,or dissolution2. A simple majority of the Parties shall decide all
18 other issues coming before the Board.
19 2.3.5. Merger or consolidation of Parties: if two Parties merge or consolidate
20 political boundaries or a Party transfers all of its assets in the System to another
21 Party,the new Party or Party becoming the owner of the assets shall have only
22 one voting representative on the Board.The resulting Party shall have the
23 combined rights to water from the Agency and the combined obligations of the
24 merging Parties.
25 2.3.6. When state,federal or local law requires that a Party approve or ratify a
26 Board action by separate action of that Party's governing body, the Party's
27 representative on the Board who votes to approve an Agency action shall in
28 good faith recommend that the Party's governing body take the action that was
29 enacted or approved by the Board and the Party's governing body shall
30 consider the recommended action in good faith.
31 2.3.7. A quorum for the transaction of business of the Agency shall consist of: (1)a
32 supermajority of the Parties and a supermajority of the ownership in the
33 System for major actions,as defined in Section 2.3.4 and(2)a majority of the
34 Parties for all other actions.
35
36
37
t The TAC has not settled on at definition of'supermajority',but was generally thinking that a vote of about 2/3 of the members
would be the right number. Until the number of Parties is known,it will be difficult to precisely define this term,so it is being left
ambiguous for the time being.
2 The PSC should consider the option of allowing the Board by supermajority vote to add other things to this list,for there may
be Issues that we have not foreseen that the Parties would not want approved by a simple majority of the Parties.
DRAFT#2 4
1 2.4. Officers:
2 2.4.1. The Board shall elect from among its members a Chair and a Vice-Chair who
3 shall be the Officers of the Board.
4 2.4.2. Elections shall occur at the first organizational meeting and annually
5 thereafter.
6 2.4.3. The Officers shall serve until a successor is elected. If an Officer is no longer
7 a member of the Board,a new Officer shall be elected at the next meeting of the
8 Board.
9 2.4.4. The Board may establish advisory groups composed wholly or partly of non-
10 Board members and non-Parties.
11 2.4.5. The Board may appoint an Executive Committee,whose powers shall be
12 defined in the Agency's Bylaws.
13 2.4.6. The duties of the Chair shall be (insert)
14 2.4.7. The duties of the Vice-Chair shall be (insert)
15 2.4.8. Vacancies: the Bylaws of the Agency shall establish a means by which the
16 Board addresses vacancies on the Board.
DRAFT/2 5
1 2.5. Transition
2 2.5.1. It is assumed that there will be a transition period of a number of months in
3 order to start up the Agency. A first task of the Board shall be to define the
4 process,timeline and cost for the transition. The Agency may phase-in certain
5 operations or activities over time.
6 2.5.2. If required,the Parties will agree to provide interim financing for the Agency
7 during the transition period until regular revenues are received.
8 2.5.3. The Agency may retain staff on a temporary basis to assist in the transition,
9 which staff may become permanent staff if the Agency so determines. The
10 Parties do not intend that this clause supercede the provisions of state law with
11 respect to the transfer of employees into the new agency,as provided for in the
12 Section 2.6.
13 2.5.4. A key principle of the transition shall be that water service to the Parties or
14 wholesale contractors shall not be interrupted due to the transition.
15 2.5.5. The Parties intend that the Agency shall have full operating authority over
16 and responsibility for the System,with the possible exception of water rights.
17 To accomplish this,prior to signing the Agreement,the Parties will agree how
18 best to accomplish this transfer of responsibility and the Agency will have the
19 powers necessary to implement the transfer.
20 2.6. Labor and Personnel3:
21 2.6.1. If staff is transferred from the Parties to the Agency,the Agency shall follow
22 the provisions of ORS 236.610 et seq and ORS Chapter 243 in the incorporation
23 of existing staff of the Parties into the Agency. If the Agency directly
24 undertakes obligations presently the responsibility of the Portland Water
25 Bureau,it is the intent of the Parties that the Agency will fill the positions from
26 the staff of the Portland Water Bureau.Within the constraints of these laws and
27 according to such agreements as may.be bargained with the relevant parties,
28 the Agency may operate under the same or similar terms and conditions of the
29 existing labor contracts with the staff of the Parties.
30 2.6.2. The Parties shall agree,to the extent practicable,which employees of the
31 Parties who will be transferred to the Agency qualify for transfer under ORS
32 236.610 et seq.
33 2.6.3. The Agency shall have the power to undertake such procedures and enter
34 into such agreements as are necessary to transfer staff from the Parties to the
35 Agency.
36 2.6.4. The Agency shall have the authority to hire such staff as it needs,including
37 staff specifically assigned to support the activities of the Board.
3 The TAC and PSC should consider an aftemative where the Agency is established with minimum staff. In this case,the
Agency would obtain the staff needed to operate the System by contract with the City of Portland,much as the JWC currently
does with the City of Hillsboro.
DRAFT n 6
4
1 2.6.5. The Agency shall clearly define which staff is assigned to the operation of the
2 System and which staff is assigned to operation of a Party's distribution system.
3 In cases where staff performs both functions,the Agency shall have a time and
4 financial accounting system that clearly records these costs separately. To the
5 maximum extent practical,the Agency shall assign staff wholly to operation of
6 the System or to the operation of a Party's distribution system.
7 2.7. Agency Financing and Financial Management:
8 2.7.1. The Agency is intended to be operated as an enterprise utility,all of whose
9 costs shall be paid for from user fees,systems development charges, grants,
10 revenue bonds and such other funds as may be available.
11 2.7.2. The Agency may establish a systems development charge in accordance with
12 state law to help finance the System,and the Parties agree to collect these fees
13 and remit them to the Agency. As required by law,the systems development
14 charge shall be set to equitably reflect the use of the System by each Party.
15 2.7.3. The Agency shall not have general taxing authority nor shall it issue General
16 Obligation bonds.
17 2.7.4. The Agency shall have all revenue raising authorities permitted under ORS
18 Chapter 190,including but not limited to seating Wholesale Water rates, system
19 development charges for the System,and issuance of revenue bonds.
20 2.7.5. The Agency shall prepare and adopt a budget for its operations consistent
21 with Oregon Budget Law.
22 2.7.6. The Agency shall maintain an accounting system that fully tracks costs and
23 revenues and provides monthly reports. This system shall clearly separate
24 accounts for operations and maintenance,capital expenditures,operations of
25 distribution systems,the reserve fund,and other accounts as determined by the
26 Board.
27 2.7.7. The Agency shall cause an independent audit to be performed annually by a
28 Certified Public Accountant licensed to do municipal auditing in Oregon.
29 2.7.8. The Agency's fiscal year shall begin on July 1 and end on June 30 each year.
30 2.7.9. Since a Party's ownership in the System might not equal its demand on the
31 system,a procedure will be established so that each Party earns a return on its
32 investment in the Agency. There will be no guarantee of a set rate of return. In
33 general,the rate of return the Agency would use in its calculations would be
34 the average cost of long-term borrowing for the Agency or a reasonable proxy
35 for this figure. It is expected that the rate of return used for water sales
36 contracts to non-Parties would be higher.
37
DRAFT t2 7
1 3. The System
2 3.1. System Value:
3 3.1.1. The System as of the date of the Agreement shall be valued in accordance
4 with the schedule of values listed in Appendix A of the Agreement. The value
5 listed therein is deemed by the Parties to represent the agreed value of the
6 System.
7 3.1.2. The value of contributions at a latter time of assets by the Parties or new
8 Parties shall be determined by negotiation and units shall not be issued to the
9 Party until approved by the Board.
10 3.1.3. The value of future capital improvements to the System shall be based on the
11 cost of the improvements.
12 3.1.4. System assets shall be depreciated in accordance with generally accepted
13 accounting principles,or the principle of useful life,as determined by the
14 Board.
15 3.2. Definition of System Components:
16 3.2.1. It is the intent of the Agreement that the System shall consist of those
17 components that are integral to the collection, storage,treatment and
18 transmission of raw and treated drinking water to the Parties.However,the
19 Parties acknowledge that there are Secondary System Facilities not part of the
20 System that are necessary or may be used to transmit water to some Parties.
21 3.2.2. The rights of the City of Portland to water in the Bull Run River are not
22 considered to be assets of the System.However,the City of Portland agrees as a
23 condition of its participation in the Agency to execute and defend such
24 documents as are necessary to guarantee the Agency the right to use said water
25 at(option 1:no cost;option 2:a cost of$_per year)to the Agency,subject only to
26 applicable state or federal law. The City of Portland further agrees to take all
27 actions necessary to maintain in force its rights to water and permits of all types
28 that affect obtaining water from the Bull Run watershed;the Agency shall
29 reimburse the City for its costs in undertaking these actions,or shall undertake
30 them on behalf of the City,as they mutually agree.The City of Portland further
31 agrees to support the Agency if the Agency elects to pursue complete
32 assignment of the water rights to the Agency. The Agency shall pay(option 1:
33 nothing;option 2:$ )for these rights.
34 3.3. System Ownership:
35 3.3.1. The Parties each shall own an undivided interest in the System. The number
36 of units in the Agency each owns shall define each Party's percentage of
37 ownership in the System.Such ownership percentages are based on the relative
38 contributions of funds or assets to the Agency in relation to the total value of
39 the System.
DPAT rz 8
1 3.3.2. The total authorized units in the Agency as of the date of the Agreement shall
2 be (insert a number).
3 3.3.3. To recognize the value of systems development charges received by the
4 Agency from the territory of the Parties,the Agency would automatically issue
5 new units to recognize this in accordance with a procedure to be defined by the
6 Board.
7 3.3.4. The Agency shall maintain an accurate account of the units of each Party in
8 the Party's Equity Account.
9 3.3.5. The Parties agree that certain capital improvements are needed in the System
10 over the next 10(option: other number of years)years and wish to assure that
11 financing is available to build such facilities,approximately according to the
12 schedule therein,in Part 1 of Appendix B. To accomplish this,the Parties
13 approve issuance by the Agency of revenue bonds4 to construct the listed
14 facilities in accordance with the description and schedule in Part 1 of Appendix
15 B. For revenue bonds issues by the Agency,the Parties intend that the revenue
16 bonds for these projects shall be issued sequentially in accordance with the
17 funding needs of each project. The construction of these projects will not entail
18 issuing new units since each Party owns an undivided interest in the new
19 facilities in proportion to its percentage ownership in the Agency.
20 3.4. Initial Capitalization of Agency:
21 3.4.1. It is intended that the Agency be capitalized in three ways: (1)transfers to the
22 Agency of physical assets; (2)contributions of cash(which may be obtained by
23 a Party issuing revenue bonds);and/or(3) the Agency issuing revenue bonds
24 for which individual Parties have a direct obligation to service the debt(this is a
25 way for a Party to pay for their units over time). These sources of capital are
26 deemed to be equal with respect to how they are credited to a Party's Equity
27 Account. The Legal/Governance and Financial Working Groups and the TAC
28 have examined a number of different ways to structure the initial capitalization,
29 but have not yet reached a conclusion on which to recommend to the PSC. All
30 of the alternatives considered appear to be legal and do-able,but each carries
31 different types and degrees of risk and cost. The Working Groups wish to
32 emphasize that a fundamental issue affecting all these alternatives is
33 determining the value of the existing System assets. Until this is done,it may
34 be difficult for the Parties to decide which alternative makes the most sense.
35 The key alternatives that are under consideration are:
36 3.4.1.1. The"Rouse" Plan: the City of Portland and owners of the WCSL
37 would contribute the System assets to the Agency,receiving in return a
38 credit for the assets'value to their Equity Account. They would receive no
4 A basic characteristic of an ORS 190 entity is that the Issuance of revenue bonds by the entity must be approved by the
governing bodies of the parties to the ORS 190 agreement. This paragraph provides a way for the Agency to have a 10-year
initial period when revenue bonds would be pre-approved by the Parties for certain projects. This way,the issues that arise
when a Party declines to approve one or more bonds would not arise for these projects. Projects not on the list would require
the approval of the governing body of the Parties. Note: the Parties may decide to fund part of the list in Part 1 by contributing
cash to the Agency. Part 1 would need to list the net amount that the Agency would bond.
DRAFT#2 9
1 direct payment from the other Parties for these assets and would,
2 therefore,resolve bond payment obligations on their own. To achieve the
3 percentage ownership targets desired by the Parties,those who contribute
4 no assets or too few assets to achieve their ownership target would
5 commit to financing future capital improvements up to an amount needed
6 to bring the Equity Accounts to the target levels. An unresolved issue is
7 how the Parties who contribute assets or funds at the time of signing the
8 Agreement would be compensated by those who contribute their funds at
9 a later date.
10 3.4.1.2. Straight purchase of assets:this is the alternative detailed in footnote
11 5. This alternative has many financial issues related to the obligations
12 under Portland's existing bonds and to PERS,which are probably
13 resolvable,but potentially at considerable cost to the Agency. This
14 alternative was developed in greater detail than the others. Many of these
15 details are included in the footnote below.5
16 3.4.1.3. Asset Contract: another alternative is to have no actual transfer of the
17 ownership of existing assets to the Agency. Rather,the Agency could
18 contract for the use of the assets from Portland and the WCSL owners on a
19 long-term basis,paying the owners a defined fee for use of the assets. This
20 alternative would avoid most if not all of the difficulties with the transfer
21 of assets to the Agency in alternatives 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.2.1 above,and would
22 allow the Agency to control and operate the assets as if it were the owner.
23 However,it would not achieve the goal of many Parties to be an actual
24 owner of the existing System. They would,however,become direct
25 owners of future System improvements.
26 3.4.2. Once the Agreement is executed,each Party shall have voting rights on the
27 Board corresponding to its units of ownership.
28
5 (1)The Parties who are owners of the assets of the System at the time of signing the Agreement will transfer ownership of all
of these assets to the Agency. The parties that have agreed to make cash contributions will transfer the cash to the Agency. The
value of the assets,cash,and obligations in lieu of cash(i.e.agreeing to pay for the debt service on an asset,similar to how the
WCSL was financed)shall be credited to the Equity Accounts of the Parties and corresponding units of ownership issued to
them.
(2) The intent is that ownership will be available only to those who take a significant ownership position in the Agency relative
to their current or potential demand and financial resources. As a general ruk,Parties would buy into the Agency at least
in proportion to their current demand on the system. Parties not curve,fly obtaining water from the System should plan
to invest a minimum of$x million or an amount proportional to their expected demand on the system at a future date.
(3) Appendix C lists the initial asset or cash contributions or in-lieu obligations of the Parties and the corresponding units of
ownership each will have.
(4) If required,from cash contributions received or revenue bonds issued,the Agency shall pay the City of Portland an amount
equivalent to$ which money the City of Portland will use to defease its water revenue bonds or other Water
Bureau-related bonds.
(5) Appendix E defines the initial financial status of the Agency at the time of the Agreement,including revenue bonds to be
issued,use of those funds,and the obligations of the Parties to service the revenue bonds.
DRAFT 62 10
1 3.5. Valuation of Units
2 3.5.1. The value of a unit at the time of the signing of the Agreement shall be
3 $ per unit.
4 3.5.2. The Board shall annually determine the per unit value by the beginning of
5 each fiscal year.
6 3.5.3. The unit value shall be the Agency's book value divided by the number of
7 units outstanding. 6
8 3.6. Buy-in by New Parties:
9 3.6.1. New Parties may buy into the System from time to time with Board approval.
10 3.6.2. The new Parties will be issued units in proportion to their asset,cash or in-
11 lieu contributions to the System.
12 3.7. Purchase of New Units by Existing Parties:
13 3.7.1. Existing Parties may increase or decrease their number of units from time to
14 time with Board approval.
15 3.7.2. The Board shall adopt procedures to implement this by,for example,
16 enabling Parties to purchase new units directly from the Agency,to exchange
17 units among the Parties,or to pay a differential amount for new System assets.
18
19 4. System Use
20 4.1. Rights of Use:
21 4.1.1. Each Party shall use the System in a manner that is consistent with prudent
22 water utility operating practices and that minimizes the impact of that use on
23 the other Parties.
24 4.1.2. The Parties agree that constructing new components to the System is costly
25 and the Parties,therefore,agree to optimize the use of the existing System for
26 the benefit of the Parties before construction of new facilities. Such
27 optimization may include conservation measures,operational controls,
28 scheduling of water deliveries,and other methods.
29 4.1.3. Each Party shall have available to it sufficient Capacity in its system to serve
30 the Demand imposed by the Party on the System.
31 4.1.4. Nomination of Supply:each Party shall submit to the Agency annually no
32 later than a Nomination of Supply document. The Document shall set
33 forth the Party's projected Demand,Capacity to serve the Demand and any
34 deficiencies of Capacity.The document shall detail these Demand and Capacity
35 figures for the transmission,treatment and treated-water storage components
6 The legal and financial working groups will continue to examine altemative formulae and make a recommendation later to the
PSC.
DRAFT f 2 i t
1 of the System for a ten year period and for Raw Water for a fifty year period by
2 ten year increments. The demand figures shall be projected on the basis of
3 Peak Day,Peak Season and Annual Average. The Board shall define these
4 terms prior to the first year nominations are due. The Parties agree to inform
5 the Agency annually in their Nomination of Supply document if the Party does
6 not intend to take all the water listed in Appendix D,but the Party shall be
7 liable to pay for said water in cases where the Agency is unable to resell it in
8 whole or in part. Said payment shall only be for the actual cost to the Agency
9 of not selling the water. The Agency shall make a good faith effort to sell
10 surplus water.
11 4.1.5. Agency Consolidation of Nominations: after receiving the Nomination of
12 Supply document from the Parties,the staff of the Agency shall consolidate the
13 demand figures into one table and provide it,together with appropriate
14 analysis,to the Board for discussion and a decision. In the event that more
15 water is demanded than the capacity of the System,the Board shall pursue
16 measures to bring the demands into balance with System capacity,including
17 negotiating lesser demands with the Parties,and expanding the System. A
18 basic purpose of the Agency is to meet the needs of the Parties,so the Board's
19 goal in performing this consolidation function shall be to try to meet all
20 reasonable demands of the Parties. The Board shall have final authority to
21 allocate available capacity to the Parties.
22 4.1.6. Minimum Water Allocation: The Parties wish to have assurance that water
23 from the System will be available to meet their projected needs for the life of the
24 Agreement. Appendix D lists the minimum annual,peak-season and peak-day
25 water deliveries year-by-year that the Agency shall plan to deliver to the Parties
26 at their point of delivery for the first 10 years of Agency operation. These
27 amounts shall not exceed the Capacity of the System as presently constituted or
28 as it will be constituted after construction of the projects listed in Part 1 of
29 Appendix B. The Agency may adjust said projected deliveries proportionally
30 in cases of drought,delays in project construction,or other occurrences limiting
31 the amount of water available for delivery. Before the end of the first 10-year
32 operating period of the Agency,the Board shall establish revised Minimum
33 Water Allocations for the subsequent 10-year period,and shall conduct a
34 similar process for similar periods thereafter.
35 4.1.7. Reliability: in the Nomination of Supply document,the Parties shall indicate
36 the level or levels of reliability they expect:firm or interruptible. It is
37 contemplated that a Party to the Agreement may demand only interruptible
38 water,but this fact shall not change their capital contribution obligations. The
39 level of reliability selected by a Party is its option and shall not be dictated by
40 the Agency. The Agency would charge differential prices for water based on
41 the reliability requested based on the principle that firm water will be more
42 costly. The Board shall define what the terms"firm"and"interruptible"mean,
43 but,in general, "firm"means that the delivery of water would not be
44 interrupted except in cases where general curtailment is needed because of
45 emergencies or drought; "interruptible"means that the Agency could stop
DRAFT#2 12
1 delivering water under specific circumstances,which the Board would define
2 prior to the Parties submitting their Nomination of Supply documents. The
3 Board may also define other rate categories,as needed.
4 4.1.8. Substitution:the Agency shall only deliver water to the Parties from the Bull
5 Run watershed or the Columbia South Shore Wellfield,except in the event of
6 emergencies. The Board shall define the term"emergency". In planning for
7 emergencies,the Parties will agree ahead of time on what substitutions will be
8 permitted by each Party. In the case where agreement is not reached,the
9 Agency will have no obligation to delivery water to the non-agreeing Party
10 during emergency occurrences. The Parties foresee building interconnections
11 with other supplies in addition to those that already exist for emergency back-
12 up purposes. Emergency supply connections and agreements existing at the
13 time of signing the Agreement are listed in Appendix A. The Board shall
14 update this list when changes occur.
15 4.1.9. The Parties have first right to the water available from the System. Water
16 that is surplus to the needs of the Parties may be sold by the Agency to non-
17 Parties on contract.The Agency shall provide a water reserve that may be used
18 to meet the unforeseen needs of the Parties. The Board shall have the sole
19 discretion to determine what is an adequate reserve.
20 4.1.10. The Parties agree that the intent is to terminate without penalty their
21 wholesale contracts with Portland and substitute water purchase agreements
22 with the Agency. This process shall assure that there is no interruption of
23 service.
24 4.2. Secondary System Facilities Use: Since certain Parties are not served directly by
25 the System,those Parties that own facilities that enable such Parties to receive water,
26 agree to execute Wheeling agreements with the Agency,on a cost-of-service basis,
27 to ensure delivery of System water to those Parties not served directly by the
28 System7. Parties served by wheeling agreements as of the date of the Agreement,
29 who increase their Demand,shall not be entitled to increased delivery of water
30 through these facilities unless the Party owning the facilities agrees to the increase.
31 The Parties recognize that arrangements exist among some of the Parties prior to
32 signing the Agreement to wheel water between the Parties that do not fit the
33 conditions described above in this paragraph. The Parties intend that these
34 arrangements shall continue and shall not be deemed to violate the provision
35 against reselling of water by the Parties.
36
37
38
39
7 The PSC should also consider the option of requiring the Parties to wheel water over their systems,where capacity is
available,to wholesale customers of the Agency.
DRAFT 12 13
1 4.3. Overuse and remedies for Overuse8:
2 4.3.1. The Board shall set reasonable standards for when a Party shall be deemed to
3 have overused the System.If overuse occurs,the Party shall be subject to
4 appropriate remedy,which may include payments or curtailment.
5 4.3.2. Remedies for Overuse: (insert)
6 4.4. Conservation and Curtailment:
7 4.4.1. The Board may adopt water conservation standards for the Parties,which the
8 Parties agree to implement.9 Such standards shall be uniform among all similar
9 classes of uses.However,said standards shall only apply to the Parties with
10 respect to the water they obtain from the Agency.
11 4.4.2. The Board may adopt reasonable penalties for Parties failing to implement
12 conservation measures.
13 4.4.3. The Board may adopt a curtailment plan and reductions,which plan shall
14 provide for pro rata reductions by the Parties. However,in'determining
15 curtailment percentages,the Agency may not(option:may)consider alternative
16 sources available to the Parties. (Note: in the case where the Agency reduces a
17 Party by a greater than proportional amount because it has alternative sources, it
18 would need to figure in compensation to that Party if its costs for the alternative source
19 are higher).
20 4.4.4. The Board shall define the curtailment methods and reasonable notification
21 procedures.
22
23 5. System Expansion and Improvement
24 5.1. Expansion and Improvement requirements:
25 5.1.1. The Agency shall plan to expand the System when the Parties are projected
26 to use all the Capacity within a reasonable planning horizon,or at such time as
27 the Board deems appropriate.
28 5.1.2. The Parties agree that the capital expansion projects to the System listed in
29 Appendix B are likely to be needed over the next 50 years in accordance with
30 the schedule contained therein and the Agency is authorized to construct those
31 facilities listed in Part 1 of Appendix B,in accordance with the schedule and as
32 limited by the revenue bonding authorized in 3.3.5.
33 5.1.3. If the Board determines that projects not on the list in Part 1 of Appendix B
34 are needed,and all the Parties do not agree to build the project as part of the
8 This section was added because It Is part of the JWC agreement. However,it may not be needed in this Agreement,so the
PSC should consider removing it after discussion.
