10/13/1992 - Packet TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
8777 S.W.BURNHAM ST.
P.O. BOX 230000
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT TIGARD,OREGON 97223-9917
PHONE(503)639-1554
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., OCTOBER 13, 1992
AGENDA
Call to Order
1 . Election of Officers.
2. Visitors.
3. Minutes of the September 8 regular Board meeting, and September 29 Board meeting.
Recommendation: Approve minutes.
4. Payment of vouchers.
Recommendation: Approve payment.
5. Presentation of 1991-92 Fiscal Year Audit, Coopers & Lybrand
Recommendation: Receive and file.
6. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue update, Gary Wells, Director of Support Services, TVF&R
7. Review of TWD Employee Handbook regarding mandatory pre-employment drug test.
Recommendations:
1. Amend the alcohol and drug policy to include statement by Tigard Water District
that it is a "drug free workplace".
2. Amend the alcohol and drug procedures to include that prospective employees sign a
pre-employment consent form to be tested for drugs, alcohol, and any controlled
substance.
8. Resolution 14-92 to rescind water restrictions
Recommendation: Approve Resolution
9. Resolution 15-92 to Deny Out of District Service
Recommendation: Approve Resolution.
10. Minimum Purchase Requirement
Recommendation: Receive and file
11 . Administrative Director's Report.
A. Revenues.
B. Computer RFP.
B. New Telemetry System.
C. Rate Structure to encourage conservation.
D. Work Accomplished Report will be distributed Tuesday, October 13.
10/13/92 Board Meeting Agenda
12. Chair's Comments.
13. Commissioners' Comments.
14. Other Business.
15. Date of November Board meeting
16. Executive Session.
The Tigard Water District will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1)(e), (h) and (j) to discuss real property transactions, and possible
litigation.
Adjourn
2
MEMO
TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Commissioners
FROM: Jeri Chenelle, Administrative Director
SUBJECT: 1991-92 Annual Audit
Statement of the Issue:
An annual audit is performed for the Tigard Water District each year by Coopers &
Lybrand, a well-respected national audit firm.
Recommendation:
Receive and file the audit report.
Analysis:
The audit report concludes that the Tigard Water District is in conformance with
generally accepted accounting principles. The audit found no material weaknesses
involving the internal control structure and its operation.
MEMO
TO: Jeri DATE: October 9, 1992
FROM: Randy
SUBJECT: Commercial Driver's License Drug Test
Because of the size and weight carrying capacity of the TWD dump trucks owned by
the Tigard Water District, all employees who drive them must have a Commercial
Driver's License (CDL). A written and driving test is given by the Oregon Motor
Vehicles Department and certification is kept on file with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT). Along with the CDL, drivers are required to have a physical
examination given every two years to ensure they are in some what good health. A
Medical Examiner's Certificate card is issued to each employee passing the test. A
medical card must accompany a CDL license.
This year, ODOT has initiated a drug test to be given to all CDL holders when their
physicals are due. Names and results are kept on file with ODOT. Each year, random
drug tests will be given to CDL license holders.
Tigard Water District presently has seven employees with CDLs.
1.
MEMO
TO: Honorable Chair & Board of Commissioners
FROM: Jeri L. Chenelle DATE: October 5, 1992
SUBJECT: Pre-Employment Drug Testing
Issue:
At its meeting of September 8, 1992, the Board of Commissioners requested review of the
mandatory pre-employment drug testing portion of the Tigard Water District employee
handbook.
Recommendations:
1 . Amend the alcohol and drug policy to include statement by Tigard Water District that it is a
"drug free workplace".
2. Amend the alcohol and drug procedures to include that prospective employees sign a pre-
employment consent form to be tested for drugs, alcohol, and any controlled substance.
