Loading...
02/08/2006 - Packet Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions � , . and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD Intergovernmental Water Board Name of Board, Commission or Committee r 8 'z 0040 Date of Meeting To the best of my knowledge this is the complete meeting packet. I was not the meeting organizer nor did I attend the meeting;I am simply the employee preparing the paper record for archiving. This record came from Greer Gaston's office in the Public Works Building. Kristie Peerman Print Name Z6 �- Signature Date I Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area A SNDA Wednesday, FebruarN, 8, 2006 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order,Roll Call and Introductions Call the meeting to order,staff to take roll call. 2. Approval of Minutes—January 11, 2006 Motion from Board for minute approval. 3. Election of a Chair and Vice-Chair—(5 minutes) 4. Lake Oswego Presentation-(20 minutes) S. Review the Intergovernmental Agreement for Joint Funding of a Water Supply System Plan with the City of Lake Oswego—Dennis Koellermeier(10 minutes) 6. Siatus Report on the Tigard Water Building-Dennis Koellermeier(10 minutes) 7. Public Information Proposal from the Tigard Water District-Dennis Koellermeier(5 minutes) 8. Informational Items—Dennis Koellermeier Excerpt of Tigard Water District Draft Minutes,agenda item#4— The Donation of Surplus Property at the Canterbury Site to the City of Tigard for Park Facilities 9. Public Comments Call for any comments from public. 10. Non Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. 11. Next Meeting— Wednesday,March 8, 2006, 5:30 p.m. — Water Auditorium 12. Adjournment—Approximate Time 7:00 p.m. Motion for adjournment. A light dinner will be provided. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes February 8, 2006 Members Present: Beverly Froude,Bill Scheiderich, and Dick Winn Members Absent: Patrick Carroll,Tom Woodruff Staff Present: Dennis Koellermeier,John Goodrich, Greer Gaston Visitors: Henrietta Cochrun,Lisa Hamilton-Treick,Roland Signett Lake Oswego Staff:Joel Komarek 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions The meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes -,January 11, 2006 Commissioner Winn asked that the first sentence in the last paragraph on page four of the minutes, regarding the scoring range,be changed to reflect this was a"correction" not a "suggestion." Commissioner Winn motioned to approve the January 11, 2006, minutes as amended,Commissioner Froude seconded the motion.The motion was approved unanimous vote. 3. Election of a Chair and Vice-Chair The board considered this item after agenda item #10,Non-Agenda Items. 4. Lake Oswego Presentation Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced Lake Oswego City Engineer Joel Komarek. Mr. Komarek gave a Powerpoint presentation which is on file in the IWB record.Topics covered in the presentation included: • History of Lake Oswego's water system development • Lake Oswego has senior water rights,which take precedence over the state's in- stream water rights. • Treatment plant is located near Mary S.Young Park. • Current water system was built in 1967. Intergovernmental Water Board February 8,2006 1 • Tigard gets Lake Oswego water from the Waluga Reservoir by way of the Bonita Road pump station. • The $21.6 million improvements to "buildout" have not been done. • IGA with Portland is being considered for an emergency water system intertie. • Lake Oswego does not have a wholesale water contract with Portland, although the city does have connections to the Portland system. • A new water rule requires that municipal water providers prepare a water conservation and management plan.Lake Oswego will submit its draft plan to Oregon Water Resources this August. • Partners of the South Fork Water Board are Oregon City and West Linn. Lake Oswego has senior water rights for 34 mgd and this is not expected to be sufficient to meet the future demand of both Tigard and Lake Oswego. The amount of surplus water available after Lake Oswego completes its buildout is not known.Mr. Komarek explained Lake Oswego's ultimate water demand hinges on the development of the Stafford urban reserve area. Estimated water demand for this area ranges from 2 mgd to 5 mgd. Including these estimates,peak demand at buildout is expected to be around 26 mgd Mr. Komarek reported the treatment plant can be expanded to 32 mgd on the existing city- owned property.This treatment facility might be developed for even greater capacity since new technology enables processors to treat more water on a smaller footprint. Lake Oswego owns additional property that could be considered for future expansion. Water pumping,transmission and treatment improvements are needed.The current intake is sized for 32 mgd. Both the raw and processed water transmission lines are deficient. Lake Oswego's retail water rate is 83 cents per hundred. Remaining issues: ■ How much water will Lake Oswego ultimately need when buildout is complete. ■ If the Lake Oswego supply is insufficient to meet Tigard's future needs, estimated to be 20 mgd,how does Tigard address the shortfall. S. Review the Intergovernmental Agreement for Joint Funding of a Water Supply System Plan with the City of Lake Oswego Public Works Director Koellermeier referred to the intergovernmental agreement in the board's packet.The agreement is scheduled to go before the Lake Oswego City Council on February 21 and the Tigard City Council on February 28. The cities will split the cost of the Water Supply System Plan; estimated total cost is $250,000.Public Works Director Koellermeier explained the plan will be comprehensive and will provide both cities with the information they need to decide if the proposed partnership will meet their needs.This means no further studies or research would be needed to implement the project. Commissioners Scheiderich and Winn stated they had read the agreement and had no concerns. The agreement has been reviewed by both cities'legal staff. Intergovemmental Water Board February 8,2006 2 The timeline is to hire a consultant this spring and to have a draft plan available by the end of August.Mr. Koellermeier said the results of the Tigard/Lake Oswego plan will coincide with the decision on whether to continue as a partner in the Joint Water Commission project. A brief discussion on the Joint Water Commission (JWC) dam-raise project ensued. Concern was expressed over a previous discussion with JWC representatives who indicated if the project were downsized to a 25-foot dam,Tigard would not be able to participate and would lose all equity in the project. Before committing more funding to the dam-raise project, clarification on this issue was requested Commissioner Scheiderich said he would like to see the feasibility studies capitalized.Mr. Koellermeier said he would prepare some information on this topic. Commissioner Scheiderich confirmed there was no further discussion and relayed the board was comfortable with the agreement. 6. Status Report on the Tigard Water Building Public Works Director Koellermeier referred to the cost allocation memo from Tom Imdieke and the Facility Needs Analysis executive summary in the board's packet.Various remodeling options and their corresponding costs were discussed briefly.The analysis determined the water building is not sufficient to accommodate the long-term needs of the Public Works Department;ultimately the department will need to relocate to a larger facility.Therefore,the less expensive remodeling options will be implemented.Money exists in the FY '05/06 budget for the remodel. Mr. Koellermeier stated he would slow the relocation process to allow the board members time to investigate the water building ownership issue.A legal analysis of the matter was mentioned. Commissioner Scheiderich suggested the members of the board should come back next month with any concerns they have regarding the wording of the existing intergovernmental agreement as it relates to the ownership of assets. Consensus was to discuss the matter next month. Mr. Koellermeier said he didn't want the remodel to be postponed until the legal analysis was completed because the analysis will only determine cost allocation.Commissioner Scheiderich said he assumed other city departments were being charged overhead and this was just a question of whether the water building overhead revenue would go to the general fund or the water fund.Commissioner Scheiderich added that he didn't think the issue of rent and what fund would receive rent payments should delay the remodel.He commented the building was somewhat of a "white-elephant" and was underutilized. Mr. Koellermeier said he would provide each member with a signed copy of the IGA. Intergovernmental Water Board February 8,2006 3 7. Public Information Proposal from the Tigard Water District Public Works Director Koellermeier informed the IWB that the Tigard Water District (TWD) is working on a public information campaign.Mr. Koellermeier pointed out that a campaign focused on water source decisions will undoubtedly reach beyond the TWD boundaries and the IWB will probably become involved at some point.The TWD has retained a consultant to start working on graphics. 