12/09/1975 - Packet TIGARD WATER DISTRICT 8841 5. W. COMMERCIAL ST.
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
PHONE (503) 639-1554
December 9, 1975
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
2. VISITORS
3. RESOLUTION TO PAY VOUCHERS
4. RESOLUTION TO ASSUME DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN 850
FEET OF 8-INCH VERSUS 12-INCH PIPE INSTALLATION FOR
SOUTHWEST CHURCH OF CHRIST AND OTHER SINGLE FAMILY
HOME OWNERS LOCATED ON 98TH AVENUE, SUMMERFIELD DRIVE
TO DURHAM ROAD
5. RESOLUTION TO ANNEX 324 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF
122ND AVENUE, SOUTH OF SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD
wrrr 6. DISCUSSION OF METER CONNECTION CHARGES
7. DISCUSSION TO REQUEST VOTER APPROVAL ON SEPTEMBER 21,
1976, TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TOTALING $10
MILLION TO DEVELOP THE WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILSONVILLE
AS A SOURCE OF WATER
8. OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
,wow 1. Resolution to approve minutes of last meeting.
2. Visitors.
3. Resolution to pay vouchers.
4. Resolution to assume difference in cost between 850 feet of 8-inch
versus 12-inch pipe installation for Southwest Church of Christ an
other single family home owners located on 98th Avenue. Summerfield
Drive to Durham Road.
The Southwest Church of Christ intends to participate with other
existing home owners along S. W. 98th Avenue in the construction of a
main to Durham Road. The master plan provides for a 12-inch main to
be installed on this road. This installation, along with a proposed
pipe extension along Durham Road, from 98th to 92nd, will correct the
most deficient part of the distribution system. When completed, an
important circulation loop will be provided, and Tigard High School
will be served from two different directions with significantly better
"fir fire flows.
In the past, the Board has approved paying the difference in cost
between 12-inch and 6-inch main installations for existing single family
dwellings. Approval is recommended in this case.
5. Resolution to annex 324 acres of land located west of 122nd Avenue,
south of Scholls Ferry Road.
A question arose at the last meeting about the district's policy
on annexation of property. A majority of the Board has always favored
a policy of 1007. voluntary participation of the property owners. On
occasion, this was not possible because some property owners would not
agree to annex even though they were being served by the water district.
Accordingly, they were annexed by "resolution" of the Board. It was not
until about 4 years ago when the Boundary Review Commission was formed
that such a method of annexation became legal.
In addition to annexation by resolution, the law provides for
petition methods of annexation, as follows:
a. 107. of registered voters.
b. 1/2 the land owners.
c. Triple majority -- Majority of landowners who own at
least a majority of the land which constitutes at least
a majority of the assessed value.
-1-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
During my 6 years here I have attempted to establish the district's
boundaries so that the water sytem can be designed to serve the potential
service area. Most islands have been absorbed into the district, and all
boundaries, except on the west side, are well-defined. Except for those
customers served in the Metzger Water District, only one patron is being
served out-of-district. Mrs. Leah Zednick is provided water service, but
the Boundary Review Commission will not approve annexation of either her
property or the island north of Bull Mountain of which her property is a
part.
It would be unfortunate to return to the single lot by lot annexa-
tion procedure. A considerable amount of work and effort goes into each
annexation proposal, no matter which method is used. Acquiring signatures
is just a small part of the problem. Someone has to prepare legal descrip-
tions, determine assessed valuations, obtain a list of all owners, complete
questionaires, obtain maps, and finally, appear before the Boundary Review
Commission. For this reason, and the fact that, in most cases, the next
door neighbor will eventually agree to annex, I have favored area annexations.
It reduces the every day workload for administrative personnel. Previously,
almost all new meter applications required a petition to annex the property.
Annexations are now reviewed annually by the Board of Commissioners versus
a monthly basis previously.
Finally, the additional tax base certainly helps in sharing the cost
of bonded indebtedness. Assessed valuation of the district during the past
NNW 8 years is shown as follows:
Year Assessed Valuation
1968-69 $ 61,900,000
1969-70 80,100,000
1970-71 96,700,000
1971-72 111,400,000
1972-73 135,854,000
1973-74 157,037,000
1974-75 194,780,000
1975-76 235,960,000
Some of this increase in valuation is due to inflation, but most is
a result of a vigorous campaign to annex those properties being served or
capable of being served.