Analysis:
Pre-employment drug testing is necessary to ensure and enhance safe working conditions at
Tigard Water District. Pre-employment drug testing does not violate an individual's right of
privacy or discriminate against any minority group. The Americans with Disabilities Act
allows pre-employment drug testing as long as the tests are accurate and do not mistake a
person taking prescribed medication as an illegal drug user.
In order to be fair and equitable to prospective employees, all announcements, advertisements,
and applications will contain a statement that "Tigard Water District is a drug free workplace".
Furthermore, applications will state that a pre-hire drug test will be required as part of the
application process. This will give fair warning to a prospective employee that illegal drug use
will not be tolerated.
Before a pre-employment drug test is administered, the prospective employee must sign a pre-
hire consent form (Exhibit A). If an applicant tests positive or refuses the test, he/she will not
be offered employment.
As previously stated, pre-employment drug testing is necessary to maintain and promote a safe
workplace. As long as a prospective employee has previous knowledge of Tigard Water District's
policy towards drug use and gives consent to a pre-hire test, no violation of the applicant's
rights or discrimination towards the applicant will occur.
Alternatives:
1 . Adopt recommendation one, or two, or both.
2. Continue with current practice of not stating Tigard Water District is a drug free workplace
and not having prospective employees sign a consent form for a pre-hire drug test.
3. Have no pre-employment drug testing.
Exhibit A
PRE-EMPLOYMENT CONSENT FORM
I, , am aware that Tigard Water District is a drug free
workplace, and as part of the hiring process includes testing for drugs, alcohol, and
any controlled substance. In order to complete the application process, I consent
to provide a specimen to determine the presence of drugs or alcohol. I also realize
that the results of the analysis of such specimen will be used to determine
suitability for employment.
Signed Date
Witness Date
Existing Policy
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS 26
Alcohol and Drugs
DEFINITIONS:
Alcohol— Ethyl alcohol (ethanol). References to use or possession of alcohol include use or
possession of any beverage, mixture, or preparation containing alcohol.
Drug—Any substance other than alcohol that has known mind or function altering effects on
human beings. specifically including any psychoactive substance and including, but not limited to,
controlled substances.
District premises—District premises include all work-related premises,facilities, parking lots,
garages,work places, and storage facilities.
Policy
The District recognizes that alcohol and drug abuse in the workplace has become a major concern
for society. We believe that by reducing drug and alcohol use,we will improve the safety, health,
and productivity of employees.
The use of alcoholic beverages, or marijuana ,or other unlawful controlled substances by employ-
ees when on duty or on district premises is prohibited. Employees must not report for duty or be on
company property under the influence of, or have in their possession while on company property,
any alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or illegally obtained drug, narcotic, or other illegal substance.
44100, Employees with a detectable amount of alcohol or any other prohibited drugs or substances in their
systems, regardless of when or where the drug/substance entered the system, are subject to
immediate discharge and will be ineligible for rehire except as provided in the rehabilitation proce-
dure below.
The objective of this policy is to provide a safe and healthful work place for all employees;to
comply with federal and state health and safety regulations, and to prevent accidents.
Procedures,
• All prospective employees shall be given tests for the presence of alcohol, marijuana, and drugs.
These tests shall be done by an independent medical facility that has been approved by the District.
These pre-employment screening tests shall be completed before the employee reports for work.
In the event the independent medical facility can not provide results of such tests to the District
before the scheduled reporting time of the employee, it is understood that the employee shall be
considered a probationary employee until test results are known to the District.
The presence of one or more of those drugs, alcohol,or marijuana will be cause for rejection for
employment.
Refusal to submit to the screening test will constitute voluntary withdrawal of application for employ-
ment.
Nor • Post-accident testing: Any individual directly or indirectly involved in an incident resulting in an
injury requiring medical attention or resulting in damage to property or equipment may be re-tested
for the presence of alcohol, marijuana, and drugs.