9 The City of Portland presently does not require conservation as a condition of its wholesale contracts. The issue of any entity
setting conservation targets or standards for others has been much debated in the Region. It seems logical that once the
Parties come together to form an Agency,they would want to be able to set uniform conservation standards. But,some may
not agree,so this is a debatable issue for the PSC.
DRAFT#2 14
1 System,the Board by supermajority,at its sole discretion,may provide for the
2 Agency to build,manage and operate such improvements. The Board shall
3 negotiate reasonable terms for this service and these terms shall not impose any
4 obligations on non-participating Parties.
5 5.1.4. Based on the Nomination of Supply document submitted in 4.1.4,the Board
6 shall use reasonable standards to determine when the System shall be
7 expanded beyond the list in Part 1 of Appendix B,and shall revise the list in
8 Appendix B accordingly.
9 5.1.5. No later than June 1,2007(option:set any date),the Board shall submit to the
10 Parties a list of projects (with budgets and schedules)that it believes will be
11 needed to meet the needs of the Parties for the 10-year period after completion
12 of the Part 1 projects in Appendix B. It is the intent of the Parties to agree to a
13 list of projects and to have the governing bodies of all Parties approve said list
14 and associated revenue bonding no later than November 1,2008. In the case
15 where all the Parties do not agree to approve revenue bonding for a new list of
16 projects,the Board,at its sole discretion,may allow non-'fisted projects to be
17 constructed by a subset of Parties; appropriate financing and cost
18 reimbursement methods shall be established so that non-participants are not
19 liable for the projects,do not pay for them,and do not receive the benefits of
20 them.
21 5.2. Notice:The Agency shall provide the Parties_days of written notice of the
22 intent to expand or improve the System.
23
24 6. System Operations and Maintenance
25 6.1. Operation and Maintenance of the System:
26 6.1.1. The Agency shall operate and maintain the System in accordance with
27 generally accepted maintenance standards of comparable US water utilities.
28 6.1.2. The Agency shall adopt protocols for the System to provide for the equitable,
29 effective and efficient operation of the System. The Board shallappoint a
30 technical committee from the staff of the Parties to develop these protocols and
31 recommend them to the Board for adoption. The Parties recognize that there
32 may be more than one way to transmit water over the System and the
33 Secondary System Facilities to the Parties. Also,there may be tunes during
34 emergencies or drought when it may be necessary to transmit water via
35 alternative facilities. As a general principle the Parties agree to operate the
36 system to maximize efficiency,lower costs and equitably serve the Parties. The
37 operating protocols may be updated,as needed.
38 6.1.3. The Parties shall adopt operating protocols for their own systems which
39 demonstrate a best efforts and good faith effort to conform with the Agency's
40 protocols to assure that the Party shall have the Capacity to take delivery of
41 water in accordance with its approved Nomination of Supply.
DRAFT e 2 15
1 6.1.4. The Agency shall operate the system in a manner consistent with all
2 agreements among the parties and all applicable local,state and federal laws.
3 Consistent with these agreements and laws,the Agency may set operational
4 standards that exceed the standards in these laws.
5 6.2. Operations of Distribution Systems and Other Services:
6 6.2.1. The Agency may enter into contracts with the Parties or others to operate
7 their distribution systems or other drinking water-related systems or services.
8 6.2.2. The agreements shall adequately protect the Agency and the Parties from
9 liabilities associated with providing the contracted services.
10 6.2.3. The Agency may perform such services as are necessary to execute these
11 contracts.
12 6.2.4. The Agency shall not become the owner of the assets of the systems that it
13 operates.
14 7. Rates and Charges
15 7.1. System:
16 7.1.1. Parties shall be charged for water delivered by the System on generally
17 accepted Cost-of-Service principles.The intent is that each Party pays its cost of
18 service and that no Party either pays or receives a subsidy. Such principles
19 shall consider a Party's use of the System and the allocation of charges shall be
20 based on such use.Charges to the Parties and non-parties shall fully cover the
21 Agency's revenue requirements. Charges to the Parties shall take into
22 consideration the value of a Party's Equity Account.
23 7.1.2. The Parties intend that rate for Wholesale Water shall provide funds for
24 capital improvements needed to maintain the System in good operating
25 condition and to replace depreciated parts of the System. The Parties also
26 intend that the Wholesale Water rate may also include a fee to establish a
27 separate Reserve Fund to be used for emergency repairs and emergency capital
28 improvements not elsewhere provided for in the Agreement.
29 7.1.3. A general principle for setting rates for new facilities built to accommodate
30 growth shall be that"growth pays for growth". A general principle for funding
31 facilities built to accommodate growth shall be through a regional systems
32 development charge.
33 7.1.4. The cost of service to the Parties shall be as determined by the Cost-of-Service
34 Model. Said model shall be adopted annually by the Board,and updated as
35 needed to maintain a reasonable allocation of charges.
36 7.1.5. For delivery of water to Parties west of the Willamette who do or could
37 receive water from the Washington County Supply Line,the cost of wheeling
38 water through Portland or operating the Washington County Supply Line shall
39 not be specifically allocated to individual Parties. Rather,they shall be
40 allocated equally using cost of service principles.
1s
DRAFT a
1 7.1.6. Within three months after the end of each fiscal year,the Agency shall
2 calculate the actual cost-of-service costs of water delivered to each Party during
3 the previous fiscal year and debit or credit the Parties for these actual costs.
4 7.2. Distribution Systems and Other Services:
5 7.2.1. The cost for providing services shall,at a minimum,reimburse the Agency
6 for its costs,including overheads and other indirect costs.
7 7.2.2. The Agency shall maintain an accounting system that fully tracks the costs
8 and revenues for these services and shall establish separate enterprise funds as
9 needed to maintain separation of Agency and non-agency funds.
10 7.2.3. The Agency shall not issue revenue bonds for a Party's distribution system.
11 7.3. Monthly Payments:
12 7.3.1. Each Party or contractee of the Agency shall make monthly payments to the
13 Agency for operation and maintenance expenses,capital improvements and
14 other upgrades in accordance with this Section.
15 7.3.2. The Agency shall send monthly billings to the Parties and contractees for all
16 payments due the Agency,which billing shall be due within 30 days of the
17 invoice date.Late-or non-payment fees,interest charges and penalties shall be
18 determined by the Board.
19
20 8. Water Sales to Outside Parties
21 8.1. The Agency shall have authority to enter into contracts to sell water to non-
22 parties to the Agreement.
23 8.2. Portland intends to transfer without penalty its existing wholesale contracts with
24 non-parties to the Agency as of the date of the Agreement. In the case where a
25 wholesaler owes money to Portland at the.date of the Agreement,the Agency
26 agrees to assume the accounts receivable and pay Portland the amount. However,
27 in the case that the City is unable to transfer these contracts,it will continue to
28 service them.
29 8.3. A model contract for sale of water will be provided in an appendix to the
30 Agreement. The purpose of drafting the wholesale contract ahead of time is for the
31 Parties to understand what commitments the Agency will be making in new
32 contracts. Said model contract may be amended from time to time by the Board
33 and shall be the contract used for these water sales.
34 8.4. Parties to the Agreement shall not resell water delivered to them10. However,in
35 the event that the City of Portland is unable to assign existing wholesale contracts to
36 the Agency,the City shall be allocated sufficient water to cover those obligations
37 and shall be permitted to deliver water to the contractees under the terms of the
10 The TAC and PSC should consider whether it should allow the Parties to continue selling water to their existing wholesale
contractors. As written,this clause would require that these contracts be terminated,which may be legally difficult.
DRAFT t 2 17
1 contracts.
2
3 9. Withdrawal,Termination of Membership and Sale of Assets
4
5 9.1. Voluntary Withdrawal or Termination of Membership
6 9.1.1. As a general principle it is the intent of the Parties that voluntary withdrawal
7 from the Agency shall be difficult.
8 9.1.2. Any Party may elect to terminate its participation in the Agreement and
9 withdraw from the Agency by giving written notice of its desire to terminate to
10 all other Parties,and stating the date for termination which shall be not less
11 than eighteen months(option:other time period) from the date of the notice of
12 termination.
13 9.1.3. Parties may terminate participation only in the entire System,not in
14 components of the System.
15 9.1.4. The Agency shall purchase the terminating Party's units under these terms:
16 the value per unit shall be the then-existing Board approved unit value;the
17 payment shall be made over twenty years beginning the next fiscal year after
18 the termination occurs;the interest on the unpaid balance shall be at the
19 Agency's then-existing average cost of debt less 100 basis points(option: some
20 other interest rate). Nothing shall prohibit the Board,by supermajority of the
21 remaining Parties,to agree to different terms.The Agency may pay all or a
22 portion of the price at any time without penalty. Upon the initial payment,the
23 defaulting party shall be deemed terminated and have no further interest
24 herein except those binding obligations and commitments of that defaulting
25 party as provided in other provisions of the Agreement.
26 9.1.5. In order to prevent a very large owner in the Agency from creating a fiscal
27 crisis for the Agency,any Party with an ownership interest in the System that
28 exceeds twenty-five percent(option:some other figure)who wishes to leave the
29 Agency agrees to remain a Party until such percentage drops below fifteen
30 percent(option:some other figure),unless the Agency agrees to purchase said
31 ownership interests under mutually satisfactory terms and conditions,as
32 provided for in this Section.
33 9.1.6. Upon completion of the transaction,the Agency may elect in its sole
34 discretion to provide water to the leaving party under a wAholesale water
35 purchase contract.
36
37 9.2. Involuntary Withdrawal or Termination of Membership
38 9.2.1. If a party violates or breaches a material term of the Agpeement,including
39 non-appropriation of funds,then,upon 30 days'written notice,the following
40 occurs:
DRAFT#2 18
1 9.2.1.1. Voting rights are suspended from the effective date of notice
2 (suspension) during the period a party is in default until the default is
3 cured or the Dispute Resolution procedures result in a decision finding no
4 default occurred and the party is reinstated to membership.The Board,in
5 its sole discretion,may determine that termination of the party's
6 membership is appropriate,not reinstatement. In such case,and after
7 Dispute Resolution processes are exhausted affirming the declaration of
8 default,the Board may terminate the party's interest and pay the
9 terminated party according to this Section.
10 9.2.1.2. Upon suspension,the Party shall continue to receive its current
11 allocation of water from the Agency at the same Wholesale Water rate and
12 on substantially the same terms as it was receiving water prior to the
13 notice of suspension.
14 9.2.1.3. If the Board determines to terminate the defaulting party's
15 membership,and if the declaration of default is affirmed under the
16 Dispute Resolution process,then notwithstanding any other provision
17 herein,the Agency shall upon 90 days'written notice purchase the
18 defaulting party's proportionate interest in the Agency and assets at
19 original cost less depreciation(option:other formula). The Board shall make
20 payment over 20 years(beginning the next fiscal year after the termination
21 occurs)with the unpaid balance accruing interest at the Agency's average
22 cost of debt less 150 basis points(option:some other interest rate).The
23 Agency may pay all or a portion of the price at any time without penalty.
24 Upon the initial payment,the defaulting party shall be deemed terminated
25 and have no further interest herein except those binding obligations and
26 commitments of that defaulting party as provided in other provisions of
27 the Agreement.
28 9.2.1.4. Upon termination,the Agency may elect in its sole discretion to
29 provide water to the terminated party under a wholesale purchase
30 contract.
31 9.3 Dissolution of the Agency (to be inserted)
32
33 10. Liability
34 10.1. A Party's liability for the debt of the Agency shall be in accordance with a Party's
35 percent ownership.
36 10.2. To the extent it determines reasonable,the Board shall obtain insurance to limit
37 the Parties'liability to their percentage of ownership.
38 10.3. A leaving Party shall remain liable for its unit of the debt of the Agency at the
39 time of its notice to leave,unless the Agency or other Parties agree to assume this
40 liability.
DRAFT t 2 19
1 10.4. Tort Liability of the Parties: The Agency shall maintain insurance to cover the
2 tort liability of Board members and staff acting in their capacity as agents for the
3 Agency-
4 11. Dispute Resolution
5 11.1. The Parties agree that decisions by the Board by supermajority shall be final and
6 Parties disagreeing with such decisions shall proceed directly to step 3 in this
7 dispute resolution process. For all other disputes between a Party and the Agency
8 or among the Parties,steps 1 and 2 shall occur first. However,nothing shall prevent
9 the disputing parties from waiving any of the steps by mutual consent.
10 11.2. Step 1: Negotiation: each party to a dispute shall designate a person to represent
11 them in attempting to resolve the issue. If the dispute is resolved at this step,there
12 shall be a written determination of such resolution,signed by the designated
13 representative and ratified by the governing bodies,which shall be binding upon
14 the parties.
15 11.3. Step 2: Mediation: If the dispute cannot be resolved within thirty days at Step 1,
16 the parties shall submit the matter to non-binding mediation. The parties shall
17 attempt to agree on a mediator. If they cannot agree,the parties shall request a list
18 of five mediators from an entity or firm providing mediation services. A mediator
19 shall be selected by mutual agreement of the parties,or,failing such agreement,by
20 random lot from the list of five names. Any common costs of the mediation shall be
21 born equally by the parties. If the issue is resolved at this step,a written
22 determination of such resolution shall be signed by the person representing the
23 parties and ratified by the governing body of each party,which shall be binding on
24 the parties.
25 11.4. Legal Action: After exhaustion of Steps 1 and 2,the Parties may initiate litigation
26 in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for County.
27 11.5. Each party shall bear its own legal and expert witness fees.
28 12.Amendments to Agreement (to be inserted)
29 13.General Provisions (to be inserted)
30 13.1.1. Notices
31 13.1.2. Severability
32 13.1.3. Counterparts
33 13.1.4. Force Majeure
34 13.1.5. Survival of Covenants
35
DW 02 20
1 °
z Appendixes
3 A. List of System Assets
4 B. Capital Projects
5 C. Units of Ownership in the Agency
6 D. Demand Projections of the Parties
7 E. Initial Financial Status of Agency
8
DRAFT t 2 21
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING
Minutes of June 5,2002
Consortium Board Chairman Les Larson called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board
Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers/Annex.
Elected representatives from eighteen Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting
(which is a quorum),including City of Beaverton, Clackamas River Water, City of Gladstone,
City of Gresham, City of Hillsboro, City of Lake Oswego,Metro, Oak Lodge Water District,
City of Portland,Powell Valley Road Water District,Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy,
Sunrise Water Authority, City of Tigard, City of Tualatin,Tualatin Valley Water District,West
Slope Water District, and City of Wilsonville.
Consortium member agencies not represented by elected officials at this meeting included the
City of Fairview, City of Forest Grove, City of Milwaukie,Raleigh Water District, and South
Fork Water Board.
Introductions: Introductions were made. Those in attendance included Councilor Joyce Patton
and Richard Sattler from the City of Tigard; Councilor Steve Chrisman and Mike McKillip from
the City of Tualatin; Commissioner Bruce Fontaine,Dale Jutila and Susan Adams-Gunn from
Clackamas River Water; Councilor Susan McLain from Metro; Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto
and Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District; Commissioner Erik Sten,Dennis Kessler and
Judi Ranton from the City of Portland; Commissioner John Huffinan and Tom Pokorny from
Powell Valley Road Water District; Commissioner Les Larson,Katherine Willis and Paul Savas
from Oak Lodge Water District;Vice President Jim Duggan and Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin
Valley Water District; District Board President Sandra Ramaker and Harvey Barnes from
Rockwood Water PUD;Mayor Charlotte Lehan and Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville;
Commissioner Mike Grimm, John Thomas and Kim Anderson from Sunrise Water Authority;
Mayor Charles Becker,Dale Anderson,Keely Thompson and Rebecca Skones from the City of
Gresham; Councilor Don Allen from the City of Sandy; Dan Bradley and Kim Swan from South
Fork Water Board; Councilor Forrest Soth from the City of Beaverton; Commissioner Will
Crandall and Tacy Steele from the City of Hillsboro; Councilor Ellie McPeak and Joel Komarek
from the City of Lake Oswego; Councilor Carl Gardner from the City of Gladstone; Pat Brown,
citizen; Herb Brown, citizen; and Lorna Stickel,Rebecca Geisen and Patty Burk from the City of
Portland/Consortium Staff.
Approval of Minutes for December 5,2001 and March 6 and 28,2002• A motion was made
by Councilor Forrest Soth and seconded by Commissioner Mike Grimm to approve the meeting
minutes of December 5,2001 and March 6 and 28,2002. The Consortium Board unanimously
approved the minutes as written.
Public Comment: There was no public comment given.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5, 2002
Approval of an Amendment to the Consortium Staffing Intergovernmental Agreement:
Lorna Stickel thanked the Consortium Board members for their attendance at this meeting.Ms.
Stickel reported that the City of Portland has provided the staffing of the Consortium for the past
five years under an Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)between the Consortium Board and the
Portland City Council. Ms. Stickel said the current Consortium Staffing Intergovernmental
Agreement terminates on June 30,2002. Ms. Stickel noted that the Portland City Attorney's
office advised that the best way to extend the staffing agreement was with a simple amendment.
The Portland City Council approved the amendment. Ms. Stickel advised that the staffing IGA
amendment extends the termination date to June 30,2005. She noted that the Consortium
Technical Subcommittee(CTSC)decided that a three-year extension would allow for the
possibility of a different regional entity to develop. Ms. Stickel commented that the amendment
was provided in the meeting materials packet.
Mayor Charles Becker moved to approve the amendment to the Regional Water Providers
Consortium Staffing Intergovernmental Agreement which extends the termination date to June
30, 2005. Councilor Don Allen seconded the motion. The motion to approve the amendment to
the Regional Water Providers Consortium Staffing Intergovernmental Agreement was
unanimously approved by the Consortium Board.
Election of Officers: Chairman Les Larson noted that next on the agenda was the election of a
new Consortium Board Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Chair Larson said the new officer's term
would commence at the September 2002 Board meeting and would be for one year. Chair
Larson opened the nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Mike Grimm nominated
Commissioner John Huffman from Powell Valley Road Water District for the position of
Consortium Board Chairman. There were no other nominations. Councilor Don Allen seconded
the nomination. The Consortium Board unanimously approved the nomination of Commissioner
John Huffman as the new Consortium Board Chairman.
Chair Larson reminded the Board members that the Consortium Board Chair and Vice-Chair
must come from different counties. Chair Larson advised that since Commissioner Huffman is
from Multnomah County,the new Vice-Chairman will need to be from Washington or
Clackamas County. Chair Larson nominated Commissioner Mike Grimm from Sunrise Water
Authority. There were no other nominations. Tualatin Valley Water District Board Vice-
President Jim Duggan seconded the nomination. The Consortium Board unanimously approved
the nomination of Commissioner Mike Grimm as the new Consortium Board Vice-Chairman.
Regional Water Supply Plan Update: Lorna Stickel commented that the first year of the
Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP)Update is almost complete. Ms. Stickel reported that work
on the RWSP Update is progressing in all sectors. She noted that all of the consultants are on
board and work is proceeding. Ms. Stickel said the Consortium is approaching a time in RWSP
Update when involvement from the Executive Committee and the Board will begin to intensify.
2
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5,2002
Water Demand Forecast—Ms. Stickel reported that data entry is continuing for those entities
that have provided production data. The service area map is still being developed within the
Portland GIS section, as the Metro mapping was determined to be useful but not complete. She
noted that work is anticipated to be complete on the map by June 15. Ms. Stickel said
discussions with Metro are scheduled to determine the nature of the population and employment
forecasting that can be provided prior to the completion of the allocated 20-year forecast being
developed by Metro this year. Ms. Stickel reported that water production data has been
submitted by a number of Consortium entities. Ms. Stickel advised that the information will be
used to create individual water provider forecasts.
Conservation Review—Lorna Stickel reported that Planning and Management Consultants Ltd.
(PMCL)from Carbondale Illinois has been selected to do the conservation review. Ms. Stickel
stated the budget for this work had to be increased but that it did not result in an increase in the
overall Consortium budget. The first work tasks on the conservation review and update had
begun with a meeting on May 7 between PMCL,the Conservation Committee, and some
members of the Consortium Technical Committee(CTC). This meeting focused on identifying
what the Consortium currently knows about the conservation strategy of the RWSP, the interim
report recommendations of 1999,the regional implementation program, and other local data on
conservation programs. She said the group then addressed the programs that should be added to
the review,the criteria to be used for evaluating the programs, and the types of targets for
savings that should be developed for inclusion in the update decision making. This review
project will allow a review of programs that can be designed to meet provider, sub-regional, or
regional needs.
Source Options—Ms. Stickel reported that Economic &Engineering Services, Inc. (EES)has
been hired to do the Source Options Analysis review and update. EES has worked with the
CTSC to develop two technical memorandums. The first memorandum is a review of the policy
objectives and criteria to be used in evaluating source options; the second is an update of the
source options included in the RWSP as well as new developments since the Plan was endorsed
in 1996. Ms. Stickel commented that both memorandums could be found in the Consortium
Board material packet. Lorna noted that work is also beginning on updating the data sets,which
will be utilized in the Confluence model related to costs,water rights, and hydrology.
Integration Modeling—Lorna Stickel commented Gary Fiske and Associates has been selected
to do the work on the Integration Model. Work has begun on developing the base case map for
the region and was included in the meeting materials packet. Ms. Stickel reported that Mr. Fiske
has worked with the CTSC and various water providers throughout the region to develop the
base case for the model so that representations of the region's primary water systems are
accurate. Ms. Stickel advised work has also begun to populate the data sets for the Integration
Model.
Public Involvement—Ms. Stickel advised that the first newsletter has been printed and was
mailed the week of May 6. This newsletter introduces the project and includes a questionnaire
and mailing list update form to be mailed back. She said this first newsletter is being sent to
3,600 persons and agencies on the Consortium mailing list that has been developed over several
3
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5,2002
years. It is expected that the mailback requirement will result in a significant update of the
mailing list,including a reduction in its size. A summary of the responses to the questionnaires
is being prepared and will be sent out as soon as it is completed. Ms. Stickel commented that the
Consortium website is being updated overall, and information about the Update will be placed on
the website, including the newsletters, as they are developed.
Mayor Charlotte Lehan commented that she has talked with Consortium staff regarding some
inaccuracies in the technical memorandum from EES regarding the update of water source
options included in the RWSP as well as new developments since the Plan was endorsed in 1996.
Mayor Lehan stated the City of Wilsonville came on line with a new water supply on April 29,
2002. She noted the transition went very smoothly and there were no complaints about dirty
water. Mayor Lehan said the water quality has been exceptional and their customers have been
very happy. She noted that the City of Wilsonville will be working with the Consortium staff
and consultants to make changes and updates in the memorandum that include Wilsonvi
lle'swater source. Mayor Lehan commented that they would be havinga brat new
of the Wilsonville Treatment Plant later in the summer and would be invilting all ingerestedation
parties.
Commissioner Jim Duggan commented that readers of the technical memorandum regarding th
update of water sources in the RWSP may interpret incorrectly the role that Tualatin Valley e
Water District(TVWD)has in the Wilsonville Treatment Plant. Commissioner Duggan stated
that TVWD is a forty-nine percent owner of the land and a thirty-three treatment plant with the City of Wilsonville. He noted that if d the memorandum, may
be misconstrue that TWVD participated in the intake only and nothing else. Commissioner y
Duggan advised that he will be asking his general manager to work with the Consortium staff so
that proper representation is accurate in the final document with regards to the ownership
participation of the Tualatin Valley Water District in the Wilsonville Treatment Plant.