The property considered for annexation at this time consists of 324
acres located south of Scholls Ferry Road, west of 122nd Avenue, valued
at $885,700. (See enclosed map). It includes the former Stark airfield.
Mr. Stark's well became polluted and the district is now serving his house
on a temporary basis.
The tally, at this date, shows 13 in favor and 4 against annexation.
-2-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
"""" 6. Discussion of Meter Connection Charges.
At the last meeting the Board requested the submission of a
proposed schedule of single dwelling equivalencies to be used in
determining charges for multiple dwellings or meter installations
larger than 3/4-inch, using as a guideline the equivalencies
established by United Sewerage Agency and Wolf Creek Highway Water
District.
The subject of meter connection charges has been discussed
in past meetings with considerable differences of opinion as to
fairness. Apparently, all retail water purveyors have the same
problem, resulting in a wide variation in costs of meter installa-
tions and connection charges.
In accordance with your request, enclosed with this document
is a report prepared to provide information on the legality, fair-
ness, and appropriateness of meter connection charges.
7. Discussion to request voter approval on September 21, 1976,
to issue General Obligation Bonds totalling $10 million to develop
.,y the Willamette River at Wilsonville as a source of water.
A bond election for $1.7 million has been approved for May 25,
1976, to construct a 10-million gallon reservoir and appropriate
transmission mains. This will solve the water storage problems of
the district until about 1990.
I believe the water source bond issue should be on a separate
ballot at a later date. It is recommended that September 21, 1976
be the election date for a water source on the Willamette River.
This will provide a few extra months to finish conducting water
quality and temperature tests and obtaining firm commitments from
other water purveyors on participation. State of Oregon election
dates have been set for May 25, June 29, August 10, September 21,
and November 2, 1976.
At the last meeting the Board requested that I prepare alterna-
tives, and a recommended method and schedule of payments to liquidate
the proposed G.O. Bond issue for development of the Willamette River.
First, it would be appropriate to discuss funding of the $1.7
million bond issue for construction of the terminal reservoir. About
$170,000 additional revenue will be needed annually to handle this
debt. It is proposed that neither the tax rate nor consumer user rates
lbw
be increased for this bond issue. To acquire these funds, possible
sources of revenue are listed as follows:
-3-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
a. Increased meter connection charges. (See below) $ 50,000
b. With voter approval at the bond election, do not
refund or reduce the existing consumer rates,
although it appears Lake Oswego will lose the
lawsuit and will be obligated to negotiate with
TWD on the wholesale rate of water 30,000
c. In 1979-80, the bond issue of 1959 will be fully
paid off 12,000
d. Increased revenue from volume water sales 24,000
e. Increased tax revenue due to increased assessed
valuation of real property 18,000
f. Reduction in pipe replacement and extension
program 36,000
Total: $iLla(�
Meter connection charges will be increased on January 1, 1976.
Approximately $25,000 additional revenue will be generated from this
source. Based upon the study on meter charges contained herein it
is proposed that meter connection fees be increased again on July 1,
New1976, to include Portland's system development charge, as follows:
Jan. 1, 1976 Proposed
Size of Meter Charge Charge* % Increase
5/8" x 3/4" $ 450 $ 500 117.
1" 550 800 45%
111" 1,200 2,000 677.
2" 1,400 3,000 1147.
3" 3,000 6,000 100%
4" 5,000 10,000 100%
6" 6,000 18,000 200%
8" 7,000 28,000 300%
* The total multiple of flow rate is not used to the maximum extent
because there is some advantage to the water district in servicing
only one large meter versus many smaller meters.
Additional funds would be generated as follows: (based upon
meter installations this past year).
impy
Meter Size Number Increased cost Total Revenue
5/8"x 3/4" 221 $50 $ 11,050
1" 15 250 3,750
l " 3 800 2,400
2" 2 1,600 3,200
3" 1 3,000 3,000
Total: $ 23,400
-4-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
*war During the normal budgeting process, commencing in April 1976,
the district's financial needs can be examined in more detail. It
does appear, at this time, that the bonded indebtedness for the $1.7
million can be funded without either a tax rate or consumer rate
increase. This will be an important point in selling the program to
the public.
The bonded indebtedness for development of the Willamette River
is a different story. The SUR study of July 15, 1975 indicated that
$8.23 million, based on 1974 dollars, would be necessary to develop
this source of water for the three entities of Wilsonville, Tualatin,
and Tigard Water District. For planning purposes, a figure of $10
million can be used.
