Loading...
04/28/1999 - Packet FILE COPY INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, April 28, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introductions 3. Approval of Minutes February 24, 1999 4.'` Long Term Water Supply - Ed Wegner 5.; Discussion/Recommendation on Long Term Water Supply 6. Public Comments 7. Non Agenda Items 8. Adjournment Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session'under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) -(d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real;,property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news'media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose'-any information discussed during this session. kathy\iwb\4-28.agn Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes February 24, 1999 II Board Members Present: Bill Scheiderich, Beverly Froude, Jan Drangsholt, Patrick Carroll, Paul Hunt Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz Visitors: Henrietta Cochrun,Norman Penner, David Strauss, Gretchen Buehner 1. Call to Order The February 24, 1999 meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken with all Board Members present. 3. Approval of Minutes Motion was made by Paul Hunt to approve the minutes from the December 9 meeting which was seconded by Patrick Carroll. All members voted for approval with Bill Scheiderich abstaining. 4. Long Term Water Supply Update-Ed Wegner Mr. Wegner distributed a memo from Mike Rosenberger, Administrator of the Portland Water Bureau that was circulated at the Water Managers Meeting regarding the certainty and governance which comes from the Deputy City Attorney of Portland. After December 15 the City of Portland received numerous calls from Tigard residents regarding the issue of selling of surplus water and the current City of Portland Charter. In response to these questions a memo was given to Mike Rosenberger. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned whether Commissioner Sten has signed off on this memo? Mr. Wegner stated that Commissioner Sten has not signed off on this although Mr. Rosenberger stated that at the next Water Managers Meeting in March(3-10) he will present a Intergovernmental Water Board February 24, 1999 Page 1 timetable on contract renewal negotiations with a buy off clause from the Council demonstrating they are in favor of expanding the Bull Run. Gretchen Buehner raised two issues with this memo: 1) did not address the issue of limitation of the charter-portion of this that does need to go to Council and 2) if it is only addressed in an ordinance, what will the binding authority of future councils be? Commissioner Scheiderich stated that he felt comfortable that they would be able to bind themselves with a contract. Commissioner Froude questioned whether the thirteen members of the Water Managers group are all interested in the same issue of certainty and governance? Mr. Wegner continued by stating that Portland would like to have one contract with thirteen members. He stated that there needs to be some conclusion reached on the needs and wants of the groups. He stated that all members are interested in certainty and some kind of ownership clause. The certainty needs to something further than just owning the pipe and having capacity within the pipe. It has been stated that we will not be able to buy ownership in the existing Portland system which includes the headworks, two dams and 50 mg Powell Butte Reservoir. Mr. Wegner continued by stating what might come to the table will be those who go with the City of Portland instead of contract they could buy an ownership right into those facilities. If the filtration plant was put on the system, Tigard could own 5.9% of the plant. If dam three is built, Tigard could own 5% of that since that is the amount of water that we would contract for. Commissioner Drangsholt questioned whether Portland would ever assign water rights? Mr. Wegner stated that this would need to be addressed with Portland, although the indication in the past has been, no. Mr. Wegner stated that a lot of questions have been raised about the EPA's Safe Water Drinking Standards and the filtration process. In the Willamette River Report (full report) in Appendix F, Section 4 and 5 will outline. He continued by saying that most of the questions at the meetings attended to date have been related to water quality and costs. The Board discussed the preliminary draft cost estimates that are being used which were supplied in this months Cityscape and are based upon the following: • Assumptions for comparison • Construction costs • Repayment of borrowed funds • Operation and Maintenance costs • Consolidated net rate per ccf comparison Intergovernmental Water Board February 24, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Hunt stated the benefit of providing costs estimates to the users in the form of what their monthly rates would reflect. It was decided that Mike Miller would discuss with Wayne about the possibility of providing these figures in that format. It was noted that on Wayne Lowry's handout, there are no units of measure shown on the final page. Mr. Wegner discussed the letter from Gretchen Buehner in the Southwest Metro section of the Oregonian published on February 18, 1999. A copy was distributed to the Board members. Mr. Wegner stated that currently there