8. Informational Items City of Sherwood and Willamette River Public Works Director Koellermeier reported Sherwood has taken official action and has notified the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC) of its intention to develop the Willamette River as their water source.Tigard is a member of the WRWC and now has 90 days to decide whether it wishes to partner in the Sherwood project. In terms of size and alignment,the Sherwood project will be designed to meet Sherwood's individual requirements as opposed to taking a more global approach.A joint meeting between the IWB and the Tigard City Council is scheduled for March 21 since the City needs to respond to the WRWC within the 90-day time frame. Donation of a Portion of the Canterbury Site for Park Use Mr. Koellermeier advised the TWD had decided to hire an attorney to study the issue, so the matter is currently"on hold." 9. Public Comments Lisa Hamilton-Treick, 13565 SW Beef Bend Road, from the unincorporated Bull Mountain area, shared her thoughts on the following: • Boundaries and authority between the Tigard Water District (TWD), Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) and the City of Tigard are unclear. • TWD owns valuable real estate. • Inquired if it was the original intent,when the IWB was formed,that Bull Mountain would be incorporated into the City of Tigard and the TWD dissolved This may need to change given the failure of the annexation measure. • Intergovernmental agreements vary among jurisdictions. • Supports the Canterbury property be put to public use,but is not in favor of disposing of the property.Can't anticipate future needs. Suggested the property be leased to the City of Tigard for a dollar a year. • Tigard has over-reached its authority in the past, so wants an open,unbiased selection process for an attorney who can represent the interests of those who reside in the unincorporated area, King City and Durham. • Wants the decisions of IWB and recommendations of the TWD take into consideration that things have changed and hoped the interests of the rate payers in the unincorporated area,King City and Durham will be represented. Intergovemmental Water Board February 8,2006 4 Public Works Director Koellermeier explained the TWD authorized their Chair to select an attorney.Ms.Hamilton-Treick said she had attended the meeting and this was not what she heard.Commissioner Froude added she was supposed to provide the TWD Chair with the names of three attorneys and she had not yet done so. Ms.Hamilton-Treick commented that she was surprised at the TWD meeting when the Chair said he would work with Mr. Koellermeier regarding the attorney and there was no discussion among the other board members. 10. Non-Agenda Items None. Note:Election of a Chair and Vice-Chair(agenda item #3)was considered at this time. Commissioner Froude nominated Commissioner Scheiderich as board Chair, Commissioner Winn seconded the motion.The motion was approved unanimous vote. Commissioner Winn nominated Commissioner Carroll as board Vice-Chair,Commissioner Froude seconded the motion.The motion was approved unanimous vote. 11. Next Meeting- Wednesday,March 8, 2006, 5.30 p.m. - Water Auditorium It was also noted the IWB would have a joint meeting with the Tigard City Council at the Council's March workshop meeting. 12. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. - r reer A. Gaston, IWB Recorder Date: March 17 ZDOIo Intergovernmental Water Board February S,2006 5 Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes January 11, 2006 Members Present: Patrick Carroll (5:40 p.m.), Beverly Froude, Bill Scheiderich, Sydney Sherwood (alternate for Tom Woodruff), and Dick Winn Members Absent: Tom Woodruff Staff Present: Dennis Koellermeier, John Goodrich, Nadine Robinson, Greer Gaston Visitors: Henrietta Cochrun and Paul Owen Joint Water Commission Staff: Kevin Hanway and Tom VanderPlaat 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes—December 14, 2005 Commissioner Winn motioned to approve the December 14, 2005 minutes, Commissioner Sherwood seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimou6 vote. 3. LeVelle Day Credit for Leak Request Administrative Services Manager Robinson presented this item. Using existing methodology, Mr. Day's credit would be $754.11. A credit of this magnitude requires board approval. Commissioner Sherwood motioned to approve the $754.11 credit, Commissioner Winn seconded the motion. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. 4. Joint Water Commission (JWC) Presentation Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced Tom VanderPlaat, with Clean Water Services (CWS), and Kevin Hanway, representing the City of Hillsboro and the JWC. Mr. Koellermeier relayed these individuals were going to provide the board with an update on the Tualatin/Trask water supply. Intergovernmental Water Board January 11,2006 1 Mr. VanderPlaat distributed a Powerpoint presentation. The presentation is included in the IWB record. Topics covered in the presentation included the following: ■ Background and history of the water supply project ■ Feasibility study completed • Currently working on the environmental impact study (EIS) and permitting process Note: Commissioner Patrick arrived at the meeting at 5:40 p.m. ■ Alternatives presented in the EIS: - No action - 40-foot raise of Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake and raw water pipeline pump- back - Multiple source option - 25-foot raise of Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake, raw water pipeline pump-back, and Willamette River treatment plant expansion ■ Explanation of pump-back - If the dam were raised, the creeks that feed Hagg Lake would not provide enough water to replenish the draw down. - In winter, when the water levels are higher in the Tualatin River, the pipeline would be used to pump water from the river into the lake, replenishing the water supply. ■ Bureau of Reclamation wanted another option besides the 40-foot dam raise, so the 25-foot raise was used for comparison. ■ EIS provides information on the impact of various alternatives, but does make any decisions. ■ Decisions are made by policy bodies like the IWB and the Bureau of Reclamation. ■ Local agencies will make the decision about their water source. ■ $288 million for dam raise for 40' raise ■ $208 million for dam raise for 25' raise ■ Working on securing federal funding for the EIS and feasibility study - $221,000 awarded in last year's budget - $287,000 awarded in this year's budget ■ Project timeline - Draft EIS out for comments by June 2006 - Comments addressed - Final EIS out in January 2007 - Start on permitting federal facility - Start multi-year design process in 2008 ■ Cost - Tigard's estimated share of the 40-foot dam raise is $51.6 million - Assumed Tigard would not participate in the 25-foot dam raise because Tigard would get water from the Willamette River ■ Summarized Tigard's investment to date - Tigard's share of the feasibility study $232,000 (18.8 percent interest) - Tigard's share of the EIS $629,026 (19.5 percent interest) ■ In the next few months, Tigard will need to decide if it wants to participate in the final EIS and permitting phase of the project. Tigard's estimated share is Intergovernmental Water Board January11,2006 2 $558,000 (19.47 percent interest). Tigard is required to participate unless the city finds another partner to take its water. ■ The draft of amendment 4 will address how any assets purchased by the project will be handled. This amendment will be ready in the next week or so. In response to a question about why the Willamette River was included as an EIS alternative, Mr. Hanway replied that when alternatives needed to be presented, the Willamette River appeared to be the best option to supplement the dam raise. He added that if the dam is only raised 25-feet, the system could not meet all the demands of the entire partnership, so a supplemental source needed to be identified for the purpose of comparison. Mr. Koellermeier explained the EIS process is designed to compare alternatives. He confirmed that the Willamette River was used as the supplemental water source for the 25-foot dam raise since this scenario is plausible and many details regarding this source are already known. Having this option allows the Bureau of Reclamation to compare alternatives. With regard to funding, Mr. VanderPlaat reiterated that municipal water supplies are not funded by federal government. He relayed that he hoped to get some federal funding for parts of the project such as flood control. He explained the Bureau of Reclamation will sometimes do a 50/50 cost share on feasibility studies and environmental impact studies. This is the federal money they are trying to obtain. Mr. VanderPlaat relayed that in July, the JWC would finalize the EIS and the permitting. In January 2007, he anticipates the jurisdictions involved will need to decide whether to commit to the design and construction of the project. A discussion occurred regarding Tigard's financial obligation to the project. Tigard has committed to participate through the EIS (amendment 2) and must fulfill its funding commitments for this phase of the project. The city has not committed to any funding beyond this phase, although most of the other participants have already done so. Since funding is dedicated to pay for each phase of the process, Tigard would not receive any refund should it decide to withdraw from the partnership. Kevin Hanway introduced himself as the Director of the Hillsboro Water Department. Mr. Hanway noted Hillsboro manages the Joint Water Commission. Mr. Hanway distributed two handouts depicting the latest drafts of the timing and cost estimates for a 40-foot dam raise. The handouts are included in the IWB record. Mr. Hanway noted the information provided is based on the assumption that all the current partners get the bulk of their water through the JWC. Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) customers will be voting on the Willamette as a possible water source in the May election. The TVWD will decide in June whether it will continue as a partner with the JWC or whether it will pursue other options. For the time being, the JWC is operating under the assumption the TVWD will continue as a partner in the dam raising project. The upcoming deadline for the Portland water contract must also be taken into consideration. To replace Portland water, the JWC may have to start the design of a water treatment plant expansion beginning July 1. Mr. Hanway summarized his handouts which depict a timeline, production, project cost, ownership proportions and investment cost. Current improvements, referred to as near Intergovernmental Water Board January 11,2006 3 term improvements (NTI), will bring the Fern Hill reservoir up to 70 mgd capacity. In 2007, the phase one treatment plant expansion will result in 50 mgd. The phase two expansion will be completed and online in 2009, at an estimated cost of$84 million. Shortly after these expansions are completed, there will be a water deficit to supply the treatment plant. The dam raise is shown to be online by the end of 2012, with production at 120 mgd. This will be combined with the raw water pipeline to avoid flooding from the overflow on the Tualatin River from treatment plant in summer. Phase 3 and 4 of the treatment plant will increase output to 150 mgd. Demand will merit the pump-back in the 2020's with the final treatment plant expansion in 2035. Mr. Hanway cautioned that the information provided underestimates Tigard's costs because transmission capacity, getting the water from the treatment plant to Tigard, was not included in the calculations. Not only will transmission capacity from the JWC to Hillsboro need to be upgraded, but all the transmission capacity from Hillsboro to Tigard has already been allocated to other JWC partners. A new transmission line, perhaps over Copper Mountain, and some conveyance storage reservoirs would need to be constructed. It is estimated transmission and storage would add and additional $75 to $100 million to the overall project. Although some of the partners might share in this cost, Tigard would likely fund the majority of the new transmission and storage because it would receive the greatest benefit. Mr. Koellermeier interjected that transmission is adequate for current demand because Beaverton is not using its full transmission capacity. At some point, Beaverton is expected to need its surplus capacity. He added that the numbers also didn't include any buy-in to the existing system. The buy-in was estimated to cost between $15 and $20 million. Tigard is not participating in the Fern Hill reservoir project. Due to flooding issues, it was noted the raw water pipeline will be built irrelevant of the dam raise. However, the pump-back construction is contingent on the dam raise going forward. With regard to the where TVWD and the Wilsonville plant, a rough corridor for the pipeline has been identified and depending on the participants, storage may be located on Beaverton's Dernbackh site. 5. Long-Term Water Supply Decision-Making Process and Criteria Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced discussed this item. He reminded the board that the City Council supported the idea of establishing criteria for the selection process. Mr. Koellermeier reviewed a handout which depicted potential selection criteria. The scoring method and weighting factors were discussed. Commissioner Winn suggested scoring should range from 1 to 3. Commissioner Scheiderich did not support weighting the various criteria. Commissioner Carroll expressed an interest in having all the relevant information summarized into a presentation. He explained that some of the options would likely have a fatal flaw and that these options should not be considered since they weren't feasible. Commissioner Carroll requested a summation and fatal flaws analysis of the options. Commissioner Scheiderich proposed weighting could be added at the end of the process. Intergovernmental Water Board January 11,2006 4 Commissioner Winn expressed a preference for a summary document with a streamlined layout and bullet points. Mr. Koellermeier pointed out that not all the pertinent pieces of information may be available. Some assumptions will need to be made. Mr. Koellermeier advised he would work on a comparative analysis of the options. 6. Board Vacancies/Member At-Large Selection Process Both Commissioner Carroll's and Commissioner Scheiderich' terms expired in December 2005. Commissioner Carroll indicated he was willing to serve on the board for another term. Commissioner Carroll moved to reappoint Commissioner Scheiderich as the member- at-large for another year. Commissioner Winn seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimous vote. It was noted that Commissioners were appointed for two- year terms and the motion was amended to a 2006-2007 term. 7. Status Report on the Tigard Water Building Public Works Director Koellermeier introduced this item. Commissioner Scheiderich asked if the water building was owned by all members of the service area or was it deemed to be owned by the City of Tigard. Mr. Koellermeier said the answer may be a little of both. The agreement says assets that are used directly for water delivery have been pledged to the City of Tigard. Other assets become the property of the city they reside in. The question of non-water employees paying rent was raised. Money collected would be put into an account for the benefit of the district members. Mr. Koellermeier said he wanted to inform the board about the city's proposal to consolidate offices and maximize the use of water building. The building would house water operations and some other functions. Commissioner Scheiderich suggested the water district, King City and Durham come to the next meeting ready to relay their preference about the issue of the city paying rent for non-water staff who will be working in the water building. It was noted that any facility payment would go to the water fund. Commissioner Scheiderich stated if the City of Tigard was using a water system asset, the city needs to rent it or buy it. Commissioner Carroll concurred. A discussion occurred about previous City of Tigard staff working in the building and whether or not they paid rent. It was noted that any improvements to the building would be funded through the city. Mr. Koellermeier brought up the issue of the water building sign, which is in disrepair. He stated the current sign says "Tigard Water District," and he proposed calling the building "Tigard Water." Intergovernmental Water Board January 11,2006 5 8. Informational Items None. 9. Public Comments None. 10. Non-Agenda Items None. 11. Next Meeting— Wednesday, February 8, 2006, 5:30 p.m. — Water Auditorium Mr. Koellermeier reported he would invite Lake Oswego or Wilsonville to make a presentation at the next meeting. He pointed out the draft Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the feasibility study with Lake Oswego and explained that the IGA would appear on the agenda next month. The estimated cost for the study is expected to be between $100,000 to 150,000 and will be split by Tigard and Lake Oswego. 12. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 6:56 p.m. Greer A. Gaston, IWB Recorder Date: Intergovernmental Water Board January 11,2006 6 MEMORANDUM TO: IWB Commissioners FROM: Greer Gaston, IWB Recorder RE: Election of the IWB Chair and Vice-Chair DATE: January 5, 2006 The Intergovernmental Water Board bylaws call for the election of a Chair and Vice- Chair during the board's February meeting. The Chair and Vice-Chair serve one-year terms. Since this is the February meeting, would the board like to elect these individuals for the coming year? Submitted at the IWB Meeting By: ..Ld kotn�, Laic Awe2a Date: Z- B • ,06o Agenda Item No.: Lake Oswego's Water System : Past, Present and Future "In the Beginning" WFW . 1925: City of Oswego population is 1,700. . The City purchases the water system from the Oswego Lake Water, Light and Power Co. for $15,000. Some portions still in use are 100 yrs old. Systems consists of 1 pump station, 1 reservoir and about 37,000 feet of pipe. . Source of supply is a spring located in Foothills Road area. . Typical bi-monthly water bill is —$7.70 1 inL "Water System Development" . 1965: City commissions study to identify long term source of supply. Options include: Bull Run, Willamette River, Tualatin River, Clackamas River and expansion of current well system. City Council Selects Clackamas River. 1967 City secures permit to appropriate 32.3 MGD from Clackamas River. "Water System Development" 1967: Federal grants and GO bonds fund construction of"backbone" of City's present day water system. . System construction includes 3 reservoirs, river intake, transmission and distribution mains and a 10 MGD treatment plant in unincorporated Clackamas County (now West Linn). Cost approximately $3.5M. 2 "Water System Development" 1975: Additional 5.8 MGD of water rights on Clackamas River secured by City. 1978: 3.8 MGD of rights from Willamette River secured for emergency purposes. . 1980: Treatment Plant expanded to 16 MGD. "Today's Water System" . 16 MGD Water Treatment Plant. . 13 reservoirs storing 24.5 MG of water. . 13 pump stations. 210 + miles of transmission/distribution mains. System valuation in excess of $20M. Serving high quality water to over 37,000 citizens and wholesale customers. Typical bi-monthly water bill N$44. 