Tigard Water District EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK April 1990
•
Existing Policy
ABSENT FROM WORK 27
• Egst-emolovment testing: Testing may be conducted on an individual basis whenever a supervisor
has probable cause to believe that any employee or group of employees is, or may be, impaired or
affected on the job by alcohol, marijuana,or other controlled substances.
• Rehabilitation/re-testing: Upon successful or satisfactory completion of an alcohol or drug rehabili-
tation program by a certified and/or licensed drug and/or alcohol treatment program, as evaluated
by the treatment staff, individual(s)will be eligible to re-test for employment.
Individual(s) must have completed treatment as certified by the treating facility and present proof of
satisfactory or successful completion before re-testing eligibility is granted. Any individual who has
re-tested negative agrees to be re-tested monthly.
�r.r
r
Tigard Water District EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK April 1990
MEMO
TO: Jeri DATE: October 6, 1992
FROM: Randy
SUBJECT: Resolution Rescinding the Water Restrictions and Enforcement Measures
On Tuesday morning, September 29, the City of Portland removed all water
restrictions. In doing so, they removed the restrictions imposed on the Tigard Water
District which our Board adopted in Resolution 12-92, on August 11, 1992.
Our Resolution 14-92 is needed to officially rescind Resolution 12-92.
We will keep on file, the enforcement measures we used to carry out the restrictions,
but all records of violators will be destroyed. Thank you.
•
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 14-92
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE ENACTMENT OF WATER RESTRICTIONS AND
THE ENFORCEMENT MEASURES NEEDED TO COMPLY.
WHEREAS, the Board finds the water shortage that affected the region no
longer exists; and
WHEREAS, there is an adequate water supply to the citizens of the Tigard
Water District; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement measures imposed by the contract with the
City of Portland are no longer needed or are enforced,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the
Tigard Water District does hereby rescind the water restrictions and
enforcement measures imposed upon them by the City of Portland and
enacted by Resolution 12-92, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this order shall take effect immediately.
Chair of the Board
ATTEST:
Administrative Director Date
MEMO
TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners DATE: October 8, 1992
FROM: Jeri L. Chenelle and Mike Miller
SUBJECT: Establishing a Written Policy for Extra-Territorial Water Service
Tthe Board of Commissioners has stated publically that they are opposed to providing
water services outside our boundaries.
After looking into the.past practices, policy statements, and taking into account the
current position of the Board, we feel that it is necessary to have a written policy so that
there is no misunderstanding as to what the Board will do regarding extra-territorial
water service connections.
•
The written policy is basically the same as what has transpired over the years, except
that the written policy defines exactly what kind of criteria must be meant in order to
have a hardship case. We could have been hard nosed and flatly denied any extra-
territorial water service, but we feel that would not have been in the best interests of
tluir the public. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but I believe the exceptions, as
described in the resolution, are legitimate and well defined. These exceptions only
apply to a property owner with an existing single family residence, and would only be
applied if the home owner proves to the Board's satisfaction that a health hazard
exists.
Mike has discussed this issue with Ken Martin of the Metropolitan Boundary Review
Commission. Ken stated that he was pleased that we were going to have a written
policy, and clarified the Boundary Commission's position on annexation. Simply
stated, the Boundary Commission will not allow areas outside the Urban Growth
Boundary to be annexed into any municipal service area, but they would allow extra
-territorial water service connections to existing single family residences if there was a
contamination of that property's water supply.
My recommendation to the Board is to approve this resolution at the Board Meeting.
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 15-92
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR EXTRA-TERRITORIAL WATER
SERVICE CONNECTIONS.