are eight municipalities that have unfiltered water. He continued by stating that filtered water is the wave of the future and will have chlorine, GAC and ozone. Commissioner Drangsholt questioned whether there have been comparisons between the drinkablity of Willamette and Clackamas River raw water? Mr. Wegner stated that no one has tested the raw water as much as Tigard has with the current raw water monitoring. Mr. Wegner stated since December that staff has attempted to present all the facts regarding both scenarios and by the end of April a decision is needed. Mr. Wegner stated that a recommendation has been requested from the Water Advisory Task Force at the City Council meeting on April 13 as outlined in their resolution. The IWB will also need to meet and make a recommendation prior to that date. On that date the Tigard City Council will conduct a public hearing and hear testimony from the citizens as to an ordinance or resolution to proceed with one water supply option or another. The staff recommendation will come the night of the reading of the ordinance. Commissioner Drangsholt questioned whether a recommendation would need to made from each individual entity (Durham, King City and the unincorporated area)? Commissioner Froude pointed out that as outlined in the IGA each entity individually is required to make a recommendation on long term capital improvements (page 12 of the IGA). Mr. Wegner stated that if each of the entities gave their representative the authority to vote on their behalf, it would be appropriate. Commissioner Carroll suggested that Mr. Wegner get in contact with Roel Lindquist to request being on the Durham City Council agenda for their March 23 meeting. The question was raised regarding or readiness for Y2K? Mr. Miller stated that since the City of Tigard purchases its water from Portland and they have indicated that they are Y2K compliant. If a major power grid goes down, Portland does have standby generators and they will continue to pump. From Portland's tanks to our system is all gravity and if Tigard experienced a failure, whether to Scada or power we can operate our system manually. Intergovernmental Water Board February 24. 1999 Page 3 � I i S. 1999/00 Budget Summary-Mike Miller Mike Miller outlined the major highlights of the 1999/00 proposed budget which included the proposal for the addition of two full time employees, another Water Supervisor and a Water Resource Specialist who will work on long term supply and staff support. Mr. Miller continued by outlining some of the major program highlights such as: • Reservoir cleaning -third year • Meter replacement program continuation • Construction of anew 24 inch water main along Beef Bend Road - SW 131st to SW King Arthur Mr. Miller stated that the highest expense within the budget is the purchase of water and even though the peaking factor was not that high, costs are up to $1.226. Commissioner Hunt questioned why the additional costs of water is not being made available to the rate payers? Mr. Wegner stated that this information will be in the April Cityscape and there was a news release on this matter. There was discussion on the fact that rates will not be increased due to the additional costs but will be covered by reserve funds. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned whether the surplus property from the Menlor site will be sold this year and will these funds go into Water fund? Mr. Wegner stated that this surplus property will probably be sold this fiscal year. He continued by saying that the Menlor reservoir site is complete with the exception of some landscaping to be completed. This Board will need to decide what to do with the Klute property that was purchased at the bottom of the site. The original intent was to purchase this property which was needed to construct the reservoir and then sell the surplus property. Staff's recommendation will most likely be to sell the additional property including the house and utilize these funds to purchase the Cache property that is adjacent to this property at a higher level (550 zone). The Menlor project has been nominated for two national awards with the tank designer and concrete work. Next meeting was set for March 10. 6. Adjournment Motion was made by Patrick Carroll with a second by Beverly Froude and the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board February 24. 1 QQL, Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Intergovermental Water Board FROM: Ed Wegner RE: General Water Information DATE: April 26, 1999 Included is more general water information for your review. If you have questions, let me know. • Another privatization article — The Fairbanks, Alaska story. • Correspondence from the Regional Water Providers Consortium ->Funding for Salmon Recovery Endorse the legislative concept for the Pesticide Use & Sales Tracking System Encl. Cc: Tigard Water District Board Members Kathy\willamette\iwb memo 4-26.1 PRIVATIZATION • By Bill Gordon Seuing L ksb a ��e�`airbanks, wy or over ten years, the City of that the utility system had not been financially affect not only the purchasers Fairbanks, the second largest efficiently managed; but also City operations became the sub- city in Alaska, has been debat- The City was unwilling to significantly ject of lengthy and often times divisive ing the future of its