Councilor Susan McLain commented that the first RWSP Update newsletter was very
that she had recently been to a few meetings at which water issues were discussed. ouncilor d
McLain asked if there were extra copies of the newsletter that could be sent to the Consortium
members for distribution at meetings that discuss water and regional water supply issues
Councilor McLain encouraged Consortium entities to make presentations to their Board, as was
done with the original RWSP,regarding the Update when the preliminary recommendations are
made. She hopes that the water providers will dedicate FTE and budget, as necessary, to make
these presentations. Lorna Stickel commented that as outlined in the RWSP Update Public
Information Plan, a speakers bureau has been identified and is available to make such
presentation.
Conservation Committee Re ort: Rebecca Geisen reported that the Consortium Conservation
Committee (CCC)has been working diligently with Dodge, Schmitgall, inc. (DSI)on the new
summer marketing campaign which will kick off in July. The focus of the new campaign is on
outdoor use and reducing peak season water use. Ms. Geisen noted that this summer's messa e
is one inch of water over the course of a week is enough to maintain a healthy lawn. The g
radio
4
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5,2002
is one inch of water over the course of a week is enough to maintain a healthy lawn. The radio
and television advertisements will also encourage people to visit the Consortium website for
more conservation information. Ms. Geisen said she hoped to have the radio and television spots
available at this meeting,however,the shooting schedule was delayed due to rain. Ms. Geisen
reported that she will be appearing on the KEX radio Garden Doctor show, In the Garden with
Mike Darcy, Oregon Live, and AM Northwest. DSI is updating the Consortium website. The
website will go live in July along with the kick off of the summer marketing campaign. She
commented that the new website is very attractive and easy to navigate.
Ms. Geisen noted that the Clean Water Festival was held the weekend of March 22,2002. She
said for the past nine years the Coalition and the Consortium have had an active role in the
festival. Ms. Geisen said that 1,500 children and 40 teachers participated in the festival. The
Consortium sponsors a teacher resource room and stage performance. The Clean Water Festival
was held at Portland Community College's Rock Creek Campus.
Ms. Geisen advised that the cartoon map was completed and 22,000 maps had been printed. She
noted that each Consortium entity would receive 300 maps and many entities purchased
additional copies.
Ms. Geisen reported that February 6-7,2002 at Clackamas Community College, the Irrigation
Association in conjunction with United Pipe put on an annual Certified Landscape Irrigation
Auditor training class and certification program. The Consortium Conservation Committee
sponsored$150 grants to contractors who qualify for them. The program is designed to
encourage landscape contractors to provide professional services and information about water
wise landscaping and water efficiencies. The CCC awarded eight grants.
Rebecca reported that a conservation survey was developed and sent to all the Consortium
entities to collect information about conservation programs that each entity is currently doing,
how much money entities allocate to conservation programs and how much staff time is
dedicated to the implementation of conservation programs.
Ms. Geisen reported that two workshops have been held this spring in partnership with
Naturescaping for Clean Rivers. Workshops have been held in Oregon City and Wilsonville. Ms.
Geisen advised that a third workshop is planned in Fairview on June 8.
Ms. Geisen advised that the Consortium Conservation Committee will be participating in a
watershed fair at the new Oregon Garden on June 29,2002. The CCC will be hosting a hands-on
planting activity to emphasize soil quality and low water use plants.
Conservation in the Portland Area and Its Role in Meeting Supply Needs: Rebecca Geisen
gave a power point presentation on Conservation in the Portland Area and Its Role in Meeting
Supply Needs. Ms. Geisen noted that a copy of the presentation slides was available in the
Board meeting materials packet.
5
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5, 2002
Ms. Geisen said she wanted to provide an overview on conservation planning and a snapshot of
where the Consortium is today in regards to conservation to help inform the discussions that was
to follow in the conservation breakout sessions. Ms. Geisen explained the presentation would
include a background on regional conservation planning,where we are now including what
regional programs are in place, the results of the conservation survey and what data is telling us
about conservation and the breakout session questions.
Ms. Geisen commented that in 1996,when the RWSP was adopted, the conservation element
focused on outdoor conservation programs and reducing peak season water use. These programs
included education, outdoor water audits,incentives to install efficient irrigation and
landscaping, landscape ordinances and conservation pricing structures.
Ms. Geisen reported that in 1999, the Consortium hired Jennifer Stout, one of the key
contributors in the RWSP,to make recommendations that reflected advancements in
conservation planning and to develop a model to calculate conservation program costs and water
savings by provider. Some of Ms. Stout's recommendations included eliminating residential
landscape ordinances, changing the audience for large user workshops, eliminating larger user
education programs, enhancing outdoor incentive programs,combining some programs and
continuing to evaluate conservation pricing. The recommendations made in the Stout report, if
adopted,would decrease the conservation target savings in the original RWSP by about 18%by
2020. She noted the reasons for the decrease included changes in land use patterns, the
recommendation to eliminate residential landscape ordinances, the growth demand forecast used
in the RWSP, adjustments made to eliminate double counting and that conservation pricing was
not factored into Ms. Stout's report.
Ms. Geisen outlined the objectives for the Conservation Element of the RWSP Update. The
objectives include the development of criteria for program implementation, incorporation of new
water demand forecasts, updating the cost and savings of programs, the development of other
program ideas including indoor programs for residential and Institutional, Commercial and
Industrial (ICI)users,the development of program implementation scenarios along with new
supply options in the modeling, and making a decision about the role of conservation in meeting
future supply needs.
Rebecca reported that currently the Regional Water Providers Consortium is implementing
regional education and awareness programs,participatesin er
community events and has a summ
media campaign. The Consortium sponsors residential landscape workshops,has a very active
youth education program and does many outreach programs with the landscape and irrigation
industry.
Ms. Geisen reviewed the results of the 2002 Consortium Conservation Survey. She noted that
86% of the Consortium entities have public education programs, 36%have conservation pricing,
45%have fixture replacement programs, 36%have incentives and rebate programs, 5%have
water restrictions or ordinances and 27%have water audit programs. Ms. Geisen reported that in
most areas there has been an increase in the number of conservation programs being done by
individual Consortium entities since a similar survey that was done in 1998. She noted that
6
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5,2002
water providers reported in the survey that their primary reasons for implementing conservation
programs is to reduce peak season demand, delay infrastructure and extend supply.
Ms. Geisen highlighted some of the conservation programs being done in the region. She
reported that the City of Gresham completed a pilot Residential Landscape Rebate Program,
which included lawn aeration,landscape audit and mulch/compost rebates. The City of
Hillsboro has an Evapotransporation(ET) Controller Program for their large landscapes like
parks, schools and Intel. Tualatin Valley Water District also uses the City of Hillsboro's weather
stations. The City of Portland has a very active Business, Industry and Government(BIG)
Program that works closely with businesses to provide technical expertise to help them to
conserve water at their sites. Clackamas River Water has a high efficiency washing machine
rebate program and TVWD has a large demonstration garden.
Ms. Geisen reviewed some key points to remember when thinking about conservation and the
implementation of conservation programs. She explained that conservation programs are not the
same as curtailment,which is used for extreme events. In the metropolitan area current water
supplies are more than adequate to meet off peak season demand. As a result, the RWSP
focused on the peak summer use when the water supplies are the most stressed. Ms. Geisen
reminded the Board members that conservation programs ramp up over time. These programs
will not make water immediately available. Conservation programs require maintenance and
resources usually on an annual expense basis.
Next, a graph was shown illustrating Portland's retail and wholesale annual average per capita
per day water demand. Ms. Geisen reported that the per capita demand for water in the Portland
system leveled off in the 1970s, dramatically decreased with the drought in 1992 and has
stabilized. Ms. Geisen said current water demand is about 15%lower than what it would have
been if pre-1992 demand trends had continued. She commented that the demand model
attributes 5% of that decrease to conservation programs and the remaining percentage to land use
changes and economic factors.
Ms. Geisen reported on the effects of low-flow plumbing legislation on water demand. The
General Accounting Office reports that the effects of low-flow plumbing legislation will reduce
water consumption 3 to 9%by year 2020. The American Water Works Association(AWWA)
reports that the water reduction in Oregon,Washington and Idaho will be 4.6%by year 2010 and
7.3%by year 2020. A 1999 end-use report by the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation(AWWARF)reported on savings from low-flow fixtures. Savings can be as high as
52%with low flow toilets, 30%with water efficient clothes washers and a 21%water savings
with low-flow showerheads. Ms. Geisen reported that locally,Lafayette and the City of
Wilsonville conducted a pilot program called Save Water and Energy Education Program
(SWEEP) in which they installed water saving fixtures in fifty homes. The program documented
a 25%water saving over baseline indoor water use through fixture and appliance replacement.
Ms. Geisen said that water data collection is imperative to document water conservation savings
and program effectiveness. She noted that without consumption and production data it is very
difficult to monitor and track water demand,the success of conservation programs, and to
7
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5,2002
determine the impacts on revenue from water sales. She said the longer the period of data
recorded,the more reliable the findings will be.Ms. Geisen advised that implementing some
conservation programs without the data can be risky and many states now require data collection
as part of their water rights permit process.
Rebecca commented that there are many factors that drive conservation program planning and
implementation. She noted that some of these factors include regional, state and federal
permitting requirements, environmental group pressure,citizen and customer expectations, it is
the"right thing to do"based on adopted policies and it can make economic sense to delay
demands if it results in delayed infrastructure investments.
Ms. Geisen explained that for the remainder of the meeting,the Consortium Board members
would be breaking out in three sessions by county,Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas,to
discuss the role of conservation in the RWSP Update. Each breakout session were given the
same four questions to help facilitate and guide their discussion. The breakout session questions
were:
1. What are your reasons/what motivates you to do conservation?Examples could include such
things as delay or avoid infrastructure projects, customer expectations, "it's the right thing to
do,"regulatory requirements for permits or water rights, etc.
2. What is important for you to know about conservation's costs and benefits? What information
do you need to determine how much to spend on conservation programs?How comfortable are
you relying on conservation to meet supply needs and for budgeting purposes?
3. Do we need conservation targets and if so, should we set conservation targets in the RWSP
and then find programs to meet the targets, or should we define targets based on the programs
desired by the providers?
4. Does the Consortium want to continue its primary focus on outdoor programs aimed at
reducing peak season use or would you like to also achieve some year-round savings through
indoor and Commercial,Industrial and Institutional programs?How aggressive should these
programs be?
Breakout Sessions on the Role of Conservation in the RWSP Update: The Consortium Board
members broke out into three sessions by county to discuss the role of conservation in the RWSP
Update.
Following the breakout sessions, each group returned to the Metro Council Chambers/Annex to
summarize their group's discussion. Commissioner John Huffinan was the spokesperson for
Multnomah County. Councilor Forrest Soth was the spokesperson for Washington County and
Commissioner Mike Grimm spoke for Clackamas County.
8
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 5,2002
Attached are the notes and summaries from those breakout sessions.
A motion was voiced to adjourn the Consortium Board Meeting. The motion was seconded.
The Consortium Board meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. The next meeting of the Regional
Water Providers Consortium Board is Wednesday, September 4,2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Metro
Council Chamber/Annex.
Submitted by Patty Burk, Consortium Staff
9
Regional Water Providers Consortium
Clackamas County Break-out Session
June 5,2000
Attendance: Susan Adam Gunn,facilitator—CRW,Bruce Fontaine- CRW,Dale Jutila-
CRW staff; Carl Gardner—City of Gladstone;Ellie McPeak—Lake Oswego, Joel
Komarek- Lake Oswego staff; Les Larson—Oak Lodge Water District, Paul Savas—Oak
Lodge Board member,Kathy Willis—Oak Lodge staff;Dan Bradley,Kim Swan—South
Fork Water Board staff;Mike Grimm—Sunrise Water Authority,John Thomas,Kim
Anderson- Sunrise staff; Charlotte Lehan—City of Wilsonville,Jeff Bauman—
Wilsonville staff
1.What are your reasons/what motivates you to do conservation? Examples could
include such things as delay or avoid infrastructure projects,customer expectations,
"it's the right thing to do",regulatory requirements for permits or water rights,etc.
Extend supply and infrastructure needs was the number one reason. Water providers are
going to have to sell conservation on economics by showing the benefits of delaying new
infrastructure and shaving peak demand because peak water is more expensive.
"It is the right thiniz to do"—this sets trends for future generations. Kids should be our
audiences—they need to grow up with the notion that water is a limited resource=
preplanning. The"right thing to do"also includes fish, and environmental issues related
to withdrawing water from rivers and instream flows.
Permitting-need to prepare for future conservation requirements (new permits or permit
extensions). Water providers will need to plan for future water rights and work with the
Oregon Water Resource Dept. It currently takes about five years to comply with these
new rules. Would need to calculate the difference between conservation and new
withdrawals. Division 86 rules kick in when extending water right permits. These rules
effect many of the Clackamas County providers.
Economic motivation, customers want to save money. Water Providers need to make
conservation easier for people to understand. It is the water provider's responsibility to
show customers and give them concrete/tangible ways to save.
Reduces wastewater treatment and energy requirements Water Conservation reduces
pressure on the wastewater treatment plants as well as saves energy. Because of high
energy costs customers are looking for more energy/water saving appliances—People are
more receptive to conservation in this market—price motivation. The SWEEP program
in Wilsonville saw water and energy savings.
2.What is important for you to know about conservation's cost and benefits? What
information do you need to determine how much to spend on conservation
programs? How comfortable are you relying on conservation to meet supply needs
and for budgeting purposes?
Long term saving have to be identified–infrastructure costs. It is hard to get arms around
water providers with different customers–hard to understand cost and benefits. Would
like to see a menu of options for different customer classes.
To determine how much to spend on conservation providers have to make a best guess
estimate and think about how much risk they want to take. It is also important to look
toward where you want to go–the long term savings. Need a model to help calculate the
risk.
Water Providers indicated that they needed to find out what other agencies have done and
what the cost per household was,how to encourage conservation with high end users, and
to get a better handle on customer classes/needs. They would like to know what else is
out there regarding cost availability and water savings.
Water Provider said that they would be more willing to do retrofits for large users:
because weather stations are expensive they make more sense for large landscapes–
schools,parks, etc.
Explore retrofit options for irrigation controls: Lake Oswego is looking at irrigation
retrofits -ET controllers, soil probes,but would like more information on real
installations, and the results of the water savings. Would like to see research or written
reports. Lots of irrigation systems in LO are crude so it is difficult to make changes in
irrigation controllers–need more education on this. How much are ET Controllers?
Sunrise is piloting a urogram to monitor peak vs non-peak usage over a daily basis using
LAN(local area network). They will be tracking select neighborhoods for usage. Sunrise
has a signification number of high-end homes where price doesn't matter. How do you
get these people to conserve water? Need to find out what their motivations to
conservation water are?
Design methods for shaving the peak -—i.e.. "No water" days: In Wilsonville saw real
savings when started implementing water restrictions–saw peak decline for 7 years as
population continued to grow.Restrictions get peoples attention. They were able to get
rid of peak and allowed them to get by for many years. People in Wilsonville habits have
changed over the last few years–lush green lawns have become more rare. Will be
interesting to see what happens this summer since there will be no heavy conservation
pressure.
3.Do we need conservation targets and if so,should we set conservation targets in
the RWSP and then find programs to meet the targets,or should we define targets
based on the programs desired by the provider?
Targets probably need to be based on specific system requirements. Providers agreed
that they didn't see how regional targets would work because each agency will have
different issues. The practicality of regional targets will depend on how each individual
system peaks.
They liked the idea of building the targets from the bottom up—look at individual
providers targets and see what the aggregate would be for a regional target.
Need a regional tarizet at some level: Regional targets can show good stewardship and
have generic enough parts that apply to all water providers.
The question was raised of how do you acknowledge shared supplies and conserve water
so there are no disadvantages?
4. Does the Consortium want to continue its primary focus on outdoor programs
aimed at reducing peak season use or would you like to also achieve some year-
round saving through indoor and commercial,industrial and institutional
programs? How aggressive should these programs be?
Indoor water conservation can be driven by the energy and wastewater savings playing a
bigger role. Indoor conservation plays a role in skimming off average but does not really
address peak issues.
There is no reason not to do indoor conservation but water providers will get a bigger
bang for their buck by doing outdoor programs.
In Sunrise because of all the new construction in the past ten years, indoor conservation
efforts don't make a lot of sense because all of the homes already have low flow fixtures.
Outdoor water use is the primary issue.
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD
MEETING
June 5, 2002
7:00 —9:00 p.m.
WASHINGTON COUNTY BREAKOUT SESSION MINUTES
Attendees: A.P.DiBenedetto and Jerry Arnold(West Slope Water District); Joyce Patton and
Richard Sattler(City of Tigard); Steve Chrisman and Mike McKillip (City of Tualatin); Jim
Duggan and Greg DiLoreto (Tualatin Valley Water District); Forrest Soth(City of Beaverton);
Will Crandall and Tacy Steele(City of Hillsboro).
Question#1 —Motivators
♦ What are your reasons/what motivates you to do conservation? Examples
could include such things as delay or avoid infrastructure projects, customer
expectations, "it's the right thing to do," regulatory requirements for permits
or water rights, etc.
CHART PACK NOTES
• Economics
- Increased rates on horizon
- Business/residential will look at costs
- Users don't see current savings of water leads to long term and savings.
• Operating Water Systems
- Annually refill res., fire flow storage, etc.
- Predictability
• Challenge the consumer with graphs on bill
• Water Savings
- Small increment of conservation in Tigard helps with supply at peak demand time.
- Small increments accumulate for overall demand.
Forrest Soth commented that economics is a big conservation motivator. With increases in
water rates, both residential and commercial customers are going to start looking at ways to
conserve water. He noted customers are more apt to conserve water if they believe it will
delay an increase in water rates.
Jim Duggan noted that water system operation and being able to avoid sharp changes in
demand is a strong motivator for conservation. Predictability in how the water system
operates.
Will Crandall stated that it is important to challenge the consumer to conserve water but also
let them know how they are doing in terms of water savings. He noted this could be done by
providing water use graphs on their bill.
Joyce Patton commented even the small increment of water savings you get from
conservation is important because it helps with peak season usage and allows for adequate
summer supply.
Mr. Soth concurred that even a small water savings through conservation acc
can make a big difference in overall water demand. umulates and
Question #2 — Costs and Benefits
4 What is important for you to know about conservation's costs and benefits?
What information do you need to determine how much to spend on
conservation programs? How comfortable are you relying on conservation to
meet supply needs and for budgeting purposes?
CHART PACK NOTES
• What is the history of past conservation programs and effectiveness?
• How to keep pattern of conservation in customers' awareness?
- Make customer aware of potential summer season supply.
- How do customers perceive info about summer supply? Crisis?
• Good demographic projections and how this will effect supply and demand.
• UGB expansion/not expanding.
• Low use fixture savings.
• Per capita use historically for budget/forecasting.
• Which fixtures (low flow)people like and will therefore continue to use.
• Are we looking for more gains in fixtures or is most of the gain already made?
• For all conservation efforts, are we still able to make gains in an area of is it"saturated"?
• Cost effectiveness of rebates/credits for larger ticket applications.
• Can average household afford to buy the appliances? Most at least wait until the old one
dies.
• Will incentives/rebates for expensive appliances pay off—will need other programs.
• Not comfortable reel ,ing on conservation for supply needs but it is an important piece.
2
• We budget for worst case scenario.
• Conservation will keep demand lower but can't bank on it.
Mr. Soth commented that what has been done to this point or the history of past conservation
programs and their effectiveness would be important to know to determine how much
resources to put into conservation.
Steve Chrisman asked how do you keep people motivated to do conservation. He noted that
presently there seems to be enough water to meet demand but how do you get water users to
look into the future at the bigger picture.
Mr. Crandall asked could you anticipate and note on a customer's bill what the summer water
supply picture is anticipated to look like. He noted this could be a way to keep users
interested in conservation.
Mr. Soth asked do we have adequate and accurate demographic predictions to indicate what
the future water supply requirements might be.
Jim Duggan commented that the information provided in the earlier conservation
presentation such as the data provided on the percentage of water savings from low flow
plumbing fixtures and per capita water use is extremely important information to have to help
with the decision making in what value to place on conservation programs. It is an important
part of forecasting trends for budget and water supply needs.
Ms. Patton commented it is important to not only know what conservation programs are
effective but also to know which are going to be well received especially with residential
customers. She noted that low flow toilets are going to be much more positively received
than the low flow showerheads and it does not do any good to spend money putting in water
saving devices that customers do not like because they will remove them.
A.P. DiBenedetto said that many customers are not satisfied with low flow fixtures,
therefore, once their house has passed inspection,they are replacing the low flow fixtures
with the older style,higher flow fixtures.
Mr. Soth asked in regards to the Save Water Energy Energy Program(SWEEP)done in
Lafayette and Wilsonville that had a 25%reduction in water use, can the average household
afford the expensive appliance replacement. He commented that most citizens can not afford
the high cost of these water saving appliances,therefore, it will require the water utilities to
provided higher incentives for rebates.
3
Joyce Patton said some individual entities would not be able to afford the more costly
incentive rebates.
Ms.Patton commented she's personally not comfortable with relying on conservation for
meeting water supply needs. She noted conservation is an important component. She said
she would take advantage of conservation, create programs and budget for them but it is not
something to rely on to meet supply needs.
Forrest Soth commented all of the water agencies have to budget for the worst case scenario.
Jim Duggan noted that conservation is another variable in how you plan for future water
demand. Over time,it may keep the increase in water demand down but you can not count on
conservation to save a certain amount of water.
Will Crandall agreed that you can not bank on conservation as a source of water supply.
Question #3 —Targets
Do we need conservation targets and if so, should we set conservation
targets in the RWSP and then find programs to meet the targets, or should we
define targets based on the programs desired by the providers?
CHART PACK NOTES
• Don't like targets—artificial. Set targets to focus a program,prefer to evaluate programs
by jurisdiction and get assistance for them.
• Targets more philosophical than practical for planning.
• Choose program from data of prior users: decide cost/benefit and look at potential
savings. Targets—affected too much by variables beyond control.
• Message we want to convey � ,
a provider. —use wisely and here's why. Here's how we'll help you as
• Flexibility important as communities vary a lot.
• Hard programs costly—do we move toward these or stay with soft?
• Targets set expectations—goals more palatable to consumer.
• Need to convince consumer of benefit to do "hard"programs—reasonable paybacks.
• May give consumer message"will do saving for you"
• Where will money come from for conservation projects while also looking for capital for
long term development?
• Selling programs to jurisdictions based on need.
• Don't want targets in plan
4
• Consortium look at"hard"programs that may provide savings
• Budget still deciding factor with customers.
Joyce Patton said she does not like to set targets. She noted that you set targets when you
need that focus to pull programs together. She commented she would prefer to have the
ability to individually assess what particular programs are going to work best for your own
jurisdiction,be able to focus on those programs and get the assistance needed to implement
those programs.
Jim Duggan noted that setting targets is an intellectual exercise. He said to define targets
based on the conservation programs desired by the providers is the best approach. He
commented that people are leery about detailed analysis when in reality the message to get
out is water is not to be wasted,use it wisely and these are the reasons. That is the
conservation message we want to convey.
Joyce Patton added the conservation messages should also include that your water provider is
going to be looking at conservation programs that will benefit you in your service area.
Forrest Soth commented it is very important to have flexibility in programs because different
entities have very different customer needs.
Steve Chrisman asked did the Consortium staff and committees ask this question because
they wanted to set targets?
Tacy Steele advised that so far the Consortium has focused their conservation resources and
staff on soft programs(i.e. education,marketing, and outreach). The next step would be hard
programs (i.e. rebate programs, fixture replacement) like those outlined in the report done by
Jennifer Stout in 1999. These programs cost more money and resources. Tacy said the
decision to be made then is does the Consortium want to go that next step.
Jim Duggan commented if we do incorporate hard programs, it must be proven that these
programs are in the water provider's best interest and that the customers are going to want to
participate. It must convincingly be shown that it is going to be in the customer's interest to
participate. Mr. Duggan said the proof would need to be available before he would support
spending a lot of money on hard programs.
