Loading...
01/27/1999 - Packet .. BOOK COPY IlVTERGOVERN.A.W TAIL WATER BOARD.M EETWG Ser ging Tigard, King Wiry, .Durham ar�d Unthem c�ra�ed!. AlA _ Wednesday,January 27, 1999 5:3E�p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introduotiotis 3_ Approval of Minutes-January 13, 1999 4_ Criteria Evaluation- Ed Wegner.and Wayne Lowry a. Portland WateriFlan for Expandedouthvest Service b, Willamette Rxver Water Supply System 5. Executive Session 6 Adjournment; Executive Session:; The' Intergovem rental Wate board may go into Executive Session under the provisori of ORS 192_66G (1); (d), _{ &>(h) to discusslabor relations, real property transactions, and current and per�dfng litigation issues_ All discussions vtlun this session are confidential, therefore nothug from this meeting> may be disclosed by those<presert. .Representatives!af the news medicare allwed toi attend this.session, but must not disclose any imormation discussed during this'sessifln. Fathy\iwb\ -27 f s S i INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING JANUARY 13, 1999 I i C 1. Call to order: t Chair Bill Scheiderich called the meeting of the Intergovernment Water Board to order at 7:08 p.m. on January 13, 1999. l 2. Roll Call/Introductions Ms. Drangsholt, Mr. Schirado, Mr. Scheiderich, Ms. Froude, and Councilor Hunt were present. 3. Approval of December 9, 1998 minutes i 4. Presentations & Questions by IWB Members ` a. Portland Water Plan for Expanded Southwest Service • Lorna Stickel, Portland Water Bureau, Planning Section, introduced the other members of her team: Dennis Kessler, Engineering Section; Bob Rieck, Finance Section; Anne Conway, Finance Section; and Rosemary Menard, Water Resources Management. The Portland team presented their report using a slide presentation (See attached"City of Portland Water Bureau Proposal for Expanded Service"). Ms. Stickel reviewed existing factors relevant to their proposal, the flexibility built into the proposal, and assumptions regarding conservation. (See"Expanded Southwest Service"). She mentioned that Portland had 100 years of experience backing up its operation of its water system. She said that, even if the southwest communities elected to go to another source of water, Portland was still interested in exploring conjunctive use of water. She commented that a third dam could in the future substitute for facilities included in the proposal. She said that at Tigard's request they did not include cost savings associated with conservation. Ms. Stickel reviewed the issues addressed by the Portland proposal (See "Primary Issues"). She reviewed the assumptions made regarding water supply needs (See "Water Supply Needs Assumptions"). She said that the population forecasts included the expansion areas under consideration at Metro now. She mentioned that the historic reductions factor was due to conservation efforts occurring in the last decade (which were not programmatic conservation savings). She explained that the consumption data for the demand forecasts came from the old Wolf Creek service area, now part of Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD), in order to provide factors more specific to the land use patterns occurring on the Westside. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page 1 • Dennis Kessler, Portland Water Bureau, Engineering Section, reviewed how their proposal met the demand and supply for the overall system peak season and peak day, and for the Westside peak day and emergencies. He referenced Table 4, forecasting a peak season demand range from 28 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons. He stated that they defined "peak season" as the point in time where inflow into their watershed was unable to meet the demands, and they had to supplement supply either by drawing their storage down or through alternate supplies (or the worst conditions which occurred once every 10 to 20 years). He mentioned that the figures included 20 mgd instream flow for fish. He explained that the demand period was about 157 days long, a four month period of fairly dry weather, similar to what happened in 1987. Mr. Kessler referenced Table 3, listing their supply capacity, both now and over time. He said that by the year 2000 they expected to increase their supply from their current 29.2 billion gallons (22 in storage and 7.2 in groundwater) to 31 billion gallons. He explained Figure 1, Peak Season Supply with Incremental Enhancements Compared to Demand During Driest and Average Weather Conditions. He noted that 50% of the time during the peak season, the demand would fall below the peak demand line for the driest weather conditions. Mr. Kessler reviewed how the upgrades to the Bull Run system over time would incrementally increase their supply capacity to meet the increasing peak season demands (Figure 1). He said that the upgrade of the groundwater system in 2005 not only expanded the current system and made it reliable at that level but it provided for 50% of the groundwater to be "ASR" or acquifer storage and recovery. He explained that ASR was when in the winter they injected the water from excess flows into the ground, and recovered it through pumping in the summer. He commented that it should be water similar to Bull Run water. Mr. Kessler mentioned raising the dams in 2010. He stated that the probable requirement in 2020 to treat the Bull Run water would enable them to take an additional 20% from the Bull Run reservoirs (currently they used 60% of the water stored). He referenced the map showing the locations for the proposed Westside and Eastside ASR additions. Mr. Kessler noted the 10%buffer used in their figures to insure that they met the peak season demands. He mentioned that in the first few years they would cut into that buffer but they felt comfortable about it because they had additional capacity in the Bull Run Lake. He recommended leaving the existing wells on the Westside in operation as reserve supplies for emergencies or really high peak season needs. He said that some of these projects could be implemented ahead of schedule if necessary. Mr. Kessler reviewed the peak day demands for the entire system including the southwest communities and the expanded area (See "Table 5"). He said that this was similar to what happened in 1981 and driven by hot weather, not dry weather. He mentioned that currently they had a peak day capacity of 285 mgd. He reviewed the timeline listing when various projects would come on line to increase storage or transmission capacity for the entire system (See "Peak Day Supply). He pointed out that 10%buffer. He stated that the projected plan would meet needs well beyond the 50 year horizon. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page r t Mr. Kessler reviewed the chart "West Side Peak Day Demand" listing the projected needs for the various southwest communities, to be supplied by the current Washington County water main and the new proposed facilities. He mentioned that they suggested sizing the facilities at the size needed by each community at build out. He reviewed the timeline for projects to increase the supply to the Westside (See "West Side Supply"). He pointed out that getting the north-south pipeline connected was key to transmitting the 90 mgd to the southwest communities. He stated that they used the same pipeline alignment developed by Murray Smith. s Mr. Kessler referenced Table 8, listing the emergency demands for the entire system based on the j non-peak season average demand. He discussed how they would meet emergency demand, should the Bull Run system be entirely off line (See"Emergency Supply"). He explained that"Other" 4 included other connections in the Portland system and the existing Westside wells. He mentioned that the JWC/Portland Connection in 2010 would enable them to move water back into the Portland system for distribution to a broader area than the Tualatin Valley. He stated that with the Bull Run treatment plant, they reduced vulnerability in their system. He noted that the Canyon leg of Conduit 5 was the most vulnerable stretch of their conduits but with this leg improved and the treatment plant, it would be almost impossible to take out the Bull Run system. Mr. Kessler reviewed the costs associated with the proposed source and treatment improvement projects (See Table 2). The ground water upgrade was about $35 million, the Bull Run treatment plant about $140 million, and the ASR projects about $17 million a piece. He noted that the two legs of the Wilsonville-Beaverton pipeline were estimated at$16 million and $28 million respectively, the Washington County supply main II was around 70 million with the completion of Conduit 5 in three phases at $160 million over 40 years and the Powell Butte increments at $25 million each. • Bob Rieck, Portland Water Bureau, Financial Section, discussed the composition of each of the three components included in the cost analysis and the assumptions used for each component to develop the cost estimates reviewed by Mr. Kessler. (See graphics series "Major Supply and Transmission Existing Facilities", "Major Supply and Transmission New Facilities", and "Southwest Transmission Facilities".) Mr. Rieck stated that, for the existing major facilities, they assumed continuation of the existing contract pricing provisions in the current contract because they had no other assumption to make, given that it took both Portland and the wholesale customers to decide what the pricing provisions in the future would be. He explained the methodology behind the unit costs, which included factoring in the new southwest communities which Portland did not currently serve. He emphasized that they assumed no differential peaking ratio between any of their wholesale customers. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page Mr. Rieck commented that, even though in theory, their existing facilities would depreciate in time, they assumed a continuous reinvestment in those facilities in order to maintain their current capability and reliability. He said that they assumed a 2% increase in depreciation and return on investment for each year of the entire forecast period. He referenced a graph showing"Cost Per Unit for Existing Supply and Transmission Facilities"which showed that the unit costs began at 50 cents per 100 cubic feet (CCF) throughout the entire Portland metro area in 2000 and increased to $1.40 by 2050 (in inflated dollars). Mr. Rieck discussed the changes they made in their assumptions and distribution methodology for the second component in the cost analysis, the new supply and transmission facilities. (See graphics series "Major Supply and Transmission New Facilities".) He explained that they assumed that the southwest communities would pay for the construction costs through bonds, although that would be discussed during contract negotiations. He mentioned assuming that the fixed operation and maintenance costs would vary depending on type of facility (pipelines requiring low maintenance but a treatment plant requiring high maintenance). He said that the unit costs were found by dividing the annual debt service plus the operations and maintenance costs by the total demand of all users of the system. Mr. Rieck referenced a graph "Unit Costs of Systemwide Additions to Supply and Transmission" showing the incremental costs associated with the new facilities added to the previous charge for the existing facilities. He pointed out the large increase in costs in 2020, due to the water treatment plant, and the decrease in costs once various projects were paid off. He reviewed a chart focusing on the costs for the City of Tigard in particular. He noted that the a total annual estimated cost to Tigard for both existing and new facilities ran as high as $8 million in 2050 (in inflated dollars). Mr. Rieck stated that they used most of the same assumptions for the southwest transmission facilities as they used for the existing facilities (See graphics series "Southwest Transmission Facilities"). He pointed out that they used a 25 year repayment period for the annual debt service because that was the repayment period being used by Tigard. He referenced a chart focusing specifically on Tigard's costs, a 42% share of the design capacity for the Beaverton-Tualatin pipeline and for the Washington County Supply Line I1. He referenced a graph illustrating the annual obligation of Tigard, reaching a high of$3.8 million for its share in the pipelines but declining after 2020. Mr. Rieck reviewed a chart illustrating the total annual estimated costs for all three components for the southwest communities. He pointed out that Tigard began in 2000 with $1.6 million annually, reaching a high in 2030 of$9.2 million(in inflated dollars). He referenced another chart giving these numbers in 1999 dollars. Tigard's range was $1.6 million in 2000 to $6 million in 2020, and $1.62 per CCF. Ms. Stickel reviewed the institutional issues involved in their proposal (See "Portland Water System Plan for Expanded Southwest Service: Institutional Issues"). She summarized the major points in their proposal (See "Portland Water System Plan for Expanded Southwest Service: Summary"). Intergovermental Water Board- January 13, 1999 Paque 4 f E s • Chair Scheiderich opened the floor up to Board questions. Ms. Drangsholt asked, given the lengthy forecast period, how Portland could guarantee that its future Councils would implement the proposed improvements as scheduled. Ms. Stickel pointed out that no one could guarantee decision making in 20 years, not even for Tigard's Council. She said that they understood the importance of certainty for their wholesale customers. She proposed discussing what it would take to give Tigard that assurance and what the Portland staff needed to take to the Portland Council for a successful outcome, if Tigard chose to go with the Portland system. She commented that issues such as system reliability and certainty of supply were major issues that would be reflected in the contracts. Rosemary Menard, Water Resources Management Group, mentioned that Commissioner Sten has been assigned to the Bureau of Water Works for the next two to four years. She said that he was on record as supportive of a regional approach and solution. She concurred with Ms. Stickel that the contracts were a strong guarantee because Portland has always honored its contracts. She stated that while the contract would not make a commitment for specific facilities at a specific time, it should include a cost allocation methodology detailing how Tigard would be charged for facilities when they were built. She mentioned installing a mechanism to address the issues of ownership and decision making. Mr. Schirado asked why Portland used a 2% inflation rate when a 4% inflation rate was generally considered the norm. Mr. Rieck said that they used 2%because that was the rate today. Ms. Froude asked if future environmental regulations that would be applied to the proposed facilities could change, not only the facilities,but the costs. Ms. Menard stated that the proposal took into account the fishery issues. She said that the projects were designed to be the most permittable projects. She commented that they could not guarantee that every project was buildable, any more than they could guarantee how a future Council might act, but based upon current and projected environmental regulations, they have selected projects that they believed could be built according to the schedule. Councilor Hunt asked for an explanation on Portland's projection of a 50 cent/CCF rate to start with when the current charge for Tigard was 20%higher. Mr. Rieck said that the 50 cent/CCF rate was an amalgamated system wide average. He observed that individual wholesale customers would vary from that. He reviewed the Portland customers that were around or below the 50 cents/CCF rate. He reiterated that there were no peaking factors for wholesale customers included in the forecast. He said that they were willing to work with city staffs to look at those peaking factors. Mr. Kessler explained that the prices in their proposal reflected their proposal to move Tigard over to a gravity system from their current higher cost pumping system. Councilor Hunt commented that he did not see the 50 cents as a realistic assumption. He mentioned that the Tigard Council told Commissioner Sten that ownership and long time assurance were issues of concern to them. He noted that the Portland City Charter allowed Portland to sell only surplus water. He asked what kind of assurances Portland could give Tigard regarding ownership and long term certainty, given the likelihood that Portland citizens would not vote to Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page change their charter to give water to Tigard to their detriment. He asked how they could know that Portland would sell them water in 20 years, even if Tigard owned the transmission pipes. Ms. Stickel commented that other jurisdictions have raised the same issues. She said that if they could not reach a reasonable accommodation between what Tigard felt it must have in order to be a part of the Portland system, and what Portland felt it could reasonably give, then there would be no contract. She mentioned taking a year to negotiate the contract. She invited the Tigard City Attorney to discuss the charter issue with the Portland City Attorney (who was looking into it as requested by the Bureau Administrator). Chair Scheiderich asked what upgrades were proposed for the South Shore wellfield. Mr. Kessler mentioned increasing the number of wells as part of seismic upgrades to reduce vulnerability, investigating the potential for backup power, rerouting pipelines, increasing capacity, and converting as much as 50% of their current system to ASR. Chair Scheiderich asked if there has been a scoping study done regarding the possibility of moving the contamination plume near the South Shore wellfield if they took more water out of the ground. Ms. Menard stated that the plume in East Multnomah County was under hydraulic control. She mentioned the DEQ constraints on their use of the wellfield in the summer but not in the winter. She stated that they did not believe that moving any identified plume was an issue in how they operated the wellfield at this time. Chair Scheiderich asked if the contamination plume at Hanford would be an issue with the South Shore wellfield. Ms. Menard indicated that she doubted it. She mentioned that their radiological testing of ground water did not yield any contaminants of concern. She said that their concern was radon but the blending of water took care of that. Chair Scheiderich asked if a scoping study has been done in the wellfield with regard to ASR. Ms. Menard said no, but it was on the agenda. Chair Scheiderich asked if Portland owned the real estate for the additional Powell Butte reservoirs. Ms. Menard said yes, and mentioned the conditional use master plan already in place to allow construction of those facilities. Chair Scheiderich noted the almost certain prospect of filtration required by 2030 with or without additional dams. He mentioned the taking of Bull Run off line recently because of high turbidity levels. He asked what Portland's plans were to prevent taking Bull Run out of service because of turbidity problems between now and the instillation of filtration. Ms. Menard said that turbidity of the nature that they had last week and in 1996 was not controllable by anything they could do; it was a naturally occurring event. She pointed out that the system recovered relatively quickly, taking 4 days in 1996 and 5 days two weeks ago. She said that the groundwater system operation has become more seamless in switching over. She mentioned that turbidity itself would not drive the requirement for a filtration plant but rather the requirements to remove pathogens and disinfectant byproducts would drive the plant. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Chair Scheiderich asked how the President's Executive Order relating to cryptospirea impacted %*AW their plans for filtration. Ms. Menard said that the Order dealt only with the treatment requirements for those operating conventional treatment plants. It required only monitoring for unfiltered systems, which Portland already did. There was no requirement for Portland to do anything if they found the parasite. Chair Scheiderich asked if any scoping studies have been done about the feasibility of raising the dams on the Bull Run or adding a third. Mr. Kessler said that they did have a feasibility study done, and that technical feasibility was not an issue. Chair Scheiderich asked about environmental feasibility. Mr. Kessler said that the work so far did not indicate any serious permitting issues, as the increment was relatively small. Ms. Menard mentioned that the permitting issues were largely associated with fish, and they already have dealt with those. Chair Scheiderich asked if any of these planned improvements could not be built, did that mean that the additional capacity predicted in the proposal would not be available. Mr. Kessler reiterated that they had a series of projects available which they could move forward or backward on the timeline to implement as necessary to achieve sufficient capacity. He commented that with conservation, Tigard would probably not need its projected demand. Chair Scheiderich asked if any other wholesale customers have approached Portland seeking a new or an extension of the wholesale contract whereby the customer owned a percentage of the facility. Mr. Rieck said that this was an issue of interest to other communities and Portland recognized that they needed to discuss it. Chair Scheiderich asked if the cost of the new facilities was allocated solely to Tigard and the Westside communities or allocated on a strict dollars per million gallon a day capacity. Mr. Rieck said that the new facilities costs were distributed to all customers who benefited from those facilities, based on their portion of the total demand. He confirmed that those who benefited would pay in proportion to the benefit at the same price per unit. Ms. Stickel mentioned that everyone benefited from facilities at Powell Butte, the ASR, the treatment plant and dam raises. Therefore the costs were shared proportionately based on overall annual average demand. She said that any facilities from Powell Butte west have been subscribed solely to those entities that used them. Mr. Kessler commented that it was likely that Portland would buy a small percentage of the second Washington County supply line, as they did with the first line. Chair Scheiderich asked what Portland's current SDCs were for single family and multifamily residential. Mr. Rieck said that they were at $835 for a 5/8 to 3/4 inch meter. There was no discount for multifamily Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Parc Chair Scheiderich asked if Portland has taken an official position on the use of the Willamette River as a direct supply or emergency backup supply through inter-ties. Ms. Stickel mentioned that *400 the Council did not intend City of Portland residents to drink Willamette River water per a resolution endorsing the Regional Supply Plan with the changes. Ms. Menard said that she did not know if this would preclude inter-ties to any other water provider who used the Willamette as a source, but there would be resistance to it. Ms. Stickel said that the issue was not so much the existence of such a connection but passing water through the connection. Chair Scheiderich asked if Portland was thinking of its capacity (including water sold to other cities) when it discussed the use of the TVWD and Joint Water Commission inter-ties for emergency backup or did it assume that those sales would go away if Tigard chose to buy all its needs from Bull Run through Portland. Ms. Stickel explained that they included in the demand numbers a reduction based on 10 mgd a month(what TVWD was entitled to under its intergovernmental agreements with the Joint Water Commission). She said that for the emergency backup connection, TVWD would physically have a capacity of more than 10 mgd, and that other arrangements could be made. b. Willamette River Water Supply System • Chris Uber, Murray Smith & Associates, introduced the members of his team: Joe Glicker, Montgomery Watson; and Ed Cebron, FCSG. He mentioned the contributions of Mike McKillip, City Engineer for the City of Tualatin, and Mike Stone, City Engineer for the City of Wilsonville. He mentioned the level of trust and partnership existing at the staff level among the different water providers. The Murray Smith team presented their proposal using a slide presentation(See attached "Willamette River Water Supply System Preliminary Report"). Mr. Uber mentioned that they have significantly reduced the uncertainties related to this project (See "Project Overview"). He said that each of the five water providers developed their own demand and capacity data used in the report. He reviewed the history of the various plans looking at the Willamette River as a drinking water supply, beginning in 1973 with the Wolf Creek Water District (now the Tualatin Valley Water District) filing a water right on the Willamette River in Wilsonville. He said that as the agencies came together to work on this proposal, each brought the work already done by their agency. Mr. Uber discussed the"Supply System Components." He said that the river intake and raw water pump station would be located on the Young property owned by the City of Wilsonville, as would the water treatment plant and the high service pump station. He reviewed on a map the route of finished water transmission main, heading generally north and terminating in Tigard. He mentioned that Tigard would have a share in each of the four components. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Mr. Uber presented slides illustrating the Young property located on the Willamette River in Wilsonville. He said that the maximum water right at this location was 120 mgd but they have been discussing a 35 mgd treatment plant (20 for Tigard, 10 for Wilsonville, and 5 for Sherwood). He showed where the floodplain levels were for the 100 year and 500 year flood events, indicating that they were safe from those events. Mr. Uber reviewed on a map the routing alternatives for the transmission system from Wilsonville to Tigard. He mentioned including Tigard's existing 10 million gallon reservoir and transmission system in the new system, and an arrangement to reimburse Tigard for use of those facilities by the other water service areas. He showed a cutaway profile of the transmission main, including elevations. He noted that the Tigard reservoir helped the system operation greatly because it was higher than the rest of the system. He commented that the Tigard reservoir could be supplied by the City of Lake Oswego, which meant that there could be more participants. He mentioned use of the Tigard reservoir for emergency backup also. Mr. Uber noted that the City of Tigard's share of the total project cost of$92.3 million was $40.2 million (See "Capital Costs"). He pointed out that 20 mgd was one and a half times Tigard's recent peak day demand of 13.8 mgd. He reviewed the Metro population forecasts for Tigard. He explained that conservation programs were vital to Tigard's $40 million investment carrying through to 2050. Mr. Uber explained how costs became more certain as the project went from concept to final completion (See "Cost Certainty Curve"). He reviewed the projected schedule for Tigard's process (See"Schedule"), noting that their new supply could be completed in 2002. He mentioned that they assumed that they would have to do a biological assessment because the steelhead and Chinook on the upper Willamette would probably eventually be listed as "threatened." He stated that they met with the federal and state permitting agencies and gained a very good idea of what they needed to do to meet the permitting requirements. Mr. Uber noted the implementation issues that needed to be addressed (See"Schedule"). Mr. Uber discussed system reliability(See "Supply System Reliability"). Jennifer Wrenniger, Tigard staff, reported on her conversations with the City of Corvallis regarding turbidity in the Willamette from the recent storms. She said that Corvallis was operating a finished product (from the Willamette) at .5 mpu. She said that Joe Thomas at the Joint Water Commission reported a raw water intake of 165-170 mpu. Mr. Uber stated that they met with PGE to discuss the power grid in the Wilsonville area. He said that they built a grid redundancy into the project to toughen up the PGE system. • Joe Glicker, Montgomery Watson, addressed the issue of water quality. He mentioned the studies done by other agencies to monitor raw water which showed that the Willamette was suitable as a water source (See "Previous Raw Water Monitoring ..."). He reviewed what contaminants the Tigard raw water monitoring program looked for (See "Tigard Began Updated Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page 9 Raw Water Monitoring...") He said that they incorporated the results from the previous work and moved to the next generation. Mr. Glicker explained that the EPA Contaminant Candidate List contained those contaminants which the EPA was thinking about regulating in the future but did not do so at this time. He commented that the pesticides and herbicides detected by the USGS were detected in tributaries upstream with nothing detected in the main river stem where it was utilized as a raw water source. { E I