utilities,agonizing over raise water and wastewater rates to cover negotiations. Shared assets were a major the public policy questions of whether to the cost of service and pay for badly reason the sale of the individual utilities try to compete in a competitive environ- needed capital improvements;and was not put out to bid.Trying to identify ment or to divest utilities that have been Competitive pressure was likely to and quantify assets assigned to each utility government-owned for over 50 years. reduce or eliminate profits from the to prepare bid documents would have Eventually,the Mayor and City Council of telephone utility that had been subsidiz- taken an unreasonable length of time and Fairbanks decided to sell. ing wastewater and water operations. been prohibitively expensive. After years of study and preparation, After weeks of lengthy negotiation ses- the completion of the sale of the City's For these reasons, complete privatiza- sions, all parties agreed on contracts that utilities came down to a critical few days. tion was considered to be the best and divided the assets to be sold from each util- Under the pressure of a self-imposed possibly the only alternative. ity and set the amount each buyer would deadline, three buyers and City officials pay to the City.The terms of these con- met at city hall on October 6, 1997,and Resolution No. 3639 tracts became the source of considerable signed the hundreds of pages that While officials were having discus- public discussion over the following months allowed the City to privatize its tele- sions on the best method to privatize the leading up to the public vote on the sale. phone,electric,and sewer and water sys- utilities, the City was presented with an tems. However, the sale did not happen unsolicited proposal to privatize its tele- Seising the System without dedicated effort, political will phone utility.Not wanting to sell its prof- The selling of a water and sewer sys- and public controversy. itable telephone utility and be left with tem (a utility under no competitive pres- the distressed water and sewer system,the sure and perceived by some people to be a Reasons to Privatize City Council considered and passed duty of government to protect the health The reasons for the City choosing to Resolution No. 3639 specifying that all and safety of the population)was no easy privatize its utilities were varied and the utilities be sold as a group.The City matter. A group of ten local investors, interrelated.The primary motivating fac- Council fizrther provided that prospective Fairbanks Sewer &Water, Inc. (FSW), tors were purchasers had approximately sixty days joined a team consisting of PTI to submit proposals to privatize all its util- Communications (telephone) and a local • Competitive pressures from external ities.Only one proposal was submitted by co-op,Golden Valley Electric Association sources that would dramatically affect the May 15, 1996, deadline imposed by (electricity),to make an offer on the City's revenues and profits in the telephone Resolution 3639. three utilities. and electric utilities; Since the system had many interrelated Under the City Charter,any sale of the • The Mayor and City Council recog- components,including common employ- utilities required ratification by a majority nized that the private sector could more ees,billing and accounting systems,com- of the City's registered voters. With an efficiently provide the services; puters and other equipment,it was left to election scheduled,opposition to this sale • Because of the competitive pressures in the purchasers to decide the appropriate soon developed.Opponents claimed that a telecommunications, the value of the division of assets and liabilities among sale would stifle development and raise City-owned telephone utility was drop- themselves.Nearly forty years of operation rates through the loss of federal and state ping rapidly; produced inter-utility relationships that grants and tax exemptions. They even • Although generally hard to admit, the would be undone by the sale.Identifying challenged the City's constitutional right City Council and Mayor recognized the extent to which this un-mixing would to"abandon its public health responsibili- ' 20 WATER Engineering&Management•APRIL 1999 '" SEWER LINING i The old pipe must undergo steam and air curing before it can be successfully lined. installed in the inlet end of the upstream manhole before the ditch <. crossing.Next,the line was flushed out and the camera was sent through the line towing a small diameter cord which in turn was tied to a heavier cable.While this was being accomplished, the spool of pipe was being preheated by steam to make it flexible. Once heated,the pipe acted like a wet noodle.It took approx- imately one hour for the project up to this point.Next,the cable was tied to the end of the folded pipe and pulled through the line. The ends of the new line were plugged and a connection was made to a combination steam and air supply of between five and ten psi.This process inflated the folded PVC pipe back to its original shape and made it tight against the inside walls of the host pipe,providing a new liner inside an old leaking pipe.The j steam was then turned off and the cool air was allowed to flow through the pipe until it had cooled to below 100°F before reliev- ing the