Forrest Soth said if water provider incorporate hard conservation programs into their
organization, they would have to find money in their budgets or raise rates.
Joyce Patton commented that if the Update to the Regional Water Supply Plan comes out
with a defined target for conservation that makes it a hard sell in terms of being able to go
5
forward. It is much easier to be able to go forward by saying individually each provider will
look at various conservation programs and individually will determine what is in the best
interest for their ratepayers. Ms. Patton reiterated she felt there was not a need for
conservation targets and did not want the implication of conservation targets in the Regional
Water Supply Plan Update. She stated that she much prefer to have a more generic
discussion in the Update regarding the Consortium looking into hard conservation programs
to see what might be beneficial to individual water providers.
Jim Duggan commented if there is going to be references to conservation targets in the
Update,he hoped it would not say this is our conservation goal or target;rather we hope
these programs yield this much savings. You have to be able to show customers these
conservation programs are in their benefit.
A.P DiBenedetto commented it all comes back to the budget.
Question #4—Programming
Does the Consortium want to continue its primary focus on outdoor programs
aimed at reducing peak season use or would you like to also achieve some
year-round savings through indoor and Commercial, Industrial and
Institutional programs? How aggressive should these programs be?
CHART PACK NOTES
• Both. Outdoor visible. Turn off sprinklers and like brown lawn.
• Lawns are beautiful
• Indoor have big impact. Industrial users want savings from conserving.
• Look to other irrigation sources i.e. Rain barrels w.s.—75%use in summer,25%use in
winter
• Outdoor/Ed programs work across jurisdictions.
• Other programs will be more individual to jurisdictions.
• How to choose what else to focus on that will benefit across jurisdictions—how to choose
collectively.
• Economy of scale for programs—
Partnerships
Joint purchasing
Using expertise in a subject area by multiple jurisdictions—stressing bottom line.
• Would like to see more aggressive program for conservation.
• Want to avoid confusion of consortium as a regional water authority.
• Looking to consortium to support each other in looking at long term picture for supply
needs. The cost is always the deciding factor.
6
Forrest Soth stated there is a need for both indoor and outdoor conservation programs.
Will Crandall commented that some of the city landscaping codes required for businesses are
costing a lot in water usage.
A.P. DiBenedetto noted that maybe it is time to bring out the rain barrels. If there are ways
to streamline some of the peak season use,they should be explored.
Joyce Patton said it has been easy for the Consortium to take on the role of conservation with
the focus on outdoor programs because all the Consortium entities agree that the outdoor and
educational programs work across all jurisdictions. One issue,in looking at water savings for
indoor and ICI programs is that these programs can be very individual to each jurisdiction.
She asked how would the Consortium come together to determine which indoor and ICI
programs they would focus on for the benefit of the whole.
A.P. DiBenedetto asked if it was known if there has been any affect on conservation by all
the bottled water being used.
Steve Chrisman commented that even though conservation seems to all boil down to
economics,he would still like to see more aggressive conservation programs but does not
know how, what,why or where.
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD
MEETING
June 5, 2002
7:00—9:00 p.m.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY BREAKOUT SESSION MINUTES
Attendees: Pat&Herb Brown(RWPUD customers); Sandra Ramaker(RWPUD);
Harvey Barnes (RWPUD); Tom Pokorny(Powell Valley Rd. Water Dist.);Dennis
Kessler(PWB); Judi Ranton(PWB);John Huffinan(Powell Valley Rd. Water Dist.);
Lorna Stickel(PWB); Susan McClain(Metro);Don Allen(Sandy); Chuck Becker
(Gresham);Dale Anderson(Gresham);Keely Thompson(Gresham);Rebecca Skones
(Gresham).
Question#1 —Motivators
♦ What are your reasons/what motivates you to do conservation?
Examples could include such things as delay or avoid infrastructure
projects, customer expectations, "it's the right thing to do," regulatory
requirements for permits or water rights, etc.
CHART PACK NOTES
• Irony—reduced water use also reduces sales and revenues
• Reduce costs of infrastructure
- effective delivery of service
• Environment
- ecosystem
• Philosophy—it's the right thing to do
• Reduce costs to customers
- efficiency of service
• Finite amount of water vs. population
• Education has created demand by public
• More competition for available supplies.
• Permit regulations and requirements to expand supply.
• Wastewater streams—treatment
• Drinking water treatment requirements
• Leak detection
• Reducing unaccounted for water
• Responsible use of resource.
John stated that an irony about conservation programming is that there is an inherent
conflict of interests. A successful conservation program will reduce revenue.
Dennis stated that reducing revenue is a short-term result. The conservation program
must be built up over time to see the real benefit.
Don stated that conservation fits in with long-term reduction plans. Using water
efficiently is better for the whole environment—it is"the right thing to do." Also, it
is cost-effective because it will delay costs of building infrastructure.
Chuck stated that the cost of infrastructure becomes more expensive if you are not
using it to capacity. He is looking for"cost-effective service delivery"—reducing
costs to the customer. Efficiency of service.
Don remarked that Sandy is dealing with finite supplies of water. Their question is
whether it will even be there in the future. Population increases are a factor to
consider. Balancing the ecosystem. Several people agreed with the need for
ecosystem balance.
John noted that conservation education has created a public demand for programs.
Also, there are more role-players demanding water, and regulations such as ESA have
impacted water supply needs. There is more competition for the water now.
Tom stated that there are now permit and regulatory requirements to consider.
Dennis noted that there is more to consider than just production—there is also the
cost of treatment, and what must be done environmentally.
Herb talked about the importance of leak detection programs with conservation
education. Harvey agreed and discussed the fact that leaks in mainlines are a
concern. Wanting to reduce the water-loss ratio.
Chuck stated that it is important to use resources responsibly.
Question #2 — Costs and Benefits
♦ What is important for you to know about conservation's costs and
benefits? What information do you need to determine how much to
spend on conservation programs? How comfortable are you relying on
conservation to meet supply needs and for budgeting purposes?
CHART PACK NOTES
0 Information, examples, experience.
• Difficult to measure
- measurement tools
• Monitoring
• How does land use change assumptions
• Short-term/long-term costs F4 benefits
• Types of projects
- reclamation and reuse options
• How to explain to electeds and convince public decisions about budgets.
• Economic analysis to explain to citizens in order to make informed decisions.
• Simple explanations
- Example—SDCs
• Full range of explanations
- Simple
- Practical
• Education
Susan stated that it was difficult to know how to budget for conservation, and how
much to budget. We don't have much data. We need statistics and examples.
Dale talked about the difficulty of measuring results. The benefits may not show up
for years.
Susan added that performance measures need to be built.
Chuck remarked that there is a cost to conservation which just has to be accepted.
We must value conservation to the point that we are willing to pay money for
programming. There will be an up-front cost.
Harvey stated that we don't want to get into a situation where we tell everyone to
conserve, and then raise their rates because they do.
Don indicated that in Sandy they do minor adjustments to rates so it isn't such a large
impact. Their main concern is water availability, and they have to watch the numbers
long-term.
John said that trying to take per-capita consumption statistics is difficult,because the
results become skewed with changes in housing demographics.
Harvey said that education needs to be focused on kids,because the current mindset
is, "If I can afford it and I want it, I'm going to buy it."
Susan gave an example of her daughter teaching her about recycling. She said with
conservation there is a short-term/long-term conflict. Managing yearly budgets is
difficult.
Harvey remarked that with conservation messages, consistency is key.
Don gave an example of recycling water in Sandy. Their treated wastewater is
pumped to a nursery and used for irrigation, and then recycled. This works very well,
although it took a long time to get the DEQ permits.
Keely summarized the responses so far: More data is needed,measurement tools are
needed,there is the problem of land-use changes,there is the conflict between short-
and long-term benefits, and different types of projects need to be considered.
Chuck stated that advocators should educate people on the cost savings. Make the
case that the infrastructure would last longer using conservation. Need supporting
facts.
Dennis added that there is a lack of economic analysis so that decision-makers can
understand the need for conservation. He gave the example that people used to not
understand SDC's,but with education,they now understand. With education,you
have to do a little bit over a long period of time.
Susan stated that people need to look at the big picture. She liked Rockwood's
slogan,"There's plenty of water,but never enough to waste." You need a full range
of explanations, some simple, some more complex.
Don remarked that some people are educated quickly, some slowly, and some never.
Question#3 —Targets
♦ Do we need conservation targets and if so, should we set conservation
targets in the RWSP and then find programs to meet the targets, or
should we define targets based on the programs desired by the
providers?
CHART PACK NOTES
• Set programs region-wide with flex.
• Establish reasonable targets
• Review;
• Set new targets
- Achievements get people going
- For customers and agencies
• Programs forwarded and promoted by customers
- get buy-in
Don said that you can't set a target. It's a moving target that has to be constantly
readjusted.
Chuck stated that the advantage to having targets is that you can start at a low level
and show achievement to users. He felt that we need to identify what conservation
message we will use region-wide, and then set targets. He outlined the steps: 1. Set
the programs first and get info on what is a reasonable target; 2. Establish regional
targets; I Review and set new targets; and 4. Now you have buy-in.
Dale remarked that conservation targets could apply to providers as well. We need
leak-detection programs and meter-testing programs.
Chuck added that the programs need to be forwarded by the consumer.
Question#4—Programming
♦ Does the Consortium want to continue its primary focus on outdoor
programs aimed at reducing peak season use or would you like to also
achieve some year-round savings through indoor and Commercial,
Industrial and Institutional programs? How aggressive should these
programs be?
CHART PACK NOTES
• Year-round also gets at peak.
• Explore what works best by community.
• Look at community afford. And acceptance
• Implement basic youth education programs
- Can never over—educations
Chuck stated that year-round programs are the key to success.
Don agreed. He believes that if you encourage conservation over the entire year, you
will reduce both peak and off-peak demand.
John agreed. They want outdoor, year-round programs.
Susan agreed that a year-round program is more comprehensive. People develop a
conservation ethic.
Chuck felt that we should go with what the consumer wants. We need to show them
success.
Harvey remarked that there is not much reason to go with indoor programs in new
cities. They already have the fixtures, etc. Programming needs to be broken down
sub-regionally.
Dale felt that benchmarks could be set up region-wide, and then explore what works
best by community.
Lorna agreed that we need to choose region-wide programs that make sense
regionally.
Harvey stated that it would make sense to look at retrofitting for his neighborhood,
for example,but not in all neighborhoods. Programs need to have community
affordability and acceptance.
John felt that programs could be set region-wide,but with some flexibility for
individual communities.
Herb stated that basic youth education programs need to be implemented.
Sandra agreed that you can never over-educate.
Keely concluded the breakout session by asking John to be the spokesperson for the
group.
Conservation the Regional
Water Supply Play Update
Consortium Board Meeting
June 5, 2002
Overview rtati
Background on Regional Conservation Planning
Where Are We Now?
What Regional Programs are in place
Results of conservation survey
What the data is telling us about conservation
Breakout Session Questions
Consortium 6/5/02
RWSP Conservation
RWSP strategy focused on outdoor conservation
programs
Conservation education on outdoor use
Outdoor Water Audits
Incentives to install efficient irrigation and
landscaping
Landscape ordinances (all classes)
Conservation Pricing Structures
Consortium 6/5/02
1999 Stout Report on Conservation
1999 Interim Report Recommendations -
prepared by Jennifer Stout for Consortium
Eliminate residential outdoor landscape ord.
Change the audience for large user workshops
Eliminate large user education program
Enhance outdoor incentive programs
e.g. ET controllers
Combine some programs
Continue to evaluate conservation pricing
Consortium 6/5/02
ConservationTargets
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 12040 2050
R},11(SP I fAGD 12.5 - 19.3 - 27.4 37.8 843.6 65.2
of Peak
Season Demand 5.5`o 8.3',•0 - 10.7% 13.4 a 16.2°•0 18.6%
Interim; MGD _ 5.3 9.2 13.7 15.9
Report
I
Update
Consoitium 6/5/02
Reasons r Change in Targets from
RVVSP to Stout Report
Changes in land use patterns (e.g. Lot sizes,
SF/IIF mix)
Recommendation to eliminate residential
landscape ordinances
Growth demand forecast used
Adjustments made to eliminate double counting
Conservation pricing not factored in Stout Report
Consortium 6/5/02
RIJVSP Update Objectives
Develop criteria for program implementation
New water demand forecasts
Update cost and savings of programs
Develop other program ideas including indoor
programs for residential and ICI
Develop implementation scenarios along with
new supply options in the modeling
Make decision about role of conservation in
meeting future supply needs
Consortium 6r5i02
Where re we now with C s ate
Regional Programs Today
Education and Awareness Programs
Summer Media Campaign
Community Event Participation
Residential Landscape Workshops
Youth Education
Outreach programs to landscape and irrigation
industry - incentive and joint programs
Consortium 6/5;02
2002 Conservation Surjey
Carty Clams IVUVM-Eh V1itirgtcn Tctd C]�frCM
fVntcls!E ; 8 6 8 22 1998
Ri"licEdrabcxl 87.5% R100% 675'/0 19 ff% +180/0
Lac Dledcn&Rmar NVA NA
9Acn!Vd 3 37.5% 233.3% 3375% (8)H10
Fx1ilE 225/0 3 �'/o �5% i0 45% +2�%
Imes&PArte; 2 29'/o 233.3% 4 5CP/o 8 ?b% +27%
FbsI!dlCxa&Odrmm 1 125% 1 16.6% 3 37.5% 5 2O/o +8%
Arts I 1 125% I 3)501/6-I (Q 251/6 (g Z71/o dare
sxrmmmC rnRujanar,,ej,Fla-lVVierR mciaBCamuun
Consortium 6!5/02
Highlights off Provider Programs
Gresham - Pilot Residential Landscape Rebate
Program (lawn aeration, audit, mulch/compost)
Hillsboro - ET Controller Program for parks and
Intel, School District, TVWD garden, & others.
Portland - SIG Program (Business, Industry and
Government)
CRW - Washing Machine Rebate Program
TVWD - Demonstration Garden
Consortium 6/5/02
Conservation lol
Some Key Things to Remember
Conservation programs are not the same as curtailment which is
used for extreme events
Current supplies are more than adequate to meet off peak season
demand
The RWSP focused on the peak summer use when supplies are
most stressed
Conservation programs ramp up over time, they don't make water
immediately available
Conservation programs require maintenance and resources
usually on an annual expense basis
Water consumption in the Portland area has declined since the
late 1980's
Consortium 6/5/02
Portland's Retail and Wholesale Annual Average Per Capita Per Day Demand,1960-2001
190.00
xd P
180.00
170.00
160.00
150.00
140.00
130.00 L—
C,5
bt5 02
Portland's Retail and Wholesale Daily Demand 2001
254 u_ ...,...._....___._.�.,
230
210
I
190
170
150
G
130
110
X
70 c i
50
O_ O O_ O_ O O -
�
Actual Demand
—Predicted w/o Conservation and Downward Trend,and w/Econ Slow Down
Predicted w/o Conservation.Downward Trend and Econ Slow Down
Consortium 6/5/02
,r
Euactsw lovi lumbing
Legislation m tion
Nationally the General Accounting Office says reductions
will be 3-9% by 2020
AWWA says the reductions will be 4.6% by 2010 and
7.3% by 2020 (OR, WA, and ID)
AWWARF 1999 study - water savings by fixture:
Low-flow Toilets - 52%
Clothes Washers -30%
Low-flow Showerheads -21%
Consortium 6/5'00
SWEEP
Save Water and Energy Education Program
(SWEEP)
Lafayette and Wilsonville pilot program has
documented 25% savings over baseline indoor
water use through fixture and appliance replacement
Consonium 6,15 02
What are Pealking Fcalctors?
The Portland climate causes water use to peak in the summer
season, mainly due to outdoor water use. Hotter summers create
higher peaking.
Peaking factors are calculated to see how much extra use occurs in
the summer
Winter month use compared to summer months (creates higher
peaking factor numbers)
Annual average use to summer months (creates slightly lower
peaking factor numbers)
The larger the residential customer base the higher the peaking
factors will be.
Following is an example of the Portland water system (about 830,000
population served).
Consortium 615/02
Portland ym Peaking Factors
1909 last 3 Yes Last 14.Years
Tctd simrx"Virter 20 1.8 1.7
v esala 9ATn-era d 1A 1.4 1.3
aaTM/Wriv 1.4 1.4
mrsrera v>d 1.3 1.3
%mTer/Airte- 25 20
my ermd 1.5 1.5
aa7 m1wi ter 1.2
PaUand
Mail srareran2l 1.2
Consortium 6/5/02
The Importance of Data Collection
Without consumption and production data it is
very hard to monitor and track water demands
and the success of conservation programs and
impacts on revenue from water sales.
The longer the period of data record, the more
reliable the findings are.
Implementing some conservation programs
without the data is more risky than for others.
Many states now require data collection as part
of water rights permitting (e.g. Washington)
Consortium 6/5/02
Factors Driving Conservation
Program i
Regional, State, and Federal permitting
requirements
Environmental Group pressure
Citizen and our own customer expectations
It is the "right thing to do" based on adopted
policies
It can make economic sense to delay demands if
it results in delayed infrastructure investments.
Consortium 6!5/02
Questions for Breakout Sessions
What are your reasons/what motivates you to do
conservation? Examples could include such things
as delay or avoid infrastructure projects, customer
eXpectations, "it's the right thing to do," regulatory
requirements for permits or water rights, etc.
What is important for you to know about
conservation's costs and benefits?What information
do you need to determine how much to spend on
conservation programs? How comfortable are you
relying on conservation to meet supply needs and for
budgeting purposes?
Consortium 6/5/02
~
'
"
ll
Ti and Rates - JWC and
Beaverton Facilities
Summary of Tigard Rates and Sub-Rates
Rate Element Annual Rate
Annual CCF @ 2.0 Md= 962,567
JWC Assets
JWC Plant Depreciation $0.0333
Return On Investment 0.0939
JWC Transmission Depreciation $0.0059
Return On Investment 0.0137
JWC Storage Depreciation $0.0338
Return On Investment 0.1015
JWC Water Rights Depreciation $0.0013
Return On Investment 0.0012
JWC Total $0.2846
Beaverton (1)
Transmission $0.0432
Storage 0.0362
O&M-Pumping 0.0500
Meter 0.0110
Beaverton Total $0.1404
JWC O&M
JWC Transmission $0.0029
Treatment Plant 0.2189
Raw Water 0.0206
Total JWC O&M $0.2424
Total Proposed Rate
(1) Provided by City of Beaverton.
440 L"AN�o Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
4 p C CITY OF Morteza Anoushiravani,Administrator
_ x PORTLAND, OREGON 1900 Interstate Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97227
Information (503)823-1514
B(1REAC1 OF WATER WORKS TDD (503) 823 6868
1861
July 3,2002 WQ 1.11.4
Department of Human Services
Drinking Water Program
PO Box 14350
Portland,OR 97293-0350
To Whom it May Concern:
In conformance with the requirements of OAR 333-061-0040,the results of our Lead and Copper Rule
monitoring for the first period of 2002 are submitted in the attached technical memorandum.
Monitoring was conducted as described in our joint monitoring proposal submitted May 14, 1997 and
approved by the DHS in their letter of June 23, 1997. As described in the plan, all water systems using Bull
Run water as their sole or major source of supply are considered as a single large system for compliance with
Lead and Copper Rule monitoring requirements.
In summary, 133 samples verified as collected according to protocol were taken from tier 1 homes
throughout the participating systems' service areas. Samples were collected between May 6 and 21,2002.
The 90th percentile values for the Joint Monitoring results are as follows:
Lead 0.013 mg/L
Copper 0.42 mg/L
Distribution results are submitted separately on new forms designed to match the new DHS forms and
reporting protocol. The target pH at the entry point to the distribution system was raised from 7.3 to 7.8
beginning March 11,2002.The Bull Run distribution system pH ranged from 7.2 to 8.6 pH units during the
period that home samples were collected. These data show pH adjustment of the Bull Run Supply was
effective in maintaining a pH of 7.2 or greater in the distribution system.
In June of 1998 DHS set entry point water quality parameters for the Bull Run system. Although these data
are reported monthly in a separate report,it should be noted that excellent treatment control has been
maintained and control has improved since corrosion treatment began.
Please contact me at 503-823-7648 if you have any questions or concerns regarding this information.
Sincerely,
Yone Akagi
Water Quality Engineer
Attachment
c: Participating Utilities, Mark Knudson,Alberta Seierstad, Steve Schenk,Kathy Casson,Randy Hawley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
4Q0 LANG O Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
F0 CITY OF Morteza Anoushiravani, Administrator
0 1900 N. Interstate Avenue
z PORTLAND, OREGON Portland, Oregon 97227
Information (503) 823-1514
Fax(503) 823-4117
BUREAU OF WATER WORKS TDD (503) 823-6868
1861
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 3, 2002
TO: Yone Akagi
FROM: Patrick Hughes
SUBJECT: Lead and Copper Monitoring Results for January to June 2002
Obiectives
This technical memorandum summarizes the monitoring required by the Lead and Copper Rule.
Results for the May 2002 lead and copper tap sampling and April 2002 source water results are
included. Distribution results have been submitted separately on new forms designed to match the new
DHS forms.
Corrosion Control Treatment
Prior to March 11, 2002,the sodium hydroxide dose rate was adjusted as needed to achieve the target
pH of 7.3 at the entry point to the distribution system. Dosage ranged from approximately 1.4 mg/1 to
2.0 mg/1 during this monitoring period. Between March 11 and March 14, the sodium hydroxide dose
rate was incrementally raised to achieve a new target pH of 7.8 at the entry point. Sodium hydroxide
levels since pH was raised have ranged from approximately 2.6 to 3.2 mg/l.
Monitoring Plan
The monitoring during the first six-month period of 2002 was conducted according to the proposed
joint monitoring plan submitted May 14, 1997 and approved by DHS in their letter of June 23, 1997.
As described in the plan,all water systems using Bull Run water as their sole or major source of
supply would be considered as a single large system for complying with Lead and Copper Rule
monitoring requirements.The monitoring plan is population based,with the number of samples taken
by each water system proportional to their population within the Bull Run service area. The following
systems are participants in the Joint Monitoring Plan:
Burlington Water District
City of Gresham
City of Tigard
Lake Grove Water District
Lorna Water Company
Palatine Hill Water District
Powell Valley Road Water District
Pleasant Home Water District
Portland Bureau of Water Works
Raleigh Water District
Rockwood Water District
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Skyview Acres Homeowners Association
City of Tualatin
Tualatin Valley Water District
Valley View Water District
West Slope Water District
Tap Monitoring for Lead and Copper
Table 1 (below) summarizes the sampling required by the Joint Monitoring Plan and the actual total
number of home tap samples collected in the first six-month period of 2002. Extra samples were
collected to provide contingency in the event individual homeowners withdraw from the program over
time.
Table 1. Tap Sampling for the Joint Monitoring Plan,May 2002.
Number of Samples
System Specified in Joint Extra Total Samples
Monitoring Plan Collected
City of Gresham 5 0 5
Powell Valley Road Water District 3 1 4
Portland Bureau of Water Works 61 29 90
Rockwood Water District 7 0 7
City of Tigard 3 0 3
City of Tualatin 3 1 4
Tualatin Valley Water District 18 2 20
Joint Monitoring Plan Total 100 33 133
The remaining systems each represent less than one percent of the population of the Bull Run Service
area. Since the monitoring plan is population-based these systems do not collect samples.
All samples were collected from tier 1 homes sampled in 1992. The Portland Water Bureau collected
samples at 2 fewer homes than in November 2001. Portland Water Bureau was not able to obtain
samples at homes 38, 46, 51, 58, 64,72, 78, 79, 82, 88, 90, 91, and 102. These were replaced by
homes 11,24, 37, 43, 69, 71, 87, 97, 114, 121,and 122 from the tier 1 sampling pool. TVWD
sampled one more home(140)than in November 2001. Otherwise,participating utilities sampled the
same homes in May 2002 as were sampled in November 2001.
