Loading...
05/12/2010 - Packet Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions 9w rl�'�4-""�� and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD Intergovernmental Water Board Name of Board,Commission or Committee Q 2 .2.,0 1 a Date of Meeting To the best of my knowledge this is the complete meeting packet. I was not the meeting organizer nor did I attend the meeting;I am simply the employee preparing the paper record for archiving.This record came from Greer Gaston's office in the Public Works Building. Kristie Peerman Print Name Signature "(/Z Date Intergovernmental Water Board — Agenda SERVING TIGARD, KING CITY, DURHAM AND TIGARD WATER DISTRICT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 5:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Works Building 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, OR 97223 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Call the meeting to order, staff to conduct roll call. 2. Approval of Minutes —April 14, 2010 Action: Motion to approve the April 14, 2010 minutes. 3. Public Comments Call for comments from the public. 4. Water Conservation Coordinator—Jennifer Joe Update on Water Conservation Efforts 5. Proposed City of Tigard Water CIP Fund Budget —Dennis Koellermeier Action: Motion to approve Water CIP Fund Budget 6. Sherwood Water Partnership —Dennis Koellermeier 7. Water Supply Update -John Goodrich 8. Informational Items a. Update from Commissioner Buehner on Lake Oswego/City of Tigard Oversight Committee activities. b. Update from Commissioner Winn on West Bull Mountain Technical Advisory Committee activities. c. Update from Commissioner Henschel on Citizen Sounding Board activities. d. Water Treatment Plant Informational Tour—John Goodrich 9. Non-Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from the Board. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD AGENDA- MAY 12, 2010 Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-718-2591 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft 10. Future Agenda Items Schedule Date Item 6/15/10 Joint Council— IWB Meeting 1)Water Rate Methodology Study Project Introduction 2)Water Treatment Method Selection 3)Water Master Plan Presentation 4 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Presentation 7/14/10 Consultant Presentation on Water Rate Study Findings and SDC Findings. 9/8/10 Consultant Presentation on Final Recommendations Water Rate Study and SDC Findings. To Be Announced Additional Tenancy in Common Agreements for Properties within the Tigard Water Service Area. 11. Next Meeting—joint Tigard City Council and IWB: ■June 15, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, Oregon 12. Adjournment Action: Motion for adjournment. Executive Session The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD AGENDA-MAY 125 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-718-2591 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of2 Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) Meeting Minutes May 12, 2010 Tigard Public Works Building 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, OR 97223 Members Present: Gretchen Buehner Representing the City of Tigard Keith Jehnke Representing the City of Durham Kinton Fowler Alternate Representing the Tigard Water District Dick Winn Representing the City of King City Mike Stone Member At-Large Members Absent: None Staff Present: Dennis Koellermeier Public Works Director John Goodrich Utility Division Manager Greer Gaston Executive Assistant Jennifer Joe Environmental Program Coordinator 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Commissioner Winn called the meeting to order at 5:28 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes —April 14, 2010 Commissioner Buehner motioned to approve the April 14, 2010 minutes. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by majority vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners Buehner, Stone, and Winn voting yes. Commissioners Fowler and Jehnke abstained. 3. Public Comments: None 4. Update on Water Conservation Efforts Environmental Program Coordinator Jennifer Joe reported on conservation activities, for instance the reimbursement and outreach programs. She is on several committees promoting water conservation efforts. The 2009 Water Conservation Report was distributed to the Board. Mr. Goodrich noted that unaccounted for water is at four percent, well under the industry standard of ten to fifteen percent. The upgrading of meters throughout the water service area and replacement of outdated water lines in King City was discussed. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes May 12, 2010 1 5. Proposed City of Tigard Water Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget The following documents were distributed to the Board: 1. Capital Improvement Plan —Water 2. Water Budget 3. Comparison of 2000 vs. 2011 Budget Mr. Koellermeier discussed the Capital Improvement Plan and the projects contained in the plan. The Tigard Budget Committee has approved the budget and the budget is on its way to the Council for final adoption. The Budget Committee needs to approve a technical adjustment related to the Sherwood Water Partnership on Monday. The adjustment means $1 million will be reallocated from this fiscal year budget to next year's fiscal year budget. Mr. Koellermeier relayed the highlights of the Comparison of 2000 vs. 2011 Budget document. He noted staffing had decreased while the number of customers increased. The materials and supplies have increased which means we are investing these dollars back into the system. The cost of water has remained stable with only a 4.34 percent average increase per year over that time period. Commissioner Winn expressed concern that the Board did not have sufficient time to review the Water Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Koellermeier suggested the Commissioners send any comments to him. 6. Sherwood Water Partnership, Pipeline from Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant Mr. Koellermeier reported that there has been a change on the partnership agreement that is coming to the Board. Sherwood has already bid out this project and is under construction. The bids were very good in this financial climate and the project has seen substantial cost savings. Tualatin has decided not to participate in the project, which gives Tigard access to more water. Sherwood inquired if Tigard want to stay in at 10 million gallons per day (mgd) or buy up to 20 mgd capacity. The agreement is for 10 mgd: however, we will need 20 mgd. Tigard will commit to buy 20 mgd of capacity. Tigard is currently cash poor so we will buy it over time as we sell bonds. Sherwood believes the pipeline will cost around $8.8 million including easements, construction management, etc. The proposal for Tigard would be around $4.4 million to own half of the 40 mgd pipe capacity. Mr. Koellermeier recommends we go ahead with this. The pipe currently terminates at the pedestrian bridge in Tualatin Community Park. Mr. Koellermeier will have a legal written opinion with limits of law regarding the Tigard Charter Amendment going to the Willamette River. Commissioner Winn expressed concern over the requirement of taxpayers having to pay for this without a vote since it would entail taking water from the Willamette River. Commissioner Stone clarified that this 20 mgd Tigard portion is the most water that could be bought from this pipeline. Parallel lines could be installed if more water was required in the future. Aside from Commissioner Winn's legal concerns, the Board expressed general support for the project. Commissioner Stone stated it is inexpensive future planning and we could sell the water if it was not needed. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes May 12, 2010 2 Mr. Koellermeier will bring this back to the Board before bringing it before Council. It will be July or August before the legal opinion is done and agreements are refined. 7. Water Supply Update • Mr. Goodrich reported that water demand is currently 4 mgd. • There is 219 mg in ASR storage, which is 102 days of supply. This should be adequate for the peak period. ASR will be shut off at the end of May when we move from winter interruptible supply. • Tigard is purchasing .5 mg a day extra to get through July and August from the Portland Water Bureau. This is the maximum amount that can flow through the system. Tigard will pay the summer interruptible rate for all the water brought in as per the agreement, which is at 66 percent cost. • The Portland Water Bureau does not anticipate any water curtailment. • There is a temporary pump station being built on 125th Avenue & Bull Mountain Road to help supply the 710-foot zone during the summer while work is being done on 125`h Avenue. 8. Informational Items Commissioner Buehner reported on the selection of Red Oak Consulting to conduct the Water Rate Study and Water System Development Charges Update. Council approved the contract last night. a. Update from Commissioner Buehner on Lake Oswego/City of Tigard Oversight Committee activities • A handout entitled Lake Oswego Water Treatment Plant Alternatives Study was distributed to the Board. Commissioner Buehner summarized the handout and different treatment options. The circles on the handout are transposed in the last column for alternatives 2.1 and 2.2. Membrane proposals (the "3" options) were removed from consideration. They take less oversight, but are more expensive. The treatment options range from $65 million to $121 million. Alternative 2.2 is close to the Wilsonville treatment plant. The Wilsonville treatment plant is the gold standard for this area. • The Joint Water Supply source water (Clackamas River) does not require the level of treatment Wilsonville did for the Willamette River. These treatment plant options are being considered for the future in case regulations change since more regulations are anticipated. If the treatment plant only treated the water to high rate sedimentation, it would meet drinking water standards. The questions providers have to ask are: o What is the level of service they want to provide to the customers? o What level quality of water do you want to deliver? o How certain do you want to be to meet future drinking water standards? • Mr. Koellermeier stated the process of picking treatment method will be concluded in June. Meetings are open to the public. A presentation of how this all came together will be made at the joint IWB and City Council meeting. • Citizens seem to be most concerned with taste and odor issues. Commissioner Fowler left the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes May 12, 2010 3 b. Update from Commissioner Winn on West Bull Mountain Technical Advisory Committee Activities • Commissioner Winn reported the committee is undergoing revisions to accommodate several requests for change. c. Updated from Commissioner Henschel on the Citizen Sounding Board activities • Commissioner Henschel did not attend the meeting so there was no information reported. d. Water Treatment Plant Informational Tour— Mr. Goodrich will circulate dates and preferable times. It was suggested that they meet at the West End Building. 9. Non-Agenda Items Mr. Goodrich and Mr. Koellermeier are working on a public open house on June 24 at the West End Building 5:00 or 5:30. The invitation will be in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) which goes to all our customers and consumers. The purpose of this open house is to educate the public on all the work that citizens and the expert panel have done and which treatment options are going to be chosen. This is the first public hearing of the treatment plant decision process. Commissioner Buehner stated Ms. Newcomb, head of Citizens for Safe Water group, was at the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC) meeting, she raised concerns about the ozone and Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment process. Mr. Goodrich stated Red Oak Consulting will be at the June 15 joint Tigard Council/IWB meeting giving a 30-minute overview of water rate SDC so we can bring everyone up to speed. 10. Future Agenda Items • Future agenda items were not discussed. 11. Next Meeting: • June 15, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, Oregon 12. Adjournment At 7:02 p.m., Commissioner Buehner motioned to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners Buehner, Jehnke, Stone and Winn voting yes. IWB Chair Kathy Mollusky, IWB Ri5corder Date: `t - \ -k- No Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes May 12,2010 4 Agenda Item No.: a IWB Meeting Date: 1a - T_1> Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) Meeting Minutes April 14, 2010 Tigard Public Works Building 8777 SW Burnham Street Tigard, OR 97223 Members Present: Gretchen Buehner Representing the City of Tigard Ken Henschel Representing the Tigard Water District Dick Winn Representing the City of King City Mike Stone Member At-Large Members Absent: Patrick Carroll Representing the City of Durham Staff Present: Dennis Koellermeier Public Works Director John Goodrich Utility Division Manager Greer Gaston Executive Assistant Rob Murchison Senior Project Engineer Visitors: Nikki Pozos, Corollo Engineering Dave Kraska, Corollo Engineering 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Commissioner Winn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes — March 10, 2010 Commissioner Buehner motioned to approve the March 10, 2010 minutes as amended; Commissioner Henschel seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners Buehner, Henschel, Stone, and Winn voting yes. 3. Public Comments: None 4. Credit for Leak Adjustment Commissioner Buehner motioned to approve the Valentian Ghigheann credit as recommended by staff. Commissioner Henschel seconded. The credit for the water leak was approved by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners Buehner, Henschel, Stone, and Winn voting yes. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes April 14,2010 1 Commissioner Buehner motioned to approve the Audrey Castile credit as recommended by staff. Commissioner Henschel seconded. The credit for the water leak was approved by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners Buehner, Henschel, Stone, and Winn voting yes. 5. Water System Master Plan Presentation Mr. Koellermeier introduced Senior Project Engineer Rob Murchison. Mr. Murchison introduced the Corollo Engineering team, Nikki Pozos and Dave Kraska. After the IWB presentation, the Water System Master Plan will go to the Tigard City Council for adoption. The Powerpoint is on file in the IWB record. Some information clarified during the presentation is as follows: • The volume in ASR 3 is 2 to 2.5 million gallons per day recovery. • Tigard has terminated the partnership agreement with the Joint Water Commission and are now a wholesale customer able to purchase water if needed. • The Corollo report is at the 50th percentile, the average projection or the midpoint; this is not a worst-case or drought year scenario projection. Tigard would implement mandated curtailment activities for severe climatic change. The City has two days of storage for emergency use with the current reservoirs at average daily demand; this does not include the future Cash Reservoir. • The report incorporated stepped up conservation. Corollo examined prior year's per capita usage and noticed a big reduction. • Corollo did not take into account the additional 6 mgd from the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership expansion because we are not under contractual obligation. If we could acquire the additional 6 mgd, it would take us to 2040. • Many of the older pump stations could be taken out of service because the older pump stations are low capacity. The network of piping could be designed to have a lot of little pump stations lifting the water from one to the next or replace little pump stations with one reliable, modern designed station that is accessible at ground level and does not have confined space entry and maintenance issues. • The new pump stations are built to have a high level of reliability and redundancies so there is still enough capacity if one pump went out. Maintaining old pump stations is a major maintenance hassle and the capacity is so much smaller than what is needed. • Hi Tor pump station capacity is good, however it does not have great reliability nor is it in the best condition. It will be one of the last ones replaced. • There are not a lot of pipes in poor condition that need replacing now. Properly installed cast iron ductile pipes will last a long time and the Tigard area pipes are made of ductile iron. Pipes that have problems are made of pvc or asbestos. As redevelopment happens (i.e., Burnham and Main Streets), older pipes will be replaced. • Security is addressed while doing projects. For instance, when existing reservoir projects are proposed, all hatches are retrofitted for greater security including alarms; and reservoirs are closely evaluated for other security measures, such as air vents. • The telemetry system was updated in 2005-06. It is a dedicated, wireless radio. When new sites are built, they are connected to this telemetry system. • Tigard has water pipes under Bull Mountain Rd; however, COT does not have the $2 million to complete the improvement shown in the Master Plan. Washington County is paving the road starting Monday. This is the most likely route of the pipeline. COT is looking at alternative routes to avoid that route since it will be two to three years before we can build the pipeline. • A seismic evaluation was completed four years ago. COT does not have enough money to do all the seismic upgrades. When we are working on a reservoir, we do a seismic Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes April 14,2010 2 evaluation and figure out its vulnerabilities as part of the project. We did a vulnerability assessment that identified the most critical facilities; this is where we will spend our money first. Mr. Murchison, Ms. Pozos, and Mr. Kraska David departed at 7:00 pm. 6. Proposed City of Tigard Water Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget Mr. Koellermeier said the CIP budget had not been completed by the City's finance department. 7. Water Supply Update • Mr. Goodrich reported that water demand is currently 4.3 to 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd). COT is still injecting into Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) 1. This will be completed by June 3. The goal is to reach 120 million gallons in storage. • COT is contracting an additional .5 mgd from Portland Water Bureau (PWB) at a summer interruptible water supply. This water will be sold to us at about 66% of wholesale cost for the 60-day period from July through August. This is the maximum capacity we have in our pipeline from PWB. 8. Process of How to Amend/Transfer Groundwater Registration Modification Mr. Goodrich reported that the minor changes requested by TWD were accomplished. Staff requests Member's sign the modification to get it to the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) by the April 25th deadline. 9. Informational Items a. Update from Commissioner Buehner on Lake Oswego/City of Tigard Oversight Committee activities • Commissioner Buehner reported that the oversight committee survey results commissioned by the public outreach program came back positive as far as attitudes, water supply quality, understanding of where their water comes from, what was known about the new project, if they knew their water rates were increasing, etc. Our citizens are more informed than citizens in other areas, think the water system is great, and understand what is going on. However, there was not a lot of support for higher rates. • They have been interviewing applicants to do the water rate study and system development charge update to determine how to finance improvements for the Lake Oswego plant. The committee recommended two firms to go to the next level of interviews on April 20th. The consultant will be hired shortly thereafter. The new rates need to be in place by Jan 2011. b. Update from Commissioner Winn on West Bull Mountain Technical Advisory Committee Activities • Commissioner Winn reported the focus was on transportation this month. There was not any discussion related to water. 10. Non-Agenda Items • Commissioner Winn would like Mr. Goodrich to schedule another tour of the Lake Oswego water treatment plant for the IWB, TWD, and anyone else who would like to be included. • COT will distribute an updated IWB roster once the new Durham representative is appointed. Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes April 14,2010 3 • Commissioner Henschel would like to be added to the IWB agenda to give updates regarding the citizen sounding board. • Mr. Koellermeier stated there are several boards with a lot of information. He suggested we deal with them all from a technology standpoint. COT can email or create a website for projects schedules, information, etc. • Commissioner Winn would like the IWB to pay attention to the Robert's Rules of Order- no side conversations. • Commissioner Buehner announced that when COT gets the new rate study on board, they would give a joint presentation to IWB, Tigard City Council, and Lake Oswego City Council on June 15. She invited the TWD board members to listen to the presentation. • Ms. Gaston stated that May 12 is the next IWB meeting. The regular June meeting has been cancelled so the IWB can attend the June 15 meeting with the councils. • Commissioner Henschel inquired about the status of the IGA. Commissioner Winn informed the Board that COT has sent it to legal. Durham and King City are waiting until COT does their legal review. Commissioner Henschel says TWD will begin reviewing at their board level and may take to legal before COT finishes their legal review. Commissioner Buehner would like to know when the attorneys will get it back. Mr. Koellermeier will inquire and let the IWB know. 11. Future Agenda Items • Future agenda items were not discussed. 12. Next Meeting: • June 15, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, Oregon 13. Adjournment At 7:23 p.m., Commissioner Stone motioned to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Henschel seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners Buehner, Henschel, Stone and Winn voting yes. IWB Chair Kathy Mollusky, IWB Recorder Date: Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes April 14,2010 4 Sign-in Sheet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Date: May 12, 2010 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 CITY of rr(�AROD WA-mg CONSERVA710N 10">ROglZAM TIGARD 2009 water C a t"-w IZepert Prepared by: Jennifer Joe—Environmental Program Coordinator John Goodrich—Water Division Manger EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tigard Water Service Area includes the Cities of Durham and King City,a majority of the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District. The Public Works Water Division provides drinking water to an estimated 57,658 people through 17,878 residential,commercial and industrial service connections as of December 31, 2009. This report will discuss some of these conservation measures