Metzger Water District has expressed some interest in this
source of water. If they are included, additional facilities will
be necessary, and an estimated cost of $13 million will be required.
The 1st National Bank has provided some proposed maturity
schedules for $6.6 million and $10.6 million bond issues at 6.57. and
7.07. interest. (See enclosed documents).
Any participation by TWD will require substantial increases in
both the tax rate and consumer user rates. This will be particularly
critical during the first few years during the period of construction.
Water will still have to be purchased from either Lake Oswego or Port-
land, but payments will have to be made on the bonded indebtedness at
the same time.
The Boundary Review Commission has stated that they will not
accept the formation of another layer of government to develop the
Willamette River. Therefore, such a venture with other participants
would have to be in some form of a partnership. An executive board,
with representation from each entity, based on dollar investment,
might be one way to organize and govern operations of the treatment
plant.
Of course, the question arises as to "fair" share of the total
cost of the project. As a start, I have made some computations using
the eight different combinations of possible participants: Tigard,
Metzger, Tualatin, and Wilsonville.
Equal weight was given to the following potential sources of
revenue as of July 1, 1975:
a. Assessed valuation
b. Water consumption
c. Meter connections
Now' It is emphasized that exact participation will have to be
negotiated by all parties and this is not intended to be the final
solution.
-5-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
Combinations of participants.
Cost of Facility
(1) Tigard, Metzger, Tualatin, Wilsonville $13 million
(2) Tigard, Metzger, Tualatin $13 million
(3) Tigard, Metzger, Wilsonville $13 million
(4) Tigard, Metzger $13 million
(5) Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville $10 million
(6) Tigard, Tualatin $10 million
(7) Tigard, Wilsonville $10 million
(8) Tigard $10 million
Percentage Amount Members on Executive Board
(1) Tigard 45% $ 5.85 million 3
Metzger 407. 5.20 million 2
Tualatin 10% 1.30 million 1
Wilsonville 57. 0.65 million 1
11.3.4.9 idelliza Z
(2) Tigard 48% $ 6.24 million 4
Metzger 417 5.33 million 3
Tualatin 11% 1.43 million 1
1 (Independent)
122L S13.00 million i
(3) Tigard 50% $ 6.50 million 4
Metzger 457. 5.85 million 3
Wilsonville 5% 0.65 million 1
1 (Independent)
1221 S13.00 million 2
(4) Tigard 55% $ 7.15 million 4
Metzger 45% 5.85 million 3
10� 113.QOJaik on z
(5) Tigard 75,' $ 7.50 million 4
Tualatin 17%. 1.70 million 2
Wilsonville 8% 0.80 million 1
1221 510.00 million al
(6) Tigard 807. $ 8.00 million 4
Tualatin 20% 2.00 million 1
1907 $1,0..00 million. I
(7) Tigard 90% $ 9.0 million 4
Wilsonville 10% 1.0 million 1
$10.00 mil1im 5.
�..... (8) Tigard 1007 A.1.49.9...111.149.a -
-6-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
viimow
Utilizing the three criteria, as noted, and listing all 8
different possibilities of participants: Wilsonville, Tualatin,
Tigard, and Metzger, the minimum and maximum amounts for each
entity for a bond measure would be as follows: (Detailed compu-
tations are attached separately at the conclusion of this report).
Minimum Maximum
Tigard $5.85 miliion $10.00 million
Metzger 5.20 million 5.85 million
Tualatin 1.30 million 2.00 million
Wilsonville 0.65 million 1.00 million
It would appear that with the information presented, repre-
sentatives from the entities involved could initiate discussions
on participation.
New
8. Other Business.
9. Annual cost of Scoggin Dam water.
The first bill from the U. S. Department of Interior has been
received. The estimated "Operation and Maintenance" charges for
calendar year 1976 are $2,255 of which $1,127.50 is due now.