Home tap samples were collected between May 6 and May 22, 2002. Directions provided to
customers specified first draw one-liter samples drawn from the cold water kitchen tap, unless there
was an inline filter on the kitchen tap that could not be bypassed. Complete instructions provided to
the resident are shown in Appendix 1. We offer this as demonstration that the water system informed
residents of the proper sampling procedures according to OAR 333-061-0036(2)(e)(B)(ii). The
customer filled in the time and date of sample collection and the time and date of last water use. No
samples were included which had less than a six hour standing time.
2
All but seven samples were noted as collected from the kitchen sink tap. The remaining seven samples
were collected from bathroom sink taps.
The Portland Water Bureau Water Quality Laboratory performed analyses. The 90th percentile lead
and copper values were determined as described in 40 CFR 141.80 and clarified by the Lead and
Copper Rule Guidance Manual (1991). In this round of sampling there were 133 samples collected
according to protocol. As the guidance manual states, "Interpolation of lead and copper levels may be
necessary in some cases to determine system performance at the desired frequency. If the 90th
percentile value is represented by the sample position other than an integer, (e.g. 0.9 x#samples
=17.3), then the 90th percentile value must be found by interpolating the results of the lower and higher
samples(e.g. the 17th and 181h results in this case)." In this round of sampling, the 90th percentile
values reported are based on sample position 119.7, and the value was found by interpolating between
positions 119 and 120.
Tap Monitoring for Lead and Copper Results
The lead and copper results from tap sampling at the 133 tier 1 homes sampled in May 2002 according
the Joint Monitoring Plan are shown graphically in Figures 1 and 2. The lead and copper raw results
are shown in Tables 2a and 2b and are briefly summarized below. Addresses for the 133 homes are
shown in Appendix 2.
The 90"percentile results for both lead and copper were below the action level for this round of
monitoring. The lead 90th percentile result was 0.013 mg/L(action level--0.015 mg/L); the copper 90th
percentile result was 0.42 mg/L(action level=1.3 mg/L).
3
----- - ---- -- ----------
Figure
---Figure 1:Bull Run Service Area Water Systems LCR Horne Sampling Lead Data
(May 2002)
0.1
0.08
E 0.06 — ----- -- -- ---
d
-p 0.04 90—percentile
0.013 mg/L
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile
Figure 2 Bull Run Service Area Water Systems LCR Home Sampling Copper Data
(May 20M
0.7
0.6
90',percentile
0.5 0.42 mg/L
E
� 0.4
R
a�
0.3
a
a
00 0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile
4
Table 2a: Lead Results, Bull Run Service Area Water Systems, ay 2002
OBS Home# Lead Percentile OBS Home# Lead Percentile OBS Home# Lead Percentile
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
1 6 <0.001 0 46 55 0.002 34 90 43 0.005 67
2 7 <0.001 1 47 59 0.002 35 91 109 0.005 68
3 8 <0.001 2 48 63 0.002 36 92 119 0.005 69
4 12 <0.001 3 49 67 0.002 36 93 155 0.005 69
5 14 <0.001 3 50 74 0.002 37 94 177 0.005 70
6 15 <0.001 4 51 86 0.002 38 95 179 0.005 71
7 17 <0.001 5 52 89 0.002 39 96 172 0.005 72
8 41 <0.001 6 53 101 0.002 39 97 132 0.005 72
9 42 <0.001 6 54 107 0.002 40 98 36 0.006 73
10 61 <0.001 7 55 117 0.002 41 99 122 0.006 74
11 62 <0.001 8 56 121 0.002 42 100 124 0.006 75
12 76 <0.001 9 57 123 0.002 42 101 65 0.007 75
13 93 <0.001 9 58 158 0.002 43 102 111 0.007 76
14 99 <0.001 10 59 165 0.002 44 103 173 0.007 77
15 105 <0.001 11 60 135 0.002 45 104 136 0.007 78
16 128 <0.001 12 61 142 0.002 45 105 170 0.007 78
17 1 <0.001 12 62 3 0.003 46 106 19 0.008 79
18 178 <0.001 13 63 11 0.003 47 107 69 0.008 80
19 168 <0.001 14 64 16 0.003 48 108 71 0.008 81
20 133 <0.001 15 65 23 0.003 48 109 96 0.008 81
21 137 <0.001 15 66 44 0.003 49 110 131 0.008 82
22 138 <0.001 16 67 52 0.003 50 111 21 0.009 83
23 139 <0.001 17 68 70 0.003 51 112 112 0.009 84
24 140 <0.001 18 69 92 0.003 51 113 35 0.01 84
25 145 <0.001 18 70 104 0.003 52 114 66 0.01 85
26 146 <0.001 19 71 106 0.003 53 115 169 0.01 86
27 148 <0.001 20 72 110 0.003 54 116 87 0.011 87
28 149 <0.001 21 73 114 0.003 54 117 126 0.013 87
29 176 <0.001 21 74 125 0.003 55 118 127 0.013 88
30 2 0.001 22 75 175 0.003 56 119 32 0.013 89
31 22 0.001 23 76 171 0.003 57 120 159 0.013 90
32 26 0.001 24 77 141 0.003 57 121 163 0.013 90
33 29 0.001 24 78 143 0.003 58 122 39 0.014 91
34 37 0.001 25 79 151 0.003 59 123 47 0.014 92
35 73 0.001 26 80 68 0.004 60 124 164 0.014 93
36 80 0.001 27 81 75 0.004 60 125 100 0.016 93
37 84 0.001 27 82 97 0.004 61 126 116 0.016 94
38 85 0.001 28 83 153 0.004 62 127 134 0.016 95
39 95 0.001 29 84 156 0.004 63 128 83 0.019 96
40 130 0.001 30 85 157 0.004 63 129 160 0.023 96
41 144 0.001 30 86 162 0.004 64 130 98 0.024 97
42 147 0.001 31 87 167 0.004 65 131 161 0.033 98
43 10 0.002 32 88 56 0.004 66 132 30 0.04 99
44 25 0.002 33 89 33 0.005 66 133 24 0.089 100
45 45 0.002 33
5
Table 2b: Copper Results, Bull Run Service Area Water Systems, May 2002
OBS Home# Copper Percentile OBS Home Copper Percentile OBS Home Copper Percentile
m /L # (mg/L # m /L
1 41 0.025 1 46 177 0.18 35 90 67 0.28 68
2 179 0.031 2 47 133 0.18 35 91 84 0.28 68
3 165 0.036 2 48 29 0.19 36 92 97 0.28 69
4 76 0.048 3 49 33 0.19 37 93 117 0.28 70
5 55 0.053 4 50 1 0.19 38 94 169 0.28 71
6 164 0.054 5 51 8 0.2 38 95 112 0.29 71
7 175 0.06 5 52 22 0.2 39 96 86 0.3 72
8 12 0.065 6 53 23 0.2 40 97 170 0.3 73
9 168 0.069 7 54 39 0.2 41 98 70 0.31 74
10 128 0.07 8 55 71 0.2 41 99 131 0.31 74
11 15 0.078 8 56 89 0.2 42 100 171 0.31 75
12 37 0.081 9 57 45 0.21 43 101 146 0.32 76
13 176 0.086 10 58 65 0.21 44 102 32 0.33 77
14 104 0.091 11 59 80 0.21 44 103 159 0.33 77
15 95 0.095 11 60 172 0.21 45 104 160 0.33 78
16 73 0.096 12 61 135 0.21 46 105 151 0.33 79
17 93 0.097 13 62 75 0.22 47 106 35 0.34 80
18 155 0.1 14 63 85 0.22 47 107 42 0.34 80
19 138 0.1 14 64 92 0.22 48 108 43 0.34 81
20 145 0.1 15 65 141 0.22 49 109 116 0.35 82
21 125 0.11 16 66 149 0.22 50 110 2 0.36 83
22 7 0.12 17 67 6 0.23 50 111 14 0.36 83
23 110 0.12 17 68 100 0.23 51 112 47 0.37 84
24 161 0.12 18 69 121 0.23 52 113 68 0.37 85
25 162 0.12 19 70 137 0.23 53 114 134 0.38 86
26 173 0.12 20 71 140 0.23 53 115 19 0.39 86
27 59 0.13 20 72 163 0.24 54 116 11 0.4 87
28 74 0.13 21 73 142 0.24 55 117 119 0.4 88
29 17 0.14 22 74 144 0.24 56 118 66 0.41 89
30 99 0.14 23 75 148 0.24 56 119 147 0.41 89
31 105 0.14 23 76 52 0.25 57 120 98 0.43 90
32 157 0.14 24 77 126 0.25 58 121 21 0.44 91
33 178 0.14 25 78 10 0.26 59 122 44 0.44 92
34 153 0.15 26 79 16 0.26 59 123 127 0.46 92
35 158 0.15 26 80 24 0.26 60 124 36 0.48 93
36 167 0.15 27 81 96 0.26 61 125 61 0.48 94
37 136 0.15 28 82 114 0.26 62 126 122 0.48 95
38 139 0.15 29 83 124 0.26 62 127 87 0.49 95
39 26 0.16 29 84 69 0.27 63 128 132 0.5 96
40 106 0.16 30 85 109 0.27 64 129 63 0.54 97
41 156 0.16 31 86 111 0.27 65 130 130 0.57 98
42 107 0.17 32 87 56 0.27 65 131 30 0.62 98
43 123 0.17 32 88 143 0.27 66 132 83 0.63 99
44 25 0.18 33 89 3 0.28 67 133 62 0.66 100
45 101 0.18 34
6
Source Water Samulin
Source water sampling was conducted on April 8 for the Bull Run System and the City of Tigard, on
April 10 for Tualatin Valley Water District, and on April 25 for Powell Valley Road Water District.
The results are shown below in Table 3.
Table 3. Source Water Lead and Copper Monitorin Results
Station Source Lead, mg/L Copper, mg/L
Bull Run System
Lusted Hill Treatment Outlet Bull Run Not Detected @ 0.001 0.020
Tualatin Valley Water District
JWC Entry Point Joint Water Not Detected @ 0.001 0.018
Commission
Powell Valley Road Water District
Raymond Street Reservoir 100%Wells 3 &4 Not Detected @ 0.001 Not Detected @ 0.010
City of Tigard
Bonita Pump Station Well#1 Not Detected @ 0.001 Not Detected @ 0.010
Bonita Pump Station Well#2 Not Detected @ 0.001 0.016
Conclusions
Based on the data submitted,the following conclusions are offered:
• For the eleventh consecutive six-month monitoring period following the installation of corrosion
treatment the 901h percentile copper results were below the copper action level.
• Although the copper level after treatment has been very stable, lead levels are more variable and
remain close to the action level.
• Increasing the pH of the treated water may have been effective in reducing the 90`h percentile lead
results, however,prior experience indicates that these levels can rise with time.
7
Appendix 1. Sample Collection Instructions and Data Form sent to Customers.
DIRECTIONS FOR WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION
❑❑WHEN: The sample must be collected after water has stood undisturbed in your household water
pipes for at least 6 hours but no more than 18 hours. The kitchen faucet must be run until the water
gets cold prior to the time when no water is used. This step will ensure that no water stands longer
than 18 hours in your household pipes before sampling. We recommend that you collect the sample
either before using any water in the morning, or before using any water after returning home in the
evening.
WHERE: Collect your sample from your kitchen cold water tap. If there is an in-line filter that
cannot be bypassed on the kitchen faucet you can use a bathroom faucet.
HOW.- -Open the sample bottle and place it beneath the faucet.
- Gently open the cold water tap.
- Fill the bottle to the shoulder and turn off the water.
- Tightly cap the sample bottle.
FOR SAMPLE PICK UP.Place the filled bottle, along with this form, outside your front door as
early as possible on the day that your sample will be picked up.
QUESTIONS? Call Dave McDonnell at 823-7336.
TO BE COMPLETED BY RESIDENT:
0 Water was last used before sample collection at: Time Date
❑ Sample was collected at: Time Date
❑ Sample was collected from: 0 Kitchen faucet,cold water tap
0 Bathroom faucet,cold water tap
❑ Describe any plumbing repairs or replacement done since the previous sample was collected:
❑ I have read the directions above and have collected this sample in accordance with them.
Printed Name Water Service Address Date
Signature Mailing Address(if different from above)
WATER SYSTEM WATER SYSTEM NAME: SOURCE 1:Name and%: SOURCE 2:Name and%: Comments:
USE ONLY
8
Appendix 2.Addresses for Joint Monitoring Plan Tap Sampling, May 2002
ADDRESS IZIP ADDRESS ZIP
3415 NE 33RD PL. 97212-2655 11 SW CANBY ST. 97219-4662
25 NE 76TH AVE. 97213-6322 4705 SW CAMPBELL CT. 97201-1283
8506 NE HASSALO ST. 97220-5716 810 SW DOLPH ST. 97228-6476
2306 NE 150TH AVE. 97230-4552 1320 SW KARI LN. 97219-6476
2411 NE 151ST AVE. 97230-4559 4537 SW MARIGOLD ST. 97219-5227
2234 NE 153RD AVE 97230-5248 604 SW CALIFORNIA ST. 97219
6305 SE SHERMAN ST. 97215-4068 634 SW 6TH CT. 97219-6560
6315 SE SHERMAN ST. 97215-4068 814 SW DOLPH ST. 97219
6106 SE SHERMAN ST. 97215-4065 2840 SW ILLINOIS ST. 97201-1013
7663 SE 22ND AVE. 97202-6253 2821 SW CAROLINA ST. 97201-1094
8525 SE RAYMOND CT. 97266-3152 2723 SW CAROLINA ST. 97201-1086
9334 SE CLATSOP ST. 97266-6420 2542 SW ORCHARD HILL LN. 97035
7222 SE 133RD PL. 97236-5482 2921 SW ORCHARD HILL PL. 97034
5722 SE 47TH AVE. 97206-6101 2902 SW ORCHARD HILL PL. 97035
14310 SE CRYSTAL CT. 97236-5362 2917 SW ORCHARD HILL PL. 97035
13431 SE GLENWOOD ST. 97236-4976 2815 SW ORCHARD HILL PL. 97034
16750 SE NAEGELI DR. 97236-1350 2626 SW ORCHARD HILL PL. 97034
16780 SE NAEGELI DR. 97236-1350 3426 SW STEPHENSON ST. 97219-8273
13525 SE GLENWOOD ST. 97236-4983 11845 SW 34TH AVE. 97219-8248
16765 SE NAEGELI DR. 97236-1368 3315 SW ARROWOOD DR. 97219-8214
4715 SE 87TH AVE. 97266-3045 11814 SW DICKINSON CT. 97219-8270
545 SE 61ST AVE. 97215-1909 12248 SW 34TH AVE. 97219-8252
12152 SE KNAPP LN. 97266-4926 10215 SW 36TH PL. 97219-6103
4004 SE KNAPP ST. 97202-7823 10125 SW 36TH CT. 97219-6129
11310 SE BROOKSIDE DR. 97266 3235 SW DICKINSON ST. 97219-5729
3735 SE 43RD AVE. 97206-3282 10020 SW 36TH CT. 97219-6128
6801 SE 144TH AVE. 97236-4990 3530 SW COMUS ST. 97219-8270
6636 SE TOLMAN ST. 97206-6640 4005 SW POMONA ST. 97219-7439
13320 SE KNAPP CT. 97236-5490 4205 SW VESTA ST. 97219-7450
4013 N JUNEAU ST. 97203 10505 SW 43RD AVE. 97219-6991
4121 N JUNEAU ST. 97203 10727 SW 41ST AVE. 97219
4115 N JUNEAU ST. 97203-2068 10051 SW BALMER CT. 97219-6374
7207 N BOSTON AVE. 97217-5715 10007 SW BALMER CT. 97219-6374
4040 N JUNEAU CT. 97203-2057 5819 SW LURADEL CT. 97219-5731
9215 N BRISTOL AVE. 97203-2139 9530 SW 55th AVE 97219
4091 N ATTU ST. 97203 6412 SW DOLPH DR. 97219-4946
4095 N ATTU ST. 97203-2058 4114 SW MARIGOLD ST. 97219-5220
4207 N JUNEAU ST. 97203-2064 9223 SW 52ND AVE. 97219-5003
812 NW 17TH AVE. 97209-2306 4341 SW LOBELIA ST. 97219
3435 NW VAUGHN ST. 97210-1246 5750 SW LURADEL CT. 97219-5732
2818 NW ARIEL TERR. 97210-3119 6034 SW JAN TREE CT. 97219-1153
3128 SW CASCADE DR. 97201-1814 3331 SW MITCHELL ST. 97201-1260
3324 SW SHERWOOD PL. 97201-1461 2930 SW FAIRVIEW BLVD. 97201-1808
5155 SW HUMPHREY BLVD. 97221-2312 6212 SW DICKINSON ST. 97219-6666
3455 SW DOSCH RD. 97201 7469 SW DAISY DR. 97007
5401 SW ALTA MIRA CIR. 97201-2794 13131 NW DUMAR ST. 97229
9
ADDRESS ZIP ADDRESS IZIP
7047 SW CHAPEL LN. 97233 8583 SW DAKOTA CT. 97062
9780 SW CYNTHIA ST. 97008 2503 SW BRIXTON DR. 97080
7500 SW ELMWOOD ST. 97223 2824 SW TEGART AVE. 97080
6950 SW ALDEN CT. 97223 2610 SW WILLOW PKWY. 97080
5685 NW PONDOSA DR. 97229 2039 NW 16TH ST. 97030
1385 SW 208TH AVE. 97006 2827 SW TEGART AVE. 97080
20807 SW IMPERIAL PL. 97006 14725 SW 83RD AVE. 97224
20967 SW AUGUSTA CT. 97006 9750 SW RIVERWOOD LN. 97224
10136 SW WASHINGTON ST. 97225 17019 NE EVERETT ST. 97230
10150 SW TODD ST. 97225 16346 NE TILLAMOOK ST. 97230
17830 NW DOGWOOD CT. 97006 17121 NE EVERETT ST. 97230
4570 SW SOUTHVIEW TER. 97009 16443 NE TILLAMOOK ST. 97230
6780 SW 158TH AVE. 97007 19623 NE HOLLADAY ST. 97230
7340 SW 183RD PL. 97007 15928 NE RUSSELL ST. 97230
15615 NW RIDGETOP LN. 97006 1269 NE 162ND AVE. 97230
15432 NW WHITE FOX DR. 97006 3303 SE 167TH AVE. 97236
10587 SW WOODS ST. 97225 6780 SW 158TH AVE. 97007
4115 SE 101ST AVE. 97266 1861 SE 106TH AVE. 97216
8174 SW PONCA CT. 97062 15457 SE RHINE ST. 97236
20869 SW 103RD DR. 97062 7850 SW BOND ST. 97224
20543 SW ELK HORN CT. 97062
10
7 �
Backup restores pressure
to Canterbury Hill's water
TIGARD—The city has re-
stored water pressure to residents
in the Canterbury Hill area after
getting complaints on Monday
from about 40 residents about
low pressure.
City workers were able to turn
on a backup system to restore
pressure.As of Wednesday,crews
were still working to fix a pump
that failed.
Anyone with questions can call
the city at 503-639-4171,Ext.
2609.
i
1
Waterpressure restored on CanterburyKM
TIGARD—Residents of the water pressure to the area,
Canterbury Hill area experi- according to Richard Sattler,
enced a loss in water pressure who works in backflow preven-
around 6:30 p.m. Monday, July tion in the Public Works
8, with more than 40 of them Department.
calling the city. "The city of Tigard would
City crews investigating the like to apologize for any incon-
problem discovered that one of venience this incident may have
two pressure-sustaining pumps caused to residents and thanks _
supplying water to the section of everyone for their patience and
Little Bull Mountain east of understanding,"Sattler said.
Pacific Highway was not operat- People with questions are
ing properly. asked to call the city's water
Crews switched the second quality and supply supervisor at
pump into operation to restore 503-639-4171, Ext. 2609.
TT ■ The Times
July 11, 2002 ■ ,c,
'Vater
cons
eivation urged to avert late-summer shortfalls
I TIGARD — Yes, even
Oregonians need to conserve is the top summer water wasting
water. "By conserving activity. In addition, over-water-
As preposterous as that may ing isn't healthy for lawns seem to some that's because it causes shallow roots fewways exactly the water we can dela building stora e ' a. '
message water providers Y g g makes the ass more susceptible
g p v�ders are tout- � -.
ing in its new, summer-long mul- facilities,transmission lines and costly new sources. to disease and leaches fertilizers Lust doing a few simple things around the house can save
timedia campaign. The theme and nutrients away from the thousands of gallons
"Just an inch a week for a healthy It also leaves more water in the roots. Over-watering also makes ■watering the landscape in the morning instead of midc ay
looking lawn," is just one of the your grass grow faster, which can save"","600,941 lons per year
many ways Oregonians can work streams for fish. equals more mowing. ■i.Is ng a Bose ruizzle while washing a car instead of lean_
together to ensure adequate water "This isn't about reducing a ing the wateftItinning can save up to 135 gallons per wash.
supplies. line-item exponse on your water going to a csr wash uses about 20 to 35 gutlo .s water
( n
"The city of Tigard does not bill," Geisen said. "By conserv- recycle the water)and it doesn't sank your sneakers. Y
own a water source capable of in water we can dela building p ebecca Geisen g Y g ■Converting 1,000 square feet of lawn to low-water-use
supplying enough water to meet storage facilities, transmission perennials and shrubs can save up to 8,000 gallons of water
current demand," explained Sara Regional Water Providers Consortium lines and costly new sources. It over a summer-and that's if the lawn is watered just°1 inch per
Danz, water conservation coordi- also leaves more water in the wsh. Ieek.
nator for the city of Tigard. "That's why region's storage and transmission systems "Working r together eams for fito conserve is an ' E Watering 1,000 square feet of lawn 1 inch per week
water conservation is an integral part of our are strained later in the season due to high Oregon ethic," Geisen said. "Whether it's requires 625 gallons of water. If you water 2 inches a week
city's long-term water supply plan." water usage and low rainfall," said Geisen. recycling household waste conservingener- are wasting 625 gallons per week or 10,625 gallons over four you
g PPY
"We're not asking people to stop using According to the consortium which gy or reducing water usage, it's common months.
water; we're just asking them to use it sensi- includes 22 According
water agencies and sense to preserve our state's natural Sweeping the driveway instead of Hosing it dawn will save
b1Y," agreed Rebecca Geisen, conservation Metro, the Portland metropolitan area uses resources" approximately 135 gallons of water.
program coordinator for the Regional Water up to two times as much water during the A cornucopia of water-conservation con- i Turning off the water while brushing your teeth will save
Providers Consortium and senior planner for summer as other times of the year. cepts — including the right way to water an average family of four up to;200 gallons of water per week.
the city of Portland Water Bureau. Consumers draw water from reservoirs faster lawns and gardens — is listed on the
"There's no question that our state is than they can be kept filled. (Source:Regional Water Providers Consortium_www.con-
blessed with abundant rainfall, but our Geisen explained that lawn over-waterine ' 'tcegional water c0nse rs Consortium's new
,b site:_www.conse..Ph2o.org, serveh2oorg.)
