Loading...
02/14/2007 - Packet Completeness Review s for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD Intergovernmental Water Board Name of Board, Commission or Committee F,,-b ., 1q. z Date of Meei4ng 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 N me Signature -3 / , 113 Date Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, February 14, 2007 Tigard Public Library 5:30 p.m. 2nd Floor Conference Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Call the meeting to order, staff to take roll call. 2. Public Comments Call for any comments from the public. 3. Receive and File Minutes from the November 14, 2006, Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego and Tigard City Councils Motion from the Board to receive and file the minutes. 4. Approval of Minutes -January 10, 2007 Motion from the Board to approve the minutes. 5. Royal Mobile Villa Credit for Leak Request- Roger Dawes (5 minutes) 6. Water Building/Asset Discussion Continued- Dennis Koellermeier(30 minutes) 7. Election of a Chair and Vice-Chair- (5 minutes) 8. Informational Items-Dennis Koellermeier 9. Non-Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. continued-- Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA 10. Upcoming Meetings: ■ March 14, 2007, 5:30 p.m. Tigard Public Library, 2"d Floor Conference Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon ■ March 20, 2007, Time to be announced Joint Meeting with the Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard Oregon ■ April 11, 2007, 5:30 p.m. Tigard Public Library, 2"d Floor Conference Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon ■ ** Tentative **April 17, 2007, Time to be announced Joint Meeting with the Tigard and Lake Oswego City Councils Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard Oregon 11. Adjournment 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. Sign-in Sheet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Date: - o Name Do you wish If yes, please give your address please print to speak to the Board? John Q. Public Yes 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) Meeting Minutes February 14, 2007 Tigard Public Library 2nd Floor Conference Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Members Present: Gretchen Buehner, Patrick Carroll, George Rhine, Bill Scheiderich (left the meeting at 6:31 p.m.), and Dick Winn Members Absent: None Staff Present: Public Works Director Dennis Koellermeier Water Quality & Supply Supervisor John Goodrich IWB Recorder Greer Gaston Financial Operations Manager Roger Dawes 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Commissioner Scheiderich called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. 2. Public Comments: None 3. Receive and File Minutes from the November 14, 2006, Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego and Tigard City Councils Commissioner Carroll motioned to receive and file the November 14, 2006, minutes; Commissioner Rhine seconded the motion. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. 4. Approval of Minutes —January 10, 2007 Commissioner Buehner motioned to approve the January 10, 2007, minutes; Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. 5. Royal Mobile Villa Credit for Leak Request Mr. Dawes provided information on the leak. Staff calculated the credit at $3,980.08. The IWB is required to approve credits exceeding $500. Commissioner Carroll motioned to approve the adjustment as submitted; Commissioner Winn seconded the motion. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. 6. Water Building/Asset Discussion - Continued from the January 10, 2007 Meeting Mr. Koellermeier reported the City of Tigard's (COT's) interest in acquiring the water building had not changed. He distributed two flowcharts depicting options for Tigard's ownership of the water building and the surplus property at the Canterbury site. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes February 14, 2007 1 Commissioner Scheiderich said there were two issues before the IWB: ■ What is the preferred disposition of the water building? ■ If disposing of the building, what should be done with the proceeds? Possible suggestions included a cash payout to IWB members, a rate rebate, or deposit the funds in a capital improvement reserve. The Commissioners responded as follows: Commissioner Carroll The Durham City Council voted unanimously to retain City of Durham ownership of the water building and enter into an equitable, long-term lease agreement with the COT. Money generated from rent should be placed in the water capital fund. Commissioner Winn Commissioner Winn would honor the 1993 City of King City Intergovernmental Agreement that established the IWB and transfer ownership to the City of Tigard. Commissioner Rhine The TWD had not discussed the disposition of the water Tigard Water District building, but the surplus Canterbury property had been (TWD) discussed. The sentiment was proceeds resulting from the sale of a water asset need to be reinvested in water capital improvement projects. Commissioner Buehner The Tigard City Council is ready to act with regard to City of Tigard ownership and is also supportive of putting funds into a long-term capital fund. The COT wants an equitable solution. The Board briefly discussed the improvements the COT is planning for the water building. Commissioner Scheiderich proposed the following options for the Board's consideration: ■ Lease Allowing for Improvement Credit The COT and the IWB could draft a lease in which the City would get depreciated credit for the water building improvements should the IWB partnership dissolve and the lease be terminated prematurely. ■ Title Transfer to IWB Members Commissioner Scheiderich recognized the City of Tigard did not want to invest $600,000 in a building it does not own. He proposed the City become the property's owner of record. The TWD would retain a proportionate share in the building, while deeding the remaining shares to the Cities of Tigard, King City, and Durham. The City of Tigard, as the largest shareholder, would have majority ownership in the building. This arrangement is known as a tenancy in common and could be terminated by any of the tenants (IWB members) removing themselves from the tenancy. This would force a sale of that member's shares in the building. Typically, the other tenants would buy out these shares. The method to allocate shares would need to be formulated. Commissioner Scheiderich gave the example of the COT putting $600,000 of improvements into the building, but also owning a 60 percent share in the deed record. The City would be improving its own building and this would not be a concern for the other members. Commissioner Rhine said this arrangement was similar to other joint ownership arrangements the IWB had entered into. Commissioner Winn commented this option was reasonable. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes February 14,2007 2 Commissioner Scheiderich said such an arrangement would protect the ownership interests of each IWB member. Commissioner Buehner advised if the building were to be sold, all the members would have to agree to the sale. Commissioner Scheiderich added a separate right of first refusal agreement could be created. In the event one tenant should decide to back out of the tenancy, this agreement would give the remaining tenants first option to buy the departing tenant's shares. Commissioner Carroll countered if the larger shareholders decided to sell the building, it would be difficult for the other members to raise enough money to buy the available shares. Commissioner Buehner advised the general rule of joint ownership is none of the partners can sell unless all the partners are in agreement. The smallest partner could prevent a sale, despite the preference of all the other members. A side agreement could be created stating any tenant who wants out of the tenancy could either require a sale of the property or have their interest bought out. If the COT chose this route, the other IWB members might not be able to come up with the money to buy the City's shares. This scenario would probably necessitate the sale of the building. Commissioner Carroll said he could support an agreement in which the water building could not be transferred out of the water district without the approval of all four IWB members. Commissioner Buehner responded this was the general rule. Commissioner Carroll said he would want these terms included in an agreement. Commissioner Scheiderich requested a legal opinion: If the TWD were to deed the water building title to the IWB members, based on some type of proportional share formula, could any of the owners in common (IWB members) prevent sale of the asset outright? Could any one of the tenants in common force a sale? Commissioner Carroll expressed support for a right of first refusal agreement. He emphasized the important thing would be to create a document guaranteeing the water building stays under the control of the water district representatives until all the members find a compelling reason to liquidate the asset. Mr. Koellermeier noted even after improvements, the water building will only house about half of the Public Works Department staff. At some point in the future, it is likely the department will need to move to a larger facility and the water building would no longer be used for water purposes. Commissioner Buehner said a side agreement could be created to transfer ownership to the new facility based on the same ratios established for the water building. Commissioner Carroll said if there came a time when the water building is no longer of any value, he would support selling the property with the proceeds going to the water fund. Rather than have ownership in the new facility, he proposed the water-related functions could be assessed an equitable fee based on their proportional use of the new building. Commissioner Winn added he wasn't concerned about the disposition of the water building as long as it doesn't affect the operation of the water system. The Board discussed the Public Works Department future facility. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes February 14,2007 3 Commissioner Rhine remarked if the water building had no public service value and was also not needed for the operation of the water system, then the building would be surplus and should be sold. Other IWB members agreed. Commissioner Carroll added the proceeds should go to the water system. Mr. Koellermeier agreed, provided the water fund had paid for the initial improvements. Commissioner Rhine said it was reasonable for improvements to be credited or backed out of the sale. Commissioner Carroll asserted not all improvements should qualify for a credit. He continued by saying a major capital expense, like replacement of the HVAC system, should qualify, while more minor improvements, like erecting walls for offices, should not. Commissioner Scheiderich suggested two options should the COT vacate the water building before the improvements were fully depreciated: ■ The City could be given a higher share of the proceeds from the sale of the building. ■ The City could accept the loss. Commissioner Winn remarked the building was also appreciating in value. Commissioner Buehner cautioned if the IWB created a tenancy in common, it needed to be aware one member of the IWB would have the power to halt whatever the other members wished to do. She suggested when the time comes to move to a new facility, all the members should agree to be reasonable and prudent and to sign off on the disposition of the water building. The IWB agreed to move forward with an agreement. Mr. Koellermeier commented this arrangement worked for the COT because money wouldn't have to be moved from one fund to another. Commissioner Scheiderich requested Mr. Koellermeier return with some options on how shares in the water building might be calculated. Commissioner Carroll asked how the $600,000 in improvements will affect the agreement. Commissioner Buehner noted there would need to be a specific allocation of what goes into the HVAC system versus more traditional tenant improvements. Mr. Koellermeier said the cost of the HVAC system is approximately $350,000. Mr. Koellermeier explained between 58 and 60 percent of the water building complex is being used for water system operations. Commissioner Scheiderich proposed 60 percent of the improvements should then be charged to the water fund. As tenants in common, each of the IWB members would share in the water building's appreciation. Commissioner Carroll asked how the remaining 40 percent of non-water functions would be charged to the COT. Commissioner Scheiderich countered that since the City owns more than a 40 percent share in the building, this was a moot point as far as the IWB is concerned. Commissioner Carroll asserted any non-water related functions should have to compensate the water board for the use of the building. Commissioner Winn commented this compensation should go to the water capital improvement fund. The other Commissioners concurred. Mr. Koellermeier said he would draw up the points the IWB had discussed. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes February 14,2007 4 With regard to the water building, Commissioner Carroll commented the IWB's arrangement with the COT could be a "paper exercise" where no actual money changed hands. Commissioner Buehner noted fair rental value needed to be determined. Commissioner Carroll added that 40 percent of the water building improvements should be considered lease tenant improvements because this portion of the building would be allocated for non-water functions. He continued by saying these users should pay a monthly rent based on square footage. The IWB agreed operational costs of the building would be allocated based on the use of the building. Mr. Koellermeier clarified operational costs of the building are water department costs, but they have a rent revenue. Commissioner Buehner requested Attorney Clark Balfour be hired to work on the IWB's behalf. Mr. Koellermeier outlined the process for the COT to acquire the surplus property at Canterbury as follows: ■ Determine the boundary of the surplus property ■ Declare the property as surplus ■ IWB approves the sale of the surplus property ■ The COT buys the surplus property for park purposes • Proceeds from the sale are credited to the water capital fund The TWD Board of Commissioners has agreed to sell the property for the appraised value. Commissioner Rhine commented the conditions of the sale of surplus property were spelled out in the 1993 agreement that created the IWB. Mr. Koellermeier advised the TWD had leased one corner of the Canterbury property to the John Tigard House. With regard to the sale of the surplus property, he proposed two options: ■ Exclude the property leased by the John Tigard House from the surplus property. In this case, the TWD would continue to own and lease this section of the property. ■ Include the John Tigard House in the surplus park property with the understanding the COT will continue the lease. In this case, Mr. Koellermeier asserted the City should not have to pay for that section of the property. The IWB expressed a preference for the latter option. Commissioner Scheiderich noted this arrangement should be subject to a lease strictly for the purpose of preserving the John Tigard House. He suggested a conservation easement. Commissioner Rhine said the COT Parks Division could administer the property. The IWB discussed a property appraisal. In order to buy the property, Mr. Koellermeier advised the COT's purchasing rules would necessitate an appraisal. He advised that although the City wanted to purchase the property for a park, the Tigard City Council would have to approve the purchase before the sale was finalized. Commissioner Scheiderich requested the partition be designed in such a way that the property would be attractive to other buyers besides Tigard. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes February 14,2007 5 Commissioner Scheiderich requested Mr. Koellermeier provide some options regarding the apportionment of the proceeds regarding the water building. Revenue generated might be considered in the formula. 7. Election of a Chair and Vice-Chair Commissioner Carroll motioned to reelect Commissioner Scheiderich to the position of Chairman; Commissioner Rhine seconded the motion. Commissioner Buehner asked Commissioner Carroll if he would continue to serve as Vice Chairman, Commissioner Carroll said yes. Commissioner Rhine seconded the motion. The motions were approved by unanimous vote. Note: Commissioner Scheiderich left the meeting at 6:31p.m. 8. Informational Items Mr. Koellermeier introduced Mr. Goodrich who provided information on proposed updates to the cross connection program. In order to bring the program into compliance with state regulations, Mr. Goodrich said the Tigard City Council will consider revisions to its municipal code regarding cross connections. The proposed updates are comparable with other local jurisdictions, including the Tualatin Valley Water District. The IWB discussed backflow, different types of backflow prevention devices, and the process for informing the public about the regulations. Commissioner Buehner advocated educating water customers about backflow. 9. Non-Agenda Items: None 10. Next Meeting— Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 5:30 p.m. Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 11. Adjournment At 6:51 p.m. Commissioner Rhine motioned to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Buehner seconded the motion. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. Greer A. Gaston, IWB Recorder Date:' ��. 1 e,e Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes February 14, 2007 6 Agenda Item No.: IWB Meeting Date: a Q*- Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2007 Tigard Water Building 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon Members Present: Gretchen Buehner, Patrick Carroll, George Rhine, Bill Scheiderich, and Dick Winn Members Absent: None Staff Present: Public Works Director Dennis Koellermeier IWB Recorder Greer Gaston 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. 2. Public Comments: None 3. Approval of Minutes—December 13, 2006 Commissioner Winn motioned to approve the December 13, 2006, minutes; Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion. Commissioner Buehner abstained from the vote since she had not attended the meeting. The motion was approved by a majority vote of 4-0-1, with four yes votes and one abstention. Note: Item 5 was heard before item 4. 4. Water Building/Asset Discussion Continued Commissioner Scheiderich pointed out the memo from Clark Balfour on the Canterbury property which was before each of the Commissioners. Mr. Koellermeier provided background on three real property issues the Board has discussed over the past year. Mr. Koellermeier noted each of the three properties has a unique set of circumstances. The three properties and their status are as follows: ■ Clute property - Both the Board and the Tigard City Council have declared the property as surplus. - Despite various attempts, the property did not sell on the open market. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10,2007 1 Since the property didn't sell, the City of Tigard decided to consider constructing a park on the site. If the City were to proceed with the park, the property would be transferred from a water asset to a park asset. The Clute property was purchased before 1994 and is considered a system asset. The property has been partitioned and appraised. Process to Dispose: • The next step to dispose of the property would be for the Board to come up with a selling price to present to the Tigard City Council. • The City Council could either purchase the property or put the property back on the open market. ■ Canterbury property - A large portion of the Canterbury property is surplus to the operation of the water system. - The City of Tigard is proposing the surplus portion of the property be converted to an other asset and be transferred to the City; Tigard would like to construct a park on the surplus portion of the site. - The City of Tigard would like to have issue resolved by July in order to construct the park in the next fiscal year. - The property was a Tigard Water District (TWD) asset before the 1993 IGA was created. - The property has never been partitioned. - It was Attorney Balfour's opinion that the IWB was the decision- making body with regard to the disposition of the surplus property. - Packet information from a consulting engineer says there was no need for the surplus property as it relates to the reservoir. - Mr. Koellermeier proposed an easement be granted in the event an ASR well is ever contemplated. - Process to Dispose: • IWB needs to declare the property surplus and authorize the minor partition application process. • Once completed, the TWD would deed the surplus property to the City of Tigard. Commissioner Rhine said the TWD had heard from many constituents during the recent incorporation attempt of Bull Mountain. These constituents were not in favor of the property being transferred. He indicated the TWD needed to have further discussion regarding the transfer of the Canterbury property. Mr. Koellermeier said he and the Chairperson of the TWD had discussed the possible transfer and both are seeking a positive outcome for all parties involved. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10, 2007 2 ■ Water building - The City of Tigard is planning to remodel and upgrade the water building and replace the building's HVAC systems; a $600,000 investment in the water building. - It is messy for the City to make such an investment when the building has such a complicated ownership structure. - Some of Tigard's Public Works staff must be relocated because their existing work place will be demolished as part of an upcoming road project. Following the water building remodel, Public Works staff could be housed in this facility. - When the City of Tigard took over the operational aspects of the water system, the City's finance operation moved into the water building. - A portion of the building is still used by the water and sanitary sewer divisions. - Since 1994, about one-third of the water building has been directly used for water-related functions. - The water building was completely omitted in the asset allocation and description in the 1994 IGA. At that time, the building was used solely for the operation of the water system and it is reasonable to assume the building would have been considered a system asset. As such, transfer would follow a process similar to that proposed for the Canterbury property and outlined in the IGA. - IWB partners' value in the building only exists if they were to withdraw from the group. The formula related to such a withdrawal is what could be used to identify the value of each partner's assets. - Process to Dispose: • Establish the value of the land, which does not depreciate. • Calculate the value of the building based on the depreciation schedule. • Mr. Koellermeier suggested part of the disposal transaction could guarantee the City would provide work space for water- related functions as long as the existing IWB relationship continues. In other words, IWB rate payers would not be asked to fund the construction of another facility to house water-related functions at some future time. • The City of Tigard would pay minority owners for their share of the building/property based on ownership percentages as outlined in the IGA. • Minority owners would give the City clear title to the building/property. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10,2007 3 In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Scheiderich, Mr. Koellermeier confirmed: - Four to five water billing staff are housed in City Hall. - The plan is to house twelve or thirteen additional water division staff in the remodeled water building. - Equipment is stored at the water building and at the Canterbury site. - Operational and maintenance costs are calculated through an allocation formula and are shared among building users by way of interfund transfers. - Depreciation costs are not included in this allocation formula. Commissioner Scheiderich directed the discussion to IWB members' disposition of their interest in the water building. Mr. Koellermeier noted, as part of Tigard's planning process, the water building was expected to remain in public use. Commissioner Buehner added the City Center Advisory Committee and the Tigard City Council have incorporated the water building into the downtown plan. Commissioner Scheiderich inquired whether the Board's preferred disposition would be to sell the building to Tigard or to dispose of the facility by some other means. If sold to Tigard, some agreement regarding the housing of the water- related functions/staff would need to reached. If the members agree to liquidate the water building and Tigard pays the assessed value, then space issues for the water function will need to be addressed. Mr. Koellermeier stated the current plan is all water functions, except billing, to be housed in water building. Commissioner Carroll asked about the ramifications of the water building being intentionally omitted from the IGA. Mr. Koellermeier clarified, per the IGA, the TWD pledged all assets. However, the report that deals with the assets and liabilities is silent regarding the water building. Commissioners Scheiderich and Winn stated the building was a system asset. Mr. Koellermeier added the building had been used as though it was a system asset. Commissioner Scheiderich said viewing the building as a system asset gives each IWB member a share. Commissioner Carroll expressed a preference to come to an equitable monetary agreement with the City of Tigard and maintain the building as a system asset of the water district. Commissioner Scheiderich asked if that meant charging the City of Tigard rent and then crediting that money back to the water system. Commissioner Carroll suggested the transaction be monetarily neutral and the only issue would be ownership. He suggested Tigard could sign a ten-year lease Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10,2007 4 and the Board could consider issuing credits for the City's financial investment in the building. Commissioner Winn suggested the asset be transferred to the City of Tigard. Commissioner Buehner said the agreement was deficient and the asset issue needed to be resolved. Regarding the disposition of the water building, she said each IWB member's interest should be determined and a method developed to credit them or buy them out. Commissioner Buehner said she supported a transfer. Commissioner Rhine said he did not object to an equitable transfer. He asked if such a transaction would affect water rates. Mr. Koellermeier responded rates do not have a depreciation reserve. Therefore, the transfer would have no impact on rates unless another water facility was constructed. To address this issue, Mr. Koellermeier again proposed some sort of guarantee be incorporated into an agreement stipulating King City, Durham and TWD rate payers would not be asked to fund the construction of another water facility. Commissioner Scheiderich proposed the IWB could also transfer a percentage interest in the water building, exempting whatever percentage of the facility was needed to operate the water division. Commissioner Scheiderich suggested the each Board member discuss the property transfer matter with their respective cities/TWD prior to the next IWB meeting. Commissioner Winn requested a brief written description of options. Commissioner Scheiderich indicated staff could prepare the description and would he edit the document. In response to a question from Commissioner Carroll, Mr. Koellermeier said almost all public works staff would be relocated to the water building following the building remodel. Commissioner Carroll suggested it may be in the best interest of water customers to use the water building as a potential revenue source to affect water rates. Commissioner Scheiderich asked if the water building, or a portion of the water building, was sold or rented, what did the Board want to do with the money. He suggested some options might be putting the money in a capital improvement fund, providing a rate rebate, or sending a check to IWB members. Commissioner Carroll said his preference would be to keep the money for water- related needs. He noted the cost of future capital improvements and the need to Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10,2007 5 build reserves. He reiterated his desire that assets be used for water-related needs which benefit all rate payers. Commissioner Scheiderich said this could also be a discussion item when this matter was considered by the member cities and the TWD. Commissioner Buehner said she would seek a formal opinion from the Tigard City Council, but added the Council was concerned about the impending cost of capital improvements. Any money should go into a communal fund dedicated to the long-term water source. Commissioner Rhine concurred. He added there was some inequity in buying out minority owners. The money would go into the general funds of King City and Durham and the checking account of the TWD. The TWD has no way to spend that money. Commissioner Carroll asserted the agreement should be rewritten to say that any asset, irrelevant of when or how it came into the system, is an asset of the system's rate payers. He went on to say parks, roads, and green spaces were not the Board's concern and he didn't think such discussions should take place. He said the Board's focus should be to represent the rate payers of the water system. Commissioner Carroll stressed the real issue was whether the City of Tigard was willing to pay the fair market value for property and use property proceeds to benefit rate payers. Commissioner Buehner added the Board's decision should take into account the possibility of a water system expansion. Commissioner Scheiderich explained that whether through a property sale or rental, money would be generated and the Board needed to discuss how this money would be dealt with. Commissioner Winn said the rate payers are the Tigard water department. The rates paid reflect the health of the water organization. Commissioner Scheiderich confirmed Commissioner Winn supported putting any proceeds into a communal water fund. The dissolution of assets formula in the IGA was discussed. The formula is based on a combination of assessed value and the number of water customers. Commissioner Carroll noted the formula becomes a moot point if all the money goes into a capital expenditure fund. Commissioner Scheiderich summarized the consensus was to place the money in a capital fund. Mr. Koellermeier recapped the options: ■ Outright sale of the entire water building. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10,2007 6 ■ Sale of a portion of the water building while reserving some fractional part of the building for water-related uses. Mr. Koellermeier asked if the Board's intent was to create a new agreement that would function as a water-asset only operation and offer a level of equality across all users. He noted this would be a very different from the existing IGA. Commissioner Carroll responded that he was not suggesting Board representation change. The Board has always given each member one vote, despite the fact that some members represent more water customers than others. He questioned whether this arrangement would continue with a new agreement. Commissioner Carroll added it was important to view the matter as a water delivery system. Water customers are essentially the same and pay the same rates, no matter what city they live in. He stated, in the past, the entire water system was considered when making decisions and this is how the system operated until the property disposition issues arose. Commissioner Rhine commented the transactions involved disposing of a surplus water asset and putting the proceeds towards another water system asset. He said this was simply improving the asset base. Commissioner Carroll agreed, but declared that Tigard wanted the Canterbury at no cost. This offers no benefit to the rate payers. Commissioner Carroll added he had no issue disposing of the water building if there was a better use for the money and provided there is a financial benefit to the rate payers. Note: Item 4 was heard after item 5. 5. Update on Cach Creek Area Annexation Mr. Koellermeier reported the petitioners have withdrawn their challenge and the annexation will stand. 6. Informational Items Mr. Koellermeier pointed out a Survey for Asbestos report regarding the Clute property and advised asbestos and lead mitigation issues will add some costs to building disposal. Options for disposing of the house include: deconstruction, a process whereby the building is basically recycled, demolition, or"Learn to Burn" with the fire department. Learn to Burn appears to be the least expensive option. 7. Non-Agenda Items: Commissioner Winn indicated Nancy Duthie is no longer the King City alternate to the IWB. He noted King City needs to choose another alternate. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10,2007 7 8. Next Meeting — Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 5:30 p.m., Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room 9. Adjournment: At 6:32 p.m. Commissioner Rhine motioned to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Winn seconded the motion. Commissioner Scheiderich adjourned the meeting. Greer A. Gaston, IWB Recorder Date: Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes January 10,2007 8 Of LANE ps'� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2006 Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on November 14, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, McPeak, Groznik and Graham; Councilors Peterson and Hoffman were excused; Councilors Elect Jordan, Johnson,Hennagin Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, City Engineer Others: Intergovernmental Water Board Commissioners: Patrick Carroll (representing Durham), Dick Winn (representing King City), Bill Scheiderich (member at-large); Tigard City Councilors: Mayor Craig Dirksen, Sydney Sherwood, Sally Harding, Nick Wilson, Tom Woodruff(also Tigard's IWB representative), Gretchen Buehner, Councilor Elect; Tigard Staff Members: Craig Prosser, City Manager; Dennis Koellermeier,Public Works Director; Tim Ramis, City Attorney; Consultants: Mark Knudson, Clark Worth 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Joint Meeting with the Tigard City Council and the Intergovernmental Water Board Mayor Hammerstad provided the introductions. In May 2005 the City of Tigard approached Lake Oswego because it was interested in having a stable source that would satisfy its long-term water interests. The policy considerations would be discussed at this meeting,but no decisions would be made. Each entity hoped to gather information from this meeting and develop an understanding of complementary needs. Tigard desires to secure a long-term water source, and Lake Oswego has an apparent surplus of available water from its water rights in the Clackamas River. Lake Oswego has a high need for infrastructure improvements in the system the cost of which was considerable. If the costs were shared over a larger base, then the improvements would be more affordable. Tigard would not have to seek another water provider and would gain some infrastructure on its own. Lake Oswego needed certainty regarding the access of adequate water supplies and was responding to recent legislation that required Lake Oswego to use its water right or lose it in the future. Mr. Komarek reported that the Cities of Tigard and Lake Oswego entered into an intergovernmental agreement(IGA)to jointly fund the study effort that began June 2006. The preliminary findings of that effort were presented at this meeting. When he and Mr. Koellermeier discussed the scope of work they identified objectives they felt needed to be addressed. First and foremost it was important to talk about securing long-term supplies for Lake Oswego and possibly Tigard. The intent was to identify a preferred supply scenario, its feasibility and costs, and necessary facility improvements and institutional arrangements that would allow for water to be shared between the two cities. The Lake Oswego water supply intake was built in the late 1960's and was located about a mile upstream from the confluence of the Clackamas and Willamette Rivers. The water was pumped through a 27-inch transmission main under the Willamette to the treatment plant located in West Linn. The initial size of the plant was approximately 11 mgd. The water was treated to drinking City Council Minutes Page 1 of 13 November 14, 2006 water standards and pumped through another transmission main to the Waluga Reservoir on the western edge of the service area. The pipeline from the intake to the treatment plant was about 14,000 feet, and the line from the plant to the reservoir was 20,000 feet. In 1980 