Mr. Glicker reviewed the results of the Tigard monitoring program (See"Results of First Four Months..."). He said that the results of the first four months were consistent with the findings made j over the past six years. He mentioned two exceptions to the"no detects" report (See"May Be No Detects..."). He explained that their internal lab method detected 1.7 ug/L of Simazine in the initial sample but the two EPA methods did not detect it at all. It was not detected by any method in the resample or later samplings. Mr. Glicker mentioned that the other one chemical found (out of the 170 tested for), dichloromethane, often showed up in organic monitoring because it was a common lab chemical. He emphasized that they were continuing to find the same situation that was found in previous years, even though they tested for a broader range of chemicals. He noted other concerns typical of Pacific Northwest water sources (See"Other Parameters Typical..."). He said that these were found at low levels and similar to other sources. Mr. Glicker reviewed a chart showing which parts of the proposed treatment process met which current regulations and which probable future regulations (See "Treatment Process...", "And Anticipates...). He mentioned the Interim Enhancer Surface Water Treatment Rule(IESWTR). He emphasized that the treatment plant was designed to deal with future regulations, including those lowering the disinfectant byproducts and the final Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR). He mentioned their projection that these new regulations would be in effect by 2007 with the EPA Contaminant Candidate List being implemented by 2013 (See "Plant Designed..."). Mr. Glicker reviewed a comparison of the levels of bacteria or contaminants in finished tap water from their proposal, the typical regional range, and the EPA standards (See "Finished Water ...). He stated that, given the raw water quality and the initial water treatment process, the tap water from this treatment plant would be the best in the region. He emphasized that the plant was designed to meet the future regulations that Portland mentioned might require them to add a treatment plant to their system. He commented that the level of turbidity would not drop below .01 because that was as low as their technology could measure it. Mr. Glicker pointed out that unfiltered systems, such as Portland's, were not required to remove cryptosporidium but filtered plants were required to remove 99% of it. He said that they anticipated a future regulation requiring all systems to remove a minimum of 99% of cryptosporidium which was why Portland would need a treatment plant. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 PaLic �,i ' z 7 t Mr. Uber mentioned that the high quality water expected in their proposal came from a higher level of treatment than the conventional treatment train used by most suppliers in the region today. He stated that the higher level of quality came with 15%to 20%higher costs than conventional treatment. i Mr. Uber reviewed in general the assumptions they used in their cost analysis (See"Cost Impacts"). Ed Cebron, FOGS,reviewed the assumptions in detail (See "Economic Assumptions," and "Project Cost Impacts") He mentioned that their assumptions were not the same as Portland's assumptions, and therefore they could not overlay the numbers and find a valid comparison. He mentioned using a 3.75% escalator for labor related costs. He said that they chose a 3% inflation rate for the long term based on a DRI econometric model. He stated that the 5.1% interest rate was based on market conditions three months ago, using a 25 year bond repayment period and a level debt service. He stated that they made no assumptions to change the water demand estimates given to them by Tigard. Mr. Cebron explained that the volume charge covered the operating and maintenance costs and included a provision for a replacement fund. He said that each city was expected to fund its own share of the capital costs. For Tigard that was $40 million. He pointed out that because the agencies would own the facilities, they could use system development charges to offset the ongoing debt service costs. Mr. Cebron reviewed a graph"Gross Supply Cost" showing the volume charge for operation and maintenance starting out at $1.7 million per year in 2002 and escalating over time. He pointed out that the capital costs were concentrated in the first 25 years but dropped off to zero after that. He said that Tigard's annual cost beginning in 2003 when the plant came on line totaled $6.3 million, escalating to just under $8 million in 2026, but then dropping off to $3 million once the debt service was paid. Mr. Cebron reviewed a graph"Gross Unit Cost of Water" summarizing the same information in unit costs and in 1998 dollars. He noted that it started at about $1.40/CCF, escalating to $1.75/CCF, and then dropping to 45 cents/CCF in 2026. He reviewed a graph"Net Unit Cost of Water"which showed how using SDCs to offset the ongoing debt service costs lowered the unit cost for the ratepayers. He mentioned the line showing the escalation of the current rate (at 3% inflation) over time. Mr. Cebron stated that, after the period during which the City invested funds in order to own and control facilities, they would experience a cost of water significantly lower than buying water from an outside source. He mentioned that these figures did not reflect the Portland proposal. He commented that the rate impacts were dependent on the growth rate (which affected SDCs), the governance structure, and Murray Smith's economic assumptions. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page 1 t Mr. Uber summarized their presentation (See "Summary"). He cited Section 3 of their report, the technical work done to reduce the uncertainties of what was needed and what it would cost. He credited the City of Tigard with leading the effort in raw water monitoring so they could know for certain what was in the water. He said that Tigard's $40 million investment bought them 20 mgd, a one time payment that should take them beyond 2050. He pointed out that the solution to the water problem in Tigard was going to cost money, no matter where they turned. • Chair Scheiderich opened the floor up to questions from Board members. Ms. Drangsholt asked if the water would be harder than Bull Run water and affect the taste. Mr. Glicker confirmed that the water would be harder. He compared it to the water that Tigard used to get from Lake Oswego. Chair Scheiderich asked if they were aware of any federal or state initiatives (underway or planned) to reduce discharges of fertilizers and pesticides into the Willamette. Mr. Glicker said that improvement of Willamette River water quality was a major statewide initiative, citing the Governor's Willamette River Task Force and other ongoing studies and efforts. He mentioned that the federal government recently declared the Willamette as an American Heritage River, a program designed to bring in federal money and programs to improve water quality by improving the general ecosystem (but not necessarily pesticide control). Chair Scheiderich asked if atrozine was a pesticide or a fertilizer. Mr. Glicker said that it was among the top herbicides used in the state. He commented that, given the use of herbicides and pesticides, he would be suspicious if they did not occasionally pick them up at low levels in the water. Kevin Hanway commented that the only specific measure he knew of was the feds giving the state $250,000 to remove croplands along the riparian areas and replant them to filter runoff, some of which would go to the Willamette and its tributaries. He said that the only contaminated site on the Willamette that he could think of was in the Portland Harbor, downstream from this site. He said that the runoff from contaminated sites had to meet the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act, rather than those of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Uber mentioned the greenway buffer along the Willamette as impacting their project because the regulations prohibited construction within the first 150 feet of the river. Chair Scheiderich asked a series of questions regarding Corvallis. Mr. Uber confirmed that Corvallis was the largest city(and the only city) using the Willamette as a water source. Mr. Glicker said that their daily treatment output was about 12 to 13 mgd. He said that they used a more conventional treatment process, lacking ozone but using some activated carbon. He stated that he did not know if Corvallis has found any levels of atrozine. He explained that they found no comparable data because there was little raw water monitoring done on other large rivers in the country. Agencies concentrated on the tap water quality which was what was regulated. *40 Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page Chair Scheiderich mentioned the issue regarding the disinfection process creating cancer causing byproducts. Mr. Glicker said that the disinfectant process was required for all sources of water in the United States, except for some ground water, including TVWD and Portland water. • Chair Scheiderich recessed the meeting for a ten minute break. • Chair Scheiderich reconvened the meeting. 