City Council Packet - 02/16/1993
( V i 1 7 OF 1 iv^nir - -
r OREGON
AGENDA
a
~t'aC Y~C ~C 7~f 7~'1~ 9k * 7ti
5:30 COUNCIL WIT UL -1101Z EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE TOM HALL
CONFERENCE ROOM
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council w1.11 go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues.
(Time noted below is estimated.)
7:00 p.m. COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT THE STUDY MEETING IN THE TOWN HALL
3. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Mayor & Council)
4. REVIEW I-5/217 INTERSECTION (City Engineer)
5. REVIEW AND DISCUSS UNDERGROUND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS (City Engineer)
6. DISCUSS UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY GOVERNANCE STUDY (City Administrator)
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE (City Administrator)
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADJOURNMENT
n:\recorder\cca\cca0216.93
COUNCIL, AGENDA - FEBRUARY 16, 1993 - PACE 1
1
Council Agenda Item 3
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1993
• Meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy
Fessler, Wendi Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff
Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker,
Associate Planner; Charles Corrigan, Legal Counsel; Tim Ramis,
Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy
Wooley, City Engineer.
STUDY MEETING
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into
Executive Session at 5:40 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, reams
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. '
Executive Session adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
3. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Mayor & Council)
• Councilor Fessler reported on the recent Metropolitan
Advisory Committee (MPAC) meeting. Not all appointments
to this Committee have been completed, so an official
meeting could not be held.
Metro will ask the State Legislature to take up the issue
of making the dues mandatory from local governments.
• Meeting Announcements:
Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS) - next
meeting scheduled for Thursday, 2/18; Councilor Fessler
and City Administrator Reilly will attend.
99W Task Force - next meeting on Thursday, 2/18; Mayor
Edwards and Councilor Hawley will attend.
• Main Street Meeting:
Councilor Fessler distributed information on a meeting
for "an open discussion to create and implement a plan
for the start of the revitalization of Main Street
Tigard." A sum of $50,000 has been set aside in the City
budget this fiscal year for a downtown improvement
project.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1993 - PAGE 1
Council discussed some of their ideas and preferences
with regard to the tvne of nroi eet thev wou ] d i lcp t-c, SAO
selected. There was concern with a project which would
be for aesthetics only (i.e., hanging baskets). Also of
concern was a project selected which would require
ongoing maintenance in future years. Councilor Scl7wartz
said he heard of a program in another City where
interest-free loans were provided for repainting
buildings in an area this, or something similar, might
be a good idea to pursue.
4. REVIEW I-5/217 INTERSECTION (City Engineer)
City Engineer and Council discussed the current interchange
proposal. The project is divided into two phases. The first
phase is scheduled for construction in 1994; phase two will
probably not be constructed for several years.
Council consensus was to ask the State to install landscape
islands on the new portion of 68th Parkway. Council noted
this is a entry way to the Triangle area.
5. REVIEW AND DISCUSS UNDERGROUND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS (City
Engineer)
City Engineer summarized this agenda item. He outlined the
interim policy on Undergrounding of Utilities. (A copy of
this policy is filed with the March 10, 1993, Council packet,
Agenda Item 3.3b.)
City Engineer, Council and Legal Counsel discussed this issue.
There was conversation on how to work towards undergrounding
utilities throughout the City when the timing does not work
for immediate installation (i.e., the property to be developed
would only be required to underground a short distance; thus,
it be more practical and preferred by PGE to underground when
there was a longer section). Council agreed that the policy
of working toward undergrounding utilities was still
important. There was discussion on how to fund the
undergrounded utilities when there would be a delay before
installation. Under the interim policy, a fee-in-lieu of
conversion is collected.
City Engineer will develop a policy for Council review.
Interested parties will be allowed to testify.