the treatment plant was expanded to its current capacity of 16 mgd. Water was presently supplied to Lake Oswego residents, a number of special districts located within the urban service boundary(USB), the City of Tigard, and several small subdivisions located in the City of Portland. Some of the drivers from Lake Oswego's perspective had to do with a number of infrastructure improvements needed due to age and demands within the service area. It seemed like an opportune time to consider a partnership between Lake Oswego and Tigard. Even without such a partnership the in-City demands were quickly approaching the current treatment capacity, so it was important to start the planning effort. The major infrastructure was 40 years old and there were vulnerabilities related to the single pipeline crossing the Willamette. The infrastructure needs will be costly, so a partnership could ameliorate some of the rate impacts by spreading those costs over a larger base. HB 3038 presented most entities holding water permits with some uncertainty as to whether or not they would ultimately be able to develop all the water under those permits. Lake Oswego and Tigard have both been members of the Regional Water Providers Consortium since 1995. That effort recognized the benefits of a regional system of transmission mains and interconnected water sources for reliability and opportunities to reduce environmental impacts that certain sources were exhibiting. This was an opportunity to explore regional benefits that had been discussed at the Consortium for a number of years. Mr. Koellermeier described the general boundaries of the Intergovernmental Water Board service area that represented 55,000 people. It was bounded by Hwy 217, the Tualatin River, Scholls Ferry Road, and the urban growth boundary(UGB). For all practical purposes Tigard acquired its water on the spot market which was sometimes a tenuous position. The primary water source at this time was the City of Portland under a ten-year service agreement. That however did not provide all the water needed by Tigard, so water was purchased from several other sources to meet peak usage demands. Tigard was a partner in the Joint Water Commission, but it was structured in such a way that it only allowed the City to access surplus capacity from the other partners. As those partners grew, the capacity was less available. The group was working on a major water supply effort with the Hagg Lake Reservoir Complex which was very expensive and complicated. Tigard would be the farthest customer, and transporting water was very expensive. Shorter transmission generally was a cost-saving factor for any water provider. The City of Tigard had enjoyed a wholesale relationship with Lake Oswego, and before 1994 most of the water in the Tigard District was obtained from the Lake Oswego system. A good share of the infrastructure was designed around that model. Tigard was involved with aquifer storage and recovery(ASR)which was a technique whereby the City purchased water during the winter when it was plentiful and injected and stored in wells for use in the summer. It was not the end all of Tigard's problems,but it was a good stop gap measure for meeting summer demands. Tigard was one of the founding members with water rights on the Willamette River. It was the first community that went through the process and ended up with a charter amendment that required a vote of the people to approve use of Willamette River water. Wilsonville has been using the Willamette River for three years with excellent results. It was important for Tigard to make some decisions. The City was growing while at the same time water sources were scarce. The City wanted to be involved at the ownership level so there would be some certainty and to be able to use the financial mechanisms at hand. Ownership would put part of the financial burden into the SDC structure. Currently Tigard's source issues had to be 100%rate funded. When Tigard negotiated 10-year increment contracts with Portland or other large suppliers the rates were structured in such a way as to ease the cost to the retail customers. Buying water was not a good position to be in because costs were driven up over City Council Minutes Page 2 of 13 November 14,2006 time. Finally was the issue of timing. Tigard just signed a 10-year agreement with Portland, so it would need to decide whether or not to stay with Portland. Although 10 years may seem like a long time, it takes a long time to develop capital projects. Mr. Koellermeier reported that Tigard had completed the population and demand forecast, evaluated the condition and established needs over time,identified multiple alternatives, identified the permitting and regulating requirements, developed a draft communication plan, and discussed potential governance options that would allow multiple public agencies to work together. If directed, staff would work on finalizing the costs of the improvement options, complete the financial analysis and rate impacts,refine scenarios, costs, and rates for the final document level,prepare a report, and reconvene this group for further direction. The schedule was ambitious, and Mr. Koellermeier anticipated having a draft report by the beginning of the year and reconvening this group in January or February to discuss the options and receive guidance. Commissioner Scheiderich asked if Lake Oswego's 38 mgd right were affected by any other superior rights or in stream flow reservations. Mr. Komarek replied in stream water rights varied depending upon the time of the year. Half of the water permit was certificated but it was in its entirety senior to the in stream water right. There was also a junior permit to the in stream water right. In terms of Western Water Law, the Appropriation Doctrine, and first in time, first in right says if the permit was senior to the in stream water right it took precedence in terms of use. The larger 32 mgd right was senior, and the smaller 6 mgd right was junior. Commissioner Scheiderich asked how far the water reached by gravity or if was it pumped. Mr. Komarek replied all of the water was pumped. To reach Tigard from Lake Oswego the water would be pumped two times to get to the Bonita Station and then once again to get into the distribution system. Commissioner Scheiderich asked the status of the other studies including Hagg Lake and the feasibility study of the pipeline to supply Tualatin Valley Water and Beaverton from Wilsonville. Mr. Koellermeier responded all these data points would come together in a relatively short period of time. In the first few months of 2007 all three of those efforts would at least be in a draft stage. From Tigard's perspective it would need to make some decisions about staying in all three options or winnow out of sore. Commissioner Carroll asked the vulnerability to the federal government's requiring a certain in stream flow. Would everyone's water rights be reduced? Mr. Komarek replied the in stream water right was established for the protection of fish and other beneficial uses. He was not aware that the Water Resource Department(WRD)had any plans to seek additional in stream rights. The senior permits would take precedence. Commissioner Carroll understood endangered species protection would trump all water rights. Mayor Dirksen asked the size of Lake Oswego's service district. Mr. Komarek responded the City service area was about 33,000 plus an additional 3,000 to 4,000 customers in areas surrounding the City limits. Mayor Dirksen understood the 16 mgd treated today was in excess of what was needed based on Tigard's uses which in the summer peaked at about 13 mgd. Mr. Komarek replied the City was approaching 88%of its treatment capacity. There was one peak day last summer of 14 mgd. Councilor Graham asked if Tigard had based it projections on full development of Bull Mountain. City Council Minutes Page 3 of 13 November 14, 2006 Mr. Koellermeier replied Bull Mountain was in the planning area and was a separate chapter of the master plan. Mr. Knudson was with Carollo Engineering and had been involved with regional water issues for more than 20 years. They had looked at what it would take in terms of infrastructure, costs, and governance as outlined in the scope of work. He discussed the water needs both today and into the future. The key issue was recognition that a decision needed to be made. Lake Oswego was in a position of either going it alone or potentially forming some kind of agreement. In the go it alone scenario Lake Oswego would be faced with making some significant improvements to its existing system. There were some shortcomings with the current system as it was near the end of its design life in some cases, so there were deficiencies to be corrected. Additionally, the system was very close to capacity that could potentially compromise operational reliability. In the case of the joint entity some kind of expansion would be required, so one of the challenges of this project was how one might go about creating a deal that allowed expansion to occur and determining the logical degree to which the joint facilities would be expanded to maximize benefits. As a first cut, they looked at the service population. It was determined where the entities were in 2005 and where the area would be in 2030 by looking at build out at saturation development. In most cases saturation was being approached in 2045 taking in just the Lake Oswego retail customers. Then Stafford and other wholesalers within Lake Oswego's USB were added excluding Tigard. Right now Lake Oswego was serving 33,000. At build out of both entities the population would be 146,000. Councilor Turchi asked if the current zoning was used to estimate build out. Mr. Knudsen replied it was a saturation of all available land based on the current zoning. Councilor Turchi understood that if he owned a house in the middle of a subdividable lot that it would be considered two housing units for the purpose of build out. This assumed that every piece of property was divided into its smallest buildable unit. Mr. Knudsen explained there was a range of assumption that went along with that having to do with the amount of land preserved for open space and things of that nature. Build out was really a range of numbers, and these figures were what he believed would be the most likely worst case scenario. Councilor Turchi noted that Lake Oswego had discussed density at about 1/3 of the actual zone. He suggested there should be some thought about the need to plan for the actual zone density. Mr. Knudsen responded the attempt was to offer estimates based on the maximum demand in the future to ensure supply. Councilor-elect Buehner asked what kind of relationship the City had with its customers and could those agreements be terminated. Mr. Komarek replied the IGAs were for surplus supply. For the most part the entities were on well supplies and purchased water from Lake Oswego during the summer. Councilor Groznik stated there were some properties in the City, such as Foothills and Avamere,that could have a greater population than current zoning. He was not getting worst case out of this. Mr. Knudsen understood the concern,but no one could predict the future. The figures reflected the current situation or what was known and there might be places where density was higher in the future. They hoped there would be some give and take between the opportunity for preserving open space that has yet to be designated and that not every acre would be developed to its maximum capacity. The population projections were translated into water demands. He looked at what Lake Oswego was currently using and its per capita consumption and did the same thing for Tigard. That was averaged over the past several years and applied to the City Council Minutes Page 4 of 13 November 14, 2006 population projections to estimate demand into the future. Numbers were represented down the last 100,000 mgd. These were projections and forecasts but showed what the overall demands would be. The numbers to 2030 were based on Metro's population projection, and after that the build out number was used. Councilor Turchl asked why Tigard's per capita water consumption was substantially lower than Lake Oswego's. Mr. Knudsen thought part of it had to do with density and more multi-family residential. There was less Greenspace in Tigard, and part of it was likely a lifestyle