3M SW B3
THE OREGONIAN ♦ FRIDAY,JULY 26,2002
Oregon Live
Complete local and suburban news
x
Ext
from The Oregonian can be found at:
www.Oregonlive.com/oregonian/today
PORTLAND
Panel expensive
Run filtration
near Mount Hood,the group said, The membrane filtration plant fits well beyond screening patho- to meet growing demand and with Authority or through long-term
The citizens group suggests and the health benefits of treat- would be built at the Powell Butte gens. The petroleum-based filters basic maintenance needs not be- contracts.
ment"may be miniscule or nonex- Nature Park in east Multnomah would capture the mud that rushes ing met. Portland Commissioner Dan
seeking a federal waiver on istent." County — over the objections of into reservoirs during heavy winter Suburban options Saltzman, who recently took over
the deadline to eliminate a Jay Formick, who heads the re- Park backers—or at the bureau's storms, shutting down the Bull oversight of the bureau from Com-
view board's water committee, more remote Lusted Hill site. Run system three times in the past The review board's nightmare missioner Erik Sten, said he
microbe from water five years. scenario is that the city commits to doesn't have a preference yet be-
noted the city has received federal Ratepayer issues the huge project, but the suburbs tween ultraviolet fight treatment
By SCOTT LEARN waivers from earlier filtration regu The ability to filter mud also opt to tap other water supplies in and membrane filtration.
THE OREGONIAN lations. The utilities review board has would allow construction of a third the comingears,leaving Portland
built a higher political profile of dam or raising the two existing y g Saltzman also wants to clarify
The citizens group charged with "The bureau has experience and ratepayers stuck with the filtration with the Environmental Protection
watchdogging TheciPortland's water success getting waivers," Formick late. It was the first to call for re- dams to expand the Bull Run sup- bill. Agency whether a waiver is possi
said. "It's been done before. Let's Placement of the Water Bureau's ply. And it would remove color
and sewer rates recommended flawed computer billing system, taints from fall leaves that have "After the bonds are sold to ble.
Thursday that the city drop an ex- give it a shot." build the filtration plant, they're But Saltzman and Anoushirava-
and it has been more aggressive on prompted suburban complaints.
_ _pensive plan to filter microbes and If the waiver doesn't come going to have a much more accu- ni said cryptosporidium, even in
mud from the Bull Run water sup- through,the city should choose the ratepayer issues. Formick was also on the treat- rate read on rates," Formick said. small amounts, could pose health
ply. least expensive treatment option, Portland ratepayers are already ment panel and cast the sole vote "Our wholesale customers are risks to children and the elderly.
Instead, the Portland Utilities ultraviolet light treatment at $55 paying one of the higher urban against its membrane filtration going to take a second look, and The parasite that killed more than
Review Board said,the city should million,the review board said.The sewer rates in the nation, accord- recommendation. He said filtra- some of them may say they just 100 people and sickened 400,000 in
step up water testing and ask the plant would be built in the Bull ing to a survey of 49 U.S. cities by tion does have extra benefits and can't do that." Milwaukee,Wis., in 1993, prompt-
federal government for a waiver Run reserve. the engineering firm Black & could work in the very long term. Water Bureau Director Mort ing the drive for increased regula-
from an expected rule that will re- A separate Bull Run treatment Veatch. Portland's water rates are But Formick,now backed by the Anoushiravani said the bureau tion.
quire increased treatment to kill panel has endorsed the most ex- in the middle of the pack,the firm review board as a whole, argues would phase in a filtration project,
pathogens by 2010. pensive option, membrane filtra- said. that rates are climbing too high to and would not proceed unless sub-
The microbe targeted by the ex- tion, which carries a $202 million The treatment panel concluded commit to such a huge project urban customers are locked in, You can reach Scott Learn at
pected rule, cryptosporidium, is price tag and could boost water that membrane filtration was now,particularly with the suburbs either through ongoing negotia- 503-221-8564 or by e-mail at
rare in the two Bull Run reservoirs rates by 12 percent to 30 percent. worth paying more for,with bene- not locked in to using the Bull Run tions to set up a regional Bull Run scottlearn@news.oregonian.com.
A20 ® 2M OREGON & THE WEST THE SUNDAY OREGONIAN ♦ JULY 21,2002
Bull Run tracthas onquenchedPortland's thirst
ordanders have an abiding 1859 of the Portland Gas Light Co., The Bull Run vately to grumble that he should be
love affair with a large, the third of its kind on the West Watershed and more rightly named"Sylpester An-
woodsy chunk of land near Coast.In 1862,Leonard and Green Bull Run Lake, nover," gave it a governmental
Mount Hood the vast ma- bought Pioneer Water for $5,400�� which sit in taste test.
joritywill never see. and spent $50,000 expanding it �� i � the shadow of According to MacColl,Pennoyer
into the Portland Water Co. Mount Hood
They cringe at the thought of its �� � "allowed
but drain none that it had neither the
being defiled for anything other In 1865 Leonard and Green were of their body nor flavor of the Willamette."
than the sparkling elixir for which leading investors in the Oregon moisture from Despite the board's duplicity,
it's famous:80 to 180 inches of rain Iron Co.in Oswego,with merchant the mountain, Portland,at 75 cents per residential
each year;21 billion gallons stored bankers William S. Ladd and Hen- have been the water customer per month,"would
in Bull Run Lake and behind two ry Failing as lesser partners. Over have the second-lowest rates in the
dams; as much as 200 million al source of
g the next 20 years, the foundry Portland's nation,"says MacColl,'only slight-
lons each day piped to Portland struggled to stay in operation and water since ly more than those in Niagara Falls,
and surruunding communities. morphed into Oregon Iron&Steel 1895. New fork."
Until now they've been willing Co., while Portland gradually out- Within two years "the City's
to share that bounty only in a pe- grew its private water supplies, SERGE McCABE health officer documented a phe-
ripheral sort of way. That looks mainly wells and the increasingly , THE OREGONIAN
nomenal decrease in the number
about to change as city leaders polluted Willamette River. of cases of typhoid fever and the
consider giving up In 1885 the major ,
lowest death rate on record at the
peddling water to 0
_ player on the local
other communities t political scene was tune,"according to the city Bureau
and enlisting them Joseph Simon, a Re of Water Works'Web site.
as full-fledged part- publican lawyer In 1904, President Theodore
ners in maintaining characterized by de- Roosevelt signed a "Trespass Act"
that nearly pristine tractors as "The further restricting access.
supply of mountain Boss." Simon held Despite its pedigree, the Water $150,000 for the Crystal Springs the surrounding land was owned Between 1948 and 1993 the U.S.
freshness. JOHN TERRY little sway over the Board was understandably held in Water Co.in Southeast Portland. by the federal government. Forest Service allowed about 25
Yet the city s in- Democratically con- low esteem by the City Council, Ladd, the chief influence on the The project ran into trouble percent of the watershed's timber
fatuation with Bull Oregon's Trails trolled City Council, which voted 6-1 to designate it as board—its meetings were always when Gov. Sylvester Pennpyer; of to be logged.That may or may not
Run water was not but his influence the"Oligarchy of 15."An appeal to held in his office—led a move to the Democrat People's Party, ve- have caused some later turbidity in
always universal. During its court- over the Republican Legislature the Legislature to restore the spend anotiner$500,000 to tap Bull toed one measure to extend the the reservoirs, but it most certainly
ship, the concept of tapping that was virtually complete. waterworks to city government Run for the city. Reed objected board's tax-free bonding capacity stirred consternation in the minds
supply was widely, and justifiably, He directed state lawmakers and failed. A legal challenge to the publicly on grounds of cost and by $500,000 and then another. It of Portland pure-water buffs.
regarded as just another scheme to Republican Gov. Zenas Moody in board was rejected by the Oregon claimed the existing water supply wasn't until 1891 that the board Lawsuits and federal legislation
fatten establishment bank ac- creating two boards independent Supreme Court. was just fine. managed to push through $2.5 have since ordained the watershed
counts. of the Portland council, the Board The board was authorized to sell Behind-the-scenes scuttlebutt million in taxable bonds. be restored and reserved exclu-
The first effort at a municipal of Police Commissioners and the $700,000 in tax-free bonds to set indicated Reed was miffed because On June 17,1892,President Ben- sively for production of its No. 1
water supply came in the late Water Committee. Both were ap- up a municipal water system.They Ladd had maneuvered him out of ;aurin Harrison, at Portland's be- Product:aqua pura.
1850s with the private Pioneer pointed by the governor and pack- sold quickly, and, among eager the presidency of Oregon Iron & hest, declared the entire 102
Water Works. ed with Simon cronies. buyers were Ladd & Tilton Bank, Steel Co. Reed's objection dis
According to E. Kimbark Mac- On the Water Board, as it was $2 0,000, and First National Bank, solved when,to and behold,he got nonal oresBt relserve.Run watershed a Questions,comments or-
Coll's "Merchants, Money and known, were what MacColl calls $2 which Failing was president, his old job back and Oregon Iron& suggestions about Oregon history?
Power,the Portland Establishment "15 of the city's most prominent Steel got an $84,872 contract for In January 1895,the tap was offi- Call Inside Line,503-225-5555,
-1814-1913" (The Georgian Press, civic leaders — the cream of the $170,000. 1,997 tons of water pipe,the first of cially turned, and Bull Run water and enter 4815. Or e-mail
1988), that operation gave way to Portland Establishment,"including The board paid Green and many. In 1889, the board bought flowed into the city for the first johnterry@news.oregonian.com.
merchants Herman Leonard and Ladd, Failing, Henry W. Corbett, Leonard $478,000 for Portland about four square miles of land in time. Pennoyer, whose negativity Unpublished questions cannot be
John Green, founders in January Simeon Reed and Frank Dekum. Water Co. and Ladd&Tilton Bank the Bull Run watershed. Most of moved Judge Matthew Deady pri- answered individualh!.
J
July 18, 2002 ■ A3
Public invited to comment on drh*ing water proposal
The Bull Run group will hold an open "For the first time, not have their own water sources.
house Wednesday to discuss theregional water providers are exploring Area water providers note that the region's
lo
plan and answer questions major sources of water supply—the Bull Run
ways to share drinking water management and system,the Clackamas River and the Tualatin-
) decision-making for two major water sources Trask rivers system—could be better coordi-
' TIGARD — Thirteen jurisdictions in the nated. The Bull Run proposal is the first step
T region that have been working for more than a _the Bull Run Watershed and the Columbia in regional coordination of drinking water
year on a plan to form a drinking water supply South Shore Wellfield:' supplies.
agency want to hear from the public about the Participants could benefit through spread-
pr
Participants of the Proposed Bull Run.
♦ ing costs, sharing equity in the system,reduc-
arti
11�egtcnal Drinki,ig :`Dater AS:,neing duplication and minimizing future ratey are "n0ding Ed Wegner impacts.
several open houses,and one will take place in Tigard Director of Public Works The city of Portland has soul wholesale
.Tigard next week. ized several open houses. The Tigard open water for more than 100 years. It now has 26
t "For the first time,regional water providers house will be held Wednesday, July 24, at the wholesale customers with 25-year contracts
l are exploring ways to share drinking water Tigard Water District Building, located at that will expire in the next three to five years.
management and decision-making for two 8777 S.W. Burnham St., and will run from In addition to Tigard, participating agen-
major water sources — the Bull Run 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. cies in the proposal include the cities of
Watershed and the Columbia South Shore Following a welcome to participants,intro- Beaverton, Gresham, Portland and Tualatin.
Wellfield," said Tigard Director of Public Other participants include Clean Water
Works Ed Wegner. "This project has signifi- ductions will begin at 7 p.m. followed by an Services Metro, Powell Valley Road Water
Cance to the metropolitan area." overview of the project, questions, answers District, Raleigh Water District, Rockwood
The project participants are now evaluating and a general discussion, with a wrap-up at Water PUD,Sunrise Water Authority,Tualatin
a variety of models and approaches and should 8:20 p.m. Valley Water District and West Slope Water
make a recommendation by September. By While the Portland metro area currently District.
-the end of 2002,the jurisdictions are expected has enough water to meet demand, officials For more information, visit
to decide whether to form and join the agency. are planning for the future to meet additional www.water.ci.portland.or.us and click on
In an effort to encourage public involve- needs caused by growth. Many of the 38 "What's New?"or contact Wegner at 503-639-
ment, the participating agencies have organ- drinking water providers in the metro area do 4171.
Opp
braft Minutes not et approved b the WWSA Board �L)''' o
- Y PP Y
Willamette Water Supply Agency
Meeting Minutes
April 30, 2002
Members present. Chair Paul Rogers (Clackamas River Water Board), Vice-
Chair Bob Westcott (Canby Utility Board), Carl Gardner
(Gladstone City Council), Ed Truax (Tualatin City Council),
Joyce Patton (Tigard City Council), and Jim Doane (Tualatin
Valley Water District Board)
Staff present. Todd Heidgerken (Tualatin Valley Water District), Dirk
Borges (Canby Utility), Mike McKillip (City of Tualatin),
Jonathan Block (City of Gladstone), Ed Wegner (City of
Tigard), Burton Weast (WWSA), and John Killin (WWSA)
Others present. Lisa Melyan (Tualatin Valley Water District Board), Gordon
Martin (Tualatin Valley Water District Board), and Jim
Newton (Canby Utility Board)
Public present: Jim Hansen (Tigard Resident)
L Call to Order
Vice Chair Bob Westcott called the regular meeting of the Willamette Water Supply
Agency to order at 7:03 pm at the City of Tualatin City Council Chambers — 1884 SW
Martinazzi Avenue, Tualatin, Oregon. Westcott explained that due to the upcoming
withdrawal of Clackamas River Water from WWSA, Rogers chose not to chair this
meeting and made arrangements for Westcott to act as chair.
ll. Review of Minutes from January 29, 2002
The minutes from the January 29, 2002 were distributed. Rogers moved to adopt the
minutes as presented; Doane seconded the motion. Without discussion, the motion
carried unanimously.
Ill. WWSA Financial Update
A. A financial update for July 1, 2001 through April 30, 2002, was distributed. WWSA
spent $39,914 in that time period. This left $30,086 remaining in the budget. As
requested by Patton at the previous meeting, Heidgerken described the detailed budget
breakdowns, also distributed. Patton and others expressed their appreciation of the
detailed budget and check registers. (See Attachment 1)
Draft, Minutes not yet approved by the WWSA Board.
B. As a preliminary to a further discussion later in the meeting, Heidgerken describes
the carryover from the last budget cycle. It appeared that there would between $90,000
and $100,000 left as an ending balance at the end of this fiscal year.
IV. Executive Director Report
A. Wilsonville Treatment Plant—Weast announced that the plant is now open.
Heidgerken noted that in the first few days the City of Wilsonville had only-received
seven phone calls in response to the change.
B. Water Right— Killin and Heidgerken informed the board that there was nothing new
to report.
C. Updated Calendar and Taskforce List— Killin distributed an updated list of legislative
and state agency workgroups. Killin very briefly listed workgroups of interest. Patton
asked that this list be forwarded to the board a few days before the meetings to make
best use of the meeting time.
Weast also updated the group about the ongoing developments between Canby and the
aggregate industry. Weast, Borges, Westcott, Hammond, and Newton met with the
staff of the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Wesctott presented a
brief background on the situation in Canby.
D. Work Plan Update-Weast presented a short oultine of dual water distribution
systems. The board accepted the report and asked staff to continue with the work plan.
Doane offered the City of Portland's extensive research on the subject. (See
attachment)
E. TVWD Board Meeting —Weast briefly described the WWSA presentation, which was
distributed to the board in the agenda packet. (See Attached)
F. Western advocates Contract—Weast described the current Western Advocates
contract and the need to make a board decision due to the end of contract period in
June. He went on to explain that the contract was included in the annual budget and
that the amount would not change from the previous year. Doane asked if the contract
would be for one year or six months. Weast answered that it would be a one-year
contract. Rogers moved to allow the Chair to review and sign a continued contract with
Western advocates. Patton seconded the motion. Doane inquired as to the effect if
TVWD were to withdraw from WWSA. Westcott answered that the contract would stand to
and WWSA would still be obligated. Meylan expressed general concerns and asked if
this would create a contractual obligation. Patton noted that the contract would note
impact the budget but would instead secure staff for another year. Westcott called for a�'
vote on the previous motion. The motion was passed unanimously. The board asked
Draft, Minutes not yet approved by the WWSA Board.
the chair to make arrangements with Western Advocates to review and sign a contract
for an additional year.
V. New Business
a. Clackamas River Water's Withdrawal From WWSA-
Westcott opened the discussion on withdrawal. He explained about the letter from
Clackamas River Water and that he had requested a legal opinion to clarify the rules for
withdrawal according to the WWSA agreement and by-laws. Staff contacted Chris
Thomas, an independent lawyer. He delivered a legal opinion, which was forwarded to
as many WWSA members as possible earlier in the day and distributed at the meeting.
The legal opinion appeared to say that CRW would be liable for the 2002-2003 dues,
because the dues would be assessed before the effective date of their withdrawal.
Rogers noted a conflict on page two of the opinion and suggested that the board has
the choice to allow a withdrawing member out of the fiscal obligation before the effective
date.
At this point in the discussion, Doane was needed at another meeting and left Meylan,
his alternate, to act in his place.
Rogers explained the situation at a Clackamas River Water board meeting during which
the decision to withdraw was made. Withdrawal had not been an agenda item and he
had attended via phone. The move had been spurred by public testimony. Rogers
suggested that using the surplus carryover budget would allow everyone to avoid
paying dues for one year and effectively allow CRW to not pay again.
Patton considered Roger's point from page two of the opinion, but felt that the
withdrawing member would still be fiscally obligated. Rogers suggested some form of
mutual agreement that would allow CRW to withdraw in less then the mandatory 180
days. Patton pointed out that the opinion holds that such an agreement would require
an amendment to the IGA. Westcott noted that CRW had already agreed to the budget
and assessment at the January meeting.
Westcott said that the opinion holds that the board must assess the dues or amend the
IGA. Rogers noted that they could also use the surplus and not assess this year.
McKillip asked what would happen to the budget in a year. Heidgerken pointed out that
the board had never fully assessed its members. If the board relied on the surplus the
ending balance next year would approach $10,000 or$15,000. Weast noted that there
would be that much left as long as there were no major problems. Westcott asked what
if the board chose to not assess, but then needed to. Heidgerken explained that they
could assess more, but the accounting system would require supplemental budgets of
each of the members, particularly TVWD as the holder of the funds.
Rogers suggested that if dues were suspended that WWSA staff should come speak to
the CRW board and explain the potential for later assessment. Westcott noted that
braft, Minutes not yet approved by the WWSA Board.
member entities should be careful to take a formal and serious look at the obligations
before withdrawing. He said withdrawal should take a formal resolution because
WWSA is a major entity.
Patton returned the group to the legal opinion and noted that a member entity would
have to deliver a withdrawal notice to WWSA in December to not be held liable for the
following year's dues. She explained that it was a six-month window and that it has to
be that way to allow for the member entities to account for the assessments in their
budgets. She commented that Rogers is still a member until the effective date of the
withdrawal and has every right to suggest using the surplus to defer dues. -Patton then
noted that while there is a surplus it is largely by accident and there is no guarantee of
being so fortunate in the future. She added that having the surplus allows a needed
flexibility for the board.
Westcott asked for further comments. Gardner expressed that he had no opinion at this
time on what direction to take. Meylan explained that the TVWD board is divided on the
issue of withdrawal and cited a number of concerns regarding the WWSA, staff, links to
the Wilsonville plant, and the work plan. When asked for an opinion on the specific
decision at hand Meylan said that she favored the concept of using the surplus to
provide a suspension of dues.
Westcott reframed the issued as that of a dues obligation. He pointed out that the
board was not discussing CRW's withdrawal, but whether or not to assess them dues.
He went on to note that if the surplus was used the board would be effectively left with
no reserve.
McKillip suggested that the decision did not have to be made immediately. Patton and
Rogers agreed that some time to have staff and managers study the surplus and the
options would be beneficial. Westcott added that if an emergency legal problem came
about that a reserve could disappear very quickly and that a large reserve would allow
some cushion. Borges agreed citing Canby's recent costly legal battles.
Citing the interest of the board, Rogers moved to postpone the decision until the next
regular meeting and to have staff and managers study the options more closely.
Gardner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
b. Nomination of Board Chair and Vice Chair-
Rogers nominated Westcott as chair and moved to close nominations. Patton
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Meylan nominated Doane for vice-
chair. Rogers seconded the motion, which was also passed.
A Public Comments
Gordon Martin, a Tualatin Valley Water District Board member, made comments
regarding the withdrawal and dues discussion. Martin noted that his comments were
Draft, Minutes not yet approved by the WWSA Board.
based on his own personal concerns and did not reflect a TVWD position. He said a
board and its members need to have the ability to budget ahead. While he wished
aloud that his own board had considered the issue more closely, he suggested that
Patton's reading of the legal opinion was correct and that a member has to withdraw by
December 31. He further noted that the board was wise for taking time to consider the
issue more closely.
VII. Announcements
There were no announcements made.
Vlll. Next Meeting Date
The next WWSA Board meeting was set for Tuesday, July 30, 2002. The meeting is to
be held at either the Tualatin Police Department or the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
IX. Adjournment
Citing no further business before the Board, Rogers moved to adjourn. There were no
objections. Vice-Chair Westcott declared the meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM.
Comparison of Service Area Connections 1995-2001
• •
of Service Connections
9/1/95 . Net Change % Change,!
.
3 rr,3h' K 7,,FR c
9,066 9,447 381 4%
x
r' 2,560 2,661 101 4%
}`� �, „� n 1,017 1,017 0 0%
329 333 4 1%
12,972 13,458 486 40/6
Breakdown
9/1/96 . Change
9 447 9,762 315 4%
2,840 179 4%
1,018 0 0%
340 7 1%
il 13,458 13,960 501 4•A
' Breakdown of
9/1/97 9/1/98 Net Change % Change
`Oftz9,934 172 2%
r
2,840 3,016 176 6%
mf x A r 1,018 1,018 0 0%
340 341 1 0%
349 3
13,960 14,309 /•
0
Breakdown of • •
• •; • •• Net Change % Changei
9,934 10,212 278 3%
f
t
dP rF 3,016 3,210 194 6%
�y4
iX. A �. +r 4 r.� ,e x' x, r'
1,01$ 1,019 1 0%
341 345 4 1
14,309 14,786 477 3%
Breakdown of -rvice Connections
.. 00Change't10,212 10,786 574 6%
3,210 3,051 -159 -5%
1,019 1,022 3 0%
"° a 345 349 4 1%
�".'�x"'atr 5r` '^az+ 2'� .ww �53�,. '��. .k Six
14,786 15,208 422 3%
Negative 159 for the uninco orated area is due to Walnut Island annexations to Ti and
Breakdownof Service Connections
• 00 .-
k K f 10,786
11,081 295 3/o
3,051 3,151 100 3%
1,022 1,022 0 0%
349 355 6 2%
E 1 n9� ,J L Y. •pni rku
15,208 15,609 401 3%
Pagel
BEAVERTON
•
Kesidents well slave
say on fluoridation
large numbers of cavities in chit- _ }r
The City Council hears dren he sees. Downey estimated 3 `
that 10 percent of his preschool f° .
pros and cons, then backs charges require hospital stays un-
an advisor vote in der anesthesia while he fills sever
November on the issue al cavities at a time.
Aril Love, a retired dentist
By RICHARD COLBY representing Stand for Children,a
4�
THEORFGOVIAN pro-fluoride group, said she had
BEAVERTON —,City residents consulted with personnel at the
w"I have a say this fall about U.S. Environmental Protection
fluoridating Beaverton's water. Agency and the Oregon Depart-
With one City Council member Tent of Fish and Wildlife who
"never heard of health problems
absent, the other four unaru- for fish"caused by fluoridation.
mcusly decided to put the issue Love, who lives in Scholls, and
to an advisory vote, as requested
by Mayor Rob Drake following a Gordon Empey, a Northwest
sometimes-emotional hearing Portland dentist specializing in
Monday night. public health, discounted oppo
Given three minutes each, 16 nents' health concerns about
people argued against fluorida- fluoridating water.
tion; 13 spoke for it. Recalling that <;. Everett Koop
When routinely asked by and David Satcher, former U.S.
Councilor Forrest Soth whether surgeons general, had urged
the question should be put to a water fluoridation, Empey said
public vote,some opponents said that 50 years of medical research
it ;,,hould, rather than letting the and experience with fluoride had
council decide the issue on its shown "it's safe, effective, eco-
nomical and even socially equit-
ov,n. able."