6. DISCUSS UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) GOVERNANCE STUDY (City
Administrator)
The City Administrator and Council reviewed the draft Request
For Proposals to conduct a feasibility study of organizational
options for the Unified Sewerage Agency.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1993 - PAGE 2
Regarding the scope of work, Tigard would like to see added as
consideration the option of a 190 organization, whereby the
_ - - ~••I A o„i-pr into a series of
%oun y 0111LA %:i ~ I1~ . -
intergovernmental agreements establishing the organization. - M
With respect to the action to look at merger with the Tualatin
Valley Water District, Tigard does not see the merit of
considering a merger with a single water district. However,
Tigard favors the study's consideration of an option whereby
water resources for the County are consolidated.
Council and Administrator discussed the issue further
including their concerns about the cost of such a study; City
Administrator will respond to USA outlining Tigard's opinion.
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWIUPDATE
City Attorney Ramis reviewed several areas (practices) of City
of Tigard with regard to the following:
• Purpose of a "de novo" appeal (de novo means "trying
anew"). City Council, on appeal of a Planning Commission
decision, generally allows additional testimony and
evidence. This can cause concern at the Planning
Commission level because they sometimes ask why they hold
a hearing if there is a full second hearing at City
Council. Sometimes concern is expressed that one side of
an appeal may "save up" arguments for the City Council.
This latter concern, advised Mr. Ramis, does not usually
occur because most applicants do not want to take a
chance that their full argument may not be considered.
There was additional discussion on the hearing elements
such as rebuttal and requests to submit written arguments
'f new information is presented.
• Council "salary." There was discussion lead by City
Attorney Ramis on the provision in the Charter which
authorizes setting a salary for City council for meeting
attendance. Council also has the opportunity to apply
for health insurance benefits. It appears that such
remuneration must be reported on a Federal Form 1099.
• There was discussion on health insurance. Councilor Hunt
raised several questions with regard to coverage and
policies governing such coverage. This issue is
currently being researched by the Personnel Division to
determine Council's status and whether the same rules
apply to the Council and employees with regard to signing
up for insurance benefits (as participants with the
League of Oregon Cities).
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1993 - PAGE 3
- ..s i...ncy F-4- ra_ ri ew-d the distinctions between a
quasi-judicial and legislative hearing.
• City Attorney Ramis reviewed ex parte contacts with the
Council noting the importance of reporting such contacts
during a quasi-judicial hearing. He also advised that
site visits were considered ex parte contacts; site
visits must be reported and a Council member should
report what he or she viewed. Asking questions of staff
is not considered to be an ex parte contact.
• City Attorney Ramis reviewed the process for amending the
Charter. The Council has the right to develop Charter
amendments and submit those to the voters. The Council
will be reviewing the Charter to determine areas where
they recommend changes to the voters in the next year.
• City Attorney Ramis reviewed the public meeting laws.
Public meeting laws must be followed when two or more
members of the Council meet to discuss recommendations
which will be referred to the whole Council. If the
Council attends a social event, then this does not
trigger the public meeting law requirements. However,
the Council cannot discuss or deliberate City issues.
There was discussion on out-of-town Council meetings.
Council may not deliberate on issues in an out-of-town
meeting. City Attorney advised that he would support
Council attending training sessions outside City limits.
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m.
Att st: I / Ca erine Wheatley, City Re rder
Mayor, ty of Tigard
Date:
/Ll~~
c=0216. 93
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1993 - PAGE 4
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal TT 7449
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 NOtICe
BEAVERTON. OHFUON 910/!
Legal NQtice Advertising a3
• f. ❑ Toarshoc
y' .
City of Tigard k d
• PO Box 23397 Cll"Y OfTfGAKU • ❑ Duplicate
• Tigard, Or 97223 • N zWW
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )sa. ~V p:°. cw g o~~_'
I. Judith Kohler
who t..:, ~
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I $rr~tpo AdvertisingM
o~ dZI
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard 'limes g 1
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 1.
jc0
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the °
aforesaidun county and state; that the ~,5q
y Cocil Study Meeting
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ~~y ~O
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and r q p'~
consecutive in the following issues: H 8
Febrtugy 11, 1993 9
m ~
Subscribed and sworn t before me this 11th day of February 1993
i
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT w / _
a3~~`3✓
NMI&= RETURN
®I
oil
1
T
4 '
MAIN
STREET
.c en
~r -sn ~as~ ss r~} as y''= ns _ s S = x{
= c r - a a ==.f - _ .s. =z 1aa &an' ?ieTT
X38 _s a= ~:__.r=_=
Fi..s°~ z -r=
a_ iv
a~
A sum of #50,000 have been designated by the Tigard City Council for a start at defining
and re-vitalizing the Main Steet area of downtown Tigard.