3 "Today's Water System" CARE OSWEGO'S WATER SYSTEM CLACKAMAS RIVER WATERSHED Lake Osw go's water syA.ein beylns in the Clackamas River Watershed.The Watershed drains the southern slo WATER INTAKE and nearly of Mt. ood is t,c�o0 care ------ - maes In area. t Water from the Oackamas River Is wlthdrawn about I mile FaIr., LAKE OSWEGO t lacateo In West Llnn. � WATER INTAKE WALUGA GLADSTONE &PUMP STA RESERVOIR �9"+r WATER QUALITY �a,4, TESTING IN TOWN RESERVOIRS The aty collects app�'oximately 13 underground and 3 above- Th afar samples e h yyee mrountl reservoirs store atwu)t 29.5 from Its reservoirs,purificabonr Illlon galbns of water for use 1 dant and sampling pdntr factlibes uststorners. Thesenre 2bout 4 days yl throughout the system. worth of water. v f WEST LINN f .. RaW((ur Lreated)water from L.O.WATER the daekamas River is treated TREAI`MEN7 sing chemical&physi®1 rg PLANT asses to remove sediments, baRena and Darer naturally oecure se uroMaminan[s before sending treated water to In-town reservoirs. Y Water Master Plan Update • Updates 1988 plan . Why update? Compliance with Oregon Health Department Regulations. Changes in land use, growth and water demands. Urban reserve areas 4 :Highlights"" of Master Plan . Existing system is "deficient" at current demand levels Emergency storage Storage for fire suppression Pipelines for fire flows Pump stations for peak day demands . $11AM of improvements needed to correct existing system deficiencies over next five years. Includes: New reservoir in Palisades service level (Aspen St. site). New intertie with Portland. Highlights" (Continued) . $21.6M of improvements to "buildout". Includes: New reservoir in Waluga service level. Joint water supply expansion with South Fork Water Board. Remaining pipeline improvements. J Identified "Policy Issue # 1" . IGA with the City of Portland for an emergency water system intertie. Benefits include: Reduction in new storage required = saved $. Source redundancy Potential to receive emergency water supply for an extended period of time. i Identified "Policy Issue #2" Development Code amendments to require CII structures to retrofit with fire sprinkler systems. Benefits Include: Reduction in storage, pump stations and pipelines needed for fire flows = saved $. Potential reduction in insurance prerniums for City and Owners of sprinkled bldgs. Increased public safety. 6 Identified "Policy Issue #Y Partnerships with other water providers for future water supply. Benefits Include: Cost sharing for new capital construction. Cost sharing for compliance with Federal and State regulations e.g., ESA and CWA. Potential for"beneficial use" of entire amount of water rights held by City = protection from cancellation by OWRD. "Joint" response to future regulatory challenges. N Identified "Policy Issue #4" • Water Conservation. Reasons to Implement: "Pushes"out timeline for next increment of supply. Leaves more water in the stream for T/E species. Demonstrates City's commitment to be a good steward of our natural resources. Will satisfy forthcoming regulatory agency requirements e.g., permit extension rules. 7 "Near Term Issues" . Issues Requiring Future Council Action: IGA's with Portland for emergency intertie and with SFWB et al for Joint Water Supply. Code amendments for CII bldg. Retrofits with Sprinklers. Adoption of"conservation based" rate structure. Interim operating plan for NMFS approval until new fish screen is installed. May require short duration IGA with SFWB for"on-call"water. IGA with SFWB/West Linn for cost share of new emergency intertie and pump station. 8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT FUNDING OF A WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AND THE CITY OF TIGARD This ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement is entered into by the following parties: the City of Lake Oswego,an Oregon Municipal Corporation,(hereinafter"Lake Oswego"),and the City of Tigard,an Oregon Municipal corporation,(hereinafter"Tigard"),hereinafter referred to collectively as the"parties". The parties have agreed to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003— 190.110, which authorizes units of local government to enter into such agreements. RECITALS WHEREAS,pursuant to the terms of a water sales agreement executed in 1983,the City of Lake Oswego has supplied surplus water to the City of Tigard, and WHEREAS, since 1983 the parties have mutually benefited from this water supply relationship, and WHEREAS,in the past the parties have jointly and individually funded and completed engineering studies and water master plans that have identified the mutual benefits of continuing the existing water supply relationship and jointly developing a long term water supply partnership, and WHERAS,Tigard desires to partner in the development of a long term source of new water supply for its customers and desires to secure an equity position in such a new water supply,and Lake Oswego is willing to consider a partnership in the development of any new water rights or facilities,which partnership may include shared ownership,and WHEREAS, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Division 315"Water Rights Pen-nit Extensions"adopted on November 22, 2005, require municipal water supply agencies with undeveloped water rights to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State water resources department,their ability to beneficially use undeveloped water or risk losing such rights,and WHEREAS,the City of Tigard commissioned a study entitled"Water Supply Feasibility Project", which was completed and dated September 2005,and WHEREAS,that study concluded that it was feasible for Lake Oswego to supply water to Tigard on a long tern basis and that partnering with the City of Tigard to develop Lake Oswego's undeveloped water rights could achieve many benefits including more efficient use of the water resource,improved economy of water supply,protection of existing permitted water rights, improved water supply reliability,and more effective joint response to regulatory challenges,and 1 WHEREAS,the parties have identified the need to conduct a more comprehensive study of the costs and timing of jointly developing Lake Oswego's currently undeveloped water rights and that time is of the essence in completing this study: NOW THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1 —Obligations of the Parties I. The parties agree to jointly fund an engineering study that will be comprehensive in scope and that will complete the various tasks as outlined in the Scope of Work attached herein as Exhibit"A". 2. Lake Oswego will prepare the necessary documents to solicit and procure the services of an engineering consulting firm for the study 3. The parties will jointly participate in the review/evaluation and selection process for the engineering consultant 4. Once an engineering consultant has been selected,Lake Oswego will contract with and undertake the day to day management of the work of the selected consultant 5. The parties will jointly participate in the provision of all documentation requested by consultant and necessary for the completion of the Scope of Work 6. The parties will,as required by the Scope of Work,jointly review and comment on all memoranda,draft reports and other documentation developed by the consultant in the conduct of the work 7. The staff of each city will be responsible to communicate all relevant information to their councils as to the progress,status and recommendations of the study. Each party agrees to facilitate the work of the other in this regard as may be requested by each of the other during the conduct of the work Section 2—Allocation of Study Costs and Pam 1. The City of Lake Oswego will be the paying agent for the parties. 2. Amendments to the approved Scope of Work may be made by mutual agreement of the parties. 3. The costs of any such amendments approved by the parties will be allocated to each party equally unless mutually agreed otherwise 4. The City of Lake Oswego will make all payments due the consultant pursuant to the Formatted:Bullets and Numbering terms of the contract executed between Lake Oswego and consultant. Tigard will reimburse Lake Oswego for one half of the expenditures. Lake Oswego will invoice Tigard monthly coinciding with the work-in-progress invoicing submitted by the consultant. Payments shall be made to the City of Lake Oswego Finance Department, P.O. 369 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034. Any amount unpaid after thirty(30)days shall accrue interest at the rate of nine percent(9%)per annum until paid. 2 SECTION 3—Ownership of Work Products 1. Work products generated by consultant pursuant to the Scope of Work will be jointly owned by the parties 2. At the completion of the study,Lake Oswego will provide Tigard with five copies of the final report in hard copy and electronic format SECTION 4—Dispute Resolution If a dispute arises between the parties regarding this Agreement, the parties shall take the following steps: Step One(Negotiation) Upon written notice provided by one party to the other of a dispute regarding this Agreement, the parties shall first attempt to resolve the dispute through negotiation. The City Manager or another person designated by each of the disputing parties will negotiate on behalf of each entity. If the dispute is resolved at this step, the resolution shall be reduced to writing and signed by each party. Step Two(Mediation) If the dispute cannot be resolved at Step One within thirty(30)days of the date of mailing of the written notice of the dispute,the parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator,they shall request a list of five(5)mediators from the Presiding Judge of Clackamas County Circuit Court. The parties will attempt to