WHEREAS, it has been the Board's unwritten policy not to provide water service to out
of District properties; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires a formal written policy regarding out of District service;
and
WHEREAS, providing water connections out of district encourages growth outside the
Urban Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, the current Water District boundary is also the Urban Growth Boundary;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the Tigard
Water District will not approve any future extra-territorial water service connections,
except for those written requests meeting the following criteria:
1. When the Board finds that a hardship exists where the property owner
t.., provides proof of a contaminated source of water to an existing single family
dwelling; or
2. When proof is provided that the existing source supply for an existing single
family dwelling is inadequate to sustain a reasonable standard of living; and
3. Property owner agrees to pay the property's pro rata share of a water main
across its street frontage when installed; and
4. At such time that the Urban Growth Boundary is changed (with review
expected in the year 2000), the property owner agrees to immediately initiate
annexation proceedings into the District; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Chair of the Board
ATTEST:
Administrative Director Date
MEMO
DATE: September 18, 1992
TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Commissioners
FROM: Jeri L. Chenelle
SUBJECT: Minimum Purchase Requirement
State of Issue:
Portland's agreements with its wholesale water purchasers requires a minimum
purchase based on a 5-year rolling average. Last year Tigard Water District provided
water to the City of Tualatin during an emergency at Portland's request. This year we
did not use summer water from Portland because of the water restrictions imposed by
Portland. Both events affect our minimum purchase requirement.
Recommendation:
Receive and file. (For information only.)
Analysis:
The minimum purchase requirement is based on a 5-year rolling average of the
percentage of Portland water compared to the total water purchased by our District
from all sources. When Portland was questioned about how our purchase of water
from Lake Oswego to supply Tualatin last year would affect our rolling average, they
were puzzled. They had not thought about this before. We requested an adjustment.
The water restrictions we were required to implement this year resulted in our patrons
saving enough water to keep us entirely off the Bull Run system this summer. Portland
offered us a credit (against the rolling average) of 1/12 our annual use for each month
we didn't use water. We responded that this was not appropriate for us since most of
our water is used during the summer months. They agreed to our suggestion to look at
the last 5 years of our use and give us a credit based upon the percentage of Portland
water we normally use during the months the water restrictions are in place. Portland
agreed.
The attached letter reflects Portland's response to our concerns about these two
situations. The Water Bureau has reacted positively and ethically to our concerns. As
a result, our required water purchase percentage will be less next year.
10 .
RECEIVED ,' i ` iJd2
Q�ttT LAty�•.,
oma. o CITY OF Mike Lindberg,Commissioner
o:, Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator
*"`'` z` PORTLAND, OREGON l 120 S.W.5th Avenue
"'+, Portland,Oregon 97204-1926
`� '` Information(503)796-7404
BUREAU OF WATER WORKS
August 31, 1992
Jeri Chenelle, Administrator
Tigard Water District
P.O. Box 230000
Tigard, OR 97281-1999
Dear Jeri:
As provided for in Section 7 of the 25-year Water Sales Agreement
between your District as Purchaser and the City of Portland,
"In consideration of the agreement of the City to provide a
firm supply of surplus water, Purchaser agrees to maintain its
level of purchases for the term of this agreement so as not to
diminish the ratio of City water used to the total water used
by Purchaser, "
`Wrr
Your purchase ratio for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1992 was
2. 68%. Your guaranteed purchase ratio, the average level of
purchases during the five fiscal years preceding the fiscal year
l ending June 30, 1992, divided by the average level of total water
used during that period, was 3 .89%. Because Tigard sold water to
the City of Tualatin at our request you are excused from meeting
the requirement. No payment is due.
Attached also is a worksheet showing your guaranteed purchase ratio
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993, which is 1.81%.
During 92-93 many of you used alternative sources of water at our
request. To ensure that your 92-93 purchase ratio would not be
distorted we excluded the percentage of water historically
purchased during the months of July through November.
For example -- district A has purchased 5, 000,000 ccf over the last
5 years -- of that, 3, 000, 000 ccf was purchased during July through
November -- that is, 60% of District A's historical purchases were
during the projected curtailment period. The computation for
District A would not include that portion of water purchases. If
the normal annual purchase ratio resulted in a minimum purchase
ratio requirement of 80% -- then the purchase ratio for 92-93 would
be 80% * (1 - 60%) or 32% on an annualized basis to cover the
period from December through June only. In this way, District A
would be responsible for minimum purchases only during months of
normal (we hope) operations.