pressure. Had there been services in this line,they would have shown up as a dimple inside the PVC and would have been cut open by a Before the pipe can be unrolled and pulled into place, remote cutter attached to the camera.Once the pipe had cooled, the folded pipe on the reel must be steam heated. the camera was again sent through to determine if the liner had any defects.Once the line was shown to be defect free it was put After steam heating,the new folded pipe is ready back into service. to be inserted into the old pipe. The whole process was completed in less than two hours,with full flow back in service.The original line size was decreased by only about'A".Therefore,the new pipe still permitted more flow than the original pipe due to much less friction loss.The total cost t "' was much less than even the cheapest of other methods and the whole procedure was accomplished without bypass pumping and a minimum of downtime. . It has been brought to the city's attention that pulls over 2,000 feet have been accomplished using this method with no problems. 'k ~ The only thing required is access at both ends.This process is one j that the city hopes to use many times in the near future. The new liner was placed in the pipe and is now ready to accept flow. About the Author. Edward Russell is a project manager for the City of Loveland, Colorado,Water and Power Department. For more information on this subject, circle 859 on the reader service card. PRIVATIZATION ty." Sale opponents concentrated their centrating solely on the water and sewer should be refunded to ratepayers instead efforts on fighting the complicated water contracts. They ran an expensive and of being deposited into the permanent and sewer contracts to defeat the entire aggressive political campaign to defeat fund.The other sought to recover money utility sale. the sale claiming from local officials who,the suit charged, Since the City of Fairbanks is located in had sold the system for too little. Both a northern latitude,and for other engineer- • the buyers were not paying enough and suits were dismissed. ing reasons, the Fairbanks wastewater would reap a windfall; The battle,however,had only begun. treatment facility was designed as an • sewer and water rates would skyrocket; ' entirely enclosed treatment plant. This • future development would be stifled;and Regulatory Opposition enclosure produced a corrosive atmosphere • public health would be compromised. Having lost the election,opponents of within the plant and caused serious deteri- the sale quickly redirected their effort to oration to electrical components over the Sale proponents counteracted these regulatory agencies.They challenged the 20 years since construction.This deteriora- claims by pointing out the poor state the application for the transfer of the sewer tion resulted in incomplete grounding of utilities were in,including the$30 million system to the United States Environ- electrical components requiring immediate needed for deferred maintenance and mental Protection Agency (EPA) and and expensive attention. In addition, over defective pipe. Proponents placed ads both the sewer and water systems to the 100,000 feet of the wastewater collection touting the lack of political will to provide Alaska Public Utilities Commission system was constructed using Techite pipe capital to repair I&I,provide proper sludge (APUC).Although the City of Fairbanks that is now the subject of a lengthy lawsuit disposal(the City had stockpiled approxi- held state issued certificates, the utilities by the City.Much of the wastewater col- mately five years of untreated sludge) and were not economically regulated by the lection systems inflow and infiltration to make the badly needed repairs to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (I&I) (as high as 30 percent of the total enclosed water treatment plant.They also (APUC).After privatization,all the utili- flow) was attributed to the faulty Techite cited the inability of the City-owned utili- ties would be fully economically regulated pipe in the collection system. ties to compete with aggressive private by the APUC. Previously,the Fairbanks telephone sys- sector telephone and electric utilities that Surprisingly, the opponents found a tem had been profitable and monies were in the past had provided operating subsi- receptive audience at the EPA.Having yet diverted from telephone profits to subsi- dize the operation of the other utilities(in conjunction with grant monies).As a result of the passage of the Telecommunications Opponents claimed that a sale would Act1996 other competitive fac- tors), ac- stifle development and raise rates through tors), ttelephone honee profits for the City's tele- phone utility had declined and were the loss of federal and stateants and tax projected to decline further under contin- ued municipal ownership.In addition,the exemptions.They even challenged the electric distribution system was threatened by severe competitive pressure from its City's constitutional right to `abandon neighboring utility,Golden Valley Electric Association,whose commercial rates were its public health responsibility. nearly 35 percent lower. If legislative or regulatory changes allowed retail wheeling (the removal of service area protection),the City would have been under intense com- dies and capital support to