mutually agree on a mediator from the list provided,but if they cannot agree,the mediator will be selected by the Presiding Judge of Clackamas County Circuit Court. The cost of mediator shall be borne equally between the parties,but each party shall otherwise be responsible for its own costs and fees therefore. If the issue is resolved at this step,the resolution shall be reduced to writing and signed by each party. Step Three(Arbitration) If the parties are unsuccessful at Steps One and Two,the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration proceedings pursuant to ORS 36.600 et seq. The parties shall follow the same process as in Step Two for the selection of the arbitrator. The prevailing party in Step Three shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs which have been incurred during the Step Three process,as determined and awarded by the arbitrator. In addition,in the event of a petition to the court to for judicial relief related to the arbitration,such as a petition to seek confirmation,vacation,modification or correction of an arbitration award,or in the event of judicial action to enforce an arbitration award, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party,in addition to costs and disbursements provided by statute,any sum which a court,including any appellate court,may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees. In the event the prevailing party in the 3 arbitration or related judicial action is represented by"in-house"counsel,the prevailing party shall nevertheless be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees based upon the reasonable time incurred and the attorney fee rates and charges reasonably and generally accepted in the metropolitan Portland,Oregon area for the type of legal services performed. SECTION 5 -Amendments 1. The terms of this agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Any amendments shall be in writing, shall refer specifically to this agreement, and shall be executed by both parties. SECTION 6—Notice 1. Written Notice Addresses. All written notices required under this agreement shall be sent by first class mail to: City of Lake Oswego: City Manager City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 City of Tigard: City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the date and year hereinabove written. Lake Oswego has acted in this matter pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the City Council on the day of ,2006. Tigard has acted in this matter pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by its City Council on the day of ,2006. City of Lake Oswego, by and through its city officials By: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM David Powell,City Attorney 4 ATTEST: By: Robyn Christie,City Recorder City of Tigard, by and through its city officials By: Craig Dirksen, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM Gary Firestone,City Attorney ATTEST: By: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director FROM: Tom Imdieke, Interim Finance Director RE: Costs Associated with Water Building DATE: January 19, 2006 You had requested information from Finance as to how the costs associated with non- water activities that are conducted out of the Water Building are actually expensed out to the related funds. First, the costs associated with any remodel of the building will be shared between all of the utility fund activities that will be located there. The allocation will be based on a combination of number of employees by activity/function and square footage. The ongoing operating costs, including maintenance, insurance, and etc. will be calculated each fiscal year based on the City's cost allocation plan and charged to each fund accordingly. If you need further clarification, please feel free to discuss this further. (ity of Tigard PublicWorks D A�.. . MI . j IS k fa kl,., 4 4 ;;WAa M1 14 44ei AK N*41( tl, o-• � f ti L< r ��s .��."� � .. � .tie.• p; .,+. Design with Integrity L R S Table of Contents Project Approach Executive Summary 1 . Existing Conditions • Site summary and aerial photos Public Works Annex Public Works Office Public Works Water Bldg. • Consultant summaries 2. Ideal Conditions • Summary • Staff spreadsheet • Questionnaire samples • Similar departments spreadsheet 3. Options Developed • Summary of report process • Plans Water Building options 1 & 2 Site plan with fleet • Budget 4. Interim Proposed Solution • Summary • Interim plans—options 3 & 4 • Budget Gi of Tigard Public Works Department Facility Needs Analysis Project Approach Project Team Architect Cost Estimator LRS Architects Inc. KJM &Associates 1 121 SW Salmon Street Suite 100 1 1 1 SW Columbia, Suite 830 Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97201 Voice: 503-221-1121 503-225-1120 Paul Boundy, Principal Doug Roberts, Estimator Mary Fitzpatrick, Planner Structural Engineer Mechanical Engineer Nishkian Dean Munro &Associates 319 SW Washington Street Suite 720 18678 SW Boones Ferry Road Portland, OR 97204 Tualatin, OR 97062 Voice: 503-274-1843 503-612-6500 Ed Dean, Principal Doug Downie,Associate Electrical Engineer Reyes Engineering 6126 SE Duke Street, Suite A Portland, OR 97206 503-771-1986 Flaviono Reyes, Principal Project Description and Goals The City of Tigard Department of Public Works solicited Architectural Services to provide a Facility Needs Assessment that provides a cursory assessment of existing facilities, program- ming services, and conceptual space planning. The goal of this solicitation was to determine a method to best utilize the partially vacant Water Building to consolidate the Departments, maximize their use of space, improve access to the public and create a more cost efficient and modern work environment for staff. The scope of work included the analysis of space usage of 65 employees with 23 staff in of- fice environments in four separate buildings at three sites and 42 field staff spread over two sites. The Department partially occupies the Water Building, and completely occupies the Pub- lic Works Annex and the Public Works Yard. Both the Water Building and the Public Works Yard include exterior space for parking and maintenance of fleet vehicles, storage of materials and other Public Works related activities. The Public Works department consists of Parks &Grounds, Water,Waste Water &Sewer and Administration Divisions. This Facility Needs Analysis was undertaken beginning in June 2005 to determine the scope of work required to create an efficient work environment for the City of Tigard Public Works Department staff. The following goals were addressed during the course of the analysis: Identify facility needs for long term Public Works projections Determine current condition and utilization of existing facilities City of Tigard Public Works Department Facility Needs Analysis Consolidate Public Works staff from three sites to one site Improve the utilization of Water Building facility Identify facilities for use by other City departments Comply with long term Downtown Improvement Plan Conform compliance with industry standards for Public Works departments Process The Project Team has taken the following steps to achieve the goals of this project: Task 1: Inventory Existing Facilities LRS and our consultants performed an on-site survey of existing facilities (Water Building and Yard, Public Works Yard) in sufficient detail to assess the present condition and make reasonable determination of the utilization of each building and service yard. The assessment included a cursory evaluation of the buildings and site including each primary building system including, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, electrical, security, data, structural, ADA ac- cess and architectural systems. LRS provided an inventory of existing facilities and exterior storage yard area. Information gathered for this inventory will be for future use by the City. This inventory was the basis of determining the condition and utilization of the existing buildings and the existing building components. LRS provided a graphic summary of exterior storage and parking needs for materials used by the Department based on a comprehensive list of equipment and materials provided by the City. Parking needs include fleet vehicles, service vehicles, staff and public vehicles. TASK 2: GATHER USER GROUP DATA LRS utilized a survey instrument, distributed by the City to supervisory staff, that was tailored to meet the needs of the Project to verify existing information. In this case, the survey focused primarily on the facility conditions, space configuration, functional adjacencies, space needs and projected growth. Follow-up interviews were held with supervisory staff to confirm the findings in the survey. A concise summary of this information is provided in this document. TASK 3: PROJECT FUTURE STAFF AND SPACE NEEDS With input from the City and results of the survey, LRS summarized projections of future personnel for each of the Divisions within Public Works. The projections define changes in personnel by type and number in two five-year increments (2010 and 2015). LRS projected future space needs based on the staff projections and average square foot space needed per employee. Consideration was given to the use of existing modular furniture where feasible. Future space needs include consideration for specialized equipment, storage, conference and meeting room requirements. TASK 4: PREPARE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS LRS provided multiple schemes showing relationships of program requirements, utilization of exterior yards, preliminary space and furniture layouts