Minimum Purchase
we August 31, 1992
Page 2
Future calculations will be computed, as always, on 5 years actual
data -- so the lower purchases in 92-93 will result in a slightly
lower guaranteed purchase ratio in the future.
If you have any questions concerning these computations, please
contact Anne Conway at 796-7468.
Sincerely,,
Michael Rosenberger
Administrator
Attachments
c: Anne Conway
Deborah Bond
,,air MINIMUM PURCHASE WORKSHEET
FOR TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING 6/30/92
YEAR 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH PRECEDING
OF CALCULATION PRECEDING PRECEDING PRECEDING PRECEDING PRECEDING 5—YEAR
1991-92 1990-91 1989-90 1988-89 1987-88 1986-87 AVERAGE
Portland Water consumption
per Bureau billing records
(including credit for 104,837 113,026 73,476 80,554 65,762 69,894 80,542
Portland Customers)
DEDUCT:Approved sales to Tualatin
other distributors (33,396)
ADD or DEDUCT:Adjustment
for annexation or withdrawal
NET Portland water
consumption 71,441 113,026 73,476 80,554 65,762 69,894 80,542
ADD:Water from alternate
sources 2,590,053 2,185,043 2,008,078 2,095,676 1,840,390 1,818,170
ADD or DEDUCT:Water from alternate
sources used or sold during
curtailment or emergency
rw� ADD or DEDUCT:Adjustment
for annexation or withdrawal
TOTAL water consumption 2,661,494 2,298,069 2,081,554 2,176,230 1,906,152 1,888,064 2,070,014
PURCHASE RATIO
(Net Portland water consump— 2.68% 4.92% 3.53% 3.70% 3.45% 3.70% 3.89%
tion/Total water consumption)
Guaranteed purchase ratio= Preceding 5—year average Purchase Ratio= 3.89%
........................... ........................................................................................... ..... ............................................ ..............................................
o.manirnickit:_urc,a'0:u ;.::.:.:.:gs2::.:._::jNa*C w ssG,_at..:e:a_: as#'off:the G";:Qf;Port[and ti ttie ity of Tuaiatiri
Minimum purchase payment= $0.00
MINIMUM PURCHASE WORKSHEET
FOR TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING 06/30/93
YEAR 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH PRECEDING
OF CALCULATION PRECEDING PRECEDING PRECEDING PRECEDING PRECEDING 5—YEAR
1992-93 1991-92 1990-91 1989-90 1988-89 1987-88 AVERAGE
Portland Water consumption
per Bureau billing records
(including credit for 104,837 113,026 73,476 80,554 65,762 87,531
Portland Customers)
DEDUCT:Approved sales to
other distributors (33,396; 0 0 0 0
ADD or DEDUCT:Adjustment
for annexation or withdrawal 0 0 0 0
NET Portland water
consumption 71,441 113,026 73,476 80,554 65,762 80,852
ADD:Water from alternate
sources 2,590,053 2,185,043 2,008,078 2,095,676 1,840,390 2,143,848
DEDUCT:Water from alternate
sources used during 0 0 0 0 0
curtailment or emergency
ADD or DEDUCT:Adjustment
for annexation or withdrawal 0 0 0 0
TOTAL water consumption 2,661,494 2,298,069 2,081,554 2,176,230 1,906,152 2,224,700
PURCHASE RATIO
(Net Portland water consump— 2.68% 4.92% 3.53% 3.70% 3.45% 3.63%
tion/Total water consumption)
Guaranteed purchase ratio for FY 93=Preceding 5—yr avg Purchase Ratio= 3.63%
5 years of history %usage for July to Nov 50.15%
Guaranteed purchase ratio for FY 93 based on excluding%usage for July to Nov 1.81
w
MEMO
TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners DATE: October 8, 1992
FROM: Jeri, Randy, Nancy, Mike
SUBJECT: Year-To-Date Budget Review
1. Water Sales and Purchases.
Before talking about water sales and purchases, it should be noted that, due to a
change in the backflow program both in the operations and in billing, the District will
show a $29,400 loss, on that line item. The District did charge for backflow inspections
and repair, but now we are now requiring our patrons to obtain backflow inspections
privately, and have them repaired themselves if needed.