WHO SHOULD ATTEND: Meinstreet Merchants and Property Owners - Public Welcome
WHERE: Cafe Allegro on Mein Street in downtown Tigard (Main and Tigard Streets)
WHEN: Thursday February 18th. at 7 AM in the morning
Donuts Juice and Coffee will be served
The meeting will be co-chaired by Councilor Jody Fessler and City Administrator Pat Reilly
Bring your ideas and wish lists on how Vou think the x50,000 could be best spent. An open discussion is
welcome. If you cant make it please provide your ideas In writing to the address below. In the next meeting
the feasibility of the ideas will be presented (costs, etc).
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS or COMMENTS CONTACT
Judy Fouler
639-1216
Q.O. Box 23276
Tigard, OR 97281
r
%r pct i
~,~RN ~ iii ~ ~
I#TT~
r
~rlpr •~,,~,,,,1
----R,...a,
_
~•rrall.. ~
R
ib ~
ifs sW A4~
5
QN
W
yq LEGEND
• _
V ®PHASE I OREGON DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
DESIGN HEARING MAP
PHASE a -5 217 / KRUSE WAY IfVTCHGE
■ I @ HUVY
PACIFIC HIG WAY
H
` CLACKAMAS /WASHINGTON COUNTIES
7s9t
FIGURE 5
02/16/93 AGENDA N0. 4
1 OF 1
,.,~,,.u.-.P..~..~ ....F~
-
.
. IFTHIS~ DOCENT IS~LESS c% ~l IIT ~.I'1. I~.I I I 1 I I' `I•T ,Z • .
i LEGIBLE THAN THIS NOTATION ~ 1 I ~ I I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I~~I i I ~ a
. ~ ~ I ~ ~ MARCH
~ IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF ~ L Z 3 4 5 6 7 $ 10 11 1 30 1994 ` : c
THE ORIGINAL DOC[1NENT m_ Wiz.:. _ . - -
---.m.-,~ ~
.
S 8Z LZ 9Z Z Z S Z TZ Z 6I 8I Li 9i i I I i T 6 L 9 Q y S Z Iouue
iui imluu uuim uu uu uu uu ludo i i u luu lull
u iu luu i d u uu uu a mluu oohiu ~
. u~ul uuluu uu6ui i 1 u i
~ . , _ a..._. _ _ _ ~i u~u uu~ i ud u
r. I~u
.
~ - r
r
' ~
_ .
_._._--e
. .._t____..
Council Item No. 6
MEMORANDUM
r
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: February 9, 1993
SUBJECT: USA - Organizational Options
Attached please find the Request for Proposal to conduct a feasibility study of
organizational options for USA. We have been given the opportunity to comment. I ask
Council to authorize me to make the following comments:
Regarding the scope of work - organizational options, I would like to see added
consideration of a 190 organization, whereby the county and cities would enter into a
series of inter-governmental agreements establishing an organization. Also with respect
to this matter, I would encourage modification of the option to look at merger with the
Tualatin Valley Water District. The logic of merging with a single water district escapes
me; however, I think it would be well advised to consider an option whereby water
( resources for the county are consolidated.
The public involvement process is dependant upon a five person sounding board, with
two members from the Washington County Commissioners/USA Board of
Commissioners. I would encourage amending the composition of the group to provide
for only one representative from the County Commissioners/ Board of Commissioners,
and provide for a fifth member being a citizen at large. If appropriate, it might well be that
citizen have some experience as a County Budget Committee or Planning Commission
member. This would offset the experience being brought to the table by the
representative of the USA Advisory Committee.