the wastewater to establish procedures for approving out- petitive pressure and would certainly lose and water systems. The proponents right privatization of government-funded revenue vital to its electric utility. Under designed their campaign to try to answer wastewater utilities, the EPA became these conditions, future funding for sewer the public's basic questions. frozen by inaction.However,a blueprint for and water capital projects would likely not privatization had been approved in 1992 have been available in the amounts Why sell at all? under President George Bush as Executive required unless significant rate increases Why sell now? Order 12803. This Executive Order is a (almost double for the residential cus- Why sell to these buyers? mandate by the Executive Branch directing tomers)were imposed. agencies "to assist and aid local and State A provision in the negotiated con- On October 7, 1996, the Fairbanks government in their efforts to privatize" tracts required that if one purchaser failed City voters approved the package sale by a state or locally owned infrastructure assets. to close the transaction, the entire sale 54 to 46 percent margin. The City used Executive Order 12803 as a would fail.The sale opponents seized an Two lawsuits were filed. One claimed guiding document when planning the opportunity to challenge the sale by con- that money paid for the utility systems wastewater utility privatization. PRIVATIZATION Although many years had passed since the passage of Executive Order 12803,the EPA still had not established guidelines for Nearly 40 years of operation selling publicly funded facilities.The City of Fairbanks'application,submitted to the produced inter-utility relationships EPA on December 7, 1996, encouraged them to prepare such guidelines. Months that would be undone by the sale. passed. Despite repeated appeals by the City to act,no EPA action on the applica- tion was forthcoming. Meanwhile, the City and the buyer's application to the state Executive Order 12803,the EPA eventu- to complete the sale of all three utilities as regulatory agency,submitted in November ally approved the transfer of the federally the other two applicants' approvals were 1996,had hearings set for May 1997;hear- funded wastewater treatment facility simultaneously granted. In its order, the ings that the applicants assumed would be adding a requirement that the buyer lease APUC granted the requested inception timely completed. the federally funded portion of the facility rates for sewer and water but failed to At the hearings, opponents seized on until 1999 when federal grants would be decide the crucial issue establishing the the opportunity to present their political fully depreciated.At this point,a purchase rate base for the sewer and water utility arguments.They hired legal counsel who option could be exercised. provided for in the buyer's negotiated filed repeated opposition arguments creat- Opponents of the sale also concentrat- agreement with the City. The APUC ing a firestorm that led to inaction at both ed their efforts before the APUC where Commissioners decided to postpone the regulatory agencies. they had been granted intervenor status.A rate base issue until the applicant filed a Due to a contractual termination date bitter five-week hearing process began on full rate case,expected in about three years. of October 7, 1997, the applicants feared May 5,1997.After listening to arguments This omission became critical as the dos- fiuther delays could jeopardize the sale. from over 15 witnesses covering political, ing of sale contracts negotiated by the City The City and FSW enlisted the support of constitutional and operational issues, the and FSW were conditioned on the estab- the Alaska Congressional Delegation to APUC finally issued an order on lishment of a guaranteed rate base.Failure encourage EPA officials to take the City's September 29 approving the application of the Commission to decide this issue application seriously and act in a timely for privatization of sewer and water.This now gave the buyers an option to with- manner. Following the guidelines of order provided the final approval necessary draw—a decision that would have October 7, 1996 Voters of Fairbanks March 1996 approve the package sale 1992 Resolution 3639 passed of the City's utilities by a by Fairbanks City Council 54 to 46 percent margin. Blueprint for privatization specifying that all utilities be approved under George Bush sold as a group.Only one proposal as Executive Order 12803. submitted by May 15 deadline. Now 0000000 January 1, 1996 December 7, 1996 Telecommunications Act The City and buyers submit of 1996—Profits from City's application to the EPA for telephone utility stifled. selling publicly funded facilities. June 1996 They encourage EPA to prepare Assets of utilities dividedguidelines for Executive Public discussion begins. Order 12803. 22 WATER Engineering&Management•APRIL 1999 PRIVATIZATION doomed the entire sale. FSW quickly water and sewer utility that served the It is now implementing its capital projects applied to the APUC for reconsideration. area's entire population.Using the admin- plan designed to solve the problems inher- This was denied on October 2,1997. istration of its other acquired utility, ited from the former city owned utilities. Facing the negotiated drop dead" College Utilities Corporation (CUC), The finalization of the privatization deadline just days away(when any party to steps were taken to immediately expand process(of not only the wastewater utih- 4 the transaction could withdraw),FSW was CUC staff, computer capabilities and ty but of the other utilities owned by the faced with a critical decision.Since financ- administrative offices to run the former City of Fairbanks) was clearly in the ing and sale agreements called for the guar- city utility renamed Golden Heart public interest and of paramount impor- anteed rate base, FSW asked the other Utilities,Inc. tance to the City. Considering the eco- buyers and the City for a time extension to In order to fully utilize valuable nomic realities of the utility systems,the consider their options.A meeting was held human resources and share allocated new competitive pressures and the ineffi- three days before the final closing deadline. expenses, FSW created Utility Services cient nature of government operation, For their own reasons,the other purchasers of Alaska (USA). Utility Services of the City of Fairbanks had no reasonable (PTI Communications and Golden Valley Alaska provides billing, payroll, engi- alternative but to privatize its utilities.Its Electric Association) refused to extend neering and management services under citizens and two government regulatory closing beyond the following Monday.Not one roof to both Golden Heart Utilities agencies agreed. closing by that date would have derailed and College Utilities Corporation. Ten years under study,two years under the sale of all three utilities. College Utilities Corporation services an public scrutiny in a bitterly contested FSW was faced with two choices. area adjacent to the Fairbanks city limits. process,it came down to two days to open Either accept the APUC's decision and By sharing the administrative costs of its for business.On October 7,1997,the last agree to be open for business in a matter of two regulated utilities,important opera- day allowed under a self-imposed contract a few days or terminate the sale process. tional dollars are saved. deadline,the City of Fairbanks transferred The latter choice would have caused the A few months into operation, with its utilities to three buyers. City considerable financial distress and Utility Services of Alaska completing sev- possible insolvency. After lengthy meet- eral payrolls and billings for both utilities, About the Author: Bill Gordon is vice-president of Utility Services of ings,all parties agreed to close. it has expanded and reprogrammed its Alaska,Inc.,Fairbanks,Alaska. However,there was still plenty of work computer system to send out bills for near- to be done.Unlike the other buyers,FSW ly 8,000 meters and has moved its admin- For more information on this subject, had no in-place administration to operate a istration into new corporate headquarters. circle 858 on the reader service card. May 5, 1997 October 5, 1997 A five-week hearing process takes place between the City and APUC Reconsideration denied by APUC. (state regulatory agency)on approving FSW still goes forward with the deal. the application for privatization of sewer and water. September 29, 1997 APUC issues order approving the sale of all three utilities.APUC postpones rate base issue for three years. June/July 1997 October 7, 1997 EPA approves transfer of the City of Fairbanks transfers federally funded wastewater utilities to three buyers. treatment facility with a lease-to-buy provision. October 2, 1997 Since sale to FSW was contingent on a guaranteed rate base, FSW quickly applies to APUC for rate reconsideration REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM Portland Metropolitan Area. CON =OPT11 'N1 March 18, 1999 P;\111TICIPANTS Senator Gary George, Chair C ily of 13cavertcm Senator Thomas Wilde,Vice-Chair C111111\1 I161 Holyd Senate Agriculture &Natural Resources Committee State Capitol l l,�rl:ama� l�i,cr \�itcr Salem, OR 97310 a,ra=:,;- ,.iter I)i:trCt Cit' of Fairview Cih• o( FoacsE 6r, ve Dear Senators George and Wilde: Cite The Regional Water Providers Consortium of the Portland Metropolitan Area Cil • of 61-e=l1.1m is a voluntary collaborative organization of 26 cites and municipal districts Cit, of 1014"'(, from Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties, and Metro. The Consortium was formed in late 1996 to coordinate implementation of a long- Cih range regional water supply plan, and to consider regional water resource NI(Ar) issues. The 27 member Consortium Board consists of one elected official l'i!r „( �lilnaiil ie from the governing body of each member agency. A high priority in the Regional Water Supply Plan for the Portland Metropolitan Area is to protect and enhance the quality and quantity of current I)i�trirt and future water sources. On December 2, 1998, a quorum of the Consortium Cil, �( I rllniul Board voted to"support the concept of a pesticide tracking system to provide \;,IIS R��atl an accurate assessment of the types and quantities of pesticides used in the \\';,lcr I)iaricl State of Oregon." (The vote was 12 in favor and 4 against the motion.) RJ,J) \�ilrr I)istria At a subsequent meeting on March 3, 1999, 19 Consortium Board members 1:,„l,,lvood \\;ter PI 11) voted unanimously to forward this conceptual endorsement to the Oregon 01%, of Legislature. Please consider this endorsement in your deliberations of Cih of Sherwoo(I pesticide tracking proposals (e.g., SB 617). „.11, I'Or( \\;ter Roar,l Thank you very much. C i I y o Tiord t►h ( liialaii„ Sincerely, lualalh, \;alley \Talcr \\'VA �Zlop, \Rater Rob Mitchell I)FIrid Chair, Regional Water Providers Consortium Board City of "ilQovville 0111 Of\V00d \'1111& Cc: Senate Agricult ire and Natural Resources Committee Consortium Board and Technical Committee Regional Miter Providers Consortium, 1120 S.W. 5th#601, Portland, Oregon 97204-1926(52i')82?