as well as determine the gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for the Tigard Water Service Area. Summary conclusions for the 2009 Water Conservation Report: • Water sold for calendar year 2009 was 2,051 million gallons (MG) or 5.6 million gallons per day (mgd) - (Table 1). • Within the last 5 years,peak total water use was in calendar 2007 (2,114 MG or 5.8 mgd) —(Table 1). Purchased water(total production) for calendar 2009 was 2,134 MG or 5.8 mgd—(Table 7). • The difference between purchased water(production) and sold water (revenue) for 2009 was approximately 4%unaccounted or non-revenue water. Acceptable industry standard is 10-15%non-revenue water. • Population within the service area has increased 3.9% since 2005 (Table 8). • Total water use steadily increased by 3.2% from 2005 to 2007 (2,049 MG in 2005; 2,114 MG in 2007) (Table 1); • Then decreased by 5.3%in 2008 (2,002 MG in 2008),and has increased again by 2.4% (2,051 MG in 2009) (Table 1). • Comparing data from 2005 to 2009 indicates water use in at the 2005 usage. (fable 1). • Average GPCD water use has increased 2.4%in the last 12 months (Table 1). • Average water use for residential and multi-residential customers is approximately 80 gpcd (Table 6—Residential and Multiple Family units only). • Average total water use (water revenue and non-revenue water) for the TWSA in 2009 is 105 GPCD (Table 8). • Commercial water usage has decreased by approximately 8.7% since 2005 (Table 5). • Industrial water usage has decreased by approximately 53.3% since 2005 (Table 5). • Irrigation water use has decreased by approximately 20.5% since 2005 (Table 5). • Single unit water usage has decreased approximately 3.2%since 2005 (Table 5). • Multi-unit residence water usage has increased 2.7%since 2005 (Table 5). • Single unit and Multi-unit residence water usage decreased approximately 3.6% since 2005,and increased 3.8%in the last 12 months (Table 6). • Water consumption data over the last 5 years indicate a downturn in the economic conditions within the TWSA starting in 2007; 2009 data support indications of an improved economic condition. 2Page Introduction The Tigard Water Service Area includes the Cities of Durham and King City,a majority of the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District.The Public Works Water Division provides drinking water to approximately 57,658 people through 17,878 residential,commercial and industrial service connections as of December 31,2009. Water conservation has historically been viewed as a temporary solution in times of drought or other times when emergency water storage is necessary. It has not been until recently water utilities are using conservation as a practical long-term option in which they are able to downsize proposed infrastructure and save on operating costs. Common goals for conservation programs include reducing water waste,optimizing system capacity,limiting customer costs,and minimising environmental burdens associated with both water supply and storm water management.An important component of conservation planning is an analysis of all measures and incentives that could be applied to reduce water demand. Developing a water-use profile for each customer category (residential,irrigation,commercial, and industrial) can require a significant amount of data analysis. There are two types of residential accounts, single unit and multi-unit. Single unit residential accounts have only one meter per unit and multi-unit residential accounts have one master meter for multiple units. Multi-units include apartment complexes,mobile home parks, some home owners associations and condominiums. Understanding average annual demand versus daily demand, outdoor uses versus indoor use,determining peak flows, searching out top users and inefficient users,and determining other characteristics of water demand can be time consuming and prove to be a complex task. Identifying where,when and how water is used is a critical link to determining which conservation measure will yield the most reliable water savings. This report will discuss some of these conservation measures as well as determine the gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for the Tigard Water Service Area. Data Collection The City of Tigard's Utility Billing(UB)Division provided the Water Division with bi- monthly statements from 2005 to 2009.Information included the consumption of water sold (revenue) to six different types of customers,in units of 100 cubic feet(748 gallons),as well as the number of accounts billed that month.The six types of accounts are commercial, industrial,irrigation,hydrant meters,residential and multi-unit. For the purposes of this report,data is broken down monthly. Beginning in 2008,UB found a way to report each account that was read within a certain month. Because of this new technique,it has made data collection and results more accurate. We went back to 2004 to re-analyze the data and compared it to what we were using before. The difference was not significant but it was enough to change the historical consumption. This report reflects the new data collection method which we will continue to use in future reports. The billing cycle has proven to be a challenge when comparing water purchased (from a wholesale provider) to water sold (consumed) for a particular time period.Accounts are billed on different monthly cycles,therefore an overall water summary would be inaccurate because there would be customers that have consumed water but have not yet been billed. One option 3 1 P a g e - _ ---- to lessen the effects of this calculation is to take 12 months of data starting in January when water sales are minimal. Water Demand The Water Division purchases water from two water sources: the City of Portland and the City of Lake Oswego. It also uses water from two Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR)wells and a groundwater well to supplement water sources during peak summer demand.With the use of the ASR wells,large amounts of supply water are purchased and stored during the winter months when demand and costs are low. The water is used during the peak summer months to meet critical high demand,emergency storage for customers and emergency storage for fire suppression. Daily monitoring is recorded along with the storage differentials. The difference between storage water(including ASR water) and metered supply water (purchased) result in `Water Demand' (this is the total daily production demand for revenue and non-revenue water used or consumed). Results The following results summarize annual consumption in several ways. When compared to water demand data,the water revenue data (water consumption)was summarized in years starting in January and ending in December of that calendar year. Monthly water consumption data was compiled into spreadsheets for the years 2005-2009. The number of accounts and units of water per month were collected. UB reports and water revenue (consumption) per account was calculated for each month.After all UB data was entered,each account was summarized by year in billing units (CCF=100 cubic feet=748 gallons) and then converted into million gallons (Table 1). Table 2 also gives the water revenue (consumption) in percentages. Table 1: 5 year consumption total (iti(i) 2005 200 2007 MEW Commercial 299 311 305 295 273 Industrial 15 9 16 10 7 Irrigation 62 69 73 76 78 Multi-unit 432 424 427 407 1 444 Hydrant 3 4 3 2 0 Single unit 1,238 1,268 1,291 1,211 1,249 Total 2,049 2,085 2,114 2,002 2,051 Table 2: 5 'ear comum tion total )c°rcenta es 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Commercial 15% 15% 14% 15% 13% Industrial 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% Irrigation 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% Multi-unit 