10. Water pumped from wells, calendar year 1975.
Actually pumped
Month Actual *Actual Allocation/Month in prior years:
1975 Cubic Feet Acre-feet Acre-feet Acre-feet
Jan 3,565,520 81.9 88 1970: 1,616
Feb 3,759,740 85.6 88 1971: 1,418
Mar 3,728,200 85.6 88 1972: 1,501
Apr 3,428,960 78.7 88 1973: 1,269
May 3,418,840 78.5 88 1974: 924
Jun 3,265,960 75.0 88
%ow- Jul 3,563,590 81.8 88
Aug 3,365,440 77.2 88
Sep 3,335,700 76.6 88
Oct 3,165,790 72.7 88
Nov 3,081,440 70.7 88
37,679,180 865.0 968
* 1 acre-foot = 43,560 cubic feet
-7-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
vimme
11. Unmetered water.
Pumped *Purchased Total Sold Loss
Month & Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. Loss
Year x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 7.
Nov 1975 3,081 2,950 (L.O. ) 6,031 6,567 (-536) 0'%**
None (Port)
Cumulative
Totals
FY 1975-6:
16,512 28,772 45,284 45,688 (-404) 07**
* 48.9% of water consumed during November 1975 was purchased from Lake
Oswego.
63.67. of water consumed during FY 1975-76 was purchased from either
Lake Oswego or Portland.
** Actual loss shows a negative percentage because consumption is
computed for 14 the patrons for a 2-month period.
'""` Summary of past years: Losses: FY 1972-3: 18.3%
FY 1973-4: 11.1%
FY 1974-5: 16.2%
Percentage of Lake Oswego water
purchased in prior years: FY 1973-4: 52%
FY 1974-5: 607.
12. Percentage of Bull Run water purchased for computing amount due for
system development charge.
Month d Well Lake Oswego Portland Total %
Year Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. Bull Run
Oct 1975 3,165,790 4,140,600 100 7,306,490 0.001367.
Nov 1975 3,081,440 2,949,600 300 6,031,340 0.004977.
1(441: 6.247.230 7.090,Z90 40
134 X37.830 0.002
13. Work accomplished during November 1975.
a. TWD installed 1,000 feet of 12" D.I. pipe + 2 fire hydrants
along S. W. Pacific Highway (east side), Garrett to Walnut Place, to
replace 6" 0. D. steel pipe. (Pipe replacement).
b. TWD installed 1080 feet of 12" D.I. pipe + 1 fire hydrant
along S. W. Pacific Highway (west side), Park to Watkins, to replace
6" O.D. steel pipe. (Pipe replacement).
c. Private contractor installed 670 feet of 6" D.I. pipe + 1
fire hydrant for development of 9 houses along S. W. Tippitt Place,
near 121st Avenue and Walnut Street, for J. A. Paterson. (Developers).
d. TWD installed 15 meters. (4547 - 4533). District also serves
113 meters in Metzger Water District. Total: 4660.
-8-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
14. Work to be accomplished during remainder of fiscal year 1975-6.
December 1975:
a. Private contractor install 480 feet of 8" D.I. pipe + 3
fire hydrants for Gevurtz Furniture Company on S. W. Bonita Road,
near 1-5 freeway. (Developer's).
b. TWD install fire hydrants as follows:
(1) 150th Avenue, 1000 feet south of Bull Mt. Road.
(2) Hill View and 103rd Avenue. (S.E. corner)
(3) James St. and Howard Drive. (S.W. corner)
(4) 119th and No. Dakota. (N.E. corner)(6" f.h.)
(5) 88th and Pinebrook. (N.E. corner)
January 1976:
a. TWD install 1050 feet of 12" D.I. pipe and 200 feet of
8" D.I. pipe + 2 fire hydrants along S. W. Pacific Highway (east
side), Walnut Street to Main Street, to replace 6" 0.D. steel pipe.
(Pipe replacement).
February 19761
a. TWD install 850 feet of 12" D.I. + 1 fire hydrant along
lope
S. W. 98th Avenue, Summerfield Drive to Durham Road, for Southwest
Church of Christ. (Developer's).
b. TWD install 650 feet of 6" D.I. + 2 fire hydrants for circu-
lation loop and pipe extension to serve multiple family dwellings in
Englewood development at Scholls Ferry Road and Springwood Drive for
Ryan Development Company. (Developer's).
March 1976:
a. TWD install 1850 feet of 8" D. I. pipe, 640 feet of 6" D.I.
pipe, + 4 fire hydrants along S. W. James and Marion Streets, between
121st and 124th Avenues, to replace 4" 0.D. steel pipe. (Pipe replacement).