and approximate scope of work required by each option. A rough order of magnitude cost for each option was included and all five schemes have been presented for review and consideration by the City. Two schemes have been designated as Interim Proposed Solutions, solutions that can achieve the goals of increasing the efficiency of Public Works with the minimal cost. An Ideal Solution has been identified that will give Public Works a guideline for making long term planning decisions. Cost Estimates All cost estimates contained in this report are preliminary in nature and are based on the Consultant's best judgment and understanding of existing conditions, recommended modifica- tions and replacement systems. The estimates are provided as a basis for evaluating each recommendation and for comparing one recommendation against another. Estimates are for typical construction hard costs including contractor's profit and overhead but exclude soft costs such as consultant fees, special inspections, plan reviews, and other regulatory or develop- mental fees unless otherwise noted. Our team would like to thank the Department of Public Works staff for their invaluable input and time spent assisting us with this process. Special thanks to Brian Roger, Rob Murchison and Arnie Manzano. (ity of Tigard Public Works Department facility Needs Analysis Executive Summary The following is a synopsis of the data compiled and an overview of the findings of this Facil- ity Needs Analysis. This summary is divided into major categories of Existing Conditions, Ideal Conditions, Options Developed and Interim Proposed Solution. Existing Conditions The existing Public Works Department is comprised of 66 full time positions and 4 seasonal staff. The staff is distributed among multiple buildings at three sites, the Public Works Office and Yard, Public Works Annex and the Water Building. The total available area at the three sites totals 7.7 acres of total property including 14,375 SF of Office Space, 13,045 SF of Warehouse/Shop Space. Summarized as follows: Location Site Are # of Staff Office Shop Space Space Public Works Yard 3.27 Acres 21 2975 sf 5475 sf Public Works Annex .35 Acres 8 1640 sf 0 Water Building 4.04 Acres 26 9760 sf7570 sf TOTAL 7,07 Acres 14,375 sf 1 13,045 sf `Water Building office space is only partially utilized by Public Works, rest of the building was recently vacated by staff move to City Hall. All other areas noted are utilized 100% by Public Works. Public Works Office and Yard: The Warehouse and Yard areas serve the needs of the Parks and Streets departments. The open space is adequate for these departments, well organized and maintained. Parking is adequate and the location is centralized in the City. The Ware- house buildings house some staff offices that may not be code compliant and lack adequate ventilation, accessibility, and seismic protection. The Office Building serves administrative staff space needs, as well as field crew, lunch and shower areas. It also houses the SCADA equipment. The second floor offices are an inef- ficient use of space for staff positions and are not handicap accessible. This building is well maintained but due to the buildings age, the Heating/Ventilation systems are inadequate. Other systems in need of upgrade or replacement to bring up to current standards include the plumbing, accessibility and interior finishes. Though the building structure is in generally good condition, it would not withstand a significant seismic event. Public Works Annex:This building was not studied in detail as it is assumed that it will be vacated at the earliest opportunity. This former residence meets the current space needs of the balance of the administrative department but the layout of individual rooms as offices is inefficient. The quality of the lighting and mechanical systems and interior finishes are not up to current standards. The building roof and exterior is deteriorating and in need of upgrade or replacement. This entire site area is subject to street realignment and may not be available for future use. Water Building: This building is modern compared to the Annex and Yard structures. The spaces are in very good condition and well maintained. The open space is well laid out and includes amenities not included at the older yard including a fuel station and a compliant fity of Tigard Public Works Deportment Facility Needs Analysis equipment cleaning area with proper drainage. The office building provides a combination of open office spaces and private offices and will allow an efficient furniture layout. A large public meeting room is available and is shared with other departments and serves as the Emergency Operations Center for the City. The locker room includes mud rooms, showers and a dry room, but they are small and accommoda- tion for female staff is minimal. The electrical system includes emergency power systems and adequate service for most uses. The mechanical system appears to be at the end of its useful life and will require some upgrade as part of any renovation. The exterior appearance of this building is a modern and well maintained masonry building that is holding up well. Parking is adequate and is located at a highly visible intersection, yet the yard areas are screened by low walls to maintain an organized appearance. Ideal Conditions Based on questionnaires, staff interviews and comparisons to similar Public Works depart- ments, an ideal space program was developed with staffing projections in five and ten year increments. Noted below is a summary of the required space including total recommended site area, projected number of staff, and estimated area for Office and Shop/Warehouse Space. It was a general concensus among staff that the ideal situation would be one site that housed all Public Works functions. The current location, near to City Hall and centrally located is preferred, but is not vital. Location Site Are # of Staff Office Shop Space Space Public Works Yard 8.0 Acres 166 12,600 sf 1 15,000 sf A rough comparison with similar sized Public Works Departments shows that the ideal facility needs program is in line with industry standards. city Population Staff Stie Area Tigard 45,500 66 8 Ac Albany 43,000 102 5 Ac / 1 Site Corvallis 50,100 113 27 Ac / 1 Site Lake Oswego 36,000 43 6.35 Ac / 1 Site Kirklan, WA 45,500 80 4.8 Ac / 2 Sites Olympia, WA 44,000 215' 11 Ac / 4 Sites Redmond, WA 46,400 150 7 Ac / 1 Site `Includes transportation departments Options Developed After determining the ideal conditions, several options were tested to determine feasibility. It was a general consensus that the Water Building site alone is not adequate to accommodate the ideal conditions. The Water Buildings can be expanded to consolidate staff, but the Yard is not able to adequately serve the needs of the City without acquiring additional property. The site is locked by the rail line to the north, public roads to the east and south, and the fire station property to the west. If additional contiguous property could be found to the west of the fire station, it is possible that the Water Building site could meet the ideal conditions, however, this does not align with the City's Downtown Improvement Plan. Two general sets of options were reviewed. Options 1 and 2 are slight variations based on the expansion of the Water Building to accommodate all staff, but will require that the Yard area remain in service. The Office can be re-used for purposes other than staff. These options open the Annex building to be re-used or sold. Options 3 and 4 are variations based on the staff remaining divided between the Office/Yard and Water site, but consolidates the Annex staff into the Water Building. These are considered to be the minimal required to improve the efficiency of the Department and are relatively cost effective as short term solutions. No expansion of the Water Building is required. These op- tions allow the Annex Building to be re-used or sold. The Ideal Option, reflects comments noted above and provides pricing for the option of build- ing an entirely new complex on a new site or adequate expansion of the Water Building site. All costs below are based on current conditions and will increase by a factor of 3 to 446 for every year projected. The costs are for construction and soft costs only and do not include land purchase. Option Pros Cons Cost 1 -Expand WB to ac- Consolidates all staff; Limited space for future $1,706,458 commodate all PW staff Frees up Yard and growth;Inadequate yard Annex for other use area or sale 2-Expand WB to ac- Consolidates majority Rebuild fleet at Yard loca- $1,631,318 commodate all except of staff; Frees up Yard tion;Inadequate space for Fleet and Annex for other future growth;lnadequate use or sale yard area 3-Parks and Streets Annex is vacated;Wa- Does not consolidate all $495,508 stay at Yard ter Bldg is completely staff.;Operating costs at utilized Yard are maintained 4-Parks and Streets Annex is vacated;Of- Does not consolidate all $565,656 stay at Yard and con- fice is vacated;Water staff.;Operating costs at solidate in Shop Space Bldg is completely Yard are maintained utilized Ideal-Purchase new Sell off existing Yard Highest initial cost; Short- $5,750,000 if new standalone property or and Annex Building, age of adequate sized site$2,735,000 purchase contiguous Lower operating cost parcels in Tigard ifWater Bldg site property to Water Bldg site Interim Proposed Solution Options Three and Four are being evaluated for an interim proposed solution. City of Tigard Public Works Department Facility Needs Analysis u ,r h i t r r t , i s r. gfffflOa Excerpt Draft Minutes from