choice. Mr. Komarek agreed Tigard had more density and there were lifestyle choices to consider such as green lawns and open spaces. Water as a commodity seemed cheap. Mr. Knudsen said it was important to recognize what he said in terms of how the demand numbers were developed. Recent per capita demand consumption was used in projecting the future. Those per person consumption rates would be the same into the future, and that may be an extremely conservative assumption meaning the numbers were likely on the high side in terms of per capita projections. Councilor McPeak noted the assumption at build out did not include any change in conservation efforts. She thought some additional conservation could be assumed but understood this was the worst case. Mr. Knudsen replied that was correct. There was a long discussion at the staff level, and the challenge was that there were a lot of uncertainties beyond just per capita consumption because of conservation. The other wild card was something like global climate change and how that would influence the numbers. There was a band of uncertainty with these numbers,but there needed to be a reference point for planning. Another uncertainty had to do with Lake Oswego providing service to the Stafford Basin. Councilor Graham asked if the projections took into account growth in Happy Valley and Damascus placing additional demands on the Clackamas River. Mr. Knudsen replied the growth was taken into account in terms of water rights. Lake Oswego currently had up to 38 mgd of water rights, so that was treated as available capacity to serve future demands. He had not allocated any demands on these projections for serving those entities on the east side of the Willamette. They were currently developing these same types of agreements through the North Clackamas Water Commission that allowed Happy Valley, Sunrise Water Authority, Gladstone, and Oak Lodge Water to pool their resources and water rights. He reviewed the four identified scenarios: (1) Lake Oswego does nothing and stays with the current infrastructure capacity of 16 mgd; (2) Lake Oswego's ultimate build out demand was projected at 24 mgd including the current wholesalers, so the logical scenario would be that Lake Oswego planned to meet all of its future demands and build the infrastructure accordingly without Tigard's being in the picture; (3) Lake Oswego had 32 mgd in senior water rights which was highly valuable and could be used to serve both Lake Oswego and Tigard in a joint supply scenario; and(4) was the same except the senior water rights of 32 mgd plus the junior water right of 6 mgd for a total of 38 mgd. In the do nothing scenario, Lake Oswego would not have to spend a lot of money up front. However, a lot of the infrastructure was older than 40 years and rapidly approaching the end of its design life. Some capital costs would be required to address demand issues. Based on those projections and the growth curves the capacity of the existing infrastructure would be exceeded within the next three years. Given that there were high operational risks Lake Oswego could be in a situation that if pumps went out or if systems failed or the pipe broke the City would not be able to meet the full capacity for some period of time. That was the worst case scenario,but the City was near redline. Under this scenario,because the water was consumed by Lake Oswego City Council Minutes Page 5 of 13 November 14, 2006 and its current wholesale customers, there was essentially no reliable capacity available for Tigard. In scenario #2 the system would be expanded to 24 mgd which was the ultimate demand of Lake Oswego and its wholesale customers. Under that scenario Lake Oswego's needs were met with some surplus capacity available for Tigard. As Lake Oswego grew, the Tigard capacity would be reduced,but presumably Tigard could be served with available surplus. Given the additional capacity and built in redundancy the risk of failure would be lower. The bad news was that it was a small piece relative to what Tigard's demands were, so Tigard would need some other base supply upon which to draw. Additionally 14 mgd of the existing water right would be left on the table and was in jeopardy of being lost through the HB 3038 process or some other environmental considerations. Given the fact that Tigard was looking at another primary supply, he assumed Tigard would not be an owner in this scenario. There would be no redundancy other than Lake Oswego's primary supply on the Clackamas River. Scenario#3 would capture the full 32 mgd senior water right through a joint Lake Oswego/Tigard agreement. Now that Tigard would realize a firm supply beyond Lake Oswego's needs it was assumed Tigard would become an owner or partner in the process. This was important to the financial modeling that would be discussed next. In the shared ownership scenario the capital costs for the improvements and the annual operating costs were shared by both entities and spread over a wider population base. Lake Oswego's demands were met, and there was a minimum of 8 mgd of firm capacity available for Tigard to meet most of its needs. He pointed out the Bonita pump station and the Waluga Reservoir where there was a major interconnect between the two systems that provided some redundancy. In the event that Lake Oswego lost the Clackamas supply or had diminished capacity for some reason conceivably there was an opportunity to feed back from the Tigard system into the Lake Oswego system to provide some backup. That connection existed now at a very limited capacity, and it would have to be resized for capacity. Theoretically there was redundancy by an existing connection,but it was a very low capacity and was not configured to operate that way. Under this scenario it would be a small effort to ensure flow in either direction to meet both communities' needs. There was redundancy and additional capacity that lowered operational risks. There was still 6 mgd of junior water rights left on the table. This scenario did not meet all of Tigard's needs into the future. Councilor Groznik explained that the water was not being lost; it was going to a different use. He had some problems with the terminology. Mr. Knudsen continued with scenario#4 of 38 mgd. This was similar to the previous scenario and would provide 14 mgd of firm supply to Tigard and meet Lake Oswego's long term demands of 24 mgd. Tigard would assume an ownership position, and the costs would be shared. The redundancy improved with the additional capacity between the two systems. All existing water rights were committed and met all but a very small portion of Tigard's needs. They did not go beyond that because the water rights did not exist to be able to provide all the water under the planning scenario to meet both Tigard's and Lake Oswego's ultimate needs. Councilor-elect Buehner asked if there were any thoughts about the long-term viability of the water rights. Mr. Knudsen replied there was some vulnerability as other development occurred in the Clackamas Basin. A junior water right was conceivably susceptible to curtailment in the future. Mayor Hammerstad said if every water supplier along the Clackamas River were to use their senior and junior water rights to their maximum, were their enough water rights to satisfy the in stream water rights, or would the Water Master step in and curtail that usage by all of the suppliers? She was curious about the water rights of all the other providers on the Clackamas and where that put Lake Oswego. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13 November 14,2006 Mr. Knudsen responded the basis of the water rights was first in time. Lake Oswego had a more senior right than others based on the filing date so was protected. The last person with the last water right would be the first one asked to curtail. The significance of junior and senior was based on the filing for the in stream right. The priority would be the senior rights, in stream rights, with the junior rights being the most vulnerable. They had taken a close look at all the users and the rights along the Clackamas River. Basically, it looked like the River was fully allocated which meant that between the existing junior rights, in stream rights, and senior rights there was no additional water left on the Clackamas River. It all depended on what happened in any given year with the weather, so potentially junior rights could be impacted by the Water Master's asking for some curtailment. Mayor Hammerstad was more concerned about growth in Damascus and Happy Valley. Would they be in a position of using water rights superior to Lake Oswego's and where would that leave Lake Oswego? Mr. Komarek replied Lake Oswego's senior water right was fourth in line from the most senior rights on the River. South Fork Water Board held the most senior rights, and CRW had one senior to the in stream right but junior to Lake Oswego's. The sum total of South Fork was about 75 cfs. Councilor Graham asked with all the concerns and development on the east side if conservation efforts would be instituted. Mr. Komarek replied that in order to have access to undeveloped water one had to demonstrate to WRD that everything to which one had access was being used wisely before further access was granted. That was part of the Water Management and Conservation Plan requirement. Lake Oswego had to demonstrate that the 16 mgd was being managed and conserved to the best of the City's ability before asking for more. The City submitted its extension plan and will provide the management plan early next year. Councilor Graham hoped that Lake Oswego users would buy into that program. She asked for an explanation of Water Master. Mr. Knudsen said WRD was responsible for management of the state's waters. One of its roles was to ensure that everyone holding water rights were not taking more than what was allocated under the permit. The Water Master was responsible for ensuring the law was followed. Mr. Komarek added that there were District Water Masters who were called upon to adjudicate the use of water rights under low flow conditions. Mayor Dirksen heard concerns about new development on the east side that would possibly curtail of existing water rights. He asked if newer development and the water rights going along with that would be junior to those already in place. Was it possible that water rights could be transferred to someone else? Mr. Knudsen replied generally not. However, some of those entities had senior water rights. Damascus, Happy Valley, and Sunrise Water Authority did not happen to be any of those entities. The water rights were still limited to a certain mgd. Just because they were senior did not mean they could get more. There was really no more water on the Clackamas River. Councilor Harding asked the unused water rights of the senior holders. What was the capacity they could tap into? Mr. Komarek had that data but had not brought it with him. Lake Oswego for example had more than 50% of its total unused. South Fork Water Board probably had at least 50% of its authorized use undeveloped. Councilor-elect Johnson thought the City was working on the assumption that the senior water rights were secure. How great would the impact need to be to affect Lake Oswego's senior water right. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 13 November 14, 2006 Mr. Komarek did not believe that was known at this time. If one looked at it in terms of permits rather than population, then only so much could be taken from the River. When one talked about how the Water Master might adjudicate permits on the River, then in a worst case scenario where everyone was using their permits South Fork would be protected first then Lake Oswego and on down the line. Those with junior permits would be subject to restrictions because of in stream rights. Mr. Prosser heard a lot of interest in getting more information on water rights. There were a number of technical reports available through the public works departments. Councilor Groznik asked the ranking of Lake Oswego's junior water right. Mr. Komarek said the priority date was 1973, and there were a few permit holders on the river with permits senior to that. Mr. Koellermeier commented this was an interesting issue, and some of the other entities on the Clackamas River were actually investing millions of dollars developing their junior rights. They were betting that by having the infrastructure in place they would be better off when the day came that there was not enough water for everyone. Councilor Groznik asked if the sum of the senior water rights and perhaps duty rights equaled the present flow of the Clackamas River. Mr. Komarek explained right now total municipal permits on the river totaled between 290 and 300 cfs. About 210 cfs of those permits were senior to the in stream right. Last summer the municipal permit holders used a total of about 110 cfs on a peak day. If one looked at last year as an example, one would not say the Clackamas River was over allocated. There was enough water to support the in stream right plus the municipal diversions. That could vary with the year. On average the River flow was from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs. The in stream right went from 400 cfs part of the year to 640 cfs between September 15 and July 1. Even if more water rights were allocated they would be potentially worthless except during very high flows. Mr. Worth said early in the project a cross section of policy makers was interviewed to determine what information was needed and to identity shared values and principles. In general the policy makers were interested, open-minded, and hopeful that some solution might be found. Cost was one of the main issues. Everyone was willing to look at the proposal because it was evident what motivated the other jurisdictions. They also heard questions about the timing of public involvement. The results of the stakeholder interviews were fashioned into values and principles that captured the collective guidance. Mr. Worth reviewed the statements. Secure Lake Oswego's and Tigard's water future ensuring both communities can meet their long-term growth needs. Demonstrate cost savings and favorable rates when compared with other supply options. Retain or obtain ownership interest in long-term drinking water resources. Retain and perfect Lake Oswego's full Clackamas River water rights. Design the Lake Oswego/Tigard partnership to offer parity, fairness,balance. Develop redundant water resources for backup and emergencies. Promote equitable distribution of natural resources throughout the region. Communicate openly with policy makers and the public education them on the communities' current water sources, water system assets including water rights, future infrastructure needs, and various supply options. Nurture cooperation among Lake Oswego,Tigard, and surrounding communities that is beneficial to drinking water and other public services. Expand Lake Oswego's and Tigard's leadership in regional water supply decision making. Councilor-elect Buehner asked what kind of control West Linn had in terms of expanding the water treatment plant. Mr. Komarek replied some improvements were made to the plant about five years ago, and Lake Oswego had to go through a condition use process. It was in a neighborhood,but the zoning would allow for an expansion of the plant facility subject to conditional use approval. City Council Minutes Page 8 of 13 November 14, 2006 Commissioner Scheiderich asked if Lake Oswego had considered other supply options, and the response was that Lake Oswego was concentrating on its rights on the Clackamas River. Commissioner Carroll asked if Lake Oswego had ever considered relocating its treatment plant. Mr. Komarek replied Lake Oswego was asked that question during the last process with West Linn, and there were some people interested in having the plant go away. No suitable relocation site had been identified because it was tied to the intake site. Mr. Knudsen said that was one of the first questions he had asked since it seemed like a viable concept. Staff took a cursory look and confirmed there was not really another good place. Part of the expansion envisioned to accommodate those demands could be done on the current plant site and in the current footprint to minimize the community impact. Councilor Groznik asked if a conditional use permit were needed if the improvements could be done in the existing footprint. Mr. Komarek replied there would be new faculties on site. Lake Oswego owned a little over six acres, so it looked at least preliminarily that the plant could be expanded to meet the ultimate treatment capacity of the City's total rights. Councilor Graham thought the values and principles glaringly did not include conservation. Councilor Wilson heard two engineers loosely refer to ownership. He understood the water rights could not be sold,but for Tigard the ownership question was a very high priority. Tigard had at least four options for water, so the degree of security in that ownership factored very high. Mr. Koellermeier responded he had not wanted to get hung up on the term `ownership' because there were different ways to get there. From Tigard's perspective ownership had to do with long- term security and the ability to use SDCs. That would be addressed during the governance discussion. Commissioner Carroll suggested that `equity partner' might be a better term. Councilor Harding said that while the values and principles were all good,the usage charts showed that Tigard would not get its total use out of the Clackamas River venture. She found the breakdown confusing and the charts unclear, partly because Tigard did not have a lot of buildable land. All of Tigard's needs would not be met by one source. Mr. Knudsen addressed preliminary results from the technical analysis. Key system components were the Clackamas River intake, the raw water pipeline,the treatment plant, finished water pipeline, Waluga Reservoir, and the Bonita pump station. The pump stations associated with the raw water intake and treatment plant needed to be upgraded. A pump station would also be needed to get the water into the Tigard system. These would not be new pump stations,but they could significantly add to the capacity of the existing pump station. He outlined the intake component needs based on the four scenarios. At the intake in the 16 mgd scenario #1 some upgrading was required to the physical structure and pump capacity increased. Overall the structure could accommodate it, and the screen area was large enough to make this work. In the 24 mgd scenario#2 the pumps would need to be increased, and the pump station would have to be modified. At 32 mgd it became cheaper to build a new intake than to try to rehabilitate and modify the existing intake to handle the capacity. Similarly at 38 mgd a new intake on the Clackamas would be required. He addressed the 27-inch diameter raw water pipeline that was currently sized to handle 16 mgd. It could carry more water with additional pressure but at the expense of using more energy. In the long-term investment it was better to replace the pipeline. At 24 mgd it would need to be replaced with 36-inch diameter pipe and 42-inch pipe for 32 mgd and 38 mgd. In all of these cases he assumed the new pipe would take all the capacity of the scenario, and the existing pipe could be used as a back up. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 13 November 14, 2006 At 16 mgd the treatment plant was at capacity;however, there were some shortcomings with the plant. The discharge pumps needed to be upgraded to increase the pumping capacity and reliability of the pump station. The surge suppression tank needed to be replaced at a large capital cost in any scenario. Scenarios 2 through 4 generally involved expanding the plant within the current plant site. He concluded that conventional treatment made the most sense and was the most cost effective long-term solution. It was possible to get the expanded plant up to 38 mgd on the current six-acre plant site with a fairly compact layout. The finish water pipe was currently capable of handling the 16 mgd, so no significant improvements would be required. A lot of the pipe was in good shape and had the capacity to handle the 24 mgd. There were segments that would need to be paralleled to provide additional capacity. As the mgd increased there would need to be additional, larger parallel pipes. Mr. Knudsen addressed the storage facility. Depending upon other storage in the system one might be able to avoid adding more storage at Waluga. In the 32 and 38 mgd scenarios there were high flows going to Tigard, so a lot of water was going through this site to the pump station. A wide spot in the pipe was needed to change the flow rate and run the treatment plant at a fairly constant rate and provide operational flexibility. Finally, the Bonita Road pump station under the 16 and 24 mgd scenarios would work because there was relatively limited capacity going to Tigard. There might be some minor upgrades at limited capital cost as compared to the 32 and 38 mgd scenarios. In those cases it would be necessary to replace the pump station likely at its current site because of the hydraulics and physical layout. Mr. Knudsen summarized. Each component was run through the different supply scenarios. At 24 mgd to meet Lake Oswego's ultimate demand there were significant system improvements required. Those were essentially the same system improvements required to be able to expand to serve Tigard. Going back to the demand projection graphs and given the limitations, one saw at 16 mgd Lake Oswego would go over the line in about 2009, and at the end of the line was the basis for the 24 mgd scenario. To serve Tigard with a system capacity of 32 mgd, the line was crossed about 2020. Under the 38 mgd scenario the line would be crossed in about 2035. The construction time table for the 32 and 38 mgd scenarios would be more than three but less than five years including design. Mayor Hammerstad asked Mr. Knudsen if he had looked at the capacity of other intakes such as South Fork which was less than 10 years old. Did they have excess capacity? Mr. Knudsen said there was additional capacity available at that intake, but the challenge would be to get it down and across the River. By the time Lake Oswego bought into a share of the capacity,upgraded the facility to increase available capacity, and built the raw water pipeline to connect to the existing system the cost would be about the same as building a new intake. Mayor Hammerstad challenged that Lake Oswego's intake was within a mile of the mouth of the Clackamas River and downstream from the other intakes and perhaps a wastewater treatment plant. If Lake Oswego did go in with another intake farther up the River,there might be less treatment. She would like to know the relationship of cost under the scenarios of building a new intake versus building the transmission pipes. Mr. Knudsen would provide information. From an environmental standpoint there was value in being at the lower end because the water stayed in the River a longer period of time. However, water taken out above was not available downstream. From an environmental and permitting standpoint,the state liked it when water was taken out further downstream even though one was more vulnerable. The next step would be to address the costs of the various scenarios and what that meant in terms of the aggregate alternatives particularly for Tigard as compared to other alternatives. Once those were determined the numbers would be crunched into what that meant in terms of rates. Some assumptions would be made as to how Lake Oswego would be compensated for existing infrastructure and how costs were shared. These assumptions would be City Council Minutes Page 10 of 13 November 14, 2006 a starting point for discussions. He would prepare a draft report to share with staff and the policy makers for direction. Councilor Wilson said in looking at the graphs from Lake Oswego's eyes going alone with 24 mgd the City would be good for 40 years. Almost was much money would be spent as scenario #3,but it could be amortized over 40 years. The green option was obsolete almost the day it opened. He asked if the projections were accurate. He suggested researching the relationship between lot size and per capita consumption. The per capita projection might actually go down. Councilor-elect Jordan asked how Stafford build out was considered as one of Lake Oswego's wholesalers. Mr. Knudsen replied it was essentially treated the same as the rest of the service area based on zoning which resulted in a population of 7,000. Councilor-elect Jordan asked if the City currently owned property next to the Waluga Reservoir. Mr. Knudsen