April 1976:
a. TWD install 550 feet of 8" D.I. pipe along S. W. Pacific Hwy,
McKenzie to Johnson St. , to complete circulation loop. (Pipe extension).
b. TWD install 1200 feet of 8" D.I. pipe + 1 fire hydrant on S. W.
113th Avenue, south of Durham Road, to complete circulation loop.
(Developer's and pipe extension).
May 1976:
Nwe
a. TWD install fire hydrants as follows:
(1) Burlcrest, Burlheights and Summercrest (Cul de sac)
(2) 121st and Summer. (S. W. corner)
(3) 121st and Katherine. (S. E. corner)
(4) 116th and Lynn. (S. W. corner)
(5) Lynn, 118th and 119th. (So. side between TL 135 (S. 136)
June 1976:
a. Inventory and service all equipment. Prepare for hot summer.
-9-
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
Detailed computations.
(1) Tigard. Metzger, Tualatin, Wilsonville
Per assessed valuation:
firpee
Tigard $ 235,960,371 38.63%
Metzger 257,222,990 42.12%
Tualatin 75,556,280 12.37%
Wilsonville 42.013.955 6.88%
$ 610,753,596 100%
Per water consumption:
Tigard 2.01 MGD 50.89%
Metzger 1.36 MGD 34.43%
Tualatin 0.42 MGD 10.63%
Wilsonville 0.16 MGD 4.05%
3.95 MGD 100%
Per meter connections:
Tigard 4,441 47.08%
Metzger 3,932 41.68%
Tualatin 785 8.32%
Wilsonville 275 2.92%
9,433 100%
`ww• Average Percentage:
Tigard 45.53% or 45%
Metzger 39.41% or 40%
Tualatin 10.44% or 10%
Wilsonville 4.62% or 5%
(2) Tigard. Metzger. Tualatin
Per assessed valuations
Tigard $ 235,960,371 41.49%
Metzger 257,222,990 45.23%
Tualatin 75,556,280 13.28%
$ 568,739,641 100%
Per water consumption:
Tigard 2.01 MGD 53.047
Metzger 1.36 MGD 35.88%
Tualatin 0.42 MGD 11.08%
3.79 MGD 100%
Per meter connections:
Tigard 4,441 48.49%
Metzger 3,932 42.94%
Tualatin 785 8.57%
9,158 100%
Average Percentages
Tigard 47.67% or t48%
/ua����n 4LU.9 SI til
A-1
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
Detailed computations (continued).
.�,,,.. (3) Tigard, Metzger, and Wilsonville
Per assessed valuation:
Tigard $ 235,960,371 44.09%
Metzger 257,222,990 48.06%
Wilsonville 42,013,955 7.85%
$ 535,197,316 100%
Per water consumption:
Tigard 2.01 MGD 56.94%
Metzger 1.36 MGD 38.53%
Wilsonville 0.16 MGD 4.53%
3.53 MGD 100%
Per meter connections:
Tigard 4,441 51.35%
Metzger 3,932 45.47%
Wilsonville 275 3.18%
8,648 1007.
Average Percentage:
Tigard 50.797. or 507.
Metzger 44.027. or 457.
Wilsonville 5.19% or 5%
(4) Tigard, Metzger
Per assessed valuation:
Tigard $ 235,960,371 47.84%
Metzger 257,222,990 52.167,
$ 493,183,361 100%
Per water consumption:
Tigard 2.01 MGD 59.64%
Metzger 1.36 MGD 40.36%
3.37 MGD 100%
Nor Per meter connections:
Tigard 4,441 53.04%
Metzger 3,932 46.96%
8,373 100%
Average Percentages
Tigard 53.5% or 55%
Metzger 46.5% or 457.
A-2
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
Detailed computations (continued).
(5) Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville
Per assessed valuation:
Tigard $ 235,960,371 66.74%
Tualatin 75,556,280 21.37%
Wilsonville 42,013,955 11.89%
$ 353,530,606 100%
Per water consumption:
Tigard 2.01 MGD 77.61%
Tualatin 0.42 MGD 16.22%
Wilsonville 0.16 MGD 6.17%
2.59 MGD 100%
Per meter connections:
Tigard 4,441 80.737.
Tualatin 785 14.27%
Wilsonville 275 5.00%
"+rr►
5,501 100%
Average Percentage:
Tigard 75.03% or 75%
Tualatin 17.29% or 17%
Wilsonville 7.68% or 8%
(6) Tigard, Tualatin
Per assessed valuation:
Tigard $ 235,960,371 75.757.