Finally, it seems to me that the study envisions inclusion of a variety of technical factors
which will remain constant, regardless of organizational structure. The prospect of a very
expensive study concerns me. I would like to encourage USA to establish a process
whereby a preference for organizational configuration is selected earlier. The remainder
of the study could then focus on developing the structure of choice. This approach would
necessitate the development of criteria, which in effect would define what constitutes
effectiveness and efficiency in delivering its services.
PJRAh
attachment
h:\Iog1n\jo\P1r0209•1
~-2 m CO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY
ATJ 9119/.1 \1TA 1/\T I9w1~s ww~.~w~~
- v. v.::v:u:+a.~'sa ~.9,ia~a'••• OJr JL1ViM.~ rlltC THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
1. PURPOSE OF FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) is seeking proposals from
qualified consultants to conduct a feasibility study to assess the
most effective and efficient approach to deliver services to
citizens. The cost effective assessment will include an evaluation
of different organizational options from the current structure of
USA to a merger with the Tualatin Valley Water District. Analysis
of the organizational options will help the USA Board of Directors
in reaching a conclusion about the most efficient and effective
way to deliver services.
2. BACKGROUND
The Unified Sewerage Agency is a county service district that
provides sanitary sewerage and storm water service to a
123-square-mile area within urban Washington County, Oregon and
small portions of Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, Lake Oswego
and Portland. The population served is approximately 330,000.
The Tualatin Valley Water District is located west of the City of
Portland in suburban Washington County. The District is the third
largest water purveyor in the State: it serves two large
unincorporated areas and parts of the cities of Beaverton,
Hillsboro, and Tigard. The district's 1992 total population is
estimated at 128,000 residents.
3. SCOPE OF WORK
A. At this time four organizational options have been identified
for evaluation, including:
* Status quo (USA organized as a special district with its
Board of Directors the same as the Washington County Board
of Commissioners);
* USA as a Department of Washington County (placing USA
under the management of the Washington County
Administrator);
* Retain USA as a special district, but establish a
separately elected Board of Directors which is not the
same as the Washington County Commissioners; and
Nall iffi
Page 2
* Merae USA an(l i-h= Tn~l~4_n
option has two variations, depending on which agency is
merged with the other).
B. The consultant will develop information and conduct analysis
on the relationships between the organizational options and a
variety of issues. The currently identified issue areas are
briefly described below. For each issue area the consultant will mom
be expected to develop a comprehensive inventory and analysis of
the relevant issues, programs or documents for each or the three
principal parties (USA, Washington County and TVWD) and then to
evaluate the impacts each organizational option would have for
each issue area:
i. Impacts of each organizational option on the ability to
effectively manage water resources, including complying with
existing federal, state and local regulations and affecting the
development of future regulations.
Some of the resources interrelationships which should be examined
include:
* Corrosion control programs in the Municipal and Industrial
(M and I) water system and USA's source control programs;
* M and I water conservation and pre-treatment requirements
at the wastewater treatment plants;
* M and I fluoride levels and reuse of treated wastewater;
* Decisions about new water supply for M and I and
availability of water for water quality related flow
augmentation for the Tualatin River;
* Surface water, sanitary, and M and I programs;
* Decisions about new water supply which may require
treatment (e.g. Willamette River) and wastewater treatment
programs for reuse;
* Adjustments to Ph in M and I water and operations and
maintenance costs for the sanitary sewer system;
* Water conservation levels and in-stream flows;
* Decisions about new M and I water and the type and
magnitude of the reuse program for treated wastewater; and
* Water reservoir management for water supply versus water
quality.