21% 20% 20% 20% 22% Hydrant 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lafmie-Unit 60% 61% 61% 600% 1 610% Table 1 and Table 2 indicate that single unit and multiple-unit residential customers consume the most water in the system, 83%of total water sales,and could have the largest impact on water demand for the Tigard Water Service Area. Commercial and industrial accounts 4 1 P a g e consume 13%of total water sales.According to the national average,20%to 40%of billed urban water demand is for commercial and industrial water use. A portion of the City of Tigard commercial buildings are within the Tualatin Valley Water District,and not supplied within the TWSA. Although comparing totals from year to year can show a general trend,it does not take into consideration the change in the number of accounts.Table 3 shows the percentage of growth per account for the years 2005-2009.A negative percentage represents a loss and positive percentage represents a gain in number of accounts from the previous year. Table 3: Percent growth of each type of account 05 2006 2009 Commercial 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% Industrial 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% Irrigation 8.6% 13.6% 7.0% 3.7% 2.2% Multi-unit 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 1.0% 0.2% Hydrant 14.3% 133.3% 7.1% 0.0% 46.2% S' le unit 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% 0.4%7 0.3% Annual consumption per account was calculated by adding all water consumption for the period by the total number of accounts per year. Please note the number of accounts per year (Table 4)is a snapshot of the service area as of December 31,2009 as reported by UB. Consumption per type of account can be a more accurate indication of water use within the Tigard Water Service Area. Table 4: Number of accounts 00M 20 007 CommerciaR 648 649 653 651 650 Industrial 14 14 14 13 13 Irrigation 177 201 215 223 228 Multi-unit 595 595 596 602 601 Hydrant 6 14 13 13 7 Single unit 15,715 15,993 16,255 16,328 16,379 Total: 17,155 17,466 17,746 17,817 17,878 When discussing daily residential water use,it is most often discussed in terms of gallons per account per day (Table 5) or gallons per capita day (gpcd) (Table 6 and Table 7). Below are three methods to calculate the gpcd value. Each method produces a different gpcd value dependant on the variables. Using different methodologies allows for cross referencing and validation of trending information. 5 1 P a g e Method 1: UB Information: Total Consumption vs. Number of Overall Accounts Table 5: Consumption per account per day (gallons) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Commercial 1,264 1,311 1,281 1,243 1,150 Industrial 3,005 1,747 3,041 2,200 1,467 Irrigation 953 942 925 939 940 Multi-unit 1,990 1,953 1,961 1,852 2,023 Hydrant 1,465 751 615 464 97 Single unit 216 217 218 203 209 Per person (RES) 86 87 88 81 84 In Table 5,the gallons per account per day were derived from UB revenue data.The consumption per account was calculated from taking overall water consumption and dividing by the total number of accounts for each year,which was then divided by 365 to get usage per day. To find the gallons per capita per day,the single unit residential value was divided by 2.5 (the average number of people living in a single family home in Washington County based on Portland State University Population Research Data). This information is provided to track trends in different types of accounts,especially relating to single and multiple residential units which would not be indicated in other methods. Industrial account usage dropped significantly in 2006 due to a business pulling out of Tigard and shipping their business overseas. In 2007,the consumption rose due to Clean Water Services using an abnormal amount of water. Method 2: UB Information and Population: Total Consumption vs. Population Table 6: Gallons per capita per da cd , derived from total consum tion and popiil,,ition 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Yearly Multi-unit& Single unit 1,670 1,692 1,717 1,618 1,693 G Population 55,415 56,685 57,338 57,532 57,568 Multi-unit & Single unit gpcd 83 82 82 77 80 Yearly TOTAL (MG) 2,093 2,252 2,161 2,002 2,051 Overall total gpcd 101 101 101 95 97 Gallons per capita per day (gpcd) can also be calculated using population instead of number of accounts.Table 6 presents two different ways to calculate the gpcd using population. The "Multi-unit&single unit gpcd"was calculated from the total consumption from both the single and multi-unit residences which was then divided by the projected population for the corresponding year. From this method it shows per capita use per day is 80 gallons in 2009, 3 gallons more per person per day than the previous year.The"Overall total gpcd"was calculated from the total consumption from both the single and multi-unit residences but also includes consumption from the commercial,industrial,irrigation,hydrant meter accounts. This value was then divided by the population,which produces a per capita consumption per day of 97 gallons in 2009. 6 1 P a g e Method 3:Water Demand and Population:Water Demand vs. Population This is the standard method recommended by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) for calculating per capita water use. It is also the easiest method since it is a function of total water demand (revenue and non-revenue water) divided by total estimated population.Wholesale water data was compiled from spreadsheets that were updated daily with the amount of water the City of Tigard purchases from each wholesaler.Table 7 displays the monthly overall totals from the last 5 years. Table 7: Water demand G 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Jan 140.84 134.58 133.43 127.75 137.49 Feb 126.52 119.04 117.99 119.87 116.27 Mar 153.53 127.10 131.39 1 134.38 127.08 Apr 141.03 130.35 133.80 131.94 131.98 May 118.21 196.53 185.93 175.74 174.66 Jun 187.82 224.40 247.37 224.36 226.53 Jul 289.81 336.36 310.73 317.40 323.33 Aug 340.60 327.25 287.51 294.44 288.81 Sep 252.42 248.02 232.45 242.25 208.59 Oct 148.61 174.64 133.33 150.46 145.01 Nov 130.74 133.14 118.76 131.64 122.23 Dec 132.70 133.16 121.30 142.96 132.29 Total 2162.83 2284.56 2154.00 2,193.52 2134.27 The gallons per capita per day using this method is calculated from the water demand data (Table 7) and dividing each year's water demand by estimated population (Table 8). Production data information (Table 8) indicates the per capita use per day for 2009 was 101 gallons (Table 8);however,these calculations included both revenue and non-revenue (unaccounted water use or loss). Table 8: Gallons per capita per da), based on water demand Service Atea Annual Water Per Capita Water Population Sales (MG) Use per Day (Estimated) (gallons) 2005 55,415 2,163 107 2006 56,686 2,285 112 2007 57,338 2,154 103 2008 57,532 2,192 104 2009 57,658 2,134 101 Average 56,926 2,186 105 7 I' ,1 1 c Trends The following graphs depict water use trends between years 2005-2009. Graph 1: Consum tionper account per day allons) _ - Total Consumption per account per day 4,000 ---- ---- - - - �COM 3,000 1 1 N D -f -IRR 2,000 -b--MUR 1,000 HYD 0 --W-RES 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 i Gra h 2: Consum tion per Irrigation account per da allons) Irrigation (GPCD) 960 - -- - - - 950 - — 940 930 -- =mo—IRR 920 910 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Graph 3: Consumption per Industrial account per day (gallons) Industrial (GPCD) 4,000 -- -- - - - 3,000 -- - - -- - - 2,000 — -— - -- tIND 1,000 - - - 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 81Pabe Graph 4: Consumption per Commercial account per day (gallons) Commercial (GPCD) 1,400 - — - - 1,300 1,200 - 1,100 - - --- -- - — tCOM 1,000 -� 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Gra h 5: Single Unit Residential Consumption per account per daV(Gallons - - - - Residental (Gallons per household per day) l 220 j 215 j 210 205 RES 200 195 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Graph 6: Multi-Unit-Consumption per account per day (Gallons) - Multi-Unit Residental (GPCD) 2,100 ---- - - - --- - - - - 2,000 1,900 -- ---- 1,800 ___ mw$�M U R 1,700 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Since 2005,water usage for single unit and multi-unit residential customers had been decreasing (Graph 5 and 6). However,in 2009 we saw a substantial increase in both multi-unit and single unit water usage. This sudden decrease and increase may have been due to the most recent economic recession starting in 2007. Eighty three (83%) percent of all water consumption was used by single unit (61%) and multi-unit (22%) residential customers 91Pagc (Graph 7). Single unit and multi-unit residences could potentially save the most water per account and lower the per capita use because they make up the majority of the water usage. Gra h 7:Total Consumption for 2009 2009 IND M COM 0% ®IND 0 IRR 13% 4% i IRR ■MUR ■HYD M ■RES RES 2 61% HYD 0% ------------ Discussion The average per capita use can vary greatly between communities for any number of reasons including,but not limited to: • Climate differences • Mix of single and multi-unit residences • Commercial and industrial uses • Household sizes;lot sizes;public uses • Income brackets or local economic conditions • Age and condition of distribution system (water losses) According to Amy Vickers in the Handbook of Water Use and Conservation (2001) "the combined indoor and outdoor water use in a single-family American household is estimated to average 101 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)." In 2009,the Tigard Water Service Area single- family household (using single unit residential account data only) had an estimated average of 84 gpcd (Table 5). Per capita water use in multi-unit dwellings tends to be less,ranging from 45 to 70 gpcd based on national data,because these households usually use little or no water outdoors and have fewer fixtures and appliances. It is difficult to accurately estimate the Tigard Water Service Area multi-unit gpcd because of the limited data available. The number of persons per unit per multi-unit account is not known and turnover is expected but not calculated. Conclusions Based on the data provided in this report,the annual water demand for the Tigard Water Service Area has increased 2 million gallons from 2005 figures,indicating a relatively flat consumption. See Executive Summary on page 2 for further conclusions and analysis. 101Page CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER Full Funded Project\o.pro;t - - 15 _ Total 96008 3C Cater nfaar I sue 401000 100,000 -100,000---- 150,000 Mow - 150,000 690% 96022 SDC Methodology Upd�a - _.-25AOO --960!3 550'Zone lmprorements:l0 AIG Transfer Pump Station Upgrade 1,123,994 _ -3x133043 226ADD - -- - - -- - 4,893 037 _ ---- -- - ---- - 96011 _4SR Ezpattston- - 179,4292 U20 171 2,199.000 96010 -"SR 3 _ 265 421 2,736,000 96018 Lake Oav 3,2W,000 4,993,960, -5,093,960 8093 960 25,093,960 2'0 093 960 71 29 Total Funded 4 418 994 8-6 003 i 684 960 10 664 960 25 47 89 27 64'31 8 7 37 96008-Water MAdn Une Overdziag- _. During the course of the ym the City may find the need to upsiae a planned pipeline through anew development,thus saoomplishing m ideamed Capital improvement as listed in the Witer Distribution System Hydraulic Study dated May 2000. Actual ! V Revised I Through Budget Projected j 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012.13 201344 2014-15 Total Exterrwl Hxpertaea Coasuuuioa 80,000 40,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 690,000 J Total 0 80,000 40,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 150.000 150,000 690,000 �InterrufEx�ettaea__. ..._ .. - ---- 1ko u A[an ematt 0 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 PublicIawlvanent__ __ i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j Told 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toad project Sx�etwe 0 80,000 40,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 690,000 rnae Pua#%Source_ K'ataSDC 0 80.000 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 _Water Fund 1 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 650,000 j Total Project Rmnmo 0 80,000 40,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 6901000 I I i i Other$eve>Mae sour« 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- - Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �%022SDC Metltodolopp update - - -- -- Petsodicmiev of system development tw methodology regarding dtvdWer fns wad dutges for vats utility semi¢infrastructure. Actual Revised Through Budget Projected 200809 J 200910 2009102010-11 2011-12 1 201?-13 2013-14 201415 Tota - - -- 8xternd Hxpettaea ---•--- l - -- ------ - -.._ - _ _---- - Desrga and E�nod+au$ 0 50,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 Tribal 0 50,000 25000 25,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 :Interrul Etparea Project 111aoaganrnt -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Expeme 0 50,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 Revenue Ftnditu�Sour« lC'aterSDC 0 50,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 50,ODO j Total Project Revenues 0 50,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 I 10ther Revenue Source I --- r- - -- _ -_. - - -- ------- --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PAGE 268-CITY OF TIGARD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER 9601-345W'Zane --- The existing transfer pump station located on the 10-milliun gallon reservoir site at Bull Mountain Road/125th Avenue,serve both the 550-Ebur and 713-foot senice zona.The Water Distribution System Hydmulic Study identified a need to replace this pump station with one"would provide a higher pumping capacity to both servicezona.constmaina of this i improvement increases pumping capacity from 2000 to 3300 gallons per minute(gpm)for the 713-foot sen-ice zone The pump station will also provide 3900gpm to the 550-Foot Zone Reservoir No.2 Along with the pump station improvements,a seismicecaluation of the existing 10-million gallon reservoir will be completed to determine what upgrades shall be incorporated during construction as apan of the overall projoct. Actual Revised Through Budget Projected 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2010.11 2011.12 2012 13 2013 1� 2011-15 TOW Wim°' and En '_vitro 187,478 0 115,851 0 0 0 0 0 115,851 --g - ----- - - ----- -- -- _ --- --- ..---- -- -------- - -- Construction L 4,588,000 1,008,143 3299,188 0 0 0 0 4,307,329 Total 187,476 4,686,000 1,123,994 3,299,186 0 0 0 0 4,423,100 Internal F PsoLcct 2c[ana�aarnt 0 0 0 128,000 128,000 --` 0 - - - -0 - -- -- 0 252,000 Construction lllanartent 0 0 0 117,857 100,000 0 0 0 217,857 r Total 0 0 0 243,857 226,000 0 0 0 469,857 Total Projea� 187.476 4.686,000 1,123,994 3,543,043 226,000 0 0 0 4,893,037 Rev_em a Fending Sowce 1pata�p 0 4,686,000 1,011,595 3,543,043 228,000 0 0 0 4,780,838 WamSDC 0 0 112,399 0 0 0 0 0 112,399 WaterFund 187,478 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Total Ptojea Revermes 187,476 4,686,000 1,123,994 3,543,043 226,000 0 0 0 4,883,037 Other Revenue Source - --- -� 4mesianRemvtaylkReimatnd� 4,888,000 1,123,994 3,543,043 226,000 0 0 0 4,893,037 Total 0 086,000 1,123,994 3,543,043 22SAW 0 0 0 4,893,037 196011 ASR Exvateaon The Gty's hyt rogmlogist of samrd will assist Staff in locatiog potential ams for additional aquifer storage and recovery(ASR wells). In addition,tat wells must be drilled by a qualified , well drilla in order for the hydrogeol ogut to determine suitability of the well for ASR purposes.Therefore,these studio will include both consultant and drilling sery'- Actual Rerinrcd � ; l Through Budget Projected M" 2W10 200!