-7528 REGIONAL, WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM Portland Metropolitan Area March 4, 1999 Senator Gordon Smith Representative Earl Blumenauer CONSORTIUM Senator Ron Wyden Representative Peter DeFazio PARTICIPANTS Representative Darlene Hooley City of Beaverton Representative Greg Walden Canby Utility Board Representative David Wu Clackamas River Water Dear Senators and Representatives of Oregon's Delegation: Damascus Water District City of Fairview The Board of the Portland Regional Water Providers Consortium would like to take this opportunity to let you know of our support for enlisting federal financial support City o�Forest Grove in recovering salmon and steelhead trout in Oregon. The Board is made up of elected City of Gladstone officials from 26 cities and water districts in the Portland metropolitan area and Metro. City of Gresham Collectively, the Board represents a constituency of about 1.4 million Oregonians who City of Hillsboro obtain drinking water from Oregon watersheds. City of Lake Oswego Salmon recovery in Oregon will be a massive undertaking requiring the efforts of state Metro agencies, local agencies, water utilities, the business community, watershed councils City of MiIwaukie and the citizenry. This effort ranks in national importance to recovery of the Florida It. Scott Water District Everglades or the Mississippi River after recent floods. Communities up and down Oak Lodge Water the west coast, including those in the Portland metro area, will need federal help to District meet the challenge. City of Portland As you know, the governors of Oregon, Washington, Alaska and California have Powell Valley Road jointly requested $200 million in funding, and the Clinton Administration proposed Water District $100 million in the President's FY 2000 budget. The requested federal funds would Raleigh Water District supplement the state and local resources that have been or will be dedicated to Rockwood Water PUD recovering both the salmon populations and the watersheds on which they depend. City of Sandy Anticipated March 1999 listings of Willamette River salmon populations, in addition City of Sherwood to the 1998 listing of Steelhead in the lower Columbia River, will increase the South Fork Water Board intensity of effort and need to stabilize and recover these species. Federal resources as City of Tigard described in the President's budget are critical to fostering proactive local and state City of Tualatin effort, as well as to reaching a successful recovery outcome. Tualatin Valley Water We urge you to vote in favor of$200 million in federal appropriations to assist in the District salmon recovery effort. West Slope Water District Sincerel , City of Wilsonville City of Wood Village Rob Mitchell, Chair Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Regional Water Providers Consortium, 1120 S.W. 5th#601, Portland, Oregon 97204-1926(503)823-7528 04/16/99 11.28 '&503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0001/ool FROM POFZTLRND WATER EKJFr--PLJ 503 823 6133 1933 34-26 08.41'3 V553 P.02/02 MY OF 1221 SW Fourth Avenue,Room 240 Portland,OR 97204-1998 PORMAND, OREGON Fax t503)823-3596 erlk@c1.partjand-oru--% ,yaw Q—0 COMMISSIONER ERIK SEN www6pordand.orus April 15, 1999 NU. William A,Monahan City Manager 13125 SW Mall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Pa., City ofPortland Water Sales Code Language Dear Bill- T am writing to follow up an your earlier comspond=cc with me,and your telephone conversations With Mike Rosenberger. As You Imaw,the City Aftaracy's office has undertaken a detailed analysis of the City of Portland's authority to sell water Duftide of the City hmits- The conclusion is as imequivoc* an ancwney's opinion can be;namely,the city can sell its wafer with no bmitations- A,flag had btxm raised in The past about Code language that empowered the City to sell"surplus water.' Thai was sem by some as a limiting$Ljjj,.ment However,the review by the anomeys concludes that.it iu,not limiting. Whealhe Cede:and the Cbaxler,and otW legal guidance,are taken together,theconclusion is that the City can sell its water(surplus or not)to customers Outside of the corporate Ifinits. Fvathmmiorq,the City is audioriad to make mcp=ditures uceded to ensure the availability of that waw for sale. In order to demonstrate the City's intention to ensure its customers that tbv*Aourice of svply from,Perthmd is reliable and ccruin,I propose that the cloud of manuinch,gcnev4ea by this language be removed by amending the City Code. Please share this information with your City 12mmoil,to assist Them in 1hidw deliberations about future water supply Sincerely, C!0 115sienicr EI7ZCsten cc: NUe Rosenberger An Equal Opportunity Employer IDD(For Hearin F.5-rwfq-1,1--imen Isim,-qj1-AQAA