Page 3
Some of the laws and regulations whose implications should be
examined include:
* Safe Drinking Water Act
* Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
* Clean Water Act
ME=
* Total Maximum Daily Load and other Department of
Environmental Quality requirements
* Water Rights
* NPDES requirements
* State Health Department requirements
ii. Impacts of each organizational option on financial issues:
* Bond ratings;
* Comprehensive assessment of assets and liabilities
including: cost-effectiveness over the short (1 year),
mid-term (5 years) and long-term (20 years) to each
constituent group separately (Washington County taxpayers,
USA and TVWD ratepayers) and together; and
* User fees and measure 5 property tax limitations
iii. Impacts of each organizational option on administrative,
facility and personnel issues:
* Office buildings;
* Laboratory facilities;
* Maintenance, including pump stations and pipelines;
* Billing;
* Collections;
* Purchasing;
* Fleet;
* Data Processing;
* Telemetry;
* Cross-Connection programs;
* Risk Management;
* Planning; and
* Personnel issues such as: training, benefits, salary and
transition issues for all major types of employees.
iv. Impacts of each organizational option on existing documents
and planning processes such as:
* County Comprehensive Plans
* State Land Use Requirements
* County 2000 Plan
* Contracts between USA, Tualatin Valley Water District,
Washington County cities and the City of Portland
* Water Plan 2050
* Water Management Committee of Washington County (WAMCO)
r report
Page 4
i
* METRO's 2U45 Study
* Willamette River Basin Plan for Water Resources Department
* State laws governing Counties and Special Districts
* Labor contracts
* Joint Water Commission
* Existing legal requirements (e.g. USA's consent decree
related to the Tualatin River)
* Capital Improvement Plans
* Current and proposed annexation laws
Any changes to state law which would be required to execute any of
the organizational options should be identified as part of this
analysis.
V. Impacts on public policy issues:
* Ability to respond to increases in population and business
activity;
* Impacts on annexation procedures, including ability to
provide service for future annexations;
* Ability to provide best conservation and use of the water
resource;
* Ability to develop a public support to site needed public
facilities;
* Ability to provide high quality of life and environmental
protection;
* Ability to provide representative government to all
citizens;
* Ability for government to be responsive and accountable to
citizens;
* Ability of citizens to understand and relate to their
government; and
* Overall highest cost benefit ratio.
vi. Impacts on relationships with key stakeholders:
* Washington County;
* Washington County Cities;
* Water Districts;
* Employees;
* Taxpayers and ratepayers;
* Citizen organizations;
* Environmental organizations;
* Agriculture;
* Business and Industry;
* Development community;
* Department of Environmental Quality/Environmental Quality
Commissions;
j Oregon State Legislature;
* City of Portland;
* METRO;
Jill
Page 5
* Boundary Commission; and
* EPA and other federal interests
4 STUDY PROCESS
The feasibility study will be conducted according to the following
process:
A. Complete project scoping and recommend any fine-tuning
amendments to the work program. The consultant will be expected
to conduct a first-round of research and analysis and recommend
any changes to the organizational options or list of issues which
are identified in the RFP for analysis. It is the intent of this
study to evaluate organizational options which are responsive to
the needs of efficient and effective service delivery. For
example, if preliminary analysis indicates that one of the four
organizational options either will not produce any major benefits
or is fatally flawed in some manner, it could be eliminated from
further consideration. Similarly, if preliminary analysis
indicates a fifth organizational option not listed here deserves
further analysis, it could be added to the list. It is expected
that this final scoping work will not exceed 10% of the total
project effort.
B. Develop Evaluation Criteria. A set of criteria will be
developed to evaluate the merits of the various organizational
alternatives. The criteria will address both technical and
policy/public values issues. Information developed during USA's
scoping work with stakeholders prior to issuance of this RFP and
the consultant's final scoping work will be used to help develop
the evaluation criteria.
C. Select Final Organizational Options and List of Issues for
Analysis. A final set of organizational options and set of issues
will be selected for comprehensive study.
D. Evaluate Organizational Options. Each of the organizational
options will be analyzed according to the final list of issues and
their impacts on each of the evaluation criteria identified.
A final report will be prepared by the consultant summarizing the
results of the analysis. The consultant will not be asked to make
a recommendation in the report, but to provide the most objective,
comprehensive analysis possible of the merits of the various
organizational alternatives.
TIMF.FRAKE
A bidders conference to respond to questions will be held on
February 10. Proposals must be received by USA no later than 5
p.m. on Monday, February 22. Interviews will be scheduled for the
first week of March. Work is expect to begin by mid-March.
wow"
rage 6
aac ZJL V JeCL
Questions regarding this project should be eli-e-ted
Ueneral Manager, Gary F. Krahmer.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
Create a project "sounding board" committee comprised of the USA
Advisory Committee (USAAC) Chairman, Representatives from the
All-City/Agency Committee, USA's Board of Directors, Washington
County Commissioners, and Tualatin Valley Water District.
This five-person committee will meet at three to five key points
during the study process to provide input to the work of the staff
and consultants. The Committee's role would be as a "sounding
board" from a wide range of key constituencies, and as liaisons to
their respective organizations. The Committee would not be asked
to recommend a preferred solution.
USAAC and the All-City/Agency Committee will be kept informed of
the project's process on a regular basis.
EXPERTISE REQUIRED
USA recognizes that the study will demand expertise in a variety
of disciplines and welcomes proposals from teams of consultants.
When two or more firms join together in submitting a proposal, USA
would prefer that one firm act as the prime contractor and that
additional firms act as subcontractors.
At a minimum, the following areas of expertise will be required:
1. technical understanding of water quality and water
quantity issues;
2. expertise in the areas of municipal, finance, labor
and water law.
3. municipal management
4. public finance
5. public policy
PROPOSAL CONTENTS
The proposal should contain not more than 40 pages of written
material. In order to maintain the fairness and integrity of the
selection process, it is essential that the proposal conform to
the requirements of this section. Do not include any information
which is not specifically requested.
1. Indicate the name of the project manager and state that
the proposal will be valid for sixty (60) days.
M1
Page 7
all staff= members anct subcontractors who would
work on this project and indicate the following for each
individual:
a) education, including school and year of graduation
b) professional licenses and certifications relevant to
the proposed work
c) number of years in current profession or specialty
d) names of previous employers in current field and
dates worked
e) brief description of the work to be performed on
this project
f) experience performing work which is similar to the
work described in subsection e) above (state the name of
the client and the client's project manager)
3. Prepare an organizational chart depicting the lines of
authority for staff and subcontractors who would work on
this project.
4. Prepare a work plan for the project which describes the
process of performing the work set out in the Scope of Work
section of this RPP and contains a timetable for the completion of
tasks. USA prefers timetables which call for completion of the
work within six to nine months.
5. Indicate the policy limits of the following kinds of
insurance for each member of the proposing team:
a) professional liability insurance
b) comprehensive general liability insurance or
commercial general liability insurance
c) employers liability insurance
d) automobile liability insurance
6. In a separate, sealed envelope, enclose the following cost
information:
a) list all categories of expenses for which you will
seek reimbursement and include the following:
1. which expenses, if any, are subject to a mark-
up and the amount of the mark-up
Page 8
_ 2. the rates for expenses billed at standard rates
(e.g., mileage, photocopies)
3. whether a percentage is added to the cost of
subcontracted work as a "management fee"
b) prepare a task matrix based upon your scope of work
which contains the following:
1. a list of tasks and subtasks
2. the individuals who would perform each task and
subtask
3. the estimated number of hours and total labor
cost to perform each task and subtask
4. the estimated expenses and cost of expenses to
be incurred in performing each task and subtask
5. the total cost of the project.
7. Indicate whether any individual who would work on this
project has ever been sued, settled a claim or been subject to
professional discipline in connection with providing professional
o services. If any such lawsuits, claim settlements or discipl=.nary
actions have occurred, please give a summary of the allegations
and indicate the outcome of the proceedings.
8. Complete the noncollusion affidavit attached as Exhibit A
and include it in the proposal.
9. A copy of USA's standard contract terms is attached as
Exhibit B. If you do not find one or more of these terms to be
acceptable, please indicate which terms are unacceptable and
supply substitute language. USA will consider your right to
object to the standard contract terms waived if you do not state
your objections in your proposal.
COPMUNICATION PROCEDURES
The requirements of this section are intended to ensure the fair
and equal treatment of all proposing firms.
Until a contract is awarded by the USA Board of Directors,
interested firms are prohibited from contacting USA, its Board of
Directors or its employees for marketing or solicitation purposes.
DISREGARD OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION WILL RESULT IN
/ DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROPOSING FIRM.
Mani
b
f
' I
,
Da-e 9
ouestions concerning proposal requirements must be made at the i
'i ----A t-^- C--r y F= KrahTnpr
bidders conference or in wrii-lag,
General Manager, and submitted by , 1993. USA will i
issue written responses to questions subm tted under this
paragraph to all recipients of this request for proposals.
REQUEST NOT BASIS FOR OBLIGATIONS
k
This request for proposals does not constitute an offer to
contract and does not commit USA to the award of a contract to
anyone or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and
submission of proposals. USA reserves the right to reject any or r
all proposals which do not conform to the requirements stated in
this document. USA also reserves the right to cancel all or part
of this request for proposals for any reason determined by USA to
be in the public interest.
EVALUATION PROCEDURE {
Proposals which conform to the proposal instructions will be
evaluated. The evaluation process will begin with an analysis of
each proposal using the first four evaluation criteria identified
in the following section. USA will then interview the firms which
submit the best proposals. Following the interviews, USA will
open the sealed envelopes containing the cost information and
perform a cost evaluation. USA will then conduct contract
negotiations with the most qualified firm. If these negotiations
fail, USA will negotiate with the second most qualified firm and,
if necessary, successive firms until an agreement is reached or
the project is canceled.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
2
1. Qualifications and experience of personnel
2. Prior client interview information
3. Work Plan
4. Risk Analysis
5. Cost
i
f
i
1
l SYNOPSIS OF EARLIER SURVEYS
January 1990
This was a survey of 376 customers of water service providers throughout Washington
County. Just over one-third of the sample were Wolf Creek Highway and Metzger
customers. Primary findings relevant to the current November 1992 survey are as follows:
Water quality. 401/6 found it Very Satisfactory; 50% said it was Satisfactory and 9%
found it Unsatisfactory, primarily on the grounds of taste, odor and color.
Water Conservation. 46% indicated they had taken some kind of action to conserve
domestic water use in their home during the past two years. Of these, 25% said they had
installed some form of flow restrictors and 23% had curtailed their use of water for
outdoor use.
Bottled Water. 8% indicated they regularly used bottled water in the home.
Water Filtration or Purification Devices. 12% reported using such systems. Many of
these users were on private wells.
Governance. By an 8% margin, (46% to 38%, with 16% Undecided) customers
expressed support for the provision of water & sewer services by larger units of
government over smaller more localized service providers. (It should be noted that
current Tualatin Valley constituents were less reluctant to embrace larger government;
Wolf Creek customers were tied on the issue at about 399/6 each; Metzger customers
favored smaller governments by a 47% to 41% margin.)
October 1990
This was a survey of 349 customers of Eastern Washington County water service
providers - Wolf Creek, Metzger, Tualatin, Sherwood and Wilsonville. Just over half of
the sample was drawn from customers of Wolf Creek & Metzger. Major findings relevant
to this November 1992 survey are as follows:
Water Conservation. 61% reported taking some kind of action to conserve the use of
water in the past year. Of these, 24% said they had reduced their outdoor use of water,
while 21% reported installing some form of flow restrictors.
Water Supply. 33% of the respondents believed their water provider had an adequate
supplies to meet anticipated needs for the next 20 years, while 27% saw them as
inadequate and 405 were unsure.
Water Sources. By a 38% to 32% margin, with 30°/o unsure, respondents opposed the use
of water from the Willamette if additional water sources are needed.
Governance. 47% indicated that generally they favor the consolidation of public services
like water and sewer into larger agencies. 31% said they are generally opposed to
consolidation, while 22% are unsure. (Among the former Wolf Creek & Metzger
customers, the margin of support was lower - 42% in favor, 38% opposed.)