replied that it did. A participant asked when water rights might conceivably be lost. Mr. Komarek responded there was no answer at this time. He did not know of a case in which a municipal water provider relinquished its rights or had been challenged by a third party. Commissioner Carroll thought the intent of the legislature was to move people in this direction. There were areas like Tigard that did not have adequate water supplies, and they were trying to push the `haves' together with the `have nots.' Councilor Groznik did not see public participation mentioned in the next steps and did not understand how a policy decision could be formulated by February. Mr. Worth replied public participation was an open question. Everyone mentioned public education because of the project's complexity. One of the leading questions was when that process should begin. One view was that it should wait until there was actually something to tell the public. Another was that the public education piece should start right away because it was so complicated. One question was how the policy makers felt about those view, and another was where the priority should be. He provided a draft public outreach strategy that tried to harness the suggestions gathered during the interview process. Councilor Groznik thought the process should have already started because there were groups in Lake Oswego who were already concerned. The public was already talking about a number of major infrastructure improvements. Councilor-elect Buehner was concerned about going public before there was much information. Councilor-elect Jordan said one of the biggest concerns was that this was an infrastructure problem for Lake Oswego and Tigard that existed no matter how it was solved. The public needed to know the problem existed, and it needed to be kept out in the open. Councilor McPeak commented that the Lake Oswego Council was just coming up to speed. After the next work shop they might be able to narrow down the options into workable sets of ideas to handle public discussion more productively. Mayor Dirksen said in the corporate world when one went to the boss with a problem one should have a solution. When the public was showed this problem there needed to be some answers. Councilor Groznik did not see that as public involvement but rather as public dictation. Councilor Turchi liked to have time to appreciate the complexity of problems, and he did not feel had had sufficient time to consider this issue. He was surprised about where Lake Oswego City Council Minutes Page 11 of 13 November 14, 2006 i was in terms of its own capacity and infrastructure needs and felt he needed a greater understanding. This information needed to be available to the public. The values and principles looked good,but he had not had the time to really think about them or consider their ramifications. He did not want to be pushed to a decision too soon and wanted the public to have a chance to catch up with the Council. Mr.Worth heard embedded in those comments the need to talk with fellow Councilors and discuss Lake Oswego's and Tigard's problems. Mayor Hammerstad observed this was an example of starting with the recognition of a problem and working toward a solution. She had been involved in numerous activities in which problems were identified. People will say they did not know about the problem and ask why they were not included,but this was just the beginning. There were possibilities and limitations, and she thought if a public involvement process were started with the existing information that people would make up their own answers which would be the worst case scenario. Until there was more information about options and costs and responsibilities she did not think the entities were ready for public involvement. This was recognition of Lake Oswego's need to protect and perfect its water rights. Was there a way to do that and solve two entities' challenges? She did not believe there was enough information right now to take out to the public. Councilor Groznik thought the public should be asked if conservation was on the table. That issue had not been addressed. The problem was being attacked with the solution of developing more water rights. Mayor Hammerstad replied Lake Oswego was working on its Water Management Conservation Plan that would identify conservation measures. Councilor Groznik had not seen anything about that, and the citizens have not been asked. He felt the City would be making a dramatic mistake if it did not involve the public now with what it had, and let them own the decision. Councilor McPeak thought Councilor Groznik had some interesting points. However, it seemed as if more issues were being added to an already complex problem. She was concerned if other issues were added,the Council would get nowhere. Commissioner Winn commented as in many things there was too much information. He looked for a simple summary of key points to address which to him was the protection of water rights. Tigard was interested in being part of Lake Oswego's efforts in a mutual way so that Tigard could have water,have some ownership, and help Lake Oswego get its capacity up. He recommended a succinct presentation to the citizens. Councilor Woodruff appreciated the opportunity to meet. This issue was probably more on Tigard's radar screen because Lake Oswego did not have to worry a lot about its water source. Lake Oswego had an issue with its infrastructure. This partnership may work if Tigard can get source and Lake Oswego can get help funding infrastructure improvements. In that case constituent needs were met in both cities. It had to be a solution for both sides so the public could see it as a creative possibility that helped everyone. There would be some sticker shock when people found out how the costs, and they will ask elected officials what they had done to ameliorate the costs. There was an opportunity to do something that was very useful,but a lot of work needed to be done by both Councils. The group commented that this workshop was helpful and recognized that additional work needed to be done in each of the jurisdictions. Mayor Hammerstad thanked all parties for their perseverance and felt this was the beginning of a relationship between the entities that she hoped would result in good decisions for the constituents. The consultants and engineers presented this complex problem in a way that was understandable and encouraged future discussions. It was an opportunity to set an example for cooperative sharing of a limited resource. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 13 November 14, 2006 Mayor Dirksen felt this problem was being addressed in a timely manner so action could be taken before 90% capacity was reached. It was clear this was only a first step and that the policy makers would need to have many more discussions. Some questions were answered while others were raised. It was clear to him another round table such as this was needed in the near future, and offered Tigard as the venue. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie /s/ Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON January 22, 2007 Judie Hammerstad /s/ udie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Minutes Page 13 of 13 November 14, 2006 Agenda Item No.: 15' IWB Meeting Date: 02 1 -Dil-- MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Intergovernmental Water Board FROM: Amanda L. Bewersdorff, Accounting Supervisor RE: Royal Mobile Villa Utility Account DATE: January 30, 2007 The attached credit for leak request is being forwarded to you for your approval at the next scheduled meeting on February 14,2007. The method used in calculating the amount of the credit is based on existing policy and there are no extenuating circumstances to this particular request. As noted in the request, a leak was discovered under one of the residents home and driveway located in the mobile home park. Based on the consumption history it is apparent that the leak started after the July 3, 2006 billing. The leak was repaired on November 13,2006. The read taken on January 4, 2007 clearly indicates that the problem at the site has been taken care of. The credit in the amount of$3,980.08 was calculated for the billing period of September 1,2006 to November 3,2006 and requires your Board approval before processing. If you have any questions regarding this item,please feel free to call me directly at 503-718-2497. I will be out of the country during the next scheduled meeting so Roger Dawes,Financial Operation Manager,will be attending the scheduled meeting to answer any question you might have. Attached is a history of meter consumption,all documentation of the leak being repaired submitted by the customer,and a copy of the letter sent via certified mail to the customer stating of the date, time,and location of the next Intergovernmental Water Board meeting so they may attend if they so desire. Utility Billing Account History Report User Name: Jamie City Name: CITY OF TIGARD Printed: 01/08/2007- 1:09:PM Customer Name: ROYAL MOBILE VILLA Owner name: ROYAL MOBILE VILLA Account Status: Active Customer Address: ATTN MANAGER Service Address: 16740 SW PACIFIC HWY Connect Date: 03/02/1988 Final Date: 11200 SW ROYAL VILLA DR TIGARD,OR 97224 Home Phone: (503)443-2227 Ext. Total Acct Balance: 0.00 Business Phone: (503)639-4161 Ext. Deposits: 0.00 Refunds: 0.00 Customer Number: 014299 000 Reference Number: 9802200 Tran Date Tran Type Amount Description Water Sewer SWM Penalty Mise StrMnt Sery 7 Sery 8 Current Balance By Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/04/2006 Payment -15,881.20 -15,881.20 11/08/2006 Balance 15,881.20 15,881.20 11/08/2006 Billing 15,881.20 15,881.20 10/16/2006 Payment -14,210.16 -14,210.16 09/13/2006 Balance 14,210.16 14,210.16 09/13/2006 Billing 14,210.16 14,210.16 08/14/2006 Payment -10,200.56 -10,200.56 07/12/2006 Balance 10,200.56 10,200.56 07/12/2006 Billing 10,200.56 10,200.56 05/30/2006 Payment -5,160.42 -5,160.42 05/10/2006 Balance 5,160.42 5,160.42 05/10/2006 Billing 5,160.42 5,160.42 03/28/2006 Payment -4,681.14 -4,681.14 03/08/2006 Balance 4,681.14 4,681.14 03/08/2006 Billing 4,681.14 4,681.14 02/06/2006 Payment -6,676.27 -6,676.27 01/11/2006 Balance 6,676.27 6,676.27 01/11/2006 Billing 6,676.27 6,676.27 11/28/2005 Payment -4,967.61 -4,967.61 11/09/2005 Balance 4,967.61 4,967.61 11/09/2005 Billing 4,967.61 4,967.61 10/10/2005 Payment -10,898.56 -10,898.56 09/14/2005 Balance 10,898.56 10,898.56 09/14/2005 Billing 10,898.56 10,898.56 08/18/2005 Payment -6,232.16 -6,232.16 UB-Account History List(Printed: 01/08/2007- 1:09:PM) Customer Number: 014299 000 Reference Number: 9802200 Route Sequence Serial 0098-0341 -2748 Read Date Reading Consumption 01/04/2007 43,510 755 - 11/03/2006 42,755 4,689 09/01/2006 38,066 4,108 07/03/2006 33,958 1,877 05/01/2006 32,081 27 03/02/2006 32,054 1 01/05/2006 32,053 311 11/07/2005 31,742 469 09/09/2005 31,273 2,866 07/08/2005 28,407 936 05/06/2005 27,471 595 03/03/2005 26,876 648 01/07/2005 26,228 874 11/01/2004 25,354 687 09/01/2004 24,667 2,966 07/12/2004 21,701 2,434 05/07/2004 19,267 1,136 03/03/2004 18,131 132 01/09/2004 17,999 502 10/30/2003 17,497 674 09/02/2003 16,823 2,963 07/01/2003 13,860 1,406 05/05/2003 12,454 46 03/06/2003 12,408 4 12/30/2002 12,404 4 11/07/2002 12,400 649 09/04/2002 11,751 2,415 07/02/2002 9,336 878 04/29/2002 8,458 95 03/05/2002 8,363 63 01/02/2002 8,300 23 11/06/2001 8,277 590 UB-Account History List(Printed: 01/08/2007- 1:09:PM) �OEQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT DUE'TO A The City of Tigard has a policy of issuing partial credits for leaks that are repaired in manner. The city expects leaks to be repaired within ten days of discovery. Credits ar based on your average usage for the same period in previous years. This average is deduNat',jr from the total consumption used during the time of the leak. The excess usage is charged the wholesale rate of water, with the difference between wholesale and resale cost deducted from the utility account as the Credit for Leak Please describe the specific circumstances of your request: RmicJ Motile, V s ka- M[ lLLduf&I baa wrA aqASati-s- Ldt✓f ax ndbz-eel a sJ9nmicaAEIncreuse 111 slur crWLe1:1it/ 11 t14 fbL7' QJ mtinAr anSnn /)-/?.-d6Lie -iCccJ n Lin�/l.,,, w a7'u' PIPe, "neer on e 4 b u r res 1 Gi&irs h...res. 74 Lial�e e c LAa c d ra n,r-9 I rczlb kTo Q ,$Tori» dwn4ud was nv y&ILLe nor a,37-1z. ,J t rnis rr-SOOMT J ri0&uJay -5400&� Aama.9e Jw ta 7L I QaL . 