the Tigard Water District Meeting on January 23, 2006 4. Resolution — Desire to Declare a Portion of the Canterbury Site as Surplus Property and Donate it to the City of Tigard for Use as a Park Site Mr. Koellermeier presented a draft resolution for the Board to consider and displayed a map that outlined the surplus portion of the Canterbury site. He explained the request from the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) and City Council at their last joint meeting to consider property not being used for water purposes for use as parks. He talked to the city attorney about the necessary process to follow and briefed the IWB on those issues. Highlights of the board discussion included the following points: • This property (recorded under the name of the Tigard Water District) is clearly identified in the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) as property within the incorporated city limits • Assets were originally divided into two asset groups: the assets used on a daily basis to provide water and all the other assets • City Attorney suggested first step of the process was for Board to declare that portion of property surplus which clearly puts it in the second group of assets Mr. Koellermeier referred to Commissioner Radley's e-mail of Monday and said he understands his concerns on the issue. He explained that the process started when Council directed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to begin a process of identifying potential properties for park improvements in the Tigard City limits and the unincorporated area. That process included an analysis of identifying neighborhood parks as walkable within a half mile radius. Canterbury was identified through the radius study. Commissioner Rhine asked under what criteria is this being declared a surplus. Mr. Koellermeier suggested the Board consider the criteria that this site has not been used for water purposes for over 20 years and there is nothing in our water master plan (through 2040) that indicates that any additional water facilities would be located at that site that would be used for water purposes. Commissioner Froude asked if this site might possibly be used for another well. Mr. Koellermeier responded that he had talked to our hydro geologist and the likelihood of putting another well on this property is very slim from the aspect of interference on water wells if placed too close to each other. They have to be sited far enough apart so the activities of one well do not affect the hydrology on the other well. Now that we have perfected and re-drilled the well up near the reservoir site, the likelihood of a second well is not very high. Commissioner Radley asked what's going on the part of the site that will remain a system asset. Mr. Koellermeier responded there are two reservoirs. There is a well building. Originally the well was in that property and the casing rotted apart and failed, so we re-drilled the well in another location and put a building there. There is the old water building, which is currently being used for storage of surplus records/�dOeD bins (for gravel, broken concrete, bark dust, etc.) used as a satellite facility by the entire Public Works operations. This time of year we also park a large portable restroom (generally down at Cook Park) until spring. The communication tower will be located in that area also. Outside of this property is actually an unimproved right-of- way with trails and planted with Christmas trees that are now about 35 ft. tall. Recently we went through neighborhood notification and removed several dead and hazardous trees. Commissioner Rhine asked what is the gradient there (that's all fairly flat, isn't it). Yes, Mr. Koellermeier responded, there might be 10-12 ft. of slope across the whole thing. Commissioner Froude asked will we ever have to put another reservoir there as things develop. Mr. Koellermeier responded that he was really comfortable with the reservoir analysis in that system-wide this is the 410 elevation. We actually have too much storage at this elevation. Our issue with storage is at some of the other elevations. Commissioner Delphine asked if there were any other possibilities of wanting to use this property other than for parks. Mr. Koellermeier responded no. He has not heard of any other interest in acquiring the property for any other purposes from the district. Commissioner Rhine said the district has no interest in selling it to a commercial developer or anything like that, right? Mr. Koellermeier said he has not had that request and has not polled the board to confirm that. He believes the property is all residentially zoned, but he would have to do some research about what all the various things could be built there. Commissioner Zeider asked how big is that piece of property. Mr. Koellermeier said approximately two acres. Commissioner Rhine asked if we were favorably disposed, what would be the process we would have to go through? Would we have to get this approved by us and by the IWB? Mr. Koellermeier thought he would do both just to remove any doubt on which is the body that actually deals with this issue. Ultimately, the process he has been advised that we should take is: if this board declares this surplus to the purpose of water, then he thinks we would move ahead and get a legal description for the property we are interested in. He would recommend that we actually do a physical land partition of the property. Then, you could say that you want to retain parcel 1, or A or B, or whatever and what you are talking about surplus would have a legal description and create a property line. At that point, then it is easy to do a deed name change on the property. The agreement says this is already the City of Tigard, but it's still , and that's just messy. OLT&Ja Right, Commissioner Froude said, and that's her issue. All the issues that are questionable in the Intergovernmental Agreement should be settled before we start changing any borders. Then, we will all be on the same page. She thinks the Intergovernmental Water Board is also looking at this issue as far as clarifying what words mean what, e.g., what an asset is, who the assets belong to and if there is a sale or merger, what happens to the underground assets and the above ground assets. She is not for doing anything, personally, until we look at the whole issue. Commissioner Radley said he felt the same way and that's why he wrote the letter. Commissioner Delphine asked if anyone knew the market value for that amount of land. Mr. Koellermeier said he has not done that analysis. He was looking through some material and he found where Commissioner Froude, actually was the Chair at the time, accepted the economic report of the dissolution of assets that talks about this property and the process of what you were going to do with it. The question of what the market value is today and, if we are going to transfer it between entities, are two different things. If you want me to figure out what the market analysis is, then in theory we should do an appraisal (I can get you something pretty close without spending the money I would think). Just a ballpark figure Commissioner Delphine said. Before we do that, Commissioner Rhine thought there are some issues such as who owns it, whose name is on the title, etc. He doesn't think we should spend money on an appraisal or anything else until we get some of those issues cleared up. Mr. Koellermeier concurred. Commissioner Radley said it is about two acres and is worth probably at least a million, maybe two. Mr. Koellermeier said my guess is that would be high. Commissioner Radley said I guess it is undeveloped, so it may not be that high. Mr. Koellermeier said he is comfortable with the concerns that have been raised by Mr. Radley and Mr. Rhine. He stated he needed direction as to what is it that you want me to bring back. We've talked a little bit about value. Mr. Koellermeier asked does the Board want him to have the City Attorney prepare an explanation of the Agreement or would you like him to have the City Attorney come to a meeting so the Board could ask him questions. Also, there is a suggestion that we hire some independent legal advice. � Commissioner Delphine thought first we need to determine what the asse ifi!' �;7&) ours, and if it is, what the options are as opposed to just donating it. Do we have other options? Commissioner Radley said he heard one other option is leasing instead of donation. Commissioner Rhine said the real issue is who owns it. If we don't own it, we can't lease it or transfer it. Commissioner Radley noticed a difference in the process, e.g., the Tigard Tualatin School district had some properties that they declared surplus and they followed a very laborious process of public hearings. One of my questions is, did they do that because they wanted to or was there a legal requirement that when land is declared surplus that type of thing has to happened. Mr. Koellermeier said the part that we are involved in has not been concluded at this point. They have lists of surplus pieces of property that they are taking public testimony on. I believe they have made no final decisions on any of them. Another piece of school district property has also been identified through our park location process so we are communicating with the school district. Commissioner Froude proposed having an independent attorney look at the IGA. When the agreement was written, it was written by the City of Tigard attorney. Not that it was right or wrong, it just was. It has not been looked at by any of the Boards since the original IGA. Mr. Koellermeier made an assumption