•10 20*41 2OH-12 20MO 20MI4 town Total � �Extetnal Pxpataea - Destp and Engmecring -0 0 --------0_---- -.---.0 _ .--_0---- ---._._0 - 151,000 0 151,000 I Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,600,000 1,800,000 Total o 0 a 0 0 0 151,000 11600,000 1,951,000 Internal Eapenws Pmjco Alan.vement 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.429 -20,571 48,000 Construction hfanagemrnt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 f Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,429 228571 248,000 JTotal Nojed En enae 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,429 2,020,571 2,199,000 (Revenue Furdireg_Soerce- WaterSDC L0 0 0 0 0 178,429 2,020,571 2,199,000 iTotal Project Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 178,429 2,020,571 2,199,000 Other Revenue Source - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN-PAGE 269 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - WATER 96010•Agtdfer Storage&Becovery Well 113 The Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study identified a need for the expansion of the Guy's Aquifer Storage and Recovery program. In find you 2007-2008,a 1000-ft dap well was j successfully dolled. Well head improvements which include the installation of a pump,motor,and accompanying pipe and chlorination system are scheduled in 2012 The pump station j will protide 25 million gallons of wata per day during dry summer months. Actual Revised Through Budget 1 Projected 2008-09 2009.10 2009-10 201041 201:1-122012-14 200.14 2014-15 Total External Exp Design and En+inauin� I 0 0 0 0 251,000 0 0 0 251,000 Ghnstruction 0 0 0 0 0 2,200,000 0 0 2200,000 Total 0 0 0 0 251,000 2,200,000 0 0 2,451,000 ;Internal Expenses I Project 11an gement 1 0 0 0 0 14,000 21,000 0 0 35,000 Construction Management I 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 50,000 0 250,000 I Total 0 0 0 0 14,000 221,000 50,000 0 285,000 (Total Project Expense 0 0 0 0 265,000 2,421,000 50,000 0 2,736,000 lRevenue Ptmdin�$coerce - Water SDC t 0 0 0 0 132,500 1,210,500 25,000 0 1,368,000 K'ataFund 0 0 0 0 132,500 1,210,500 25,000 0 1,368,000 Total Project Rrventrea 0 0 0 0 265,000 2,421,000 50,000 0 2,736,000 I 1 � { Other Revenue Source 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 IIn 2008 Tigard entered into an agreement to develop a long-ton water supply with the City of Lake Oswego.The new water supply is exported to be online in 2016.Capital construction; projects indude:expansion of the mw water intake structure on the Clackamas River,and inamses in troatment plot opacity,transmission pipe sizing,stooge capacity,and pumping , capacity.Tigard's shale of the total project cost is estimated at SI 10 million.Revenue bonds will likely be used to finance partnership projects. -Acnul ( Revised 1 �. Thrortgtt Budget Projected 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2010-11 2011.12 2012.13 2013-14 2014-15 I Total External Expenses Construction 2,966,626 1,200,000 3,260,000 4.800,000 5.000,000 6,000,000 25.000,000 25,000,000 71,060,000 Total 2,868,526 1,200,000 3,260,000 4,800,000 5.000,000 6,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 71,060,000 Internal Expenses 1 ProjmAfanagenaent 1 0 0 0 93,960 93,960 93,960 93,960 93.960 469,800 Total 0 0 0 93,980 93,960 93,960 93,960 93,960 469,800 !TOW ProjC0Expenae 2,868.626 1,200,000 3,260,000 4,893,960 5,093,960 8,093,960 25,093,960 25,093,960 71,529,800 iRevenue Pundina Source WaterCIP 1 2,869,626 0 3,260,000 2,600,000 5,093,960 6,093,960 25.093960 25093,060 69,235,940 1 Wain Fund 0 1,200,000 0 2,293,960 0 0 0 0 2293,960 1 `TotalProject Revenues 2,868626 1200,000 3.260,000 4.893,960 5093.960 8.093.960 25,093960 25,093,960 71,529.800 IOdtcr Revenue Source 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PAGE 270 - CITY OF TIGARD Water BUDGET UNIT:6500 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Budget Resource Summary 2011 2011 Approved Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved vs.09-10 Revised 336,594 286,476 574,590 54001-Professional/Contractual Services 384,390 384,390 -33.1% 40,849 50,393 39,245 54002-Water Costs:Sampling 39,745 39,745 1.3% 0 0 0 54003-Legal Fees 30,900 30,900 100.0% 3,015 9,078 7,000 54101-R&M-Facilities 8,500 8,500 21.4% 89,500 74,550 100,000 S4102-R&M-Water Lines 70,000 70,000 -30.0% 10,845 13,802 15,000 54103-R&M-Control Valves 17,000 17,000 13.3% 4,218 11,621 6,000 54104-R&M-Reservoir 6,000 6,000 0.0% 6,877 7,174 10,000 54105-R&M-Grounds 12,000 12,000 20.0% 2,538 89 9,000 54106-R&M-Pump Station 8,500 8,500 -5.6% 1,625 4,237 7,000 54107-R&M-SCADA 8,000 8,000 14.3% 26,316 14,788 10,000 54108-R&M-Wells 11,500 11,500 15.0% 10,016 7,968 15,000 54109-R&M-Meters 227,100 227,100 1414.0% 8,082 9,952 7,700 54110-R&M-Service Lines 20,500 20,500 166.2% 8,546 210 0 54111-R&M-Regulators 0 0 100.0% 26,457 19,149 32,000 54112-R&M-Fire Hydrant 120,000 120,000 275.0% 54,530 30,390 25,000 54113-R&M-Vehicles 25,000 25,000 0.0% 184,340 154,022 251,600 54201-Utilities-Electric 271,728 271,728 8.0% 1,953 818 4,000 54202-Utilities-Water/Sewer/SWM 1,000 1,000 -75.0% 5,531 7,364 8,440 54205-Utilites-Phone/Pager/Cells 9,706 9,706 15.0% 12,791 10,998 67,500 54300-Advertising&Publicity 43,167 43,167 -36.0% 1,097 1,011 1,500 54301-Fees and Charges 1,725 1,725 15.0% 8,529 6,351 6,000 S4302-Dues&Subscriptions 6,900 6,900 15.0% 8,148 7,174 8,510 54303-Travel and Training 7,250 7,250 -14.8% 29,152 27,791 0 54305-Conservation Expenses 31,700 31,700 100.0% 0 46,820 0 54307-Insurance 0 0 100.0% 0 559 1,000 54308-Property Damage 5,750 5,750 475.0% 471 0 3,000 54309-Rents and Leases 3,000 3,000 0.0% 796 513 2,000 54330-Bad Debt Expense 5,750 5,750 187.5% 6,685 9,865 7,400 54311-Special Department Expenses 8,000 8,000 8.1% 889,501 813,163 1,218,485 Total Services 1,384,811 1,384,811 13.7% 95,789 0 60,000 56003-Vehicles 70,000 70,000 16.7% 20,288 27,979 3,500 56004-Computer Hardware and Software 3,100 3,100 -11.4% 0 0 80,000 56006-Equipment 0 0 -100.0% 116,077 27,979 143,500 Total Capital Improvement 73,100 73,100 -49.1% 0 0 787,637 58000-Interdepartmental Costs 443,482 443,482 -43.7% 0 0 0 58100-Indirect Charges-City Management 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 58110-Indirect Charges-Human Resources 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 58120-Indirect Charges-Risk Management 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 58150-Indirect Charges-Records 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 58200-Indirect Charges-Finance Administration 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 58230-Indirect Charges-Technology 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 58630-Indirect Charges-Fleet Maintenance 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 58640-Indirect Charges-Property Management 0 0 100.0% 0 0 787,637 Total Internal Services 443,482 443,482 -43.7% 4,313,007 4,900,077 6,682,336 Total Water 6,419,731 6,334,338 -5.2% Water BUDGET UNIT:6500 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Budget Resource Summary 2011 2011 Approved Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved vs.09-10 Revised 16.30 16.30 16.30 Total FTE 13.00 12.00 200,564 222,459 232,539 51001-Salaries-Management 150,180 150,180 -35.4% 629,541 666,464 711,765 51002-Salaries-General 592,796 536,996 -24.6% 0 0 0 51005-Part Time-Temporary 25,000 0 100.0% 18,883 23,660 25,000 51006-Overtime 0 25,000 0.0% 848,988 912,583 969,304 Total Personal Services-Salaries 767,976 712,176 -26.5% 1,677 914 944 52001-Unemployment 740 684 -27.5% 27,629 27,934 31,582 52002-Worker's Compensation 21,228 20,569 -34.9% 65,135 69,909 72,239 52003-Social Security/Medicare 56,839 52,570 -27.2% 5,582 6,096 6,344 52004-Tri-Met Tax 5,064 4,684 -26.2% 85,103 93,555 96,756 52005-Retirement 75,798 70,218 -27.4% 6,144 6,856 6,976 52006-Retirement-3%ER Match 4,505 4,505 -35.4% 13,623 13,659 13,770 52007-VEBA-ER 11,100 10,200 -25.9% 1,051 1,055 3,721 52008-Life Ins/ADD/LTD 2,688 2,520 -32.3% 2,230 2,373 0 52009-long Term Disability 0 0 100.0% 157,566 176,722 219,078 52010-Medical/Dental/Vision 162,712 145,131 -33.8% 20,080 21,459 0 52011-Dental Benefits 0 0 100.0% 385,820 420,532 451,410 Total Personal Services-Benefits 340,674 311,081 -31.1% 6,081 3,739 7,000 53001-Office Supplies 2,000 2,000 -71.4% 20,115 19,655 18,000 53002-Small Tools&Equipment 20,043 20,043 11.4% 27,692 20,619 27,000 53003-Fuel 25,500 25,500 -5.6% 2,018,733 2,681,807 3,060,000 53530-Water Costs:L.O.