5. Written Questions to Presenters/Board Members Liz Newton,Assistant to the Tigard City Manager, explained the process they would use in presenting the written questions to the Portland and Murray Smith teams. • Question 1 asked by Jim Hansen, directed to Portland. "The Tigard proposal quotes water costs per CCF. After crediting income from three or four factors, such as projected system development charge increases of around $1,500 for each new water hookup, bond income, etc. - can Portland adjust its projected water costs to also reflect Tigard's credits so that there will be an"apples to apples"comparison of water cost?" Mr. Rieck agreed with Mr. Cebron's point that ownership was a key element in the ability to use SDCs to offset the net costs going to the rate payers. He said that while their proposal was not specific about ownership, they did believe that the idea was workable if communities had ownership. He reiterated the need to discuss these matters during the long term contract negotiations. Mr. Rieck asked for clarification on how Murray Smith calculated the estimated SDC income. Mr. Cebron cited the detailed account in Appendix I of their report. • Question 2 directed to Portland and Murray Smith "What will be the actual cost of the water to the average homeowner in Tigard for the Willamette system versus the Portland system in their monthly bill?" Mr. Rieck stated that Portland made no attempt to quantify that cost to the typical homeowner in Tigard but they did include an offer to work with the City of Tigard and other communities to translate the costs in their proposal into a reasonable rate. Mr. Uber said that in their proposal Murray Smith did a monthly rate revenue per meter equivalent (Figure 7-5) that varied for each community. Mr. Cebron said that the current average monthly bill in Tigard was $16. He said that in their proposal at its peak, the cost would go up to $27.50 (in 2002/2003). He pointed out that the projected rates for Tigard ratepayers would increase even without this project (c. $17 to $18). Mr. Uber said that in 1998 dollars the number fell to $16 in 2025 when the debt was retired, and then to $11 as the costs became simply operating and maintenance costs. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page i s I • Question 3 asked by Jim Hansen, directed to Portland and Murray Smith i "What, if anything, has changed since your December 15 proposal? Are projected costs the same?" Both teams indicated that they were not aware of any changes. • Question 4, directed to Murray Smith "How much (in increased taxes) cost will the Willamette system bring to the Tigard homeowner just to build the system?" Mr. Cebron explained that there would be no increased taxes because the bond used would be a revenue bond, not a property tax bond. Revenue bonds were secured only by the revenue of the utility which was why the costs were reflected in the rates. Ed Wegner, Tigard Public Works Director, said that the Finance Directors of Tigard, Sherwood and Wilsonville were trying to develop an inflation factor and interest rate that would allow a comparison between the two plans. • Questions 5 and 6, directed to Portland "Why did Portland propose to expand the Washington County Supply Line instead of building the new Clackamas inter-tie to supply Tigard and Wilsonville?" "What is the advantage of the Clackamas inter-tie in terms of supply security?" Mr. Kessler said that the Portland proposal did not preclude the Clackamas route. He stated that they proposed not installing the second Washington County line until later on because they were trying to work out some of the regional issues. He said that they did not see an additional cost to Tigard and the West Side if the other parts of the region joined in contributing their share of interconnecting these regional inter-ties. Mr. Kessler commented that the Clackamas route involved a lot more agencies and they did not know if it was truly an implementable project, and therefore they did not include it in their proposal. He said that the proposal needed to be as much of an"apples to apples" comparison as possible and include only those projects that they knew were 100% implementable. He indicated that the more regional inter-ties they had, the more secure the supply. The gentleman who asked the question clarified that he was asking if it was not better to develop a regional system to secure water for the entire region as opposed to focusing on Tigard or Wilsonville. Ms. Stickel said that they believed that there were advantages to the Clackamas route, and that it was an issue under consideration at the Regional Water Providers Consortium at this time. She said that they hoped to have the analysis completed by January or February of next year. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Pa2r i- i • Question 7, directed to Murray Smith "Does it not require a great deal of electrical power, which is very expensive, to use ozone f oxidation for removing such contaminants as E. Coli from Willamette drinking water? What emergency backup would be used in the event of a power outage and has the ozone cost been factored into the Tigard proposal?" Mr. Uber said yes, and that the costs were in the numbers. Mr. Glicker said that the cost of the ozone/GAC treatment process was 10-15%higher than the more conventional approach but in exchange they got 10-15% extra benefit. He commented that they had an underlying assumption that they could built a cheaper kind of treatment plant that would meet the current drinking water regulations but the direction they received from all the communities involved was that they did not want that. Mr. Uber said that they discussed the power situation with PGE, and factored into the $40 million the costs for the improvements to the electrical grid. He mentioned that, in the event of a massive power outage affecting the entire southern region, the incorporation of Tigard's reservoir and the continuation of Tigard's wells would help get water during an emergency to those who needed it. • Question 8, directed to Portland "Is Portland sure that dams #1 and#2 can be raised? If dams #1 and#2 cannot be raised, what does Portland propose to do?" Mr. Kessler said that they had a range of projects that they could use. If one project did not work out, they would simply pick another project to take its place in incrementally increasing their capacity. Ms. Menard stated that she was certain that the treatment plant was permittable, and could be started earlier. If implemented, it yielded a slightly greater capacity than raising the dams. • Question 9, asked by Jim Hansen, directed to Murray Smith "What is the projected life of the filter plant?" Mr. Uber said that in their costs they assumed an aggressive replacement schedule for the granular activated carbon. Mr. Glicker said that while the concrete building itself could last over 75 years, the mechanical equipment had a shorter lifespan. He mentioned the replacement fund built into the costs for use in replacing machinery. He commented that the technology would change before the facility wore out. • Question 10, asked by Gretchen Buehner, directed to Portland "The Portland proposal provides that Tigard would pay a share of any treatment plant, raising dam, new dam, etc. The Plan does not indicate that Tigard would have any ownership interest in said facilities giving them a voice in future plans for development. Please address this issue." Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Page 15 w i Ms. Newton noted that this question was addressed earlier. • Question 11, asked by Gretchen Buehner, directed to Murray Smith "Has the Willamette River water testing for endocrine disrupters been performed on 1)both sides of the river, 2) at different depths, 3) in different seasons, and 4) continually for a period of time? (i.e. hourly, weekly)." Mr. Glicker explained that the water quality testing has been done at the intake site so that they tested water representative of what would be used. They have not done testing elsewhere on the river. He said that the testing was done over a series of seasons and for different types of flow regimes. I • Question 12, asked by Gretchen Buehner, directed to Portland "The Program contains a detailed discussion of environmental issues. However, it doesn't address i delays due to likely litigation. Recent cases such as that involving Columbia South Shore, delayed the project for years and added $ to the cost. Please advise how Portland has factored this issue into the proposal." Ms. Menard said that the environmental permitting requirements were the most likely source of litigation but for the projects proposed, the likelihood of litigation was low. She said that they did not include the third dam in this proposal because of the uncertainty associated with it, including the possibility of litigation. However they were conducting a fatal flaw analysis on the project. She observed that while she could not say that there never would be litigation that might prevent a project, they owned the facilities, their water rights were clean, and in some instances, they already had permits in place. Mr. Kessler pointed out that they have allowed at least 10 years to do these projects,which he held was a reasonable amount of time to do almost anything. • Question 13, directed to Murray Smith "In the event those who claim superior water rights to those claimed by the WWSA prevail in adjudication, what are your contingency plans to assure the source of the Willamette?" Mr. Uber said that the water rights on the Willamette have not yet been adjudicated. He stated that the right used in their analysis was the 1973 right filed by the Wolf Creek Public Water District, a secure right. He commented that their legal counsel would continue to monitor this legal issue but adjudication of the Willamette would impact a lot of people, including Clackamas River users. Ms. Stickel, who served on the Water Resources Board, said that adjudication was a very complex question that could take decades. Mr. Uber said that it was not a concern for engineers, as their attorney did not think it would occur in his lifetime. Mr. Glicker mentioned a client who took water from a river that has been in adjudication for 75 years and was not resolved yet. Intergovermental Water Board- January 13, 1999 d'a`rt 6 } f • Question 14, asked by Joyce Patton, directed to Portland "The proposal assumes that Tualatin Valley Water District will shift some of its load off the Portland system, so that Portland can deliver that water instead to Tigard and others. What value do you place on TVWD's willingness to make that shift, and what cost impact would that have on Tigard ratepayers?" Ms. Menard said that, as she understood, TVWD already had the right to that water and fully intended to use it. She said that they assumed this rather than having Portland duplicate finding water to meet that portion of their needs. Therefore there was no cost allocated to it. She said that the only cost related to it was the Joint Water Commission water related to the emergency inter-tie at $5 million. 