71A leak Uj(" jeexr 11,P- -C.A�AdM " L!� Dar- /A -A zU-SP ma#'nttha&1A rh &'h Date leak found: Date leak repaired: Account#: 000 �`S Location of Service: I II /! T"—' Customer Name:--RD N ob 11f ,G 110. Mailing Address://,tW S.w. &Wag II(A Or. &04 i 0,Q . 97}?y JVa,b39. 4//6/ Street address City State Zip Phone DOCUMENTATION YOU MUST SUBMIT COPIES OF PLUMBER'S BILLS AND/OR RECEIPTS FOR PARTS, REQUIRED TO FIX THE LEAK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY $2.05 $2.03 2.40 $1.99 $2.56 - 1.14¢ = ¢ RES MUR COM IND IRR Markup Previous years usage: �� o o`er=i—� ` `� ►_� _ _ #periods used x . 2 'W% Average Leak Period Leak ccf Markup Credit Adjustment Total Credit:$ Date Issued: Issued B rcPa►r c.Jaler tcaL A-BOY SUPPLY CO. INC. 1550 SW MAIN TIGARD, OR 97223 (5U3)639-4321 Cash Sale Invoice#: AB55369001 Date: 11/13/06 Order#: AB553690 Time: 14:37:03 Associate: JV Register: bt ---------------------------------------------- 350585 1 6.99 6.99 314" GATE VALVE 357585 1 6.99 6.99 3/4" (SATE VALVE 448077 4 0.88 3.52 3/40 1/2 #16 STAINLESS STEEL CLAMP 795054 2 2.29 4.58 ! 3/4" INSERT ADAPTER GALV 366050 4 0.29 1.16 3/4 PVC S x S 90 366009 2 0.24 0.48 3/4 PVC COUPLING 795054 2 2.29 4.58 3/4" INSERT ADAPTER GALV 366335 2 0.45 0.90 3/4 PVC MALE 386072 1 3.69 3.69 3/408 GALVANIZED NIPPLE **** INVOICE TOTAL **** 32. , *** AMOUNT TENDERED *** 33.00 :*** BALANCE DUE **** .00 Change Awunt .11 City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 January 30, 2007 Royal Mobile Villa 11200 SW Royal Villa Dr Tigard, OR 97224 0. Re: Credit for Leak 0, Dear Park Manager: %4 We have received and processed your request for adjustment due to a water leak. Once we reviewed the water meter consumption history it was determined the credit amount was greater than the amount that city staff can issue per Tigard Municipal Code(TMC)12.03.060. It has been scheduled for your request for adjustment to be presented to the Intergovernmental Water Board on Wednesday,February 14,2007 at 5:30 pm. This meeting will be held in the Tigard Library located at 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,To floor conference room You are welcome to attend this meeting and may be allowed to make a presentation, if yvu so choose, to the Board at the discretion of the Board Chairman. Thank you in advance for your understanding of the process that we must go through to complete your adjustment request. If you have any questions regarding this process please contact me directly at 503-718-2497 or amandg a?tigard-or.gov. S' cerel , Aman a L. Bewersdorff Accounting Supervisor Enc: TMC 12.03.060 Phone: 503.639.4171 . Fax: 503.684.7297 . www.tigard-or.gov TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 Agenda Item No.: I- IWB Meeting Date: MEMORANDUM TO: 1WB Commissioners FROM: Greer Gaston, IWB Recorder RE: Election of the IWB Chair and Vice-Chair DATE: February 6, 2007 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 Board's February meeting, it is time to elect these individuals for the coming year. Decision Flowchart Proposed Acquisition of the Water Building By the City of Tigard February 14, 2007 Sell/transfer non-water assets to Tigard No Yes No further Tigard Appraise land &determine action appeal to building value per IGA court Determine current/future beneficial use as a water asset IWB accepts valuation, determines price, decides where cash goes To other To water CIP members IWB amends IGA to authorize sale New deed prepared Payment made and deed recorded Submitted at the IWB Meeting Date: 2 Agenda Item No.: A Decision Flowchart Proposed Acquisition of Canterbury Surplus Property By the City of Tigard for Park Development February 14, 2007 Agree with concept No Yes No further Tigard Approve Options to action appeal to partition develop a court process price Declare Authorize parcel as appraisal surplus Negotiate Sign Accept sell/transfer appraisal agreement Create new IWB&Tigard deeds agree on price TWD No Yes authorizes new deeds No further Tigard Determine action appeal to fund Deeds court distribution recorded To individual To water CIP IWB members Submitted at the IWB Meeting\ By: e-nnis Koc fle-rme4'ti— Date: 2-14-D* Agenda Item No.: Submitted at the IWB Meeting Note: By: ToF rl 1 ebOd YI c.k--_ Attachment A Strike-through text is deleted;underlined text is Date: Agenda Item No.: added. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 12.10.110 Cross Connection Control elevation changes, or structures greater than three Program. stories in height. The purpose of this section is to protect the D. A property owner must notify the City if water supply of the City from contamination or they make any changes to existing plumbing that pollution from potential cross connections; and to allows the addition of any chemical or substance assure that approved backflow prevention into the premise water system. assemblies or devices are tested and/or inspected annually as follows: E. No approved backflow prevention assembly or device shall be disabled, removed, A. The installation or maintenance of any relocated, or substituted without the written cross connection which would endanger the water approval of the City. supply of the City is prohibited. Any such cross connection now existing or hereafter installed is F. All commercial,multi-family, industrial, hereby declared unlawful and shall be rectified as and institutional properties, regardless of size, directed by the City or its authorized shall have an approved backflow prevention representative(s). assembly or device on the property owner's side of the water meter. At a minimum this device B. The control or elimination of cross shall be an approved double check valve connections shall be in accordance with the assembly. regulations of Oregon State u._..,.,. T,:vision Department of Human Services and the Oregon G. Except as otherwise provided in this Plumbing Specialty Code. The policies, subsection, all irrigation systems shall have an procedures, and criteria for determining approved backflow prevention assembly or appropriate levels of protection shall be in device. Irrigation system backflow prevention accordance with the Accepted Procedure and assemblies installed before the effective date of Practice in Cross Connection Control Manual, this ordinance, which were approved at the time American Water Works Association, Pacific of installation, shall be permitted to remain in Northwest Section, current edition (OR Admin. service provided the assemblies are not moved or Rules, Ch. 333-061.0070). modified and are properly maintained. The assemblies must be tested at least annually and C. The property owner to whom Ci. water perform satisfactorily under Oregon Department is provided shall install, in accordance with City of Human Services testing procedures. standards, an approved backflow prevention assembly on the premises where any of the H. Any installation, corrective measure, following circumstances exist: disconnection, or other change to a backflow prevention assembly shall be performed at the 1. Those circumstances identified in sole expense of the property owner. All costs or regulations adopted under subsection (B) of this expenses for any correction or modification to the section, City's water system caused by or resulting from 2. Where there is a fire protection contamination from a cross connection shall be system, an irrigation system, or a non-residential the responsibility of the propgty prop . owner. service connection; 3. Where unique conditions exist. I. Any backflow prevention assemblies Some examples include: extreme terrain, pipe which are installed for the protection of the City 12-10-1 Code Update: 10102 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE water supply shall be tested at the time of prevent any possible contamination of the water installation. All backflow prevention assemblies system. (Ord. 93-34) must also be tested annually, or immediately after being repaired or relocated. The property owner shall forward the results of such testing to the City within ten (10)days of the date of installation, annual testing, repair, or relocation. J. If the City has not received the result of a test required under subsection (L3) or subsection (I) of this section within thirty (30) days of the required date, the City may order a test and shall charge the cost of the test to the property owner. K. If a property owner fails to repair a faulty backflow prevention assembly within ten (10) days of a test showing the assembly is not operating, properly, the City may order the repair of the assembly and shall charge the cost of the repair to the property owner. L. The City may discontinue water service to any premise for non-payment, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 12.03.030. EM. it shall be the objeetive of the G te pfeteet the potable water- system fro eerAaminatien or pollution due to er-egs- eemeetiens.—Water service to any premises shall be contingent upon the property owner providing cross connection control in a manner approved by the City. installed shall be a"tedel approved by the Or-ego State Health Division. D-N. Authorized City employees, of th Gt5­with proper identification, shall have free access, at reasonable hours of the day, to those parts of a premise or within buildings to which water is supplied. Water service may be refused or terminated to any premise for failure to allow necessary inspections. RO. These requirements must be strictly observed as a matter of public health and to 12-10-2 Code Update: 10102 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-639-4171 TIGARD FAx TRANs=AL Date February 8, 2007 Number of pages including cover sheet 4 To: eThe City of King City(Fax No. 503-639-3771) The City of Durham(Fax No.503-598-8595) From: Greer Gaston Co: City of Tigard Fax #: 503.684.8840 Ph #: 503.718.2592 SUBJECT: htergovmmvr al Water Board Meeting Notice and Agenda MESSAGE: Please post the attached notice and agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board. Thank you. I:ENGTAX.DOT Intergovernmental Water Board Serving Jigard, King Cin,, Uurl m and Unincorporated Area MEETING NOTICE Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5 :30 p.m. Tigard Public Library 2nd Floor Conference Room 13 5 00 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, February 14, 2007 Tigard Public Library 5:30 p.m. 2nd Floor Conference Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Call the meeting to order, staff to take roll call. 2. Public Comments Call for any comments from the public. 3. Receive and File Minutes from the November 14, 2006, Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego and Tigard City Councils Motion from the Board to receive and file the minutes. 4. Approval of Minutes—January 10, 2007 Motion from the Board to approve the minutes. 5. Royal Mobile Villa Credit for Leak Request- Roger Dawes (5 minutes) 6. Water Building/Asset Discussion Continued-Dennis Koelfermeier(30 minutes) 7. Election of a Chair and Vice-Chair-(5 minutes) 8. Informational Items-Dennis Koellermeier 9. Non-Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. continued— Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA 10. Upcoming Meetings: ■ March 14, 2007, 5:30 p.m. Tigard Public Library, 2"d Floor Conference Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon ■ March 20, 2007, Time to be announced Joint Meeting with the Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard Oregon ■ April 11, 2007, 5:30 p.m. Tigard Public Library, 2"d Floor Conference Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon ■ * * Tentative **April 17, 2007, Time to be announced Joint Meeting with the Tigard and Lake Oswego City Councils Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard Oregon 11. Adjournment 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. hp officejet 4200 series 4215 Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Log for City of Tigard PW 5036848840 2/8/2007 3: 44PM Last Transaction Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 02/08 03: 42p Fax Sent 5036393771 1 : 19 4 OK hp officejet 4200 series 4215 Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Log for City of Tigard PW 5036848840 2/8/2007 3 : 46PM Last Transaction Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 02/08 03 : 44p Fax Sent 5035988595 1 : 19 4 OK