Tualatin 75,556,280 24.25%
$ 311,516,651 100%
Per water consumption:
Tigard 2.01 MGD 82.7%
Tualatin 0.42 MGD 17.3%
°err" 2.43 MGD 100%
Per meter connections:
Tigard 4,441 84.98%
Tualatin 785 15.02%
5,226 1007.
Average Percentage:
Tigard 81.14% or 80%
Tualatin 18.86% or 20%
A-3
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (Continued)
wr..,. Detailed computations (continued).
(7) Tigard, Wilsonville
Per assessed valuation:
Tigard $ 235,960,371 84.89%
Wilsonville 42,013,955 15.11%
$ 277,974,326 100%
Per water consumption:
Tigard 2.01 MGD 92.63%
Wilsonville 0.16 MGD 7.37%
2.17 MGD 100%
Per meter connections:
Tigard 4,441 94.17%
Wilsonville 275 5.837.
4,716 100%
var
Average Percentage:
Tigard 90.56% or 907.
Wilsonville 9.44% or 107.
(8) Tigard
Tigard 100%
.9
A-4
METER CONNECTION CHARGES
`"" December 2 , 1975
Everyone would agree that new meter connections impose an addi-
tional load upon the water system. This added burden eventually results
in the need for increased reservoir capacity, larger transmission mains,
more pump stations, additional treatment plant facilities, etc. However,
the entire burden cannot be placed upon new connections because part of
the higher water consumption is due to increased water use by individuals
already on the system.
A municipal water system requires "x" number of dollars to operate
and remain solvent. Obviously, meter connection charges must bear a
part of the burden. It is a matter of opinion and judgment of the govern-
ing body to determine how much of the total cost of the system should be
borne by meter connection charges.
Federal and State laws prescribe, and the courts have ruled, that
charges must be reasonable, and not arbitrary, capricious, or discrimina-
vow
tory.
Most water purveyors utilize meters to determine the quantity of
water consumed. Meters are rated by safe operating capacity (gallons
per minute) as shown below:
Size of Meter Safe Operating Capacity
5/8" x 3/4" (standard) 20 GPM
1" 50 GPM
111" 100 GPM
2" 160 GPM
3" 320 GPM
4" 500 GPM
6" 1000 GPM
8" 1600 GPM
Nur
-1-
METER CONNECTION CHARGES (Continued)
Thus, if one knows the anticipated capacity of a potential user,
a meter can be sized properly. It would seem to be a relatively simple
task to determine the number and types of water fixture units and convert
those figures to flow rate (gallons per minute) which, in turn, reflects
the correct meter size.
The validity of this concept will be discussed later, but, first,
a review of a few other methods of determining meter connection charges
will be presented.
a. Charges per dwelling unit.
One of the most common methods of charging for meter connections is
based upon the number of "dwelling units". For examples a 100-unit
apartment, utilizing one large meter, should be charged 100 times some
arbitrary unit dollar amount. This is often compared to the single
Aar family dwelling. It is an effort to offset the apparent inequity in
charges because 100 individual meters were not installed. The "per
unit" charge is supposed to correct this deficiency.
Many persons believe that apartment owners do not pay a high enough
proportion of the total cost of the water system. Therefore, a charge
"per unit" is considered justified.
The courts have ruled that such charges are arbitrary and capricious.
(See attached Circuit Court of Oregon case, dated March 15, 1973, Franklin
Service Corporation vs Progress Water District). In my judgment, the
charges are also discriminatory. Why does a water purveyor single out
only the multiple dwelling owner?
One must realize that the construction of an apartment house is a
commercial venture, no different from a bank, shopping center, car wash,
hospital, etc.
-2-
METER CONNECTION CHARGES (Continued)
To initiate or continue utilizing this method to gain additional
revenue, solely at the expense of the apartment owner, is obviously
illegal. In this regard, I am firmly convinced that that portion of
Portland's system development charge, based upon a "per unit" schedule
is clearly illegal and can be challenged in court.
b. Charges per equivalent dwelling unit.
Another method of computing charges for meter connections is based
on "equivalent dwelling units". It is an attempt to equate large water
consumers to a number of single family dwellings. This method is cer-
tainly an improvement upon the "per dwelling unit" charge which is
applicable only to apartment owners. It has been challenged in court
and held to be valid. (See attached Circuit Court of Oregon case,
dated October 28, 1974, Dave Christensen Inc. , vs Wolf Creek Highway
Water District).