that their various attorneys reviewed the IGA before the report was signed originally. Commissioner Froude said they didn't. Commissioner Rhine suggested before we get into what we should do, there are some people present that would like to make comments. Opened for Public Comment: Lisa Hamilton-Treick, resident of the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain, learned about the possible surplus of this property and it caused concern. Her research has TWD as title owner of the Canterbury site. The annexation failed earlier, now there is an effort to incorporate the area as a city which changes the whole idea of dissolving these resources, turning them over to someone else. She personally does not want to see these assets disposed of at this time. She would strongly favor leasing these assets to the city. The area is not threatened with being developed because it is held by the Water District. A $1 a year lease would a a D �D be fine. It would serve the and it would protect this area a seTof publics good a those of us who reside in the Tigard Water District. Before anything is done, she asks for an attorney (representing the interests of the resident rate payers in the Tigard Water District) to look at this Agreement from the perspective of representing our long-term interests. That land may become very valuable. In the meantime, she thinks it is great to make it a park. That's responsible use of the land. She supports the historical society. Property could be used for weddings, fund raisers or other events in the area and does not need to be sold or donated for it to serve the greater good of Tigard. I ask for an attorney to represent my interest to look at this document. I would strongly encourage you as well to make it available for the greater good and that it be a lease arrangement, rather than a donation of very valuable land. As a real estate broker, she can assure you that level land on the top of little Bull Mountain is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Presented board with letter dated this date- part of file) Commissioner Delphine had a question about terms of the lease of it. If we were to lease it to City of Tigard for a $1, would Section 3 under Resolution 06-01 where the City of Tigard is responsible for any and all costs associated with the creation of a park facility on the Canterbury surplus property, change and would we then be responsible for it. Commissioner Rhine commented that he didn't think anyone knows. Mr. Koellermeier commented he didn't know yet. When he drafted this resolution, his assumption was this Board would not bear any costs for surveying, and those kinds of issues, or the actual putting of improvements on the park ground. Commissioner Radley commented that the Water District is not a parks provider and legally we cannot do any of that. The city has a Parks Department so they are a parks provider. Mr. Koellermeier concurred with that. Commissioner Delphine commented, if it is lease versus donated, where would the costs fall under and whose responsibility is it? Mr. Koellermeier responded he thinks its terms of the lease. Commissioner Radley questioned the December 20th meeting referred to in the draft resolution. Mr. Koellermeier responded that he thought it was a work session and they keep summary minutes of the work session. Either way, no decision was made at that meeting. Commissioner Rhine said he would like to focus on Item 4. Resolution — Desire to Declare a Portion of the Canterbury Site as Surplus Property and donate it to the City o of Tigard for Use as a Park Site. It appears that there still seems to be soWL79) unresolved issues around this in terms of how this relates to the actual Agreement, whether or not (regardless of what the state says in terms of ownership) we really do own it or not, etc. Would we like to instruct Dennis to get someone to review the Agreement. Commissioner Froude said she will furnish two names of attorneys. For the sake of time, Mr. Koellermeier suggested he would generate some names and, if any of the board members have an attorney with experience in water districts and assets, please share those names. Then, he suggested a small committee or the Chair could be involved in doing an interview or proposal. Commissioner Rhine commented that we need to get somebody that doesn't have any skin in the game too. The next part of that then is, if we want to get somebody to review the agreement and help give us some legal determination and advice on the thing, what is the sense of urgency in getting this resolved. Is this something we should have a meeting next month to come back and review? Mr. Koellermeier commented that he does not have that level of urgency on it. He would like to keep a little bit of inertia on it from the aspect that if it is found in favor, then we have to get into the construction (public notification window) of developing a park. Some of that work may be summer related. We are dealing with construction issues. A timeline (of three months to our next meeting) was suggested to give him adequate time (if the Board or Chair would authorize and work with him) to retain an attorney and have an opinion written that answers what he believes the questions are. Commission Froude commented that since it has been there all this time (it's not moving) and, if it doesn't even get done this year with the park, the world is not going to stop tilting on it axis. But, we shouldn't drag on. Mr. Koellermeier asked is it fair to assume how this Agreement affects the assets is bigger than just this property. Also, where does the Board make decisions, where does the IWB make decisions and where do we do joint decisions. Commissioner Rhine responded yes. He would like Mr. Koellermeier to come back with an additional explanation of what the 40 year plan is and why this is surplus. Mr. Koellermeier said he could do that. He might even bring the authors of the 40 year plan and the consulting engineers involved to explain that logic. Commissioner Radley reviewed all points in detail of his letter. Mr. Koellermeier will provide signed copies of the agreements with the other IWB agencies. DCommissioner Rhine and Mr. Koellermeier will interview a couple o diffeLV 0a candidates for giving legal advice on this particular issue. Commissioner Froude suggested the clarification of assets, as used in the Agreement, needs to be defined. Commissioner Radley commented that parks, in general, are a good thing. He has no objection to the park. 8. Non-Agenda Items Commissioner Radley referred to the city incorporation efforts on Bull Mountain mentioned in the appendix of his letter. A report stating the five options is available on the web. If a new city was formed on Bull Mountain, it would not have Water or Public Works departments in the beginning and may elect to continue to work through the Tigard Water District for a period of time. Commissioner Rhine reminded Commissioner Radley that the TWD represented the unincorporated area of Washington County only. Items to discuss with the attorneys should include the process involved to add a new entity to the IWB. Sign-in Sheet for Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting February 8, 2006 Name (Please Print) Do you want to speak to the Board? FAX TRANSMITTAL Date February 2, 2006 Number of pages including cover sheet 3 From: Greer Gaston Co: City of Tigard Fax #: 503.684.8840 Ph #: 503.639.4171, ext. 2595 To: The City of King City (Fax No. 503.639.3771) L� The City of Durham (Fax No. 503.598.8595) Please post the attached meeting notice and agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board. Thank you. I:\ENG\FAX.DOT Intergovernmental Water Board Serving Tigard, King City, Darrham and Unincorporated Area NOTICEMEETING Wednesday, February 8, 2006 5:30 p.m. City of Tigard Water Auditorium 8777 SW Burnham Tigard, Oregon 97223 Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, February 8, 2006 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order,Roll Call and Introductions Call the meeting to order,staff to take roll call. 2. Approval of Minutes-January 11, 2006 Motion from Board for minute approval. 3. Election of a Chair and ice-Chair-(5 minutes) 4. Lake Oswego Presentation-(20 minutes) 5. Review the Intergovernmental Agreement for Joint Funding of a Water Supply System Plan with the City of Lake Oswego-Dennis Koellermeier(10 minutes) 6. Status Report on the Tigard Water Building-Dennis Koellermeier(10 minutes) 7. Public Information Proposal from the Tigard Water District-Dennis Koellermeier(5 minutes) 8. Informational Items-Dennis Koellermeier Excerpt of Tigard Water District Draft Minutes,agenda item#4- The Donation of Surplus Property at the Canterbury Site to the City of Tigard for Park Facilities 9. Public Comments Call for any comments from public. 10. Non-Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. 11. Next Meeting- Wednesday,March 8, 2006, 5:30 p.tn. - {Pater Auditorium 12. Adjournment-Approximate Time 7:00 p.m. Motion for adjournment. A light dinner will be provided. Executive Session: Me Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. hp officejet 4200 series 4215 Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Log for City of Tigard PW 5036848840 2/2/2006 4 : 34PM Last Transaction Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 02/02 04 : 33p Fax Sent 5035988595 1 : 05 3 OK hp officejet 4200 series 4215 Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Log for City of Tigard PW 5036848840 2/2/2006 4 : 32PM Last Transaction Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 02/02 04 : 31p Fax Sent 5036393771 1 : 05 3 OK