6. Adjournment. • Ms. Renninger mentioned open houses on February 18 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Tigard Senior Center and on February 24 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Water Building. She announced tours of the Joint Water Commission treatment plant scheduled for Saturdays, February 20 and 27, from • 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. • Chair Scheiderich adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Intergovermental Water Board - January 13, 1999 Pa is p vlitriaa 1Y:la ila�a Ot34 7LNI (ATi Ur' TIGARD Id 002/009 btnAeg DANIEL W. MEEK 0J Amey&consumant 10949 S.W.4TH AVENUE PORTLAND, OR 97219 (503)293-9021 FAX293-9099 dan meek@usamet January 12, 1999 TO: JIM HANS►EN RE: LETTER OF WILLIAM SCHEWERICH CHALLENGING BALLOT TITLE FOR THE DRINKING WATER CHOICE ACT INITIATIVE MEASURE You have provided to me a letter by William Scheiderich to the Tigard City Council, dated December 30, 1998, on the subject of the Citizens for Safe Water Initiative. Mr. Scheiderich makes several arguments against the ballot title drafted by the city attomey_ Those argument are presented in italics below, along with my responses. 1. "The ballot title is insufi5aent in that it omits a mention of the any dty`s contractual obligations with othertertain other cities and with the Tigard Water District to jointly plan for and agree on capftl improvements for a common source of water supply." It is not Gear why the ballot title needs to mention these contrails. As the city attorney's January 5, 1999, memorandum indicates, each of those contracts have termination dauses that could be exercised, if necessitated by the enactment of the Drinking Water Choioe Act. Further, thereis nothing in the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District for Delivery of Water Service to Territory with the District Boundaries (December 23, 1993)that obligates Tigard to use Willamette River water or to defer to water supply Choices made by other government entities. Its language about capital improvements is vague but certainly allows the City of Tigard to 1 moi,cr:nn i�.10 t3auj 004 JXVI fAIY Ur' 'IAGA" withhold consent to theans a�f others pl by asserting that doing so is"in the best interests of water customers within the original District and consistent with the goal of working together to provide all of the residents and property in the original District with a dean, economical water supply." 2. "The ballot title also is insufiient in that it omits any mention of the city's existing contractual obligations to purchase water from both the City of Portland and from the Tualatin Valley Water District_ l believe that neither contracts limits either suppliers choice of the source of the water sent to Tigard" As the city attomey's memorandum indicates. the water supply contracts also have termination clauses requiring 1-year notice to the TVVIID and 3-year notice to the City of Portland to terminate as of June 30, 2007. The City of Portland has no plan to use or provide to other jurisdictions any Willamette River water before that date, if ever. Thus, the asserted "existing contractual obligations"are not inconsistent with the Drinking Water Choice Act The ballot title is limited to very few words, which should not be wasted attempting to identify contracts that are not inconsistent with the proposed measure. 3. 'The ballot title is unfair in that it misleads Tigard voters to believe that they wi11 be entMed to approve a source of water supply for the CNy of Tigard when in fact, by prior contractual agreement, the City of Tigard has agreed to make that choice only as a joint exercise with certain oilier cities and with the Tigard Water Distd t." see nothing in any contract that prevents the City of Tigard from choosing its future water supply source. Even if there odsted such an obligation, the voters of Tigan are entitled to enact legislative measures, even if such measures cause the City of Tigard to breach existing contracts. The city's contracting partners there would have available to them the ordinary legal remedies for breach of contract. No city can paralyze the initiative powers of the people merely by signing contracts with others. � 2 i VL/G1 ilii L4.AV 4JUVJ 004 14VJ l.11i Ur 11VAAV t9i VU4/VUii 4. Kit also misleads Tigard voters to believe that Tigard may unilaterally change the terms of its water supply contracts with the City of Portland and with TIfUIID." The proposed ballot title states nothing that could reasonably lead a Tigard voter to so believe. As noted above, the contracts are not inconsistent with the Drinking Water Choice Act and have termination clauses that can be timely exercised. 5. 7 believe the subjed of the initiative is unconstitutional_ The measure conoems an administrative, not a legislative matter and for that reason should not be certified for an election." The adoption of a policy not to use Willamette River water without a majority vote in the City of Tigard is dearly a legislative act, not an administrative one. The Oregon Supreme Court has most recently described the distinction in Lane Transit District v. Lane County, 327 Or 161, 957 P2d 1217 (1998): Article IV, section 1(1), of the Oregon Constitution reserves to the people the powers of initiative and referendum.Article IV, section 1(5), further ` provides: "The initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people are further reserved to the qualified voters of each municipality and district as to all focal, special and munidgml legislation of every character in or for their municipality or district." In Foster v. Clark, 309 Or 464, 472, 790 P2d 1 (1990), this court noted that the constitutional reservation of the initiative power in Article Ill, section 1(5), applies only to"municipal legislation." Proposed initiative measures addressing administrative matters property are eaaduded from the ballot. Id. The operative word is"legislation." This court has defined legislative activity as"making taws of general applicability and permanent nature," id., and administrative activity as that"necessary".to cant'out legislative policies and purposes already declared." Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 584, 3 P2d 778 (1931). In Foster, this court was called upon to answer the same question addressed in this case: whether the subject matter of a local proposed initiative measure, which sought to rename a Portland street. was"legislative" or"administrative"in nature. The Foster court determined that sections 17.93.010 to 17.93.064 of the Portland City Code constituted"a complete 3 i VL/Gl!2/2! 1'k.LV L/iIVJ VO'! 7 L271 Llii UT 11 Vn11L �UVJ/VUU scheme for changing Portland city street names, including rules on petition NOW farms, fees, review by various City officials, and final consideration by the City Council,"and that the scheme was a "completed legislative plan, requiring no further legislative contribution." Foster, 309 Or at 473. The court then held that the Subject matter of the proposed initiative measure, the renaming of Martin Luther lGng, Jr_, Boulevard, was administrative In nature, and not legislative, because the proposed initiative measure was filed after the legal framework governing the renaming of Portland city streets was in place. Id. at 473-74. This court has stated that a particular activity is "administrative,"and not"legislative,"9 it does not set new policy,but merely carries out legislative policies and purposes already declared. Monahan, 137 Or at 584. Because the subject matter of the proposed initiative measure addressed in Fostierwas adminlstrative in nature, it was not appropriately addressed through the inifistive process. Faster, 309 Or at 474. Lane Transit District v_ Lane County, 327 Or 161, 957 Ptd at 1220 (1998) (emphasis added). It is difficult to imagine an initiative measure that sets new policy more than does the proposed Drinking Water Choice Act, which dearly establishes policy regarding how the citizens will be able to choose their drinking water sources in the future. The Oregon Supreme Court in State ex rel Allen v. Martin, 255 Or 401,408, 465 P2d 228 (1970) classified as legislatrve, not administrative, a proposed measure that would have made the creation of local parking districts contingent upon approval of a majority of the property owners within the district. Surely a prohibition on use of the Willamette River as a drinking-water source, which substantially directs policy for one of the Citys most significant activities(provision of water to residents) constitutes the"making laws of general applicability and permanent nature" (legislative) and does not constitute activity #hat is"necessary **to carry out legislative policies and purposes already declared." Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or at 584. United Citizens v Environmental Quality Commission, 104 Or App 51, 799 Ptd 665 (1990), review denied 311 Or 151 (1991), elaborated upon Monahan. ``"' 4 y vai r , vv a-a.cv yvvv vim. iry „aaa .sa aaviu..i `Llvtiv: vvn The Supreme Court set out the test for distinguishing legislative from administrative matters in Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 584, 3 Ptd 778 (1931): "Acts, which are to be deemed as acts of administration and classed among those governmental powers properly assigned to the executive department, are those which are necessary to be done to carry out legislative polies and purposes already declared, either by the legislative municipal body, or such as devolved upon it by the organic law of its existence. The form of the act is not determinative; that is, an ordinance may be legislative in character or it may be administrative[] 'The crucial test for determining that which is legislative and that which is administrative is whether the ordinance is one making a law or executing a law already in wdstence(.r' (Citations omitted.) 104 Or App at 58-59. Consistent with its opinion in Monahan, the court adopted in State ex rar Allen v.Martin, supra, 255 Or at 407, the following as a"clear statement' of the distinction between legislative and administrative acts: "'*x Ir Generally, an ordinance originating or enacting a permanent Low or laying down a rule of conduct or course of policy for the guidance of citizens or their officers or agents is purely legislative in character"" white an ordinance which simply puts into execution previously declared policies or previously enacted laws is administrative or executive in character and not referable."' Amalgamated Transit v. Yerkavich, 24 Or App 221, 545 P2d 1401, review denied (1976). Surely the proposed Drinking Water Choice Act lays dawn a rule of conduct or course of policy for the guidance of Tigard city officers. It does not pet into execution previously declared policies. 6. '7f the measure is certified and then enacted it would impair contracts already made by the cily." A. Review of initiatives on substantive grounds is not available prior to enactment of the measure. 5 . V1/ LI: 00 LY.L1 ��VVV V VY I LOI 4111 41 11V11a11f W_J VM1:VVO Apart from determining whether a proposed initiative indeed addresses legislative matters, neither the City Council nor the courts have jurisdiction to prevent an initiative from being submitted to a vote of the people on the grounds that the substance of the initiative is unconstitutional. In Lane Transit District v. Lane County, 146 Or App 109, 932 Ptd 81 (1997), partially reversed on other grounds 327 Or 161, 957 P2d 1217(1998), the Court of Appeals explained: Relying on a long line of prior Supreme Court case law, we held that the question whether a Ixal proposed measure has been pre-empted by an existing state statute is a question that goes to the substantive validity of the proposed measure and it, therefore, is answerable on judicial review only if the measure is actually enacted by the voters. Id. at 473-75. See also Oregon AFL-00 v_ Weldon, 256 Or 307, [�23] 312, 473 P2d 664 (1970) ("We have repeatedly held that the courts are without power to determine the validity of a proposed law or ordinance before its enactment"). Accordingly, until the present measure is enacted, it is premature for this court to rule on LTD's alternative argument. 146 Or App 109 at 122. In Boytano v. i mitt, 321 Or 498, 901 P2d 835 (1995), the Oregon Supreme Court stated: In Foster v. Clark, 309 Or 464, 469, 790 P2d 7 (1990), this court explained that"a court will not inquire into the substantive validity of a measure-4.e., into the constitutionality, legality or effect of the measure's language—unless and until the measure is passed_ To do otherwise would mean that the courts would on occasion be issuing an advisory opinion." Nonetheless, the court recognized that there are some circumstances in which "Oregon courts have inquired into whether matters extraneous to the language of the measure itself disqualify the measure from the ballot." Ibid. In Foster, the court discussed two situations in which'matters extraneous to the language of the measure itself disqualify that measure from the ballot. The first occurs when a measure is flawed because of some procedural shortcoming, such as an inadequate number of qualifying signatures to place the measure on the ballot- tbid_ The second situation occurs when, "(djespite compliance with proper procedures, ***the measure is legally insufficient to qualify for that ballot." Ibid. The court concluded that ^44M, 6 , ver rvv az.rr yvvv vva rrvr �aaa v• aav+u.0 �vvv. vvv the proposed measure in that case was legally insufficient to qualify fnr the ballot, because it did not involve"municipal legislation" and, thus, was not "one of the type authorized by[Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 1(5) Id. at 471-75, 790 Ptd 1. 321 Or at 501. Mr. Scheiderich's argument claiming that the initiative, if enacted, would have an unconstitutional effect on various existing contracts is the sort of argument that is cannot be reviewed prior to enactment of the measure. Initiative measures must be placed on the ballot for vate. That they may be invalid or ineffective is not grounds for a court or other official to keep them off the ballot. zzState ex rel Carson v Kozemr, 126 Or 641, 647, 270 P 513 (1928). It was for this reason that we granted the petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus in zrState ex rel Umrein v Heimbigner, City Recorder of Beavertonxx. September 19, 1978, SC#25813 (no opinion), and ordered the recorder to put the measure on the ballot. The Court of Appeals followed this principle in zzSames v Paulus x, 36 Or App 327, 332, 588 P2d 1120 (1978). The one exception is if the proposed measure is legally insufficient to be placed on the ballot_An example of this exception is rzKays v McCalboc, 244 Or 361, 481 P2d 511 (1966), in which the petitions for the initiative measure did not have the number of supporting certified signatures required by Art IV, § 1, Oregon Constitution. McGinnis v. Child, 284 Or 337, 339, 587 P2d 460 (1978). See Oregon AFL-00 v. Weldon, 256 Or 307, 312-13, 473 P2d 664(1970) (ballot title review); Johnson v City of Astoria et al, 227 Or 585, 591-92, 363 P2d 571 (1961) (mandamus to require initiative measure to be pieced on ballot); UnArnited Progress x Portland, 213 Or 193, 195-96, 324 P2d 239 (1958) (municipal measure); State ex rel. v Newbry of al, 189 Or 691, 697-98, 222 132d 737 (1950) (compliance of proposed constitutional amendment with requirement that each constitutional amendment be stated separately); State ex rel Carson v. Kozer, 126 Or 641, 6454-8, 270 P 513 (1928) (constitutionality of proposed measure will not be decided prior to vote)_ In Foster v. Clark, supra, the Oregon Supreme court stated_ ., 7 the correct rule, which is: Courts have jurisdiction and authority to determine whether a proposed initiative or referendum measure is one of the type authorized by Or Const. ,ort I § 1(5)to be placed on the ballot. This means that a court may inquire into whether the measure is "municipal legislation,"because that qualifying language is used in the constitution itself. On the other hand, a court may not inquire into general questions of constitutionality, such as whether the proposed measure, if enacted, would violate some completely different portion of the constitution. 349 Or at 471. Thus, even if Mr. Scheiderich's assertions regarding the constitutionality of the proposed initiative were comxg, the Gity of Tigard cannot lawUly refuse to certify the measure for the cotlecdon of signatures. B. The doctrine of"impainment of contracts" is not even applicable. This doctrine is far more complex that I have time to explain, but nothing in the Drinking-Water Choice Act impairs any contract within the meaning of the doctrine. At worst, the Drinking Water Choice Act would, in Mr. Scheiderich's view, require the City of Tigard to breach existing contracts. That is not the same as an "impairment of contracts_" if such breech were to occur, the city's contracting parties would have available to them the ordinary legal remedies. The Drinking Water Choice Act does not purport to eliminate those remedies. 7 1 recommend that the Tigard Council not certify the measure to the county elections officer unless it is rephrased to aftow only an advisory vote_" As indicated above, the Tigard City Council has no legal authority to withhold the certification of a ballot title to the City Recorder, thus initiating the period for collection of signatures. i/zv/99 Cost Efficiency Both Initial construction costs and costs of ongoing operation and maintenance Evaluation of Costs Portland/Willamette Proposals ■ Assumptions for Comparison ■ Construction costs ■ Repayment of Borrowed funds ■ Operation and Maintenance Costs _ ■ Consolidated Net Rate per CCF Comparison Assumptions � ■ Demand per MSA report to Tigard ■ Inflation 2% per year,, growth rates, as provided by MSA. ■ Pumping costs added to Portland proposal at $ . 15 in 2000 inflated by 2% through 2009 . ■ Portland Debt Service rates adjusted to 5 . 25% Construction Costs ■ Tigard Share �zF�99 7o ■ Portland $66. 5 60 million 50-11 ■ Willamette $44. 0 40 /Z 2 Portland million 30-11- 0 Willamet 20-//- 0 to 10 0 Cost Re-payment of Borrowed Funds ■ Portland total "L9y $ 145,490, 147 ieo ■ Willamette Total 140- 120- $78,011,212 °0azo$78,011,212 goo ororuana ao 60 rM W'llamel le 40 20- 0 . Debt Service Comparison of O & M Costs' � 9 - �- Willamette --- Portland 2 . 00 Nil 6 31"0 R yi 1 .50 �P: Z LM � CL 1 . 00 � . 9 w0 0 .5 0 ca � . z 0 . 00 CO co T T N N co M d" Years Portland of rate/ccf O&Ai EI Tigard Net Operations Cost ■ Portland Water ❑ Portland Net D/S 4.00 ti 3.50 � <, 3.00 2.50 2.00 1 .50 1 .00 0.50 0.00 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 Willamette om onen s of rate/ccf RAP , r EM Tigard Net Operations Cost ■ Willamette ON ❑ Willamette D/S 4.00 Ngi RE,' 3.00 f y ,.,• tri G , e -_ :� 4 �ry a i � ��a. 2.50 .e<a. .. • :a t=. `c h'`�'.,, �._ t', ,. ' u.