The objection to this method is the apparent injustice in establish-
ing criteria for "equivalent dwelling units". For example: Wolf Creek's
schedule equates 2.5 hospital beds or 25 pews in a church to 1 single
family dwelling. This is an opinion and certainly there are no facts to
support this conclusion. The equivalent dwelling units are arbitrarily
established and may or may not have a bearing on potential water demand.
This causes a purchaser of a meter to question the validity of the charges.
While Wolf Creek's schedule was held to be justified in court, I believe
there is a better way to obtain fairness in meter connection charges, but,
at the same time, receive a just monetary return for the demand placed
upon the water system.
In the case of the United Sewerage Agency, sewer water is not metered,
therefore, their system of charges based upon "equivalent dwelling units"
appears to be their only solution and fully justifiable. They also use a
schedule of water fixture units (equivalents) for commercial buildings and
laundromats. (Enclosed are copies of the schedules and charges for U.S.A.
and Wolf Creek Highway Water District).
-3-
METER CONNECTION CHARGES (Continued)
r..
c. Charges per equivalent fixture units.
Meter installations must bear a fair share of the total financial
burden of the water system. It would appear that the relative cost of
a meter installation should be based upon how much the system is taxed
by that particular meter connection. Mechanical means (the meter) are
available to measure accurately the amount of that potential demand upon
the system. Knowing the anticipated capacity (gallons per minute), the
correct meter size can easily be determined. Therefore, it would seem
logical that meter size should dictate the charge for a meter connection.
For example: a 2-inch meter has a flow rate capacity of 8 times that of
a standard 5/8" x 3/4" meter. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to
charge 8 times the cost of a standard meter installation. The potential
flow rate taxes the system, ,not the number of apartments or equivalent
dwelling units.
NNW
Applying the multiple factors based on flow rate of the standard
meter would result in meter charges as shown below: (Also shown as a
comparison are Portland's per unit charges for multiple dwellings).
Safe Multiple Potential *Number Portland's
Size Operating of Standard Fair Present of Apt per Unit
of Meter Capacity Meter Charges Charges Units Charge
5/8"x3/4" 20 GPM 1 $ 450 $ 450 1
1" 50 GPM 21 1,125 550 2-4 $400 - $600
11/2" 100 GPM 5 2,250 1,200 5-15 750 - 2,250
2" 160 GPM 8 3,600 1,400 16-36 2,400 - 5,400
3" 320 GPM 16 7,200 3,000 37-100 5,550 -15,000
4" 500 GPM 25 11,250 5,000 101- --15,150 - ----
6" 1000 GPM 50 22,500 6,000 ---
8" 1600 GPM 80 36,000 7,000 ---
* Number of units is based upon the peak instantaneous residential demands
q""'" as prescribed by the Oregon State Health Division.
-4-
METER CONNECTION CHARGES (Continued)
The merit of this schedule versus the others discussed is the
fact that charges for meters are based on potential demand upon the
system which can be accurately computed and measured. Engineering
data are available to verify the potential water consumption. Meters
can be flow tested for accuracy and reliability if a doubt should
occur.
The paramount issue here is to determine the correct meter size
which is dependent upon the flow rate (gallons per minute) required
by the water facilities located within a building. Again, engineers
(American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME) have come to the
rescue with a schedule of "equivalent fixture units". Attached is a
copy of such a schedule based upon "fixture units". For example:
a private bathtub uses 2 "fixture units"; a water closet uses 3
"fixture units", etc. The sum of the number of fixture units of a
building is used in establishing the demand (gallons per minute)
upon the system as shown on Graphs I and II. Simply stated, the
procedure is as follows:
a. Calculate the total number of (water) fixture units.
b. Extract from the graph the demand (gallons per minute).
c. The "gallons per minute" dictate the meter size.
In conclusion, most would agree that the potential large users,
including apartment owners, are not paying their proportionate fair
share of the financial burden. This can be corrected by charging
substantially higher amounts to all potential users for the connection
of the larger meters. In this manner, apartment owners and other
types of commercial enterprises who are capable of consuming large
volumes of water are all charged a like amount, based solely on
potential water demand.
%I//
December 2, 1975 Robert E. Santee
No, Administrator/Engineer
Tigard Water District
-5-