Don't listen to a group of den-
tists or doctors who have been In the advisory vote Nov.5,res-
persuaded that fluoridation is a idents' approval of fluoridation
good idea," said Cyndy de Bruler would not legally bind the city to
of Hood River. She contended adopt it, Chief of Staff Linda Ad-
that fluoride-treated water that lard said Tuesday It would trigger
reaches creeks and rivers might a study of how t>> inject fluoride
harm aquatic life. into the city's water system most
Her husband, Greg de Bruler,
efficiently and economically.
c�,ntended that scientists have Once that infe.mation became
rot determined whether fluoride available, Adlard said, the ulti-
combines with other substances mate decision on whether to
to cause cancer. fluoridate would be put to the
Others, including Lynne council.
Campbell, executive director of Monday's action instructed Ad-
Cregon Citizens for Safe Drinking lard and City Attorney Mark Pilli-
Water from Lake Oswego,said the od to draft a ballot title for council
addition of fluoride would con- consideration during its Aug. 19
tribute to fluorosis, a tooth and session at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall,
bane problem created by too 4755 S.W.Griffith Drive.
much exposure to the chemical. Beaverton supplies water to
Campbell also complained that about 50,000 of its 78,000 resi
fluoride opponents had been dents.The rest are served by sur-
"shut out of this process" since rounding water agencies. One,
Drake proposed the 'idea and the Tualatin Valley Water District,
invited only proponents to speak fluoridates watei o about 123,000
ac a July 15 council work session. people, includin;y about 15 per-
Several fluoride proponents, cent of Beaverto ,'s population on
starting with Joyce Crunican, a
the city's north and west sides.
dental hygienist from Beaverton, Smaller portions of the city are
provided accounts of preschool within the West Slope and Raleigh
children painfully afflicted with water districts, and the former
mouthfuls of cavities. Crunican Metzger Water I.;strict that is part
said some cavities, although not of the Tualatin Valley agency.
L1, could have been prevented by None of those areas has fluori-
the children's drinking fluori- dated water.
dated water. Adlard said, however, that all
Eric Downey, a Beaverton pe- voters within the city limits would
diatric dentist for the past year be ellgiole to cast ballots on the
who trained in largely fluoridated issue because caywide votes can't
Iowa, said he was amazed at the be subdivided b^district lines.
j
Integrated Water Resources Management
Water Supply Feasibility Study
Project Progress Report-July 17, 2002
These are the project elements completed since the last report of Water Manager Group
meeting of May 15, 2002. The June meeting was postponed due to scheduling conflicts.
1. Feasibility Study Project Review
• The Study work has been focusing on the source options review, identification of
impact areas,including the road relocation and field studies for wetlands and
wildlife habitat. The fish habitat studies will be conducted in late July or early
August. There was good success on receiving permission to access the private
property around the Lake. There were only 6 of the 25 that either did not respond
or denied access. So far we have not had any complaints from the neighbors
concerning field studies.
• On June 3,a tour was conducted with the staff of Senator Smith and
Representative Wu offices. Bill Gaffi, CWS General Manager, Tim Erwert, Joint
Water Commission Manager, Linda Kelly,CWS Public and Employees Division
Manager,Tim Rutten, governmental affairs consultant and I led the tour and
helped provide important information to the congressional staff members.
Through our governmental affairs consultant,we are moving forward with a
request for additional BOR funding of$500,000 for their FY 2003 budget and
$2.5 million in future years for next phases. A letter of support for the federal
request will need to be sent to the Congressional Delegation from the partnering
agencies. A memo and draft letter will be provided.
• The Sain Creek Tunnel Scope of Work has been provided by MWH and is being
reviewed. The cost of preliminary assessment of the feasibility of the tunnel is
$39,387. The Scope is in addition to the original MVH Contract and would use
up the 10%budget contingency presented at the January WMG. The initial
appraisal cost was about$5,000. The Scope includes optional tasks on flood
control and hydropower,which would increase the cost to $46,479. The water
availability portion of the work effort will be provided by the CWS project
manager.There may need to be further discussion on the work element.
• As many of you know there is a small diversion dam in Sain Creek,which
Washington County Facilities and other partners have been looking at possible
opportunities to deal with the dam. The dam is currently filled with sediment and
debris. The dam was built prior to the Hagg Lake and provided water to City of
Hillsboro and later to County Park facilities. In the future,there may
opportunities to discuss how this small dam could be an element of the Study.
• A preliminary meeting was held with Washington County Land Use and
Transportation staff to determine any initial issues with the proposed water supply
options. Depending on the level of federal participation,there maybe issues with
county code on the road relocation,park facilities and environmentaf elements.
Progress Report 1
Integrated Water Resources Management
Water Supply Feasibility Study
Further review of these issues will be needed during the later phases of the
project.
• There is a continuing challenge on the coordination between the BOR work
processes and MWH contract. Given the lack of BOR funding,we have slowed
the progress of MWH to improve the coordination with the BOR work pace.
MWH will provide an updated project schedule next month. The project is
slightly behind schedule, and within budget. There are two additional Study
elements that were not included as part of the Joint Funding Agreement. The
governmental affairs consultant and Sain Creek Tunnel appraisal task may need
additional funding. A revised budget and schedule will be provided in the near
future. The Bureau recently approved$75,000 for this year,which funds will be
focused to conduct the engineering studies on the dam embankments and
spillway. The current funding for next year is$25,000. For the Bureau to
complete the Memorandum of Agreement tasks is estimated to cost an additional
$200,000. These tasks are the dam engineering,economics,cultural resources,
and flood control.
2. Public Involvement Process
• The fourth meeting with the Hagg Lake Neighbors was conducted on June 13.
The attendance was about 25 neighbors,two newspaper reporters and several
staff. The neighbors voiced frustration about the loss of property value, impact of
new road and being in limbo as to their property. However,the meeting was very
calm and the attendees maintained a high level of respect. Most of the neighbors
understand the water needs issue and some have even offered reasonable
suggestions about the options. One person circulated a petition to form a group to
oppose the Study. The neighbors were encouraged to participate in the process
and were given the opportunity to contact us for a personal site visit. We have
made three Hagg Lake neighbors property visits to discuss concerns and options.
All three have been positive and provided important information to the Study. A
few of the neighbors have requested a benchmark on their property to show the
raised water level.
• A small display for use at community events is being developed. A schedule for
the use and location of the display for the partners will be discussed. A website
survey and comment card has been developed to seek additional public input on
the Study and the proposed options. We would like to encourage the partners to
link to our website,if that is possible.
• A Water Supply Studies Update for local elected officials met July 12 to discuss
this Study and other regional water projects. This forum provided an update on
the Study and the three proposed main options. A future meeting of the group
was discussed for possibly October or November.
Progress Report 2
WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY
SAIN CREEK TUNNEL EVALUATION
SCOPE OF WORK
This work will be performed in conjunction with the WSFS. The overall objective is to
prepare a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of the Sain Creek Tunnel as a water supply
facility associated with a potential raise of Scoggins Dam. This preliminary assessment will
provide planning level cost information, best estimates of hydraulic yield and
reconnaissance-level environmental review. This information will be used to determine
whether a more detailed evaluation of the Sain Creek Tunnel should be conducted as part of
the WSFS.
Task 1.0 Geology and Seismicity
Review background information. Prepare a section of the draft Technical Memorandum on
geology and seismicity in the area of the tunnel.
Deliverables:
MWH-One section of the draft Technical Memorandum.
CWS - available information on area geology and seismicity. Relevant information from
Barney Reservoir expansion. One set of consolidated comments on the draft TM
Task 2.0 Field Inspection
Conduct field inspection of potential intake locations, tunnel alignments and discharge
locations. Conduct a reconnaissance-level environmental review and prepare a qualitative
assessment of impacts associated with the tunnel facilities. A section of the final Technical
Memorandum will be prepared discussing engineering options, including maps , figures and
drawings showing tunnel facilities. A section of the final report will provide qualitative
information on environmental impacts. One meeting will be held with -CWS and its
designated partners to discuss tunnel routing alternatives.
Deliverables:
MWH- One meeting with CWS. Two sections of the draft Technical Memorandum
CWS- attendance at meeting. Coordination of site access and participation in field survey
as needed. Existing drawings and property information as available.
Task 3.0.Hydrology
Assess potential water yield of the tunnel and its impact on reservoir filling. It is assumed
that CWS will provide the operating constraints on the tunnel, which will specify the
anticipated flows in cfs and the acceptable seasonal beginning and ending dates for tunnel
water conveyance. Based on the data provided by CWS,MWH will develop and refine the
hydrologic model of the tunnel/reservoir system.
WSFS pV 1
Sain CnA*Twmd
Scrapie of Work
r
r
Deliverables:
MWH - a section of the draft Technical Memorandum describing tunnel hydrology,
including graphs,charts and text.
CWS - Operational parameters of the tunnel,including anticipated flow in cfs and seasonal
operating constraints.
Task 4.0 Cost Estimate
Develop a preliminary size for the tunnel based on area hydrology and releases from Barney
reservoir. Evaluate alternative construction methods and develop planning-level cost
estimates for the alternatives. Prepare a section of the final report.
Deliverables
MWH- section of the final report.
CWS-information on area hydrology and Barney reservoir releases.
Task 5.0 Draft and Final Technical Memorandum
Prepare a draft technical memorandum incorporating the results and findings of the major
tasks described above. One presentation to the Partners to discuss the results and findings
of the study. Following receipt of comments from the Partners, a final Technical
Memorandum will be prepared.
Deliverables:
MWH-One hard copy and one electronic copy of the draft Technical Memorandum One
meeting and presentation materials. One hard copy and one electronic copy of the final
Technical Memorandum.
Task 6.0 Project Management
Assure integration of the tunnel evaluation into the WSFS. Provide cost and schedule
control.
Optional Task 7.0 Hydropower
Evaluate the potential hydmpower benefits of alternative tunnel configurations. One
meeting will be held with CWS to discuss the potential yields and operations.
Deliverables:
MWH-a section of the final report. One meeting with CWS.
CWS-Attendance at one meeting.
Optional Task 8.0 Flood Control
Evaluate daily streamflows in the upper watershed to determine the effect of a potential
tunnel on downstream hydrology. Quantify the flood control benefit of the project. One
meeting will be held with CWS to discuss the potential yields. This meeting could be
coordinated with Task 5.0.
WSFS page 2
Sain Cnrk Twvrd
Scope of Work
Deliverables:
MWH-a section of the final report One meeting with CWS.
CWS-Support in collection of hydrologic data as needed. One meeting.
WSFS page 3
Sain Gwk Travel
Scopeof Work
:R SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY
CREEK TUNNEL EVALUATION
BUDGET ESTIMATE
0
y �
I~ o U
o �
on o v
"p O
y. �, � W ��+ ►�i f�7w
p O y p F+ O O
4> O '�
k4 C C7
O O
PERSON " F`.,
Obermeyer 8 16 8 4
Passage 41 24 32 16
Professional M 12 24 8 16
Professional IV 16
Crockett 16 4
Thurin 64
24
Haapala
10
Professional I 16 16
Administrative 12
TOTAL 16 72 80 56 52 20 10 44
Labor Cost $1,820 $8,712 $10,320 $7,640 $6,280 $1,568 $1,400 $5,192
Expenses $132 $1,000 $750 $500 $500 $165 $500
Total Cost $1,952 $9,712 $11,070 $8,140 $6,780 $1,733 $1,400 $5,692
Tualatin Basin Water Supply
Feasibility Study
FACT SHEET
Finding Water for the Future
Managing water resources for the future
Our community's water needs will double in the next 50 years, calling for an additional 16.3 billion gallons
(50,000 acre feet) of stored water each year. People who live and work in the Tualatin River watershed in
Washington County are fortunate that water providers are planning ahead to ensure there will be sufficient
water for families, factories, farms, forests and fish. How we meet these changing water needs will play a
critical role in the health of our environment, economy and the quality of life throughout our region.
Water supply feasibility study
In 1999, water managers in Washington County completed the Integrated Water Resources Management
strategy, a framework for water users and resource managers to meet shared objectives even though their
needs and issues vary widely. They agreed the top priority was water supply. The near-drought conditions of
2001 underscored this need, and the managers embarked on the Water Supply Feasibility Study (WSFS), a
two-year technical evaluation of options to meet water demands through the year 2050. The projected cost of
the study is $850,000.
Do we really need more water?
Our region has plenty of water most of the year, but in the summertime river flows are low, farms need irriga-
tion, and residential water use more than doubles. Rain cannot refill the reservoirs as fast as we use water.We
could simply use less water, but that still would not meet the projected demands. In fact, conservation efforts in
the past decade have cut per capita consumption of water by nearly 10 percent and significantly eased peak
demands. Consider these assumptions:
• By 2012, residential and industrial users will run short without new water sources; the average family of
five uses 325,850 gallons (one acre foot) per year.
• Spring Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species
Act; restoring fish habitat will require more water.
• The federal Clean Water Act defines the Tualatin River and its tributaries as "water quality limited"
because late summer and early fall flows are diminished by competing uses of water resources; more
water supply is needed to restore stream flows.
• Nearly 27,000 acres of irrigated farmland are projected to have enough water unless crop types
change.
What Water Supply alternatives are being considered?
People want water that is clean, constant, cool, and cheap.An initial list of alternatives to be consid-
ered include:
• Expansion of Hagg Lake by raising Scoggins Dam 20 or 40 feet
• Transfer of Willamette River water for irrigation
• Increasing storage along tributaries
• Conservation
• Reuse of cleaned wastewater for irrigation
The intent of the study is to determine the feasibility of these and other potential sources that might arise in the
public review process.
(over, please)
How are alternatives being evaluated?
The initial criteria consider technical, environmental and social impacts in the context of public values. The
study will look at safety, reliability, cost, efficiency, flexibility, and impacts on the environment. The public review
process will help refine the criteria.
Is WSFS being coordinated with other studies?
Absolutely. There are a number of studies and initiatives underway related to or impacting the search for more
water supply in the Tualatin Watershed, including the Regional Water Supply Initiative and Plan Update, the
Hagg Lake Resources Management Plan (Bureau of Reclamation), and Wapato Lake Planning Project (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife). These studies have different timelines, funding sources and lead agencies and will have
their own public meetings, information and involvement processes. The WSFS partners are coordinating their
efforts with each of these studies, sharing resources and information, and eliminating redundancies when
possible.
How the public can help plan for the future
In preliminary studies, scientists and engineers identified potential water sources to be evaluated. At least four
feasible alternatives will be presented to the general public for review. Their comments will become part of the
body of knowledge used in selecting preferred alternative(s). Because the preferred alternative might involve
federal action, the study will complete the investigation and analysis necessary to develop a Planning Report
and Environmental Impact Statement (PR/EIS). In this case, a draft PR/EIS would be prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and presented to the public for comment in the future.
More than 20 public presentations have been made to explain the Integrated Water Resources Management
strategy and WSFS.A broad range of stakeholder groups are formally represented by the Tualatin River
Watershed Council and the Clean Water Services Advisory Commission which have been involved from the
beginning
Water Supply Feasibility Study Partners
Clean Water Services is leading the study in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Other partners
include the Cities of Banks, Forest Grove, Cornelius, North Plains, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin,
Sherwood and the Tualatin Valley Water District. The Bureau of Reclamation is involved because one alterna-
tive is raising the dam at Hagg Lake, a federal facility that is owned and operated by the Bureau.
To learn more
To learn more about the Water Supply Feasibility Study, please contact:
Tom VanderPlaat, Clean Water Services Project Manager at(503) 846-8758 or vanderplaaft@cleanwaterservices.org
Dave Nelson, Bureau of Reclamation at (503) 872-2795 or drnelson@pn.usbr.gov
Jeanna Cernazanu, Clean Water Services Public Affairs at(503) 846-3619 or cernazanuj@cleanwaterservices.org
12/01
Tualatin Basin
SPRING 2002 UPDATE
,i
Water Supply Feasibility Study
Purpose of the Study
The Tualatin Basin is continuing to grow and the demand for water is expected to double by the year 2050.
In addition to needing water for homes, businesses and agriculture, there is a need to restore flows to the
Tualatin River to improve water quality and protect steam habitat. An additional 50,000 acre feet of water will
be needed by the year 2050 to meet the growing demands. The purpose of the Tualatin Basin Water Supply
Feasibility Study (WSFS) is to evaluate reliable, safe and cost-effective water supply options to meet the long
term water needs of the Tualatin Basin.
First Steps in the Study
The WSFS was started in November 2001 as a collaborative effort led by Clean Water Services, in coop-
eration with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and local water resource agencies. The first step in the study was
to conduct a Scoping Process, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Scoping
Process occurred from January—April 2002 and focused on public review and comment on the development
of evaluation criteria and a range of source options.
During this process, the study partners held five open houses and made presentations to stakeholder
groups including the Tualatin River Watershed Council, Clean Water Services Advisory Commission, natural
resource agencies and other interested groups.
Public comment about the study was received at public meetings as well as through faxes,
e-mails and phone calls. In response to many questions raised about the study, a list of Frequently Asked
Questions with responses has been compiled and is available to the public via Clean Water Services web site
at www.cleanwaterservices.org.
Screening of Source Options
Study partners reviewed public comments from the Scoping Process and analyzed information on the
feasibility, cost and impacts of the potential source options. They then screened the source options based on
their ability to meet the criteria. The criteria included the following elements:
✓ Cost and cost allocation
✓ Feasibility (legal, institutional, regulatory, financial)
✓ Reliability (supply and emergency)
✓ Efficiency, timeliness
✓ Water quality, recreation, flood control
✓ Environmental impacts, property rights
✓ Security
Project Timeline
The following timeline summarizes the key milestones for the study:
Begin Study Scoping Process Select Key Study Key Options Select Preferred
Source Options Option
(continued on back)
Source Option Recommendations
The table below summarizes the recommendations of the Water Manager's Group:
Source options Not Recommended for Further Study
• Downstream dam site (above Stimson Mill)
• New in-line tributary storage
• Off-line tributary storage
• Expansion of Portland system (Bull Run 3)
Source Options that should be Components of all Supply
• Water conservation
• Wastewater reuse
• Aquifer storage and recovery
• Minor supply improvement for Portland system
Source options
• Scoggins dam raise at 20 feet
• Scoggins dam raise at 40 feet
• Willamette River irrigation pipeline
Defining and Assessing Impacts
The next step in the study will be to review the proposed source options with the public and begin to con-
duct the field studies to determine their impacts and benefits so a preferred option can be selected. These
options will be assembled into three (3) alternative packages that will be compared against a "no action"
alternative, in conformance with the requirements of an environmental impact statement and planning report
(EIS/PR).
During the summer and fall of 2002, field studies will be done in the vicinity of Hagg Lake to identify what
impacts and opportunities could occur with the various alternatives. These studies will include impacts to the
physical, biological and social/economic environment. Once the data is collected, the alternatives will be
compared and reviewed with the public before a preferred alternative is selected.
How to get more information
Clean Water Services has posted information, including a fact sheet and frequently asked questions about
the study, on its web site at www.cleanwaterservices.org.
During the summer of 2002, staff from the study will provide updates at community meetings and other
events. The public can comment about the study or ask questions at any time by calling or sending an email
to the following contact people:
• Tom VanderPlaat, Clean Water Services Project Manager at(503) 846-8758 or
vanderplaatt(a)cleanwaterservices.org
• Dave Nelson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at (503) 872-2795 or drnelson(a),pn.usbr.gov
• Jeanna Cernazanu, Clean Water Services Public Affairs at (503) 846-3619 or
cernazanui cD-cleanwaterservices.org
CleanWate es
:. ^� �� r. ei►� r,: � � :;. . ,_a.., .,. .,, fie._�: .,, -.. 4., ., 'aaa�°^
a.
Keepino-a
t o I n n o v aL ti
1,n
Clean \Vater Services has sheat 111orc
„r
than 3o years piirsnul g a cohesiv c stralcgv to
advance the health of the Ttlu ILlfin River
• - Watcrshccl. Our goal is to reach bcv 011c1 111c
— regulatorv- process be cniplov illg Irmov atlon.
scientific knovvlcd �c and ci 1v itv to 1111-
g
` :...� -. prove overall cnvironincnlal hc�111h �n1d ��� `l
vainc for otir customers. These Inv cstn1cnis
�.wn�iAua in clean water and a hcalthv cnvir0nnlcnt
+�NltMllli�j�111NAMiuIMI ' _ a
f IIIIiiu"a��rri q
have paid dividends for vVater ynality, public
re � health, and our Coll]Ill III ih. Uur co1lalxlra-
1 tion with Oil] 12 member Cities, three coon- Fa
ties, state agriculture and forestry cicparl- It is our goal each near to absorb
meats, the U.S. Geological Sllncv it 'SGSi most—ifnotall—cost increases through
and a cadre of povverkil parhicrsllips has the use of new technologies, streanllin-
revived the 'Tualatin Rh cr and its 1rIbtutar1cs. ing methods, reorganizing our workforce
In fact, rescarch shows the 'Anal 11HI RM er is and striving to deliver onr customers the
healthier than it has been in _,clicrations aucl hest service at some of the most reason-
has become a valued recreational asset. According to the Oregon DclxIItnleut of 1"'m 11,011- able rates in t11e region.
mental Qualih-'s (DFIO) Water Quality Indey, the health of'FnAAM Basin rnrllarn strcalus Withour pmver costs up by more
is improving even though the population of Washington Conntv has incrcascd by 11car1` than Si million and an increase in fed-
1oo,000 people in the last decade. cral regulatory recinirements, a sanitary
V`I—iilc water cinality In the 'Tualatin Basin has improved dramatically, challenges server rate increase Of2.5 percent—or
remain. Foremost among these are nevy, state and federal vv-ater quality rcgulali0rns, the about65centspermonthfortheaverage
Endangered Species Act listing of Chinook and v\'inter stcclhcad, and the grogv ing vvAcr household—teas necessary to help meet
needs of otir colllmtlnit\. These challenges rcgllll"C colltllllled collaboratlol 1, partllcr.dl 1p these Clelllall(1S. 1110 increase took effect
and innovation to help guard the progress we vc made and clistlrc Cont1111tcd 1111prm cnicill 011 Jll1V 1 2002. '['here 1S 110 Change t0
in the overall health and stistairnability of our watershed, our econoniy and our con imillih. Clean Water Services' S+00 per month
surface water management fee.
R This is the first rate increase in two
YOUr
years and just the second since 1996 de-
ut i h` �¢`�, spite continued inflationary pressure and
Clean Water Services is a public utility committed to protecting vrater resources 111 the the addition of nearly 100,000 residents
Tualatin River\Vaterslied. Nearly 450,000 customers enjoy clean vv to <iiid licallhv rivcrs to our service district.
and streams through limm ative vv astewatcr and stormwater services, l ivcr fl0vv restoral loll, To read more about Clean Water Ser-
flood mallagenlcilt projects, vv"atcr eluant'' \'lid stream enhancement pro'cct.s, fish habltal vices Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget and
otir recent accomplishments, Visit otir
prOtCCtloll, and lnol"C.
web site at:
\� ;;stcyvall t1, , 1+1,1c1,! ()til- folly tl-Catnie11t facilities clean more than -2 1111111011 gallons
of vyastewater a clay, almost to drinking standards, and return the water to the 'Tualatin Riv c1,.
Surface i
� �
Study
Walter, Ill 11w Ile vl \valer demands in the 'hullalin 1Zkcl- vv ilicrshcd arc plo'eeted to double.
l_, ^
for Families
In ,Iddilioll lu ncc(Ilm, �villcl for honks, businesses and agricullnrc^ \\e need to restore flows to
IIIA I n�il<itin Ri�cr to intprMC \\illcr qualiti illid protc(.l sh-carnl hal)ltat. :Ait additional -o,000 acre
Irl IJI ��tllcr ��ill he needed by 111c, \cal >o-o to meet the grogv Ing denrnlds. 'I he purpose of the
-
,{
' I li�d,llin 13�I.,in \\ alcr Supple h'casibility ShtdV (\V'SI�'S) is to evaIIIAC reliable, SAC and Cost-
l'I l�� f i��' ���ticr ,upl)k oplions to meet the long term walcr needs of otn conunnnity.
1 IIS' \\ SI`S \\,u s Ill-tcd ill as it collaborati\c effort lcd 1) Clcarn \V'atcr Ser-
bill it l cool}eI-,[II l ��ilh the U.S. Bureau of IZeclanlatio11 and local �� Iter pro`,iders. When the
,Ati \ i, completed ill about 1' months, a proferred alteriiative \\ill be seleclecl.
runt January through April 2003, 1 rank of possible source options \v ere presented to the
Water I�ubli_ Ian n, ic�� ,nld comment along vv ill, proposed c\altlation criteria (SCC related story) for
for Farms IIIc bc�l options. 'rhe studv bus hccii nlrnIng forvvand and is proposing to hill ythe
nlli.x_'r ��I .ullr<c l�ptions io a fe�� altern�tti�c� 111,11 ��ill be studied more closer.
r
. � �
wl
�O
h ^ Y i'avufe
�, 1 ',nt� lie ���Itcr su1,1J1� crllcna and public input. ��atcr elan lgers hanc identified major
,rnllol)hol for nlcclnto our connnn
lllty's gron1 war needs. The selected sources (see
llu�lr,IIImn ill Le conlhined .Is allern�>ii�es to iIchicvo It local of ;o,000 acre feet.
(- :k"llI A\ :Iter )en I� .illd the stoop partners will he seeking iupnl from the public, elected
�r
olIIIulllk "tulips on opltons dtlring the sunlnlcr ofThe study will also be
iii Illll)�lC'l� alld OI)pO1tt1111t1Cs cmild oeetit o III tll� ill IoLIS altclItithVC'S.
� I Ili, n ,'lud� � nnp,lctto the pll\sical, hiologic�ll rnld socian
l/eco ( mic emironment. Once the
�; 1,11,1 i� , �,11� , led- Ilia ;IIIA rnllti�cs ��ill he conlparcd and reg icwcd \v ith the public before a 1)re
i,, lck.d.
Water for Fish
What's Needed by 2050
i 50,000 acre feet
Water
Water managers, working with the Source
Tualatin River Watershed Council,Clean Options
Water Services Advisory Commission
and the public developed the following
-� criteria to screen water supply options.
Cost and how costs are.distributed
among partners
Key Source Options
Feasibility (legal, instihrtional,
regulatory,financial)
, iReliabilit' su �l �and emer encu)
yPI
( S � �
Efficiency (making the best use of - 1;
existing water sources) = =
Water quality, recreation,flood
40 foot Hagg Lake 20 foot Hagg Lake Irrigation exchange pipeline
control dam raise= dam raise= from Willamette River=
50,000 acre feet 26,500 acre feet 25,000 acre feet
Environmental impacts, property
rights
Other Source Options
Sccurlty
' 3"t
Clean Water Ser\'Ices Conservation Aquifer storage
Additional Portland Supply± 7,600 acre feet and recovery± Wastewater Reuse±
-ton 9,200 acre feet 5,500 acre feet
Llt�' Of BeaV'e3,SOOacrefeet
Cite of'I'igard
City of I-lillsboroy,
Y AR q „
" `a'G� � W e b
City of` lialatin .,¢ � �.
City of Forest Crow
L( ,r
- City^ of Sherwood \\ Il�tl �IrC your ir��s ghoul the sources of water being recommended for the water stipple
City of Corliclins �Ind�� \i h,tl sotlrec� ��ould you prefer arid what other suggestions do you hare'
Ciiy of 13an1 C ;�J Io otlr ��cb �ilc �tl :.c'f -sf'Its'VCit+�r5c-t'vices.(.)rg/wsfs and respond to our short
guI c\ . loll c:ln itI1,\\c^r IIIc ducslioris and stIb] lit vour response \i<i the internet. If you would
City of\orth Plainsarc^ter ,I hard i I ��^r co �� of the snrvc\, call c lana Ccrrnai,antl, Public Involvement Coordinator
I ualatiu Valley\y'atcr DistrictIl �iJ-;(Jlc� t,r c-mail to ccrrnar.anuj(a cicanwrltcrscryiccs.org.
U.S. 13urcan of ReclatnalitJlt I ,cln-it Inure '11;
the Healthy StreamsPlan : �
y a.
Challenge �clean a e v nv . t..
The healthy Streams Plan is onr con1niunik"', co�ndioated, colhh-
or" tive effort to protect water resotu-ces and nIect IIIc IcgnirenIcnt� of �hc
federal 0cari Water Act and kndangcred SpccIAct ; I ,S
" Waici Services and other Washington Cot nl\ "o\rrnuIcnts and tinhliC
agcrncies began the clevekopniernt of the I Icalthv PLII1 in 00o-
ber of 1ygy, following the ESA listing of\v Hocr stcclhc;id and spring 1,
Chinook: as threatened species. This multi-vear 0-fort ill idcrntik
and prioritise specific projects, policies, and programnl�itic changes
needed to further improve water gnaliiy, manage flooding and flood-
Plains, and protect aquatic species in the Tualatin Rig cr 13�isin.
ing With
gid..._ 'Immunity
A► Work in �pc31
The Clean Water Services'Water-
■, shed Wagon is coming to a stream near
e a .
• £ '' you! Over the past two years, the
Watershed Wagon trailer and tool bank
Watersheds 2000 Comprehensive survey & 10/99 - 10/01 have aided community groups in
assessment of 470 miles of streams completing 30 stream restoration
Economic Analysis & Economic Model 5/02 - 8/02 projects in the Tualatin River Water-
shed. The trailer and tool bank are
Public Values Assessment Public Values Survey available free of charge for community
Policy Development & Policy Focus Areas Ongoing - to be planting projects. Clean Water Ser-
Review • Effective Impervious Area Reduction completed by 6/03 vices' staff are also available to provide
• Vegetated Corridors advice for water quality improvement
• Hydrologic/Hydrology projects whether they are downstream
• Operations/Maintenance Review or in your own backyard. We've even
established a native plant nursery to
Watershed Analysis Integration of ecological, social and 8/03 supply vegetation for these streamside
economic values to determine overall projects. In the last year, volunteers
watershed strategy planted more than 25,000 of the
nursery's native trees and shrubs along
Healthy Streams Plan Plan to improve overall watershed health 12/04 local streams and wetlands to shade
submittal & meet regulatory guidelines submitted to streams, filter pollutants and improve
state/federal authorities wildlife habitat.
We're not doing it alone. Clean
Water Services has established solid
partnerships with SOLV, the Tualatin
Riverkecpers, local stream groups,
Boar o � �•._ � a �±4 schools and others to restore the health
of our streams, wetlands and wildlife
Stream � . r `; AJ� A
a habitat in our community. If you are
interested in helping, here's how to get ,
Comm *1 Tgtee
��" �`'�l f 1�;J :'// f i' connected:
The Clean \Vater Sen ices Board of Directors
appointed the 2o-member I Icalth� Steams \(16sor� ho reserve the Watershed Wagon or
g
ll >
Committee on April i5 to prop ide gnidancc Enid �.-•; to receive technical advice, call
input to the Healthv Stream Partners . The Corsi- �`�'�� -' ''-� Clean Water Services at
mittee will meet oyer Clic iicxt t,� months to prioriti/c (503) 846-8621.
projects, program elements and minding strategics and,
ultiuiatel�, recommend the Plan to Clean \\ ate Seniccs �,.. - :,. l•- Check out our web site at
Board of Directors, local jurisdictions• state and federal � � ''"`` ^�� :.+�learavuaterserviees.org
/i PII F
regulators. for a list of upcoming restoration
events, contacts, and other useful
mforniation.
Join Your local strcamsidc Friends
group or Homeowners Association.
Healthy Sty
a m.. rt^ i �° s .x" f: v % 5 :u?l,1Ir/t RIVO(
.i(r.„heA Wagon
To learn 111irc about the I leaptv Streams 11111, isit ()III vv(,h 1k, ;I1
• ' `
Healthy Streams Plan Partners include:
x+v
P PRSRT STD
PRSRT SR
U.S.POSTAGE
PAID
PORTLAND,OR
CleanWater `del MIT 0 189
LPERMITNO.18951
155 N First Avenue, Suite 270
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
D
the federal Clean
rshed
than
has paid off—the river s healthier todayV t lo utility .
�u�llih" regulations celled lohl IiI.IMIM1111 (LIJ, lo�l&'-ol TMI)k -- it has been III ,ClICratI0IlS.
\\'Iillc \\�itcr clti<ihtv III HIC TIKILIt 11 RI\cl- has unproved, IICN\ ClIal-
fhe ha I)oIllikillk rl\ci-I,. In
Tllahtlll Rl\cl- Basle becanlc nuc of 111c I ,Ilcrsllc(ls III the lenges have arisen. To address tllcsc c,IjjIjcIIc,cs, the Oregon DelMrt-
-olillicilLil 1 Mile(] �l 11C\\ TAIM, '111 2001
]I'llMH lo have aTAIDI, cIlIbI1,,iIL.(l lol 0. rc,�I)oll(lc(l Merit of 1",livil
treat- tile \\'�Itel-shccl. Here is LA Summary of these
by investing Illorc 111�111 -,()c', 11 �llcl- itreat- ior kc\- pollutants 111 1
Lire being Jddi-Cssed "I the urban area.
oI �j Itjl-J<IL,C 110V 1"UMILitious andljo\v they'Illuld and the Cshbl]L�
Temperature
(2001) VvrAer f rom Hagg
_-rvoir
I of in
-stream
t j C_'.a C h
Bacteria
(2001) a Falling.) Septic S',J"LAtkS ul,osevjered Atc-a Study and adoption
j
)f ne.-, �)_ to pil,ornote septic system
;-
rep$aoe�v i urban ar----
g L4 (j r c I SWCD
Dissolved OxygenE:uldt_ n,Jtrient control
(2001) j v.vater from Hagg Lake &
i;ention & sediment
L0 r1 0 "A'i s.$9'4l
n ipjastewater treatment
-J110 k
Phosphorus J,��t 1,
(1988 & 2001) for phosphorus &
n't i )i.
-gent ban
dei�ek
�,j t i o jj & sediment
Ammonia j vvastevitater treatment
(1988 & 2001) for phosphorus &
with SWCD
J IcA lrHr \N Cb Site a1: CleanWater Services
TABLE OF TASKS
TASK START DURATION INFORMATION
AVAILABLE
WSFS Feasibility Study Oct - 01 18 mo. Apr-03
BOR Engineering Sep - 02 6 mo. Mar-03
Sain Creek Tunnel Feasibility Sep - 02 6 mo. Mar-03
RWSP Update
- - Jun-03
Global Warming Study Jun - 03 3 mo. Sep-03
Regionalization Discussions - - Jun-03
Fish Passage Engineering Sep-02 6 mo. Mar-03
Biological Assessment Mar-03 3 mo. Jun-03
Draft EIS June-03 12 mo. Jun-04
Final EIS and ROD Jun-04 6 mo. Dec-04
Predesign Jan-05 12 mo.'Jan-06
Permitting Jan-05 12 mo. Jan-06
Design Jan-06 12 mo. Jan-07
Bid/Evaluation/Award Jan-07 6 mo. Jun-07
Construction Jun-07 3 years Jun-10
J
Conceptual Project Schedule
WSFS
BOR
Engineering/Sain
Creek Tunnel
Feasibility
RWSP update
■
9/d2 i 9/039/04 9/05 9/06 9,07 91'08 9/09 9110
draft EIS
+. .._ , fins
+ : predesign
a : permitting
design
global bid/award
warming construction
study fish passage
engineering
regionalization biological assessment
Integrated Water Resources Management
Water Supply Feasibility Study
Project Progress Report- August 14, 2002
These are the project elements completed since the last report of Water Manager Group
meeting of July 17, 2002.
1. Feasibility Study Project Review
• The Study work has been focusing on coordination with Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) and the review of budget elements. The Project Manager met with the
Yamhill County Planning staff to discuss the Irrigation exchange pipeline from
the Willamette River source option. They recommended contacting specific
individuals to make them aware of the Study. Until the sources options were
further refined and specific options were determined, they did not encourage
additional stakeholder input. They offered to direct questions from their
stakeholders to the Project Manager.
• Bill Gaffi,Eldon Mills and Tom VanderPlaat met with Ron Eggers, the Lower
Columbia Area Manager and his staff to discuss the Study. Ron is support of the
Study, but federal budgets are to remain flat for the next four years. He did agree
to try to seek additional remaining funds, which could be transferred from other
Reclamation projects to the Study. We discussed opportunities to keep the Study
within schedule and budget. He encouraged us to continue the efforts with the
Congressional delegation and identified this element as critical to the Study. We
asked about the consultation process for the endangered species on the existing
dam and facilities. This process has been placed as a lower priority for the staff.
He did agree that Reclamation would be willing to assist with a separate
consultation process for the sources options, specifically the Scoggins Dam raise.
We discussed the options for the Partners to fund the Study tasks that were to be
completed by Reclamation. They have a process to allow for contracting of
services for these tasks. We received positive response to the question of the
partners getting credit for funds extended during this phase of the Study.
However, the credit would need to be part of the federal funding request process.
• The budget review shows that we spent about 29 % of the budget as of July 1,
2002. This equates to $218,866 of the $760,921 currently contracted. The Water
Manager Group will discuss the funding options for four major elements of the
Study. The funding options relate to the following elements:
i. Governmental affairs and CWS project management ($105,000)
ii. Sain Creek Tunnel analysis ($60,000)
iii. Climate Change and Water Demand Review ($50,000)
iv. BOR Tasks funding. ($215,000)
Additional spreadsheets are available to provide details on the funding options.
Progress Report 1
Integrated Water Resources Management
Water Supply Feasibility Study
2. Public Involvement Process
• At the past meeting of the Hagg Lake Neighbors, a few of the neighbors requested
a benchmark on their property to show the potential raised water level. A survey
firm is developing a scope for a cost effective and accurate method to set a few
benchmarks. This work will give the neighbors addition perspective on the
impacts to their property.
• A small display was developed for use at community events. There is a schedule
for the use and location of the display for the partners. The display was used at
the Washington County Fair and Tualatin Crawfish Festival and scheduled for
other events over the next few weeks. A website survey and comment card is
available as a means to seek additional public input on the Study and the proposed
options. We would like to encourage the partners to link to our website, if that is
possible.
Progress Report 2
Tualatin Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study
Date: August 14, 2002
To: Water Managers Group (WMG)
From: Tom VanderPlaat - CWS Project Manager
Subject: WSFS Funding Options review
Since signing the Joint Funding Agreement in June 2001, the Water Supply Feasibility
study has made good progress. As mentioned at the previous WMG,we have several
issues that related to the budget and time schedule as we move forward.
In January 2002, as part of the budget review,it was agreed that a 10%contingency
would be included in the partner's budgets for FY 02-03,which equates to $73,400 and
total of$807,400.
As presented at the last WMG meeting,the BOR budgeted only$25,000 for FY 02-03,
which is not adequate for completion for the tasks committed in the BOR/CWS
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The funding limitations have an impact on the
options for the future. The costs for the various options would allocate based on the
current joint funding agreement percentages. The following is the funding options for
completion of the Study:
Option 1. —Governmental Affairs and CWS Project Management.
This option includes two elements. First;based on the recent discussions with
BOR management, they strongly recommended that we increase our efforts with the
governmental affairs consultant(Washington DC lobbyist). It would likely take up to
two years to obtain BOR funding given the federal budget process. Based on the
unanticipated complexity of the Study,we underestimated the level of effort for CWS
management and suggest that an addition to this element. Specifically,the BOR
coordination and public involvement are two task areas have taken more time than
anticipated.
• Increased Budget for Governmental Affairs---- $60,000
• Increase Budget for CWS Project Management -- $45,000
Total Increase $105,000
Option 1A.—Sain Creek Tunnel Feasibility
This option is based on the MWH Scope and tasks elements to be preformed by
the CWS project manager. This option would include the flood control and hydropower
elements of the draft MWH scope of work. The CWS work tasks include the water
availability analysis for the Tualatin River diversion.
• Sam Creek Tunnel Feasibility $60,000
Option 2.—Climate Change Review of Water Demands
This option is to conduct the climate change study for the Tualatin Basin and
understand the impact to the water demands. This review would similar to the Portland
Bull Run analysis.
• Climate Change Review of Water Demands ---- $50,000
Option 3—BOR tasks for completion of the WFSF
This option is based on advancing funding to the BOR for completion of the
Study, in order to keep the Study on the proposed time schedule. The BOR tasks include
dam engineering, economics,cultural resources and others. The BOR management
indicated the funding would be credited at a later phase of the Project. However, given
the future of federal funding, this is of considerable concern. As part of the federal
funding process, the crediting of this option would be included as part of the future
legislation with the BOR.
• BOR tasks for completion of the WSFS - $215,000
In the case that all the above options are chosen, the budget would increase by$430,000
and from the original $807,400 to $1,237,000. The attached spreadsheets show the
impact to the individual partners.
Water Supply Feasibility Report
Estimate of Water Supply Feasibility Report Cost Share
Project Manager-Tom VanderPlaat Date 8/14/2002
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Revised for 10%Contingency
Water %Share Costs FY 01-02 FY 01-02 FY 01-02 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 02-03 FY 02-03 FY 02-03
Allocations Qtr1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4
Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun FY 02-03
Ac-ft 5.0% 5.0% 30.00/6 10.0% 15.0% 10.0% 25.00% "10.0% Total Increase
+ 10%
Water Quality I
CWS 15,000 29.64% $217,589 $10,879 $10,879 $65,277 $21,759 $32,638 $21,759 $54,397 $21,759 $130,553 $21,759
M&I
-City of Tigard 9,500 18.77% $137,806 $6,890 $6,890 $41,342 $13,781 $20,671 $13,781 $34,452 $13,781 $82,684 $13,781
1VWD 9,500 18.77% $137,806 $6,890 $6,890 $41,342 $13,781 $20,671 $13,781 $34,452, $13,781 $82,684 $_13,781
City of Hillsboro 4,600 9.09% $66,727 $3,336 $3,336 $20,018 $6,673 $10,009 $6,673 $16,682 $6,673 _$40,036 $6,673
-City of Beaverton 3,600 7.11% $52,221 $2,611 $2,611 $15,666 $5,222 $7,833 $5,222 $13,055, $5;222 $31,333 $5,222
-City of Sherwood 1,800 3.56%1 $26,111 1 $1,306 $1,306 $7,833 $2,611 $3,917 $2,611 $6,528; $2,611 $15,666 $2,611
-City of Tualatin 1,700 3.36% $24,660 $1,233 $1,233 $7,398 $2,466 $3,699 $2,466 $6,165 $2,466 $14,796 $2,466
-City of Forest Grove 900 1.78% $13,055 $653 $653 $3,917 $1,306 $1,958 $1,306 $3,264 $1,306 $7,8331 $1,306
City of Cornelius 2,000 3.95% $29,012 $1,451 $1,451 $8,704 $2,901 $4,352 $2,901 $7,253 $2,901 $17,407 $2,901
-City of North Plains 1,000 1.98% $14,506 $725 $725 $4,352 $1,451 $2,176 $1,451 $3,626 $1,451 $8,704 $1,451
-City of Banks 1,000 1.98% $14,506 $725 $725 $4,352 $1,451 $2,176 $1,451 $3,626, $1,451 $8,704 $1,451
Lake Oswego Corp0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total M&I 35,600 70.36% $516,411 $25,821 $25,821 $154,923 $51,641 $77,462 $51,641 $129,103$51,641 $309,847 $51,641
_1
Sub Total 50,600 100.00% $734,000 $36,700 $36,700 $220,2001 $73,400 $110,100 $73,40 $183,500 $73,400 $440,400 $73,400
WQ exisitin 12,618
M&I exisitin 14,000
Irrigation 27,022
Fish and Wildlife
Recreation' 6,900
Hydro power
Flood Management
Total active storage) 104,240
Feasibility Report Estimate $734,000
Plus 10%Contingency $807,400
Water Budget-Contingency 10% 1 8/14/2002
Water Supply Feasibility Report
Estimate of Water Supply Feasibility Report Cost Share
Project Manager-Tom VanderPlaat Date 8/14/2002
Options Review
Water %Share Costs Option 1 O tion 1A Option 2 O tion 3
Allocations Gov,affairs& Sain Cr. Climate BOR
CWS PM Tunnel Chane Tasks
Ac-ft $105,000 $60,000 $50,000 $215,000
Water Quality
CWS 15,000 29.64% $239,348 $270,474 $288 261 $303083 $366,818.
M&1
City of Tigard 9 500 18.77% $151,587 $171,300 $1821565 $191,953 $232,318
TVWD 9 500 18.77% $151,587 $171,300 $182,565 $191,953 $232318
City of Hillsboro 4 600 9.09% $73,400 $82,945 $88400 $92.945 $112,491
CitV of Beaverton 3,600 7.11% $57,443 $64,914 $69,183 $72,740 $88,036
City of Sherwood 1,800 3.56% $28,722 $32,457 $34591 $36,370 $44,018
City of Tualatin 1 700 3.36% $27,126 1 $30,654 $32,670 $34,349 $41,573
City of Forest Grove 900 1.78% $14,361 $16,228 $17,296 $18,185 $22,0091
City of Cornelius 2,000 3.95% $31,913 $36,063 $38 435 $40,411 $48909
City of North Plains 1 000 1.98% $15,957 $18,032 $19,217M$719,317
$24 455
Ci of Banks 1,000 1.98% $15,957 $18,032 $19,217 $24455
Total M&I 35,600 70.36% $568,052 $641,926 $684,139 $870,582
Sub Total 50,600 100.00% $807,400 $912,400 $972,400 $1,022,400 $1,237,400
WQ exisitin 12,618
M&I exisitin 14,000 Total
Irrigation 27,022 Original Contract $734,000
Fish and Wildlife Contingency 10% $73,400
Recreation* 6,900 1 $807,400
Hydro power Option 1 -Governm.Affairs and CWS Project M t. $105,000
Flood Mana ement $912,400
Option 1A-Sain Creek Tunnel Feasibility $60,000
Total active storage) 104,240 1 7 $972,400
Feasibility Report Estimate $807,400 Option 2-Climate Change Rev.for Water Demands $50,000
$1,022,400
Option 3-BOR Tasks $215,000
Totals $1,237,400
Water Budget-Options Overview 1 8/14/2002
Water Supply Feasibility Study
Budget Overview Date: 8/14/02
Period of Review:June 30, 2001 - July 1, 2002
Additional
Cost Share Funds Budgeted Invoiced Remaining Percentage Funding
Joint Funding Agreement $734,000 $367,000 $367,000 50%
Contingency $73,400
Options
1. Govrn. Aff Consult. $60,000
CWS Staff $45,000
1A - Sain Creek Tunnel $60,000
2. Climate Change Review $50,000
3. BOR Tasks Funding $215,000
Total of 3 options $430,000
Total - Study Elements $807,400 $1,237,400
Expenses
MWH Contract $639,642 $142,648 $496,995 22%
Reed Smith LLC - Govern Affairs $25,000 $11,932 $13,068 48% $60,000
CWS Labor $73,400 $57,103 $16,297 78% $45,000
Other Miscellaneous $22,879 $7,183 $15,696 31%
1A. Sain Creek Tunnel $60,000
2. Climate Change Review $50,000
3. BOR Tasks Funding $215,000
Total $760,9211 1 $218,866 $542,055 29% $430,000
Difference (+/-) Budget $46,479
WSFS Budget-8-14-02 detail 1 8/14/2002