4
1 obser vaiions:
The merger of the Wolf Creek and Metzger Water Districts brought together two
entities that had crafted a high level of satisfaction among their enncrr+~or~ c.~; u
mumher nf~w,..c s ; .:'u. u,,,g w see brat merger and formation of the Tualatin Valley
Water District has been accomplished without any apparent impact on customer
satisfaction. If anything, it has probably increased
Question 20: Which of the following two statements most closely reflects your own
opinion:
Statement A. Public services like water and sewer should be provided by
smaller governments, so that the public has better access to and control over elected
officials.
Statement B. Public services such as water and sewer should be provided by
larger governments so that greater efficiencies can help keep Costs and rates down.
By a 5% margin (499/6 to 44%) with 7% undecided, more respondents identify with
Statement B. This is within the margin of error for the survey, so we are uncomfortable
saying anything other than respondents are split on the question. These results are
consistent with the opinions expressed by Tualatin Valley customers in previous surveys
(see Synopsis of Prior Surveys in an earlier section of this report).
u"eU 2v"..1 Preference for Government Size
There are interesting variations in support observed in the cross-tabs.
Table 20.1 o People who have lived here less than six
years favor Statement B by a 16%
Government Size % margin (53% to 37%). Those who have
been here between 6-10 years are
Smaller Governments 44% likewise strong supporters by a 13%
Larger Governments 49% margin (53% to 401/6). However,
Don't Know 7% among those who have lived in the area
over 10 years, the margin of support is
6% (50% to 44%) in favor of Statement
A
On the basis of age, Statement B has a strong 16% margin among those who are 40
and under (54% to 38%). However opinions are virtually deadlocked among older
age groups - those in the 41-55 bracket favor Statement A by a 47% to 46% margin,
while those over 55 favor A by 47% to 45%.
• Dome ownership also reflects differences. Renters are strong supporters of
Statement B, by a 21% margin (57% to 360/6), while homeowners are still supportive
but by only a 3% margin (48% to 45%).
e By zip code area, opinions fluctuate widely. Support for Statement B is stronger in
the 97007 area (31% margin in favor) and in 97225 (21% margin in favor).
However, Statement A enjoys greater support among respondents from the 97123/4
area (5% margin) in 97223/4 (30% margin) and 97229 where there is a 90,. margin
favor of Statement A.
Observations.
It is becoming clearer that the future of water and sewer services in the Portland
metropolitan area will be tied to regional and sub-regional entities. Tualatin Vallsy
Water District is poised to play a leadership role in these endeavors. It will be important
for the District to remember that it has a solid base of constituents that do not yet share
the larger vision. The District will need to keep its constituents informed about fztture
options and alternatives and not get too far out in front of them.
Public education, not just focused on conservation, but with an eye to future
supply and organizational scenarios, will be very important for the District. Tire
demographic breakouts identif ed above indicate that people have different positions,
interests and information needs; so the District should consider a broad based and
comprehensive public education and public involvement program that will reach all its
constituents.
Question 21: Would you support or oppose a requirement that future water system
improvements be paid by water users through their water bills, rather than by
property taxes?
By a 67% to 13% margin, with 20% undecided, respondents support paying for future
water system improvements in the water rate base, as opposed to property tax levies.
Table 21.1 .Support for Non-Use of Property Taxes to Pay For Future Water System
Improvements
Table 21.1
Non-Use of %
Property Taxes
Support 67%
Oppose 13%
Don't Know 200/6
Observations.
Legislation will likely be introduced in the 1993 legislative session to remove
water and sewer providers from laying claim to property taxes as a means of paying for
system improvements. This is a post Ballot Measure S action to free up as much of the
property tax cap as possible for "general government" activities. In effect, it will
eliminate the ability of the District to issue general obligation bonds and require
financing through the issuance of revenue bonds. The District's experience with revenue
bond issues has been favorable of late.