� w, ., �7�,�'�; 1 � . r 2.00 1 .50 1 .00 0.50 0.00 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 Portland/Willamette Comparison for. Tigard W illam ette -�- Portland 4.00 03.50 03.00 LM 2.50 s " Q2.00 1 .50 h CC 0.50 $t a 0.00 r I- O M CO M N U') Ch Cfl cy) T T T T N N N M M M Years DR*FT Comparison of Rates Year Rate Port Incr Will Incr 2000 1.32 1.32 0.00 1.65 0.33 2010 2.44 1.12 2.30 0.98 2020 3.25 1.93 2.46 1.14 2030 3.44 2.12 1976 0.44 2040 3.16 1.84 2.06 0.74 2050 3.52 2.20 2.42 1.10 Difference in Rates �''� Year Willamette Portland Difference 2000 1 . 65 1 . 32 -0 . 33 2010 2 . 30 2 . 44 0 . 14 2020 2 .46 3 . 25 0 . 79 2030 1 . 76 3 . 44 1 . 68 2040 2 . 06 3 . 16 1 . 10 2050 2 .42 3 . 52 1 . 10 v Table of Compared Rates at Five Year Increments For City of Tigard Portland Willamette Difference 2000 1.73 1.97 -0.24 2005 1.97 2.28 -0.31 2010 2.35 2.26 0.09 2015 2.46 2.33 0.13 2020 2.98 2.35 0.63 2025 3.23 1.51 1.72 2030 3.18 1.58 1.59 2035 2.67 1.66 1.01 2040 3.20 1.77 1.43 2045 3.13 1.88 1.25 2050 3.38 2.00 1.38 N Q 0 , Letter to Mayor Nicoh from Conurussioner Erik Sten' dated. 12/ 15/ 98 • Current Portland system as a regionally significant asset • Willing to discuss alternative arrangements for the future that would address the issues. • Institutional arrangements need to be developed as part of a collaborative process that includes all customers. • Once service area defined, the next step will be to work on the most desirable arrangements. • Recognize its partners need for certainty and reliability • Partners sharings in the water system must be involved in the decision making process City of Portland has a genuine desire to seek mutually productive relationships that benefit. all parties d � PORTLAND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM MT.HOOD /ll� PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM MTERSHED & SUPPLY WEST SIDE EAST SIDE RES.NO" BULB N TANKS & HEADWORKS PUMPS WELL FIELD POWELREES BUTTE ' CHLORINE BULL RUN v ` WELLS RES. N0. 2 z TANKS & Z PUMPS RES.7 MT.TABOR17 LUSTED HILL \ �� tiv. .w. FACILITY TO RES, 5 RES* I WEST I►1 5 MAJOR CROSSINGS SIDE OF WILLAMETTE RIVER P f=7 ' RES. 3 \ WASHINGTON \ PARK ' P RES. 6 PUMPS m PUMPS RES.4 P EAST SIDE �1 TANKS & PUMPS WASHINGTON COUNTY SUPPLY 31 lie Portland Proposal • Uses worst weather event scenarios to time new supplies and transmission. • Portland system few in region with back up redundancy for annual average demand. 5 I partnership Water The size and scope of the proposed Willamette River Water Supply System stem off ers a number of options, related to facility design, construction and operation. Alternative project delivery methods include: • Design-bid-build • Design-build • Construction manager/general contractor • Engineer-procure-construct or designed-led project delivery • Design-build-operate • Design-build-own-operate-transfer NNW • The flexibility to provide • The ownership interest of central capital financing or participants through the joint allow local financing of project agency will allow for local costs. financing and a tangible interest in the project. • Potential agreements may be tailored to meet the specific A joint agency may hire staff needs and provide the specific and operate facilities directly. powers and structure desired by the participants. A joint agency may be expanded to include new participants in the future, and provide them a voice in decision-making. ey . ... �... .. 17 E . v. i ,.,�..- ...,... �''"°"`fid"4 ter•-:- '�'fi^'$� rt�*am^rwra*m���r r*--nr�w� � �.�li � i x , Willamette River Water Studies Supply System • USGS - Water quality in the Willamette basin 1991-1995 Willamette River basin is widely • TVWD - Willamette River Treatment used for agriculture and industry. Willamette is susceptible to run- Pilot Study - August 1994 off of chemical and microbial • T'VWD - Willamette River Raw Water contaminants Monitoring Program - 1994-96 • City of Tigard/Willamette Water Supply Agency - Raw Water Monitoring - 1998 • Subject of many studies and analysis. - Habitat studies and river health have concerns about eco-systems, raw water source of acceptable quality. i Proposed Water Treatment Process Water Quality- -Goals • Provide the highest • Provide compliance with level of public health anticipated future protection drinking water • Provide compliance regulations with existing drinking • Provide an aesthetically water regulations acceptable and palatable drinking water • Coagulation/flash • Deep bed granular mixing activated carbon • Flocculation (GAC) filtration • Sedimentation • Chloramines for secondary disinfection • Intermediate • Residuals and ozonation for primary wastestream handling disinfection and oxidation Current Floc Sed Ozonation GAC Corrosion Final Regulation Filtration Control Disinfection Turbidity IESWTR Coloform Bacteria TCR Giardia SWTR Cryptosporidum SWTR Lead (LCR) SOC's (Phase I, H, THM's (D/DBP) HAS's (D/BBP) Regulation Willamette River Typical Regional EPA Standards Supply .Range Bacteria 0% 0% 5% Lead 5-10 10-15 15 Turbidity 0.01 - 0.1 0.05 - 0.3 0.3/1 THM's 5-10 15-40 80 (40) HA-A's 5-10 15-30 60 (30) Giardia >99.99% Removal 99.9% Removal 99.9% Removal Cryptosporidium >99.99% Removal 0 - 99% Removal 0 - 99% Removal (99-99.99% Removal) L tf-� `,:` , ✓�. r -:� 1. ,,--. .-. t? `� Y- }�1.... 1"L. "'t �L. I J 11 99 WATER FILTRATION & TREATMENT SYSTEM WILLAMETTE RIVER OPTION STEP STEP STEP STEP FINISHED PRE-DISINFECTION SETTLING PROCESS FILTERING PROCESS WITH RESIDUAL DISINFECTION SAFE,RELIABLE, WATERTREATMENT (Sedimentation & Flocculation) GRANULAR ACTIVATED WATER TREATMENT HIGH-QUALITY WATER FILTRATION CARBON DRINKING WATER Purpose V Purpose V Purpose V Purpose V At your tap,filtered and treated Destroy(oxidize) microbial Remove particles,sediment and Removes remaining particles, Protect treated water as it is water from the Willamette River contaminants in river water. organic materials from water. organic material and dissolved delivered to customer's tap. treatment facility surpasses all chemicals from water after the current and anticipated water Technology V Technology V settling process. Technology V quality standards established by Ozone gas(a powerful disinfectant) Treatment chemicals added to A trace of chlorine or a chlorine- the EPA. is bubbled through water. the water promote clumping.The Technology V ammonia compound is added to water then gently flows through a Water runs through a filtration the water before it leaves the plant. Water-Quality Results V series of settling tanks. bed consisting of a 5-foot granular ■ Effectively destroys microbial activation carbon layer (a fine- Water-Quality Results V Water-Quality Results V grained,charcoal-like,,extremely■ Removes most organic ■ Prevents the gand other microbes while of be actthe eria of ■ Eliminates algae-related tastes porous material)and a 10"sand (measuref cloudiness) Iayer.This 2-layer cleansing bed is less than .01 and odors; materials; the best system available today for water travels to your tap. Disinfection ■ Much more effective for ■ Important for cyst removal;and removing chemicals from water. Byproducts: Crytosporidium and Giardia ■ Provides some reduction of THM removal than chlorine;and organic chemicals. Water-Quality Results V S-10 ppb. ■ Reduces risk from hazardous ■ Removes more than 99%of HAA 5-10 b disinfection byproducts. PP ■ YP sediment and organic materials; Organic Chemicals: Provides some reduction of ■ Effectively removes dissolved None Detected organic chemicals. chemicals; ■ Eliminates tastes and odors;and ■ Provides final barrier to cysts. i 1 i Bull Run • Water shed closed to agricultural and industrial activities • Very well limited to human activity • One of eight very large unfiltered water systems in the United States • Blending water from Bull Run with groundwater in Powell Butte Reservoir is explicitly allowed under the regulation. • Fecal coliform - must be equal to or Not identified by the Division as a less than 20/100 ml source of waterborne disease outbreak • Total coliform - must be equal to or Comply with the maximum less than 100/100 ml contaminant level (MCL) for total • Turbidity level cannot exceed coliform bacteria maximum contaminant level Requirement for Trihalomethanes as prescribed in OAR 333-061- prescribed 0030(3)(a)(A). • Residual disinfectant concentration in • Disenfection requirements the water entering the distribution • Maintain comprehensive watershed system cannot be less than 0.2 mg/l for control program more than 4 hours • Annual on site inspection • Residual disinfectant concentration in the distribution system cannot be undetectable in more than 5 percent of the samples Factor Existing Ultraviolet Ozone Filtration Chlorination Light Disinfection Disinfection _ Capital costs N/A $1-5 million $60 million $125 million Annual operating costs N/A N/A $3.23 million $4.53 million Meets potential future requirement for Cryptosporidium No Maybe Likely No disinfection Meets potential future requirement for Cryptosporidium No No No Yes removal Meets potential future Not Likely Disinfectant By-Products Rule Likely Likely Yes Provides control of color in the fall No No Yes Yes Provides enhanced reliability through turbidity removal No No No Yes • Agreement on an implementation Development of a sophisticated of a clean-up program, including groundwater flow model to look at establishing hydraulic control over aquifer responses to pumping and the contaminant plume for the to assist in defining sustainable Boeing and Cascade contamination yields. in the eastern part of well field. • Agreements and cooperative • Installation of 27 new monitoring working relationships with the wells, bringing the total to more Oregon Department of than 60. Many of these monitoring Environmental Quality (DEQ), wells are located between 1 and 20 designed to address contaminated years time-of-travel from sites, including promptly production wells, and are establishing hydraulic control. monitored twice a year to give early warning of any potential problems.