Now to the Water Sales Revenue loss. We will talk about year-to-date July, August,
September, plus our estimates for the remainder of the year.
A. Water Sales Income below budget through September 30. - $186,400
B. Backflow billing loss. - - - - - - $29,400
C. Estimated continued conservation by TWD customers for
the remainder of the year = 1%. - - - - - $20.900
D. Total Actual Year-to-Date projected loss to the Budget
for Water Income - - - - - - $236,700
2. Savings to the Budget in Brief.
Going over some of our larger expenditures with Randy, Nancy and Mike, we find the
Budget in pretty good shape to help cover our revenue loss due to restrictions and
conservation. There are three areas I would like to show in savings to the Budget.
A. Tigard Water, for the first time in about eight years, ran three of its four wells. Our
usual summer routine is to start up #1 and #2 wells, and run them through July and
August. This year, on July 1, we started #3 well also. Although it does not produce
as much water as #1 or #2, we were able to supplement 1.1 million gallons per day
with well water. We shut off #3 on September 30, but intend to use #1 and #2 until
October 30. Through October, we will be saving 1 million gallons per day of water
not purchased from Lake Oswego. We estimate a savings of approximately
$16,000 by running the wells longer.
11 . 4.
*we TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners
SUBJECT: Year-To-Date Budget Review
October 8, 1992
Page 2
B. Due to water restrictions imposed by the City of Portland, we did experience a
revenue loss in Water Sales, but accompanying that came a decrease in water
purchasing.
The Budget Year-To-Date shows:
Water purchased - - - $454,500
Actual money spent - - $213.100
Savings in water purchased - $241,400
That savings alone helps us to cover our $236,700 revenue loss.
Another small savings shown is in electrical costs. By restrictions being in place
and our daily demand lower, we had no need throughout the summer to run all
three pumps at the Bonita Pump Station. This comes in with a savings, year-to-
date, of $2,900.
,,,,,.. C. Bull Run Water Savings. This will be straight off the budget line for 92-93 water
purchased. The Budget showed money to be spent for 3.92% of Tigard water for
the year at $307,300.
With Portland deducting the restriction months from our 5-year average, for the
remainder of the year, Tigard Water District's minimum purchase is 1.81%, or
$141,900. That comes in with a savings of $165,400 in water not purchased from
Portland.
3. Summary
A. By running Wells #1 and #2 through October 30, and using
a cost figure of 10cD per hundred cubic foot for water pumped,
we should save approximately $16,000 by not buying
Lake Oswego water - - - - - - $16,000
Water purchased Budget line Year-to-Date of $454,500 minus
actual money spent of $213,100 is a savings of - - - $241 ,000
Bull Run water purchase requirement, down from
3.92% to 1.81% of estimated total water purchased for
year shows savings of - - - - - - $165.400
Total savings in Budget - - - - - - $422,000
TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners
stew-
SUBJECT: Year-To-Date Budget Review
October 8, 1992
Page 3
B. Water Sales below Budget through September 30 - - $186,400
Backflow billing loss - - - - - - $29,400
1% estimated continued conservation - - - - $20.900
Below Budget income loss year-to-date - - - $236,000
C. It appears with our $422,000 saving against the loss of $236,000 that our Budget is
going to survive. Our revenue income is down, but our savings in water not
purchased from Lake Oswego and Bull Run, along with the running of the wells,
has kept our numbers close.
+r.r