&Ptld 3,362,145 3,362,145 9.9% 2,072,621 2,725,820 3,112,000 Total Supplies 3,409,688 3,409,688 9.6% COMPARISON OF 2000 VS 2011 BUDGET APPROVED APPROVED 10 Year Percent Average ITEM 2000/01 2010/11 Change Change Change Personnel: 17 12 Wages $731,856 $ 687,176 $ (44,680) -6.1% -0.61% Overtime 34,472 25,000 $ (9,472) -27.5% -2.75% SUBTOTAL: 712,176 Worker's Compensation 24,126 20,569 $ (3,557) -14.7% -1.47% Payroll Taxes 64,123 52,570 $ (11,553) -18.0% -1.80% Retirement 102,521 70,218 $ (32,303) -31.5% -3.15% Group Insurance 110,209 145,131 $ 34,922 31.7% 1 3.17% VEBA 0 10,200 $ 10,200 N/A LTD/Life 0 2,520 $ 2,520 N/A Misc.Payroll Taxes 9,873 --------------- SUBTOTAL: 311,081 Subtotal $1,067,307 LABOR: $ 1,023,257 $ (44,050) -4.1% -0.41% Materials and Supplies: Repair and Maintenance: Well Houses $9,977 $11,500 $ 1,523 15.3% 1.53% Water Mains 14,600 70,000 $ 55,400 379.5% 37.95% Valves 7,300 17,000 $ 9,700 132.9% 13.29% Reservoirs 6,083 6,000 $ (83) -1.4% -0.14% Pump Stations 8,517 8,500 $ (17) -0.2% -0.02% SCADA 3.407 8,000 $ 4,593 134.8% 13.48% Meters 22,508 227,100 $ 204,592 909.0% 90.90% Service Lines 12,167 20,500 $ 8,333 68.5% 6.85% Regulators 5,475 0 $ (5,475) -100.0% -10.00% Fire Hydrants 12,167 120,000 $ 107,833 886.3% 88.63% Water Sampling Stations 608 0 $ (608) -100.0% -10.00% Misc.Repair&Maintenance 56,209 58,500 $ 2,291 4.1% 0.41% Repair and Maintenance Subtotal 159,017 M&S: $547,100 $ 388,083 244.1% 24.41% Water Costs: Purchased Water 2,390,963 $ 3,362,145 $ 971,182 40.6% 4.06% Electricity&SCADA Phones 152,082 271,728 $ 119,646 78.7% 7.87% Sampling 18.250 39,745 $ 21,495 117.8% 11.78% Water Cost Subtotal 2,561,295 WATER: 3,673,618 $ 1,112,323 43.4% 4.34% Professional/Contract Services 141,862 384,390 $ 242,528 171.0% 17.10% Legal Fees 30,900 $ 30,900 N/A Special Department Expense 9,393 8,000 $ (1,393) -14.8% -1.48% Conservation Expenses 31700 $ 31,700 N/A Office Supplies 7,300 2,000 $ (5,300) -72.6% -7.26% Advertising and Publicity 11,249 43,167 $ 31,918 283,8% 28.38% Fees,Dues,and Subscriptions 7,908 1,725 $ (6,183) -78.2% -7.82% Travel and Training 6,083 6,900 $ 817 13.4% 1.34% Rents and Leases 1,825 3,000 $ 1,175 64.4% 6.44% Utilities 9,125 1,000 $ (8,125) -89.0% -8.90% Property Damage 2.433 5,750 $ 3,317 136.3% 13.63% Utilities-Phone/Pager/etc. 0 9,706 $ 9,706 1 N/A Small Tools&Equipment 0 20,043 $ 20,043 N/A Fuel 0 25,500 $ 25,500 N/A --------------- SUBTOTAL: 573,781 ------------------------------ Subtotal $2,917,490 SERVICES: $ 4,247,399 $ 1,329,909 45.6% 4.56% Capital Outlays: Building and Improvements $0 $0 $ - 0.00% Vehicles 0 70,000 $ 70,000 0.00% Equipment 98,598 $ (98,598) 0.00% Computer Hardware 0 3,100 $ 3,100 0.00% Unused 0 $ - 0.00% -------------- --------------- 0.00% Subtotal $98,598 CAPITAL: $73,100 $ (25,498) -25.9% -2.59% Interfund Transfers: Maintenance Services-Administration $54,500 Maintenance Services-Shops Services 15,831 Maintenance Services-Property Management 30,683 Development Services 48,838 Mayor&City Council 5.535 City Administration 27,652 Human Resources 31,320 Risk Management 51,745 Finance 22,559 Computer Systems 23,520 Accounting&Billing Costs 109,807 Administrative Services 9.702 Non Departmental 58.478 Unused 0 Unused 0 Subtotal $490,1701 INTRAFUND: $443,482 $ (46,688) -9.5% -0.95% TOTAL: $ 6,334,338 $ 1,760,774 38.5% 3.85% 2000101 vs 2010/11 Annual Increase Total O&M Costs $4,573,564 vs $ 6,334,338 $ 1,760,774 Annual Growth 5.45% 38.5% 3.85% 15,366 vs 18,000 1.71% increase per year $297.64 vs $351.91 1.82% per year $24.80 vs $29.33 $4.52 monthly increase over 10 year period Lake Oswego - Tigard Lake Oswego Water Treatment Plant Brown Water Partnership Caldwell sharing water connecting communities ALTERNATIVES STUDY Alternative!' Description oces Orm nts Treatment Effectiveness Numbei Seasonal , 1. PrecursorOrganics+ 1 ++ ' l i+ + + Removal Removal + + crypto) - • + 0 0 00 1.0 Conventional treatment as per Carollo Report I ' f L 1 1 h `� L�'=! �,�W FlooaAafon SeC+ner•ahon FMS= C�'�0^ fJlornwion !Au Corbel . Alternative 1.0 baseline plus powdered activated carbon, ': _-? �.�.; c O • enhanced coagulation,and ultraviolet disinfection °;;,� PACCWgJaton •^ ^ Fn W .Z Alternative 1.0 baseline plus ozone and biofiltration —�P' GW" 0 G C `,, bw • 2.0 High rate conventional treatment as per CarolloReport —'PWVJ 5.p„ ayypn Fina4m � FtiWWW n O 2 Alternative 2.0 baseline plus powdered activated carbon, I-'J a 4.A 1Ho�. LTJ "� enhanced coagulation,and ultraviolet disinfection MW �'°^ W � °^ f 2.2 Alternative 2.0 baseline plus ozone and biofiltration -PI p I ® C;'r, — r• • • a o o • 3A.0 Membrane treatment as per Carollo Report d „ FI,.•,.in�.;n Rym,nrw• Corr Lon C,JorYu,iGn ne,,,. Con•a Alternative 3A.0 baseline membrane treatment plus powdered l Q' f� i I � "1 10ci d • 3A.1 activated carbon and clarification priorto membrane treatment "�"°E"""""° Sa° v.L V. �r,yp� F+vabon Alentranes Co,rotion C,aarxwan 3A.2 Alternative 3A.0baseline membrane treatment plus ozone and ` . �p' FC S �� • granular activativatedcarbon after membrane treatment PWM 3A.3 Alternative 3A.0 baseline membrane treatment plus advanced ���1 U ,, ��� c . oxidation processes after membrane treatment N '° °^ °^ 3A.4 Alternative 3 baseline membrane treatment plus ultraviolet Q' U U �4 O O n • disinfection after membrane treatment W �.J 3 B Membrane treatment with upstream sedimentation plus ozone wnb W �� c, • and granular activated carbon after membrane treatment F.„F F ,,.� ,�. Membrane treatment with upstream sedimentation plus —( ci, i • . 3B.3 advanced oxidation processes after membrane treatment P, F­<ova Sdn_, """�° C- Chk­ '°^ • O O 3B.4 Membrane treatment with upstream sedimentation plus ��, f j U C, ultraviolet disinfection after membrane treatment �:� F W n Au Co,bp 4.0 Dual plant-16 mgd membrane treatment plus 16 mgd conventional treatment P-• Fbav4non Se6mRa,nn AMm,van s iMaOo GMrYon • Fully effective 0 Not effective City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-639-4171 TIGARD FAX TRANSMITTAL, Date May 6, 2010 Number of pages including cover sheet 3 To: CK The City of King City (Fax No. 503-639-3771) E(The City of Durham (Fax No. 503-598-8595) From: Kathy Mollusky Co: City of Tigard Fax #: 503-684-8840 Ph #: 503-718-2594 SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Agenda MESSAGE: Please post the attached agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board. Thank you. I:ENGTAKD07 TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 05/06/2010 00:25 NAME COT-PW FAX 5036848840 TEL 5036848840 SER.# 000L9N215453 DATE DIME 05/06 00:23 FAX N0./NAME W825036393771 DURATION 00:00:48 PAGE(S) 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 05/06/2010 00:28 NAME COT-PW FAX 5036848840 TEL 5036848840 SER.# 000L9N215453 DATEJIME 05/06 00:27 FAX NO. /NAME 5035988595 DURATION 00:00:48 PAGE(S) 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM