07/14/2010 - Packet Completeness Review
for Boards Commissions
T and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Intergovernmental Water Board
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
Jk12-010
Date ol 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
YIY1/2
Intergovernmental Water Board Agenda
SERVING TIGARD, KING CITY,DURHAM AND TIGARD WATER DISTRICT
MEETING DATE: Wednesday,July 14, 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 — May 12, 2010
Action: Motion to approve the May 12, 2010 minutes.
3. Public Comments
Call for comments from the public.
4. Credit for Leak Adjustment—John Goodrich
Greenfield Village Apartments
5. Water System Master Plan—John Goodrich
Action: Motion to approve Water System Master Plan
6. Water Supply Update -John Goodrich
7. Water Rate Study and Water SDC 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.
9. Non-Agenda Items
Call for non-agenda items from the Board.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD AGENDA—July 14, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-718-2591 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 2
10. Future Agenda Items
Schedule Date Item
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:
•August 11, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
Public Works Auditorium, 8777 SW Burnham Street,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-July 14, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-718-2591 1 www.fgard-or.gov I Page 2 of2
Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB)
Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2010
Tigard Public Works Building
8777 SW Burnham Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present:
Gretchen Buehner Representing the City of Tigard
Ken Henschel Alternate Representing the Tigard Water District
Keith Jehnke Representing the City of Durham
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
Kathy Mollusky Executive Assistant
Visitors:
Joe Healey Red Oak Consulting
Paul Matthews Red Oak Consulting
Art Cornelius Citizen of Tigard
1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions
Commissioner Winn called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes — May 12, 2010
Commissioner Buehner motioned to approve the May 12, 2010 minutes. Commissioner
Henschel seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by majority vote of the
Commissioners present, with Commissioners Buehner, Henschel, Jehnke, Stone, and Winn
voting yes.
3. Public Comments:
When Mr. Art Cornelius moved to the City of Tigard (COT), he was told that the water was
wonderful. Because of this information, he did not put a whole-house water filter in. He installed
filters for his drinking water and had to replace them sooner than expected due to clogging. He
called COT and discovered the water is purchased from the City of Portland who does not filter
the water. He found out COT is seeking an alternative water source, which will take six years.
He wants to put in a whole house filtration system and requests COT reimburse him $125 for
the pair of filters that were supposed to last a year. The IWB did not ask COT to reimburse Mr.
Cornelius for the filters.
Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes July 14,2010
1
Mr. Koellermeier assured Mr. Cornelius that the Bull Run System is treated chemically so inert
material is not harmful and it does not go through a filtration system. The silt is annoying and
problematic, but not harmful. This is one of the reasons COT is leaving the Portland Water
System.
4. Credit for Leak Adjustment
Mr. Goodrich asked for the IWB's approval for a credit for leak adjustment submitted by
Greenfield Village Apartments for a leak that occurred in their irrigation system.
Commissioner Buehner motioned to approve the Greenfield Village Apartment credit as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Stone seconded. The credit for the water leak was
approved by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners
Buehner, Henschel, Jehnke, Stone, and Winn voting yes.
5. Water Master Plan
Commissioner Buehner motioned to have the IWB recommend that the Tigard City
Council approve the 2010 Water Master Plan. Commissioner Stone seconded. The
recommendation for the City Council to approve the 2010 Water Master Plan was
approved by unanimous vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioners
Buehner, Henschel, Jehnke, Stone, and Winn voting yes.
6. Water Supply Update
• Mr. Goodrich reported reaching a peak of 10.6 million gallons per day (mgd) during the
100 degree day. Water use has been less than expected because of a very late, wet
spring. COT easily met the 10 mgd demand. Tigard is looking at taking the 10 mil
reservoir out of service and using the bypass. Mr. Koellermeier stated this will start in
mid-August and will be taken out of service by September 1.
• The average demand is 6 to 7 mgd.
• Previous year's peak days were 12.98 to 13.26 mgd.
7. Water Rate Study and Water SDC Update for the Lake Oswego Tigard Joint Water
Supply Project Partnership
• Mr. Goodrich reported that this is the next phase of the project tasks to discuss revenue
requirements. On June 15 a joint Council and IWB meeting was held that introduced the
water financial plan project.
• This project is under a tight timeline and COT is working to get the best information to
Red Oak Consulting. The numbers may be updated as more information is acquired.
• Mr. Paul Matthews and Mr. Joe Healy, Red Oak Consulting, gave a PowerPoint
presentation, which is on record in the IWB file.
• Mr. Matthews clarified the $118 million baseline amount for Tigard's share of the Lake
Oswego Tigard Partnership was selected before the filtration option for the water
treatment plant was selected, so these dollar figures will change in September when the
treatment option is finalized and engineer estimated costs are completed.
• Mr. Healey clarified the revenue requirement target of 1.35 (or 135%) was received from
Mr. Pat Clancy, City Financial Planner. COT needs to bring in 135% revenue above
operating expenses. COT can use the additional money on other systems, (i.e., CIP),
however, they cannot use this money to cover operating expenses. This will not be
finalized until COT enters into the agreement. COT is going to have multiple bonds
issued. For instance, a 20-year bond may be issued in 2012 and due 2032; a 20-year
Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes July 14,2010
2
2015 bond would be due 2035. If you issued all debt needed right now (the full $118M),
the rates would increase significantly.
• Revenue bonds are tax-free debt, which means the borrowers do not pay taxes. COT
is using revenue bonds, which do not require voter approval, however, they can be voter
referred if COT so chooses.
• The growth assumptions used in this analysis are low, very close to 0%. The first year is
around 0.5%, then 1%.
• Percentage rate increases will drop off in 2017 due to the Portland water contract
ending.
• COT traditionally increases water rates in October, but are considering postponing the
increase until January 1. COT is checking with the Bond Council to consider increasing
rates every six months to try to flatten out the curve. These numbers help COT
understand the worst-case scenario. The rates will double by 2014 to pay for the Lake
Oswego partnership, and then will just be maintenance of 5.5% traditional assumed
inflation.
• Mr. Koellermeier stated COT has to adopt the rate study to substantiate a rate increase
in October. The IWB and Council have to decide before the document is accepted by
other agencies. There is plenty of time to have smaller rate increases, but we want to
evaluate their significance and limit increasing customer rates over the next 3 to 5 years.
The current water SDC charge is $2,022. The upper zone SDC charge is $2,366.
• Mr. Koellermeier explained how SDC revenue is used for paying debt. SDC money is
segregated from other money and can only be used on future growth.
• Commissioner Jehnke clarified that if someone builds a house in two years, they are
only paying on 18 years, indexed for inflation. Most utilities look at every 5 years (COT
every 2 years).
• The SDC is currently set up to fairly charge any connection in the current Urban
Services Area. Treatment and existing pipe capacity have the ability to serve outside of
the boundary.
• Do we need to structure for growth outside of the TWSA (for instance Areas 63 & 64)?
Historically, a supplemental SDC is added for new areas: customers outside of the area
pay a booster charge. Providing service outside the service area can be very expensive
and sometimes requires re-piping for extra capacity. Right now, it is estimated to cost
$8 million to serve. The law requires a capital improvement list that includes a list of
projects and the date of the project. The project list can be adjusted. Growth would
happen at separate times. The first person to build and the last person will pay the
same amount.
• Wilsonville invites the Home Builders Association (HBA) and developers to meetings so
they know about rate increase. COT had a preliminary meeting. They have two more
meetings scheduled, a CIP meeting and mechanics of SDC meeting.
• Part of what drives the SDC update schedule is the legal requirement to give 60-day
notice (this is the review process period). On September 21 the SDC is scheduled to be
completed and ready for review.
• In November, Council will consider adopting the water rate plan.
• Using base rate compared to a tiered rate structure is a policy decision.
8. Informational Items
a. Update from Commissioner Buehner on Lake Oswego/City of Tigard Oversight
Committee activities
Last meeting was in June, next meeting will be September 8, 2010, at 3:00 in Tigard.
Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes July 14,2010
3
• Andrew Singelakis was appointed new Director of Land Use and Transportation for
Washington County.
b. Update from Commissioner Winn on West Bull Mountain Technical Advisory
Committee Activities
Commissioner Winn reported they have been in hiatus.
c. Updated from Commissioner Henschel on the Citizen Sounding Board activities
• Commissioner Henschel reported they had its final meeting. They reviewed the
different treatment technologies and citizens agreed with the recommendations.
9. Non-Agenda Items
The proposed draft IWB agreement, as written, is legally sufficient and could be considered for
adoption at this point. The partners could start marking up changes to the proposed agreement
with their issues addressed or Tigard can prepare their changes to the draft proposed IWB
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) as the managing partner, and then allow the IWB partners
to review and suggest further proposed changes as needed. The IWB chair stated that King
City would wait until Tigard has reviewed and made their changes for the other members to
consider. Mr. Koellermeier stated that the proposed changes from Tigard should be available in
a month.
The August meeting is not required and will be cancelled as long as the IWB IGA redline is
distributed to IWB Board members as soon as it is available.
10. Future Agenda Items
Future agenda items were not discussed.
11. Next Meeting:
• September 8, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
Public Works Building, 8777 SW Burnham St, Tigard, Oregon
12. Adjournment
At 7:45 p.m., Commissioner Winn motioned to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Stone
seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote of the Commissioners
present, with Commissioners Buehner, Henschel, Jehnke, Stone and Winn voting yes.
Dick Winn, IWB Chair Kathy Mollusky, IWB Recorder
Date:�� / Date: O� I aI 10
Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes July 14,2010
4
Agenda Item No.:
IWB Meeting Date:
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 "Y 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 Recorder
Date:
Intergovernmental Water Board Minutes May 12,2010
4
Sign-in Sheet
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting
Date: —July 14, 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
, 12 i oi� u E�) (,t s YE 5 JT31)8 ��O j&jgC.-)V)C_
I Agenda Item No.:
IWB Meeting Date:
CREDIT FOR LEAK ADJUSTMENT
The City of Tigard has a policy of issuing partial credits for leaks that are repaired in a timely V
manner. The city expects leaks to be repaired within ten days of discovery. Credits are
based on your average usage for the same period in previous years. This average is deducted
from the total consumption used during the time of the leak. The excess usage is charged at
the wholesale rate of water,with the difference between wholesale and resale cost deducted TIGARD
from the utility account as the Credit for Leak
Please describe the specific circumstances of your request:, �J1�CL S irQ Coit l/QC.►
�VVVVk -�,4P— (Ah4 !�k 1�ci-A-14dthicik W&L?�
1/ a- -e—d CL Qi1" " 2k r O C
l V�Y ��VW\'�� t���C�QX e� �,•-� tA/G�-,S A,V� � Yrs q�t..��►-1
Lo-45 c!a� w 2 0 LA c ff q- Z3- ty
Wu-S a.Ig1P_ o��r - P -ea.IL off- ,�r►�
Date leak found: L4 o Date leak repaired: �� O
Account#: 0 0 t b -K '()0
Location of Service: ?:)kAWInn
Customer Name: y-2 VA(CkQe
Mailing Address: Sw an -U
Street address City Stat Zip Phone
�D3-SZ�I - �3Z7
DOCUMENTATION
YOU MUST SUBMIT COPIES OF PLUMBER'S BILLS AND/OR
RECEIPTS FOR PARTS, REQUIRED TO FIX THE LEAK.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
t $2.68 2.66 $3.13 $2.60 $3.34 - $1.22
�FXS� COM
�. » IRR Map
Previous years usage:
#periods used
Average Leak Period Leak ccf Markup Credit Adjustment
Total Credit:$��" `r �( Date Issued: V
Issued By
nstrom
Landscape Management, Inc.
13300 SW Galbreath Drive
Sherwood, Oregon 97140
DATE: April 23, 2010
TO: Maria Harris
Greenfield biiiage Apar Amer B
FROM: Pat Enstrom
SUBJECT: Irrigation Leak Repair
To follow up on our conversation today, I am pleased to provide the enclosed.
On Wednesday April 21St, you contacted us regarding a water leak that needed to be
investigated due to exorbitantly high water usage as reflected on your bill.
You had called a plumber on the 21St and turned off the water to prevent additional water loss.
The plumber was able to identify that the]eair ,vas it the irrigation system.
In our follow up conversations, we agreed to mobilize and address the water leak with urgency.
On Friday April 23'd, our irrigation specialist went through the process of elimination and was
able to determine the leak was in the irrigation mainline pipe behind Building G. We were able
to repair the leak on Friday April 23`d
Let me know if you have questions.
Phone (503) 625-6255 ♦ Fax (503) 625-1285 ♦ LCB #7308
A CPS PLUMBING
Mechanical Services Int'I, L.L.C. WORK ORDER / INVOICE
21185 N.W. Evergreen Parkway, Suite 105
Hillsboro, OR 97124 MAN"EMENT COMPANYDAT OF ORDER
(503) 439-9999 Fax (503) 439-1999 ( 1.
.
www.commercialplumbingcps.com BID ❑ T& M p CUSTOMER'S P.ONUMBER
®COMPLETED ❑ON GOING ❑NEEDS
TO - I: a 1_r+Al. t L- U'��. ��'� FOLLOW UP
JOBNAME/NUMBER
JOB LOCATION _
CONTACT 1 1f NE p ,
METHOD OF PAYMENT VISA/MC ❑ CASH/CHECK❑ ACCOUNT O DRIVE TIME START
OTY. MATERIAL STK PRICE AMOUNT TIME OF ARRIVAL
TIME OF DEPARTURE
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
.Ly
EQUIPMENT
DISPOSABLE SUPPLIES LATEX GLOVES. LOCATION
SEALANT,CAULK,PU ,E
SERIAL#
TOTAL MATERIALS MAKE#
OTHER CHARGES STANDARD RATE i/AL' MATE LABOR HRS. RATE AMOUNT
KITCHEN SINK 7 TOILET URINAL 9P.LUMBING REPAIR
LAUNDRY LINE `�MAIN DRAIN GREASE TRAP a WATER HEATER
WASHBOWL F STORM DRAIN `FLOOR DRAIN U SEWER REPAIR TOTAL LABOR `; -
BATH TUB :.POOL DRAIN .FLOOR SINK
SHOWER SEPTIC TANK MAIN DRAIN TOTAL OTHER TOTAL MATERIALS
REPLACEMENT
TOTAL OTHER
Work Done By
Y '
TAX
I hereby acknowledge the satisfactory completion of the above described work. _. - j _..
TERMS: 1,/,°o interest will be charged on all outstanding amounts over 30 days
Making Sense of Water Cents
Water permeates our daily lives so often,it's easy to take it for granted.We need it to drink, cook and clean. We
need it for sanitation, fire protection, and keeping the community beautiful.We need it to live.
The City of Tigard supplies water to Durham, King City,two-thirds of Tigard, and portions of unincorporated
Washington County.We provide our 57,000 customers with nearly 2.2 billion gallons of water every year at a cost
of less than a half-a-penny per gallon.Here's what that affordable half-a-penny gets you:
■ High-quality water that meets or exceeds all drinking water standards
■ 'Round the clock, reliable water service
■ Team of highly trained professionals and certified operators
■ Exceptional customer service
■ Investment in future water sources
What Your Water Dollar Buys Today
Water
Purchases Labor
34% 10%
K .
1
�4.• i Material and
i..
Capital Services
Improvements 15%
37% Administrative
4%
The city strives to use water dollars wisely. Labor and administrative costs are low;more than 85 percent of every
water dollar goes to:
■ Buy water.
■ Invest in capital improvements such as reservoirs, transmission lines, developing future water sources.
■ Purchase materials like utilities and fuel. -
■ Provide services such as water sampling,and public outreach and education.
Whether we're making sure we have water for the future,encouraging conservation,or ensuring there is adequate
water pressure for fire protection- or your morning shower,we understand how critical water is to our community.
We take our role as water provider very seriously and put our expertise to work each day to efficiently deliver high-
quality drinking water to your tap.
y
WATER, WASTEWATER
AND STORMWATER
UTILITY RATES AND CHARGES
2009 SURVEY
w
Survey conducted by the Environmental Finance
Center and the League of Oregon Cities
Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges
2009 SURVEY
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
Water System Rate Survey: Highlights................................................................................... 6
Wastewater System Rate Survey: Highlights.......................................................................... 8
Stormwater System Rate Survey: Highlights .......................................................................... 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A-1
Drinking Water Source, Distribution and Treatment................................................. 10
Appendix A-2
Drinking Water Capacity, Planning and Loss........................................................... 14
Appendix A-3
DrinkingWater Quantity ........................................................................................... 18
Appendix A-4
Drinking Water Rate Characteristics........................................................................ 22
Appendix B-1
Wastewater System Information............................................................................... 26
Appendix B-2
Wastewater Quantity Information............................................................................. 30
Appendix B-3
a. Wastewater Rate Information............................................................................... 34
b. Wastewater Rate Information (continued)............................................................ 38
Appendix B-4
Wastewater Planning Information ............................................................................ 42
Appendix C-1
Stormwater Quantity Information.............................................................................. 46
Appendix C-2
Stormwater Rate Information.................................................................................... 51
Appendix D-1
SurveyInstrument .................................................................................................... 55
Disclaimer: This is a voluntary survey conducted by the League of Oregon Cities. The responses do
not constitute a statistically significant or scientifically valid data set. This survey is for informational
purposes only. Based on this data, no legitimate conclusions can be drawn about any city that did not
respond to this survey.
INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 2009, the League of Oregon Cities(LOC) surveyed its member cities to
obtain information about utility rates and other system characteristics. This was the first
survey of utility services since December 2004, and includes expanded questions relative
to water, wastewater(sewer) and stormwater utility operations. The League contracted
with the Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University to conduct the survey.
A couple of important disclaimers are in order. First, this is a voluntary survey
conducted by the League of Oregon Cities. The responses do not constitute a statistically
significant or scientifically valid data set. This survey is for informational purposes only.
Based on this data, no legitimate conclusions can be drawn about any city that did not
respond to the survey. Second, even among systems that seem similar because of
population served,physical design, or even rates and charges assessed, there are multiple
characteristics of each that limit valid comparisons. Issues of full-cost pricing, asset
management and local economic conditions can flavor the context of the data shown here
and further limit comparisons among seemingly similar utilities.
For the 241 surveys sent, 51 percent were returned. This response rate is consistent with
other municipal league surveys (Oklahoma, 2008) and is reasonable given the complexity
of the survey instrument. Among the survey respondents, the city of Detroit,Oregon
with 92 permanent residents was the smallest and the city of Portland—with a population
of approximately 550,000—was the largest. The table below shows the distribution of
responses by population size.
Surveys Returned by Population (241 Issued)
0-1,000 35
1,001-5,000 42
5,001-10,000 18
10,001-25,000 15
25,001 and up 13
Surveys Returned 123
Of the 123 surveys received, 112 member cities directly provide drinking water services,
107 provide wastewater utility services, and 61 have distinct stormwater utilities.
Stormwater utility service operations are more prevalent in the communities with
populations of 5,000 and more. A small number of communities provide utility services
in cooperation with special districts.
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 1
CD 4.0
L L _V V
3 c N �:a
�+ 0
o U Z 'a c 2
IL N O Q.
a N
0-1,000 33 26 9 2 2
1,001-5,000 37 38 18 1 0
5,001-10,000 16 18 13 0 0
10,001-25,000 13 13 11 1 2
25,001 and up 11 11 9 0 1
Total 112 107 61 5 5
It is not unusual for cities in Oregon to provide utility services to customers outside of
municipal boundaries. In fact, this practice,which is akin to system consolidation, is
encouraged by national policy(Safe Drinking Water Act) and creates an economy of
scale—especially for small communities. For the surveys received, communities that
have the highest incidence of providing utility services to customers outside of municipal
limits (19.3 percent)had a population range of 10,001 to 25,000.
The following table shows populations served by at least one utility service within and
adjacent to municipalities.
Population Avg. Inside Avg.Outside Avg. Inside Avg. Outside Outside
Population Population Connections Connections Connections
0-1,000 553 148 296 24 8.1
1,001-5,000 2117 492 1014 80 7.9
5,001-10,000 7826 838 2457 463 18.8
10,001-25,000 18370 5648 6448 1245 19.3
25,001 and up 97442 61380 32906 3328 10.1
Asset Management. The 2009 survey examines asset management, a key aspect of
utility management. Asset management is a policy issue in which regulatory agencies,
such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are devoting programmatic and
2 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
capital resources to assist communities and provide incentives for systematic
management of capital facilities. Asset replacement funding is a key factor in setting
optimal utility rates and charges. In fact,those communities that pursue strategic funding
programs for the replacement of capital facilities over time are providing the least cost
method for service delivery. The following tables provide responses as to whether
communities, either by size or by utility, have asset management programs and whether
those programs are sufficiently funded.
Please note that of the number of responses associated with each question in each
population category. In some cases the percentages noted in the following paragraphs
are associated with a small number of survey responses.
The survey responses indicate that for communities with less than 10,000 population—
especially for water and wastewater systems—a greater percentage of systems do not
have asset management plans. In addition, for those systems having plans, at least half of
the respondents in each population category less than 10,000 population do not have asset
management plans that are adequately funded. A similar pattern exists for wastewater
systems. The one variant is that wastewater systems have a higher percentage of systems
that are inadequately funded.
Communities between 10,000 and 25,000 population have the highest percentage of
systems with asset management plans, yet the greater majority of those systems are
deemed to be inadequately funded. The largest communities, those with greater than
25,000 population, have the highest response rates for having asset management plans
that are adequately funded for water and wastewater systems(41.7 percent adequately
funded in both water and wastewater). Yet it is important to note that for water systems
serving greater than 25,000 population, 41.7 percent of the respondents do not have water
utility asset management plans and about one-third of the respondents do not have
wastewater utility asset management plans.
Wastewater Asset Management Plans
Population 3 0CL i 9 C $ o
CO � � v ,� 65 z cn a
0-1,000 23.1 6 30.8 8 46.2 12
1,001-5,000 17.6 6 29.4 10 52.9 18
5,001-10,000 11.1 2 27.8 5 61.1 11
10,001-25,000 15.4 2 69.2 9 15.4 2
25,001 and up 41.7 5 25.0 5 33.3 4
2009 Water,Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 3
Water Utility Asset Management Plans
m a a a
Ca) O O
d � Q e Q
Population Un ,� C: � O
( aa) Z aa)
ami Z E Z Z
Un Un Un
0-1,000 23.3 7 23.3 7 53.3 16
1,001-5,000 24.2 8 24.2 8 51.5 17
5,001-10,000 6.25 1 37.5 6 56.3 9
10,001-25,000 38.5 5 46.2 6 15.4 2
25,001 and up 41.7 5 16.7 2 41.7 5
It is also interesting to note that for stormwater utilities the responses show that asset
management planning is more significantly lacking. Although the sample size was much
smaller, the greatest percentage of responses reveal that asset management plans either do
not exist or are inadequately funded. More than 87 percent of the smallest systems (0 to
1,000 population) and 81 percent of systems with populations in the 5,001 to 10,000
range do not have stormwater asset management plans. The highest percentage of
systems having stormwater asset management plans are those serving populations of
between 10,000 and 25,000. Unfortunately, 80 percent of the plans are considered to be
inadequately funded.
Stormwater Asset Management Plans
U) to
V1 fn N
U
C C C C
CL
:... >. cn �.. 7 N v N
Population y �, C
a�
} aa) r aa)i Z ami
aa) Z Z Z
Q Un cn Un
0-1,000 0.0 0 12.5 1 87.5 7
1,001-5,000 20.0 2 10.0 1 70.0 7
5,001-10,000 0.0 0 18.2 2 81.8 9
10,001-25,000 10.0 1 80.0 8 10.0 1
25,001 and up 20.0 2 20.0 2 60.0 6
-----------
4 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
The challenges of properly implementing asset management plans and financing capital
facility replacement will likely increase in the future as the cost of capital increases,
regulatory standards for construction and operation of capital facilities become more
stringent, and the availability of grant funding declines. The era of federal domestic
spending for infrastructure rejuvenation could decline due to pressures to reduce
Congressional earmarks, and to address the growing federal deficit. Communities
reporting that they have adequately funded asset management plans will be in a better
position, and more resilient in the face of external risks, in providing water, wastewater
and stormwater utility services in the future
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 5
WATER SYSTEM RATE SURVEY: HIGHLIGHTS
The 2009 Water System Rate Survey provides a wealth of information about the state of
the municipal water operations in Oregon. One important indicator of good financial
management is the recent history of adjustments to fees and service charges shown by the
survey respondents. Only a small number of the very smallest systems (0 to 1,000
population) stated that rates have not been adjusted in more than ten years. This means
that customers generally receive appropriate pricing signals that condition them to the
fact that the cost of water does increase over time. No water systems reduced their user
charges or water rates since their last rate adjustment.
However, there are a range of reasons why water rates changed. The most popular
reasons for water rate increases are to meet the costs of inflation and to finance
capitalization. Increased labor costs and treatment cost were also catalysts for increasing
water rates. The following table shows the breakdown of why water rates increased
according to population ranges. The number of responses in the table below reflect how
survey respondents were able to select more than one catalyst for increasing water rates.
Catalysts for Increasing Water Rates
� c
ca U c o iu
Population U- o o a > c
ca a�°i U o mo a) Y O
o. ID
~ J E
0-1,000 6 7 11 18 14 0 7
1,001-5,000 7 14 13 20 15 3 5
5,001-10,000 4 8 5 7 11 0 2
10,001-25,000 1 4 5 10 11 0 4
25,001 and up 3 6 7 11 10 0 0
Total 21 39 41 67 61 3 19
Among the smallest systems responding to the survey,the increasing financial burden of
capital improvements is further demonstrated in the percentage of the of the rate base that
supports debt payments. Smaller systems; 0 to 1,000; 1001 to 5,000; and 5,001 to 10,000
population use significant percentages of their water rates to finance debt(36 percent, 26
percent and 22 percent, respectively on average).
Rate Structures. Oregon cities demonstrate excellent performance in adjusting user
charges. This gives their customers the expectation that the cost of water service will
increase over time. Regarding charges relative to water usage by customers, cities favor
rate structures designed to charge customers at a higher rate as water usage increases. Of
6 2009 Water,Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
the three most popular pricing methodologies(flat rate, inclining block rate and declining
block rate)the inclining block rate is most often implemented.
The table below also shows a significant incident of the"Other" response in describing
the predominant pricing structure used. The survey instrument allowed the respondent to
select more than one rate methodology. Many communities use different pricing
methodologies for their various customer groups. In future surveys it will be beneficial
to ask questions that help explain how pricing structures are used for different classes of
customers.
Type of Predominant Pricing Structure Used by Water Systems
Population Flat Rate Inclining Block Rate Declining Block Rate Other
0-1,000 13 13 0 11
1,001-5,000 6 21 1 8
5,001-10,000 6 2 0 8
10,001-25,000 3 4 2 6
25,001 and up 6 5 1 3
Total 35 45 1 4 1 37871
Treatment Facilities and Water Sources. The smallest cities tend to have the
newest water treatment facilities. The average age of all water treatment plants is just
over 20 years. Cities of 1,000 population or less have treatment facilities that average 17
years of age, while larger systems have a higher average age of 26.5 years. The average
size of water systems (by number of miles of water lines of all sizes) ranges from 8.4
miles of lines in communities of less than 1,000 population, to over 500 miles of lines for
communities of greater than 25,000 population (on average).
More than 48 percent of the water provided in the respondent cities is derived from
surface water sources. This is significant because the costs of treating and distributing
surface water to customers is generally more expensive than providing water derived
from groundwater sources.
2009 Water,Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 7
WASTEWATER SYSTEM RATE SURVEY: HIGHLIGHTS
Respondents to the wastewater system rate survey range in size from Rufus, which
maintains and operates 1.6 miles of sewer lines, to the city of Portland that operates 1,882
miles of sewer lines of all sizes. The average ages of the wastewater treatment plants are
surprisingly related to the size of communities. Systems in cities with less than 1,000
population have treatment facilities that are an average of 19.5 years old, while the largest
communities(25,001 and more) have treatment facilities that are more than twice as old
on average-40 years old.
The level of sewage treatment is not surprising. Smaller communities have a greater
percentage of treatment facilities in the primary and secondary category, while larger
cities (more than 5,000 population) have a greater percentage of advanced wastewater
treatment facilities. Based on survey responses, larger cities tend to require additional
nitrogen and phosphorous removal.
As with drinking water fees and charges, cities responding to the survey keep their
wastewater user fees up-to-date. The table below indicates that the average year of the
last change in rates is either 2007 for cities less than 10,000 population, or 2008 for
communities greater than 10,000 population. Only 13 cities(of 104 cities responding to
this survey question) have rates that change as the consumer price index or customer
income changes. As might be expected,the average cost per 5,000 gallons treated tends
to decrease as cities increase in population,most likely due to the economy of scale for
larger wastewater treatment operations.
Wastewater Rate Characteristics
Avg.Year of Cost per Rate Auto-Adjusts for
Population Last Rate 000 CPI or Income
Change 5, gallons (Number of Cities)
0-1,000 2007 $34.62 1
1,001-5,000 2007 $39.12 8
5,001-10,000 2007 $36.17 2
10,001-25,000 2008 $31.26 1
25,001 and up 2008 $30.36 1
Looking at how rates were modified for wastewater systems, 76 percent of the respondent
cities increased their rates, three percent decreased their fees and charges and another
three percent changed their rate structures.
Finally, survey participants were asked: "Are the wastewater plants releasing stream
water that is quality limited or under special regulation?" Forty-four percent of systems
8 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
are challenged by Total Daily Maximum Loading(TMDL) requirements for wastewater
discharge limitations—or need to address other water quality limited standards. The
largest communities as a group (greater than 25,000 population) have the highest
percentage of systems facing such challenges(61 percent).
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 9
STORMWATER SYSTEM RATE SURVEY: HIGHLIGHTS
In addition to the 2009 Utility Rate Survey,a review of stormwater utility characteristics
is included. Of the 127 respondents, 30 cities maintained separate utility fees and charges
for stormwater control, two cities had fee structures that reflected joint district operations
with their county governments, and eight cities included stormwater fees within the
current wastewater utility structure.
Twenty communities imposed no customer charges for stormwater control activities and
six cities indicated that they provided no stormwater services. Larger communities,those
with greater than 5,000 population,reported that they were more likely to provide
stormwater fee reductions to encourage onsite stormwater management.
Stormwater utility fee structures tend to trail water and wastewater system charges as far
as being relatively up-to-date. Only three of the cities had not adjusted their stormwater
fees within the past 10 years. Three other cities last adjusted their stormwater fees in
2002. Five communities have fees that automatically adjust to the Consumer Price Index
or to customer incomes. Stormwater control fees range from a low of$0.75 per month
(in city) in Philomath,to a monthly high of$11.77 in Sherwood.
10 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX A-1
DRINKING WATER SOURCE, DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT
Summary Information
Water
Water Source Source is:
(number of (number of
res onses) responses)
a� Q)
CD u_ .n
o 0. iv Average Total Average Age of
Responses by Number of = ° t to � Miles of Lines Water Plant(s)
Population Responses 0 O (D a- 0 all sizes Years
0-1,000 37 12 22 2 1 18 24 2 8.37 17.24
1,001-5,000 43 22 23 3 1 20 34 1 17.62 18.72
5,001-10,000 18 9 10 1 0 9 12 0 48.48 20.92
10,001-25,000 16 9 7 2 1 6 12 0 118.90 26.11
25,001 and up 13 9 3 3 0 8 9 0 504.36 26.50
Total Res onses 127 61 65 11 3 61 91 3 80.88 20.12
Water
Water Source Source is:
a� ami
LL
. a Age or Average
It o L T £ Total Miles of Age of Water
City Population o 0 a- O Lines all sizes Plants Years
Albany 48,770 ✓ ✓ ✓ 270 46.5
Amity 1,480 ✓ ✓ 17 8
Arlington 650 ✓ ✓ 15 6
Ashland 21,800 ✓ ✓ 124 13
Astoria 9,851 ✓ ✓ 80 20
Bandon 3,300 ✓ ✓ ✓ 30 16
Banks 1,435 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15
Bay City 1,265 ✓ ✓ 9.28 29
Beaverton 60,000 ✓ ✓ 268 20
Brookins 6,465 ✓ ✓ 47 33
Brownsville 1,755 ✓ ✓ ✓ 11.44 13
Burns 2,664 ✓ ✓ 22.34
Butte Falls 450 ✓ ✓ 10
Cannon Beach 1,650 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 21.5 15
Carlton 1,755 ✓ ✓ 16
Cave Junction 1,730 ✓ ✓ ✓ 12 10
Columbia City 1,975 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15.37 1
Condon 795 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1
Coos Bay 16,670
Cornelius 11,464 ✓ ✓ ✓
Corvallis 54,880 ✓ 256 54
Creswell 5,058 ✓ ✓ ✓ 60 1
Culver 1,325
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 11
DRINKING WATER SOURCE, DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT
Water
Water Source Source is:
(D
TDv
o a Age or Average
� o s 0 L Total Miles of Age of Water
City Population U) a Lines all sizes Plants Years
Dallas 15,360 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 61 37
Damascus 12,851
Dayton 2,500 ✓ ✓ ✓ 18.5 5
Dayville 175 ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 1
Detroit 92 ✓ ✓ ✓ 11.8 19
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715 ✓ ✓ ✓ 5 29
Elgin 1,730 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 23 20
Fairview 8,000 ✓ ✓ 23
Falls City 965 ✓ ✓ 16 10
Florence 9,410 ✓ ✓ 80 5
Garibaldi 881 ✓ ✓ 13 12
Gaston 610 ✓ ✓ ✓ 3
Gervais 2,406 ✓ ✓ 4.5 17
Glendale 955 ✓ ✓ 6.8 8
Gold Hill 1,100 ✓ ✓ 10 28
Grants Pass 33,217 ✓ ✓ 165 25
Gresham 101,221 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 262 4
Haines 435 ✓ ✓ 20 30
Halfway 355 ✓ ✓ 9.5
Halsey 840 ✓ ✓ 5.39 11
Happy Valley 12,643
Heppner 1,420 ✓ ✓ ✓ 28
Hermiston 15,297 ✓ ✓ 79 21
Hillsboro 66,226 ✓ ✓ ✓ 298 25.5
Idanha 227 ✓ ✓ ,/ 4 12
Imbler 283 ✓ ✓ 20 20
Independence 9,375 ✓ ✓ 20
Ione 314 ✓ ✓ ✓ 6.2
Island City 995 ✓ ✓ 1.5 13
Jefferson 3,085 ✓ ✓ 8 21
John Day 1,845 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 23
Johnson City 600 ✓ ✓ 10
Jordan Valley 240 ✓ ✓ 4.3 30
Joseph 1,105 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 12.5 17
Junction City 5,345 ✓ ✓ 32 na
Klamath Falls 19,462 ✓ ✓ ✓ 250 26
La Grande 12,682 ✓ ✓ ,/
12 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
DRINKING WATER SOURCE, DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT
Water
Water Source Source is:
a� a
� � v
o n Age or Average
° t Total Miles of Age of Water
City Population U) (D 0 a- O Lines all sizes Plants Years
Lafayette 3,925 ✓ ✓ ✓ 10 6
Lake Oswego 33,800 ✓ ✓ 40
Lakeside 1,560
Lexington 260 ✓ ✓ 5 37
Lincoln City 17,260 ✓ ./ 135 26
Lowell 950 ✓ ✓ 5.5 8
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 45
Malin 805 ✓ ✓ 6 10
Medford 76,300 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 520 28
Merrill 869 ✓ ✓ 5 61
Mill City 1,680 ✓ ✓ ✓ 12.73 4
Molalla 7,590 ✓ ✓ 85.97 11
Monmouth 9,565 ✓ ✓ 37 50
Myrtle Creek 3,665 ✓ ✓ 22 5
Myrtle Point 2,541 ✓ ✓ 16 50
Newberg 22,953 ✓ ✓ 102
North Bend 9,636
North Plains 1,905 ✓ ✓ 11.6
Oakland 954 ✓ ✓ 9 7
Ontario 10,991 ✓ ✓ ✓ 22
Philomath 4,610 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 20.22 25
Port Orford 1,275 ✓ ✓ 15 35
Portland 550,000 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2100
Powers 730 ✓ ✓ 9.5 14
Redmond 25,000 ✓ ✓ 145 20
Reeds ort 4,593 ✓ ✓ 30.9 13
Richland 150 ✓ ✓ ✓ 7.5 22
River rove 345
Rockaway Beach 1,350 ✓ ✓ ✓ 35 28
Rogue River 2,185 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 15
Roseburg 21,235 ✓ ✓ 155 20
Rufus 214 ✓ ✓ ✓ 2.4 24
Salem 154,510 ✓ ✓ ✓ 1180 10
Sandy 8,823 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 28 9
Scio 783 ✓ ✓ ✓ 7.1 15
Seaside 6,100 ✓ ✓ 43.4 13
Seneca 183 ✓ ✓ 3
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 13
DRINKING WATER SOURCE, DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT
Water
Water Source Source is:
m L
oCL Age or Average
i E L Total Miles of Age of Water
City Population m CDI O 0 d O Lines all sizes Plants Years
Shady Cove 2,850
Sheridan 6,020 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 17.75 28
Sherwood 16,450 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 69
Silverton 9,649 ✓ ✓ ✓ 47.35 43
Sisters 1,875 ✓ ✓ 18
Spray 140 ✓ ✓ 5 12
Springfield 57,320
Stanfield 2,100 ✓ ✓ 6
Sta ton 7,800 ✓ ✓ 45 38
Sublimity 2,285 ✓ ✓ ✓ 13.2 30
Sweet Home 9,045 ✓ ✓ ✓ 55.7 1
The Dalles 11,500 ✓ ✓ ./ ✓ 69 50
Toledo 3,612 ✓ ✓ ✓ 24 33
Tualatin 26,040 ✓ ✓ 109
Turner 1,730 ✓ ✓ ✓
Ukiah 249 ✓ ✓ 10 4
Union 1,954 ✓ ✓ ✓ 30
Vale 2,000 ✓ ✓ 40 30
Wald ort 2,145 ✓ ✓ 25 25
Warrenton 4,448 ✓ ✓ 12 7
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 ✓ ✓ 120 12
Westfir 325 ✓ ✓ 6 25
Weston 745 ✓ ✓ 5 25
Winston 5,800
Yachats 780 ✓ ✓ 20 17
Yamhill 965 ✓ ✓ 24 8
Yoncalla 1,115 ✓ ✓ 6.4 14
14 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX-A-2
DRINKING WATER CAPACITY, PLANNING AND LOSS
Summary Information
Average Approved Water ff
Conservation and Measured,
Mana ement Plan Annual
Average City has an If so,Year Average
Current Average Year Approved Water Approved Measured
Operating When Water Conservation (dates or
Capacity of System is and provided Estimated
Responses by Number of Water Projected to be at Management by OWR Water
Population Responses System % Maximum Capacity Plan Dept.) Loss
0-1,000 37 56.46 2024 12 2004 14.24
1,001-5,000 43 65.21 2020 16 2004 12.39
5,001-10,000 18 65.46 2022 9 2003 15.00
10,001-25,000 1 16 1 69.50 2018 1 10 2003 13.47
25,001 and up 13 70.27 2032 11 2007 7.98
Total Response +-127 63.63 2022 58 1 2003 12.75
Approved Water
Conservation and If
Management Plan Measured,
City has an If so, Year Annual
Current Year When Water Approved Water Approved Measured
Operating System is Conservation (dates or
Capacity of Projected and provided Estimated
Water to be at Maximum Management by OWR Water
City Population System % Capacity Plan Dept.) Loss
Albany 48,770 40 2051 ✓ 2007 21.00
Amity 1,480 90 2010
Arlington 650 50 2020 ✓ 2004 4.00
Ashland 21,800 30 2015 ✓
Astoria 9,851 50-75 2020 10.00
Bandon 3,300 50 2023 ✓ 2003 6.70
Banks 1,435 50 2011 ✓ 2009 15.00
Bay City 1,265
Beaverton 60,000 68 2025 ✓ 2009 5.70
Brookins 6,465 ✓ 15.00
Brownsville 1,755 80 2025 ✓ 5.00
Burns 2,664 60 15.00
Butte Falls 450 50
Cannon Beach 1,650 60 2020 ✓ 15.54
Carlton 1,755 30 2020 8.50
Cave Junction 1,730 50 2020 12.00
Columbia City 1,975 100 15.00
Condon 795
Coos Bay 16,670
Cornelius 11,464 ✓ 20.70
Corvallis 54,880 65 2025 ✓ 6.00
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 15
DRINKING WATER CAPACITY, PLANNING AND LOSS
Approved Water
Conservation and If
Mana ement Plan Measured,
City has an If so, Year Annual
Current Year When Water Approved Water Approved Measured
Operating System is Conservation (dates or
Capacity of Projected and provided Estimated
Water to be at Maximum Management by OWR Water
City Population System % Capacity Plan Dept.) Loss
Creswell 5,058 50 2030 ✓ 1992 15.00
Culver 1,325
Dallas 15,360 75 2020 8.00
Damascus 12,851
Dayton 2,500 100
Dayville 175 70
Detroit 92 40 2030 ✓ 15.00
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715 35 2020 ✓ 1.00
Elgin 1,730 50 2.00
Fairview 8,000 70 2010 ✓ 2006 1.50
Falls City 965 30
Florence 9,410 35 2020 8.00
Garibaldi 881 20 2050 15.00
Gaston 610 50 20.00
Gervais 2,406 60 2011 6.00
Glendale 955 13.8 2031 ✓ 1996 25.00
Gold Hill 1,100 100 2009 22.00
Grants Pass 33,217 50-75 2025-2030 ✓ 2003 8.00
Gresham 101,221 60 2020 5.00
Haines 435 90 2012 ✓ 2006
Halfway 355 100 45.00
Halsey 840 50 2052 9.00
Happy Valley 12,643
Heppner 1,420 77 2030 2003 23.00
Hermiston 15,297 67 ✓ 2003 22.00
Hillsboro 66,226 71 2020 ✓ 2004
Idanha 227 30 2030 30.00
Imbler 283 100 2012
Independence 9,375 85 ✓ 15.00
Ione 314 75
Island City 995 40 2020 ✓ 1999
Jefferson 3,085 9.00
John Day 1,845 35 5.50
Johnson City 600
Jordan Valley 240 60
Joseph 1,105 40 ✓ 2003
16 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
DRINKING WATER CAPACITY, PLANNING AND LOSS
Approved Water
Conservation and If
Mana ement Plan Measured,
City has an If so, Year Annual
Current Year When Water Approved Water Approved Measured
Operating System is Conservation (dates or
Capacity of Projected and provided Estimated
Water to be at Maximum Management by OWR Water
City Population System % Capacity Plan Dept.) Loss
Junction City 5,345 95 2009 10.50
Klamath Falls 19,462 72 2020 ✓ 1999 18.00
La Grande 12,682 79 2028 ✓ 1999 4.00
Lafayette 3,925 95 2015 ✓ 1999 15.00
Lake Oswego 33,800 86 2016 ✓ 2008 9.00
Lakeside 1,560
Lexington 260 fluctuates 2009 5.00
Lincoln City 17,260 40 2020 ✓ 2006 26.00
Lowell 950 100 2009 ✓ 2004 20.00
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640
Malin 805 50 2019 7.00
Medford 76,300 86 2015 ✓ 2009 5.00
Merrill 869 100 2009 ✓
Mill City 1,680 50 2040 20.00
Molalla 7,590 50 2016
Monmouth 9,565 80 2015 ✓ 12.00
Myrtle Creek 3,665 80 2000 ✓ 1998 8.00
Myrtle Point 2,541 70 2020 ✓ 1999 9.00
Newberg 22,953 25-75 2015 ✓ 2004 8.50
North Bend 9,636
North Plains 1,905 2021 ✓ 7.00
Oakland 954 40 2025 ✓ 3.50
Ontario 10,991 80 2013 ✓ 2000 3.00
Philomath 4,610 75 2020 ✓ 2006 12.38
Port Orford 1,275 100 2009 50.00
Portland 550,000 75 ✓ 2008 5.00
Powers 730 40 2030 35.00
Redmond 25,000 70 2018 ✓ 2000 12.00
Reeds ort 4,593 25 2025
Richland 150 90 10.00
River rove 345
Rockaway Beach 1,350 75 2014-2024 ✓ 2009 30.00
Rogue River 2,185 80 2014 ✓ 2000 0.05
Roseburg 21,235 88.5 16.00
Rufus 214
Salem 154,510 42 2100 ✓ 1996 9.00
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 17
DRINKING WATER CAPACITY, PLANNING AND LOSS
Approved Water
Conservation and FAnnual
Mana ement Plan
City has an If so,YearCurrent Year When Water Approved Water Approved
Operating System is Conservation (dates or
Capacity of Projected and provided Estimated
Water to be at Maximum Management by OWR Water
City Population System % Capacity Plan Dept.) Loss
Scio 783 63 2026 4.12
Seaside 6,100 50 2025 14.00
Seneca 183 40
Shady Cove 2,850
Sheridan 6,020 60 2012 3.00
Sherwood 16,450 100 2012 ✓ 2000 7.00
Silverton 9,649 46 2015 ✓ 2004 31.00
Sisters 1,875 40 2025 ✓ 1997 5.00
Spray 140 30
Springfield 57,320
Stanfield 2,100 80 2015 7.00
Sta ton 7,800 50 2050 ✓ 15.00
Sublimity 2,285 50 2029 ✓ 2008 12.00
Sweet Home 9,045 100 2050 ✓ 2009 40.00
The Dalles 11,500 63 2025 15.00
Toledo 3,612 80 2020 12.00
Tualatin 26,040 80 2015 ✓ 2009 5.00
Turner 1,730 2030 6.00
Ukiah 249 ✓ 2005
Union 1,954 30 ✓ 1999
Vale 2,000 70 2035 ✓ 2003
Wald ort 2,145 70 2030 ✓ 2002 15.00
Warrenton 4,448 35
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 100 ✓ 2008 5.00
Westfir 325 85
Weston 745 30 2031 2.00
Winston 5,800
Yachats 780 65 2020 ✓ 2002 8.00
Yamhill 965 57 2025 ✓ 2001 12.00
Yoncalla 1,115 80 2015 ✓ 3.00
18 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX A-3
DRINKING WATER QUANTITY
Summary Information
Average Peak
Average Total Flow of Water Average
Amount of Water Treated in a 24- Average Treated Untreated
Responses by Number of Treated in 2008 Hour Period Water Storage Water Storage
Population Responses mil. Gal. mil. Gat mil. Gal. mil. Gal.
0-1,000 37 40 0.36 0.59 0.42
1,001-5,000 43 163 14.00 28.83 6.29
5,001-10,000 18 383 2.31 5.85 229.60
10,001-25,000 16 990 8.80 9.86 191.38
25,001 and up 1 13 3,735 35.10 56.52 1 1102.18
Total Responses 127 698 11.15 19.65 157.19
Peak Flow of
Total Amount of Water Treated in Treated Water Untreated
Water Treated in a 24-Hour Storage (mil. Water Storage
City Population 2008 mil.Gal. Period mil. Gal Gal. mil. Gal.
Albany 48,770 2,975 16.50 19.10 19.10
Amity 1,480 84 0.30 1.00 1.00
Arlington 650 85 0.58 1.30 1.30
Ashland 21,800 1,197 6.80 6.50 6.50
Astoria 9,851 845 3.78 26.00 26.00
Bandon 3,300 218 1.00 3.00 3.00
Banks 1,435 90 0.20 1.57 1.57
Bay City 1,265 225 1.33 1.40 1.40
Beaverton 60,000 2,274 1.70 38.25 38.25
Brookings 6,465 386 2.05 3.77 3.77
Brownsville 1,755 87 0.63 1.30 1.30
Burns 2,664 503 3.00
Butte Falls 450 39 0.37 0.75 0.75
Cannon Beach 1,650 183 0.74 2.63 2.63
Carlton 1,755 134 0.60 1.58 1.58
Cave Junction 1,730 2.50 2.50
Columbia City 1,975 27 0.14 1.40 1.40
Condon 795 0.03 0.03
Coos Bay 16,670
Cornelius 11,464 1.50 1.50
Corvallis 54,880 2,770 16.00 23.00 23.00
Creswell 5,058 303 2.00 4.30 4.30
Culver 1,325
Dallas 15,360 996 5.73 8.13 8.13
Damascus 12,851 0.00
Dayton 2,500 218 0.58 2.27 2.27
Dayville 175 5 0.03 0.13 0.13
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 19
DRINKING WATER QUANTITY
Peak Flow of
Total Amount of Water Treated in Treated Water Untreated
Water Treated in a 24-Hour Storage (mil. Water Storage
City Population 2008 mil. Gal. Period mil. Gal Gal. mil. Gal.
Detroit 92 30 0.24 0.20 0.20
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715 72 0.54 0.35 0.35
Elgin 1,730 228 0.00 1.75
Fairview 8,000 3 1.80 6.30 6.30
Falls City 965 28 0.65 0.80 0.80
Florence 9,410 385 1.99 4.50 4.50
Garibaldi 881 67 0.52 0.52
Gaston 610 1.33 1.33
Gervais & 2,406 63 0.42 0.35 0.35
Willamina
Glendale 955 51 0.21 1.00 1.00
Gold Hill 1,100 0.95 0.95
Grants Pass 33,217 1,998 13.93 19.00 19.00
Gresham 101,221 11.95 27.25 27.25
Haines 435 0.01 0.01
Halfway 355
Halsey 840 22 0.17 0.75 0.75
Happy Valley 12,643 0.00
Heppner 1,420 159 0.86 1.35 1.35
Hermiston 15,297 2 10.00 7.01 7.01
Hillsboro 66,226 4,940 26.18 32.70 32.70
Idanha 227 18 0.25 0.30 0.30
Imbler 283
Independence 9,375 2.00 3.00 3.00
Ione 314
Island City 995
Jefferson 3,085 123 0.82 1.75 1.75
John Day 1,845 131 20.33 2.41 2.41
Johnson City 600
Jordan Valley 240
Joseph 1,105 107 1.44 1.30 1.30
Junction City 5,345 105 3.60 2.80 2.80
Klamath Falls 19,462 2,910 18.10 16.40 16.40
La Grande 12,682 8.50 11.50 11.50
Lafayette 3,925 97 0.69 0.50 0.50
Lake Oswego 33,800 2,067 14.96 27.00 27.00
Lakeside 1,560
Lexington 260
Lincoln City 17,260 646 3.04 7.25 7.25
Lowell 950 28 0.31 0.50 0.50
Lyons 1,150
20 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
DRINKING WATER QUANTITY
Peak Flow of
Total Amount of Water Treated in Treated Water Untreated
Water Treated in a 24-Hour Storage (mil. Water Storage
City Population 2008 mil.Gal. Period mil. Gal Gal. mil. Gal.
Madras 6,640
Malin 805 50 2019
Medford 76,300 86 2015 ✓ 2009
Merrill 869 100 2009 ✓
Mill City 1,680 50 2040
Molalla 7,590 50 2016
Monmouth 9,565 80 2015
Myrtle Creek 3,665 80 2000 ✓ 1998
-Myrtle Point 2,541 70 2020 ✓ 1999
-Newberg 22,953 25-75 2015 ✓ 2004
North Bend 9,636
North Plains 1,905 2021 ✓
Oakland 954 40 2025 ✓
Ontario 10,991 80 2013 ✓ 2000
Philomath 4,610 75 2020 ✓ 2006
Port Orford 1,275 100 2009
Portland 550,000 36,000 162.00 300.00 10,000.00
Powers 730 63 0.35 0.47 0.47
Redmond 25,000 2 12.40 10.00 10.00
Reedsport 4,593 358 1.80 3.31 3.31
Richland 150 30 0.40 0.33 0.33
Rivergrove 345
Rockaway Beach 1,350 115 1.00 3.30 3.30
Rogue River 2,185 77 0.74 0.75 0.00
Roseburg 21,235 2 9.39 10.70 10.70
Rufus 214 14 0.19 0.40 0.40
Salem 154,510 10,310 47.10 137.00 137.00
Sandy 8,823 410 2.46 3.75 3.75
Scio 783 33 0.15 0.50 0.50
Seaside 6,100 485 2.47 6.50 6.50
Seneca 183
Shady Cove 2,850
Sheridan 6,020 306 1.40 4.08 4.08
Sherwood 16,450 9.50 9.50
Silverton 9,649 563 2.80 4.50 4.50
Sisters 1,875 212 1.60 1.60
Spray 140
Springfield 57,320
Stanfield 2,100
Stayton 7,800 5.40 5.40
Sublimity 2,285 1.50 2.00 2.00
Sweet Home 9,045 389 0.00 4.58 4.58
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 21
DRINKING WATER QUANTITY
Peak Flow of
Total Amount of Water Treated in Treated Water Untreated
Water Treated in a 24-Hour Storage (mil. Water Storage
City Population 2008 mil. Gal. Period mil. Gal Gal. mil. Gal.
The Dalles 11,500 1,100 7.00 17.00 17.00
Toledo 3,612 310 1.57 2.30 2.30
Tualatin 26,040 13.00 13.00
Turner 1,730 0.50 0.50
Ukiah 249
Union 1,954 1.20 0.75 0.75
Vale 2,000 98 9.68 1.35 1.35
Waldport 2,145 90 350.00 2.30 2.30
Warrenton 4,448 693 3.16 5.10 5.10
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 220 19.80 5.50 5.50
Westfir 325 29 0.19 0.25 0.25
Weston 745
Winston 5,800
Yachats 780 56 0.50 1.25 1.25
Yamhill 965 0.53 1.00 1.00
Yoncalla 1,115 70 0.72 0.72
22 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX A-4
DRINKING WATER RATE CHARACTERISTICS
Summary Information
Type of Rate"Structure
number of cities
m
� Y
Y V
V O
Om Rate Auto-
, m 0 Adjusts
Average m c E Average for CPI or
Year of }, �, Cost per Income
Response by Number of Last Rate 2 L) 4) R 5,000 (number of
Population Responses Chane LL — 1 0 M O Gallons cities
0-1,000 37 2007 14 13 0 12 $33.51 1
1,001-5,000 43 2008 6 21 1 9 $31.41 10
5,001-10,000 18 2008 6 2 0 8 $27.06 2
10,001-25,000 16 2009 3 4 2 6 $23.64 1
25,001 and up 13 2009 6 5 1 3 $22.25 1
Total Responses 127 2008 35 1 45 4 38 $29.23 15
T pe of Rate Structure
Y Y
V �
O O
ME m
d 01
c Rate Auto-
Year of Ixc Cost per Adjusts
Last Rate v v r 5,000 for CPI or
City Population Chane u_ E ix 0 W O Gallons Income
Albany 48,770 2008 ✓ $36.49
Amity 1,480 2005 ✓ $38.08
Arlington 650 2004 ✓ $32.00
Ashland 21,800 2009 J $23.30
Astoria 9,851 2009 ✓ $27.77
Bandon 3,300 2006 ✓ $17.40
Banks 1,435 2009 ✓ $30.40 ✓
Bay City 1,265 2009 ✓ $24.55
Beaverton 60,000 2009 ✓
Brookings 6,465 2009 ✓ ✓
Brownsville 1,755 2009 ✓ $40.48
Burns 2,664 2009 ✓ $19.24 ✓
Butte Falls 450 2008 ✓ ✓
Cannon Beach 1,650 2006 ✓
Carlton 1,755 ✓ $68.15 ✓
Cave Junction 1,730 2005 ✓ $33.35
Columbia City 1,975 2009 ✓ $38.25
Condon 795 2005
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 23
DRINKING WATER RATE CHARACTERISTICS
T pe of Rate Structure
a�
� Y
Y V
0 O
O m
m
r�. C
M � Rate Auto-
Year of E Cost per Adjusts
Last Rate 4) o 5,000 for CPI or
City Population Chane LL O Gallons Income
Coos Bay 16,670
Cornelius 11,464 2009 ✓ $39.96
Corvallis 54,880 2009 ✓ $21.73
Creswell 5,058 2009 ✓ $43.35 ✓
Culver 1,325
Dallas 15,360 2009 ✓ $40.26
Damascus 12,851
Dayton 2,500 2009 ✓ $48.00
Dayville 175 2009 $42.50
Detroit 92 2009 ✓ ✓ $56.00
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715 2007 ✓ $27.00
Elgin 1,730 2009 ✓ $24.50
Fairview 8,000 2009 ✓ $26.37
Falls City 965 2003 ✓ $34.36
Florence 9,410 2009 ✓ $20.67
Garibaldi 881 2008 ✓ $27.93
Gaston 610 2009 .i ./ $40.84
Gervais 2,406 2008 ./ $23.40
Glendale 955 2009 ✓ $39.00
Gold Hill 1,100 1999 ✓ $25.40
Grants Pass 33,217 2008 ✓ ✓ $32.17 ✓
Gresham 101,221 2009 ✓ $15.52
Haines 435 2009 ✓
Halfway 355 2005 ✓ $23.18
Halsey 840 2009 ✓ $32.50
Happy Valley 12,643
Heppner 1,420 2009 ✓ $37.15
Hermiston 15,297 2009 ✓ $15.44
Hillsboro 66,226 2009 ✓ $14.97
Idanha 227 2006 ✓
Imbler 283 ✓ ✓
Independence 9,375 2007 ✓ ✓ $18.90
Ione 314 2007 ✓
Island City 995 2006 ✓ $20.00
Jefferson 3,085 2008 ✓ $26.59 ✓
24 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
DRINKING WATER RATE CHARACTERISTICS
T pe of Rate Structure
w
m
Y
Y
V UO
O m
m
M E- Rate Auto-
Year of E E sCost per Adjusts
Last Rate a, m 5,000 for CPI or
City Population Chane O Gallons Income
John Day 1,845 2009 ✓ $27.50
Johnson City 600 ✓
Jordan Valley 240 2007 ✓ $18.72
Joseph 1,105 2009 ✓ $23.33
Junction City 5,345 2009 ✓ $23.26
Klamath Falls 19,462 2009 ✓ $13.20 ✓
La Grande 12,682 2009 ✓ $15.01
Lafayette 3,925 2005 ✓ $42.55 ✓
Lake Oswego 33,800 2009 ✓ $19.49
Lakeside 1,560
Lexington 260 2007 ✓ $39.00
Lincoln City 17,260 2009 ✓ $32.79
Lowell 950 2009 ✓ $38.50
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640 2009 ✓
Malin 805 ✓ ✓
Medford 76,300 2009 ✓ ✓ $9.81
Merrill 869 2006 ✓ $23.00
Mill City 3,302 2015 ✓ ✓ $39.92
Molalla 7,590 1998 $25.87
Monmouth 9,565 2009 ✓ $20.68
Myrtle Creek 3,665 2007 ✓ $25.36
Myrtle Point 2,541 2009 ✓ $27.11
Newberg 22,953 2009 ✓ $25.38
North Bend 9,636
North Plains 1,905 2009 ✓ $68.73 ✓
Oakland 954 2009 ✓ $60.86 ✓
Ontario 10,991 2006 ✓ ✓ $16.75
Philomath 4,610 2009 ✓ $32.32
Port Orford 1,275 2009 ✓ $45.16 ✓
Portland 550,000 2009 ✓ $38.44
Powers 730 2007 ✓
Redmond 25,000 2009 ✓ $22.37
Reedsport 4,593 2006 ✓ $23.16
Richland 150 2005 ✓
Rivergrove 345
Rockaway Beach 1,350 2009 ✓ ✓ $24.20
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 25
DRINKING WATER RATE CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Rate Structure
M
M Y
Y V
V O
O m
m
Q1
_ Rate Auto-
Year of S4) Cost per Adjusts
Last Rate 2 mea w 5,000 for CPI or
City Population Chane U. O Gallons Income
Rogue River 2,185 2009 ✓ $36.55 ✓
Roseburg 21,235 2009 ✓ $22.44
Rufus 214 2009 ✓
Salem 154,510 2009 ✓ $18.35
Sandy 8,823 2008 ✓ $18.55
Scio 783 2009 ✓ $19.75
Seaside 6,100 2008 ✓ $41.40
Seneca 183 2008 ✓ $35.00
Shady Cove 2,850
Sheridan 6,020 2009 ✓ $35.14
Sherwood 16,450 2009 ✓ $16.76
Silverton 9,649 2009 ✓ $20.49
Sisters 1,875 2009 ✓
Spray 140 2008 ✓ $28.00
Springfield 57,320
Stanfield 2,100 2004 ✓ $24.50
Stayton 7,800 2009 ✓ $26.58
Sublimity 2,285 2009 $10.90
Sweet Home 9,045 2009 ✓ $29.80
The Dalles 11,500 2009 ✓ ✓
Toledo 3,612 2009 ✓ $19.35
Tualatin 26,040 2008 ✓ $23.20
Turner 1,730 2006 ✓ $34.77
Ukiah 249 2005 ✓
Union 1,954 2009 $18.91 ✓
Vale 2,000 2000 ✓ $30.22
Waldport 2,145 2009 ✓ $29.85 ✓
Warrenton 4,448 2009 ✓
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 2009 ✓ ✓ $14.54
Westfir 325 2007 ✓ $37.50
Weston 745 2004 ✓ $25.00
Winston 5,800
Yachats 780 2006 ✓ $34.63
Yamhill 965 2003 ✓ $37.56
Yoncalla 1,115 2007 $31.13
26 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX B-1
WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
Sum
What level of sewage treatment is provided to city wastewater? Total Miles Average
check all that apply) number of responses) of Sewer Age of
Response by Number of Advanced Nitrogen Phosphorous Lines Treatment
Population Responses —Primary Secondary Treatment Removal Removal all sizes Plant(s)
0-1,000 37 21 13 3 2 0 26 19.48
1,001-5,000 43 26 26 5 6 5 35 20.03
5,001-10,000 18 12 10 4 6 3 17 22.06
10,001-25,000 16 3 10 3 3 3 12 28.14
25,001 and up 13 5 10 3 3 2 13 40.05
Total Responses 127 67 69 18 20 13 103 22.83
What level of sewage treatment is provided to city wastewater? Age or
check all that a I Total Miles Average
of Sewer Age of
Advanced Nitrogen Phosphorous Lines Treatment
City Population Primary Secondary Treatment Removal Removal all sizes Plant(s)
Albany 48,770 ✓ 219 0
Amity 1,480 ✓ ✓ ✓ 7 5
Arlington 650 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 3
Ashland 21,800 ✓ ✓ ✓ 109.5 7
Astoria 9,851 ✓ 68 35
Bandon 3,300 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 24 16
Banks 1,435 0 0
Bay City 1,265 ✓ ✓ 10.5 14
Beaverton 60,000 ✓ 274 0
Brookings 6,465 35 20
Brownsville 1,755 ✓ 10.64 2
Burns 2,664 ✓ ✓ 18.79 4
Butte Falls 450 ✓ Unknown 35
Cannon Beach 1,650 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 18 2
Carlton 1,755 ✓ ✓ 7.36 20
Cave Junction 1,730 ✓ ✓ ✓ 11 10
Columbia City 1,975 ✓ 13 0
Condon 795 0 0
Coos Bay 16,670 ✓ 88 45.5
Cornelius 11,464 24 0
Corvallis 54,880 ✓ 220 54
Creswell 5,058 ✓ 42 3
Culver 1,325 ✓ 10.5 35
Dallas 15,360 ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 10
Damascus 12,851 0 0
Dayton 2,500 ✓ 10.7 45
Dayville 175 ✓ 2.5 8
Detroit 92 0 0
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 27
WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
What level of sewage treatment is provided to city wastewater? Age or
check all that a I Total Miles Average
of Sewer Age of
Advanced Nitrogen Phosphorous Lines Treatment
City Population Primary Secondary Treatment Removal Removal all sizes Plant(s)
Dunes City 1,467 0 0
Echo 715 ✓ 5 34
Elgin 1,730 12 20
Treatment
Fairview 8,000 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 25 by City of
Gresham
Falls City 965 6.5 30
Florence 9,410 ✓ 88 9
Garibaldi 881 ✓ 13 5
Gaston 610 0 0
Gervais 2,406 ✓ ✓ 4.1 10
Glendale 955 ✓ ✓ ✓ 4.97 22
Gold Hill 1,100 ✓ 8 27
Grants Pass 33,217 ✓ 160 74
Gresham 101,221 ✓ ✓ 440 15
Haines 435 ✓ 20 30
Halfway 355 ✓ ✓ 9.5 12
Halsey 840 ✓ ✓ 5.11 40
Happy Valley 12,643 0 0
Heppner 1,420 ✓ ✓ 20 2
Hermiston 15,297 ✓ 80 28
Hillsboro 66,226 257.9 0
Idanha 227 0 0
Imbler 283 0 0
Independence 9,375 ✓ 0 48
Ione 314 0 0
Island City 995 6 7
Jefferson 3,085 ✓ ✓ 0 31
John Day 1,845 ✓ 18 30
Johnson City 600 10 0
Jordan Valley 240 ✓ 3.4 30
Joseph 1,105 ✓ ✓ 6.5 15
Junction City 5,345 ✓ ✓ 32 45
Klamath Falls 19,462 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 151 50
La Grande 12,682 ✓ 83 28
Lafayette 3,925 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 10 3
Lake Oswego 33,800 ✓ 200 0
Lakeside 1,560 ✓ ✓ ✓ 21.7 29
Lexington 260 0 0
Lincoln City 17,260 ✓ 0 15
Lowell 950 ✓ ✓ 5.5 6
28 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
What level of sewage treatment is provided to city wastewater? Age or
check all that a I Total Miles Average
of Sewer Age of
Advanced Nitrogen Phosphorous Lines Treatment
City Population Primary Secondary Treatment Removal Removal all sizes Plant(s)
Lyons 1,150 0 0
Madras 6,640 ✓ 55 12
Malin 805 ✓ ✓ 7 50
Medford 76,300 ✓ ✓ ✓ 249 30
Merrill 869 ✓ 0 3
Mill City 1,680 ✓ 13.25 18
Molalla 7,590 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 77.37 3
Monmouth 9,565 ✓ 26 5
Myrtle Creek 3,665 ✓ ✓ 30.3 5
Myrtle Point 2,541 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 22 55
Newberg 22,953 ✓ ✓ 75 22
North Bend 9,636 ✓ 38 18
North Plains 1,905 0 0
Oakland 954 ✓ 7.75 8
Ontario 10,991 ✓ 74.7 14
Philomath 4,610 ✓ 17.99 23
Port Orford 1,275 ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 20
Portland 550,000 1882 54.4
Powers 730 ✓ ✓ 4.7 45
Redmond 25,000 ✓ ✓ ✓ 137 30
Reedsport 4,593 ✓ 30.8 29
Richland 150 4 35
Rivergrove 345 0 0
Rockaway Beach 1,350 ✓ ✓ 30 29
Rogue River 2,185 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 12 12
Roseburg 21,235 N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA
Rufus 214 ✓ ✓ 1.6 3
Salem 154,510 ✓ 780 40
Sandy 8,823 ✓ ✓ ✓ 100 10
Scio 783 ✓ ✓ 5.3 38
Seaside 6,100 ✓ ✓ 36.2 23
Seneca 183 2.75 35
Shady Cove 2,850 ✓ 35 28
Sheridan 6,020 ✓ ✓ 11.36 30
Sherwood 16,450 61 0
Silverton 9,649 ✓ ✓ 30 10
Sisters 1,875 ✓ ✓ 23 7
Spray 140 ✓ 3 1
Springfield 57,320 ✓ ✓ 225 0
Stanfield 2,100 ✓ 7 0
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 29
WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
What level of sewage treatment is provided to city wastewater? Age or
check all that a I Total Miles Average
of Sewer Age of
Advanced Nitrogen Phosphorous Lines Treatment
City Population Primary Secondary Treatment Removal Removal all sizes Plant(s)
Stayton 7,800 ✓ ✓ 33 13
Sublimity 2,285 13 0
Sweet Home 9,045 ✓ ✓ 50.2 64
The Dalles 11,500 ✓ 75 60
Toledo 3,612 J 21.5 55
Tualatin 26,040 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 93 33
Turner 1,730 0 0
Ukiah 249 ✓ 12 30
Union 1,954 0 0
Vale 2,000 ✓ 40 4
Waldport 2,145 ✓ 11 15
Warrenton 4,448 0 0
Waterloo 239 0 0
West Linn 25,236 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ,/ 114 20
Westfir 325 J ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 2
Weston 745 ✓ 5 1
Winston 5,800 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 27
Yachats 780 ✓ 20 1
Yamhill 965 ✓ ✓ 15 12
Yoncalla 1,115 ✓ ✓ 3 41
30 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX B-2
WASTEWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Average Total Average Peak Average Peak
Average Total Amount of Wet Weather Dry Weather
Capacity of Wastewater Flow in 2008 Flow in 2008
Response by Number of Treatment Plants(s) Treated in 2008 (mil/gallons (mil/gallons
Population Responses (mil/gallons per da milgallons) per daper da
0-1,000 37 0.36 34.51 0.84 0.15
1,001-5,000 43 3.80 116.14 26.22 13.34
5,001-10,000 18 4.87 471.37 1,025.78 1.61
10,001-25,000 16 7.38 703.32 7.04 2.76
25,001 and up 13 102.74 7,742.64 109.22 33.71
Total Responses 127 13.53 960.46 197.67 8.51
Peak Wet Peak Dry
Total Capacity Total Amount Weather Weather
of Treatment of Wastewater Flow in 2008 Flow in 2008
Plants(s) Treated in 2008 (millgallons (mil/gallons
Citv Population (mil/gallons per da milgallons) per daper da
Albany 48,770 12.3 3,300 17.6 10.4
Amity 1,480 1.2 72.81 0.89 0.19
Arlington 650 0.13 16.46 0.053 0.044
Ashland 21,800 8 707.09 5.88 1.58
Astoria 9,851 20 1,398 16345 11.2
Bandon 3,300 2.1 123 0.78 0.38
Banks 1,435 0 0 0 0
Bay City 1,265 1.02 102.94 1.38 0.074
Beaverton 60,000 0 0 0 0
Brookins 6,465 15.5 426.63 7.37 1.22
Brownsville 1,755 5.58 45.05 1.05 0.14
Burns 2,664 1.5 203.63 1 0.4
Butte Falls 450 0.075 24.29 0.163 0.055
Cannon Beach 1,650 4.3 228.63 2.28 1.06
Carlton 1,755 1.7 73.22 1.7 0.15
Cave Junction 1,730 2 68.94 1.12 0.4
Columbia City 1,975 0 37.79 0.14 0.09
Condon 795 0 0 0 0
Coos Bay 16,670 20 1,93.6 11.31 3.24
Cornelius 11,464 0 0 0 0
Corvallis 54,880 9.7 3,000 124 8
Creswell 5,058 1 3.5 2 0.5
Culver 1,325 0.09 12 0.063 0.062
Dallas 15,360 16.5 850.9 15 2
Damascus 12,851 0 0 0 0
Dayton 2,500 24.45 0 2.32 0.35
Dayville 175 0.2 3.82 0.01 0.02
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 31
WASTEWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Peak Wet Peak Dry
Total Capacity Total Amount Weather Weather
of Treatment of Wastewater Flow in 2008 Flow in 2008
Plants(s) Treated in 2008 (millgallons (mil/gallons
City Population (mil/gallons per da mil gallons per daper da
Detroit 92 0 0 0 0
Dunes City 1,467 0 0 0 0
Echo 715 0.12 26.43 0.18 0.03
Elgin 1,730 0 93 11 1.6
Treatment by Treatment by
Treatment by Treatment by City of City of
Fairview 8,000 City of Gresham City of Gresham Gresham Gresham
Falls City 965 0.053 13 0.078 0.03
Florence 9,410 6 285.88 1.11 0.85
Garibaldi 881 2.25 81 1.2 0.2
Gaston 610 0 0 0 0
Gervais 2,406 0.6 78.4 0.8 0.15
Glendale 955 0.31 43.74 0.49 0.09
Gold Hill 1,100 0.08 62.85 0.12 0.9
Grants Pass 33,217 6.4 2,033 15.9 6
Gresham 101,221 20 4,745 20.9 12.1
Haines 435 na na 0.16 0.02
Halfway 355 0.116 0 0.43 0.24
Halsey 840 na 38.16 6.88 0.02
Happy Valley 12,643 0 0 0 0
Heppner 1,420 0.23 64.9 0.29 0.2
Hermiston 15,297 2 577 1.8 1.7
Hillsboro 66,226 0 0 0 0
Idanha 227 0 0 0 0
Imbler 295 0 0 0 0
Independence 9,375 4 0 8 0.5
Ione 314 0 0 0 0
Island City 995 0 0 0.1 0.1
Jefferson 3,085 0.4 127.63 0.73 0.29
John Day 1,845 0.6 96.6 0.84 0.18
Johnson City 600 0 0 0 0
Jordan Valley 240 0.047 0.95 0.12 0.03
Joseph 1,105 0 0 0 0
Junction City 5,345 1.5 408.64 3.34 0.37
Klamath Falls 19,462 6 117 11.5 3.2
La Grande 12,682 11.5 706.62 3.52 1.92
Lafayette 3,925 3 106.61 0.73 0.21
Lake Oswego 33,800 0 0 0 0
Lakeside 1,560 0.5 85.1 0.79 0.27
Lexington 260 0 0 0 0
Lincoln City 17,260 1 3 1 570.63 1 4.07 1 1.72
32 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
WASTEWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Peak Wet Peak Dry
Total Capacity Total Amount Weather Weather
of Treatment of Wastewater Flow in 2008 Flow in 2008
Plants(s) Treated in 2008 (mil/gallons (mil/gallons
City Population mil! allons e_r da milgallons) per daper da
Lowell 950 1.5 29.44 1.25 0.15
Lyons 1,150 0 0 0 0
Madras 6,640 1.5 185 0.5 0.5
Malin 805 0.14 30 0.14 0.07
Medford 76,300 20 6,567 47 25.7
Merrill 869 0.11 0 0.13 0.1
Mill City 1,680 0.18 31.03 0.16 0.09
Molalla 7,590 4 431 3.73 2.14
Monmouth 9,565 3.5 500 6 1
Myrtle Creek 3,665 1.8 314.68 2.5 0.7
Myrtle Point 2,541 1 107 0.52 0.2
Newberg 22,953 4 1,075.77 11.57 3.64
North Bend 9,636 2 507.39 4.213 1.285
North Plains 1,905 0 0 0 0
Oakland 954 0.6 66.57 0.54 0.24
Ontario 10,991 3.06 568.63 2.01 1.9
Philomath 4,610 0.88 325 2.5 0.085
Port Orford 1,275 2 60 0.5 0.15
Portland 550,000 108.3 26705 245 92
Powers 730 0.3 65.2 0.88 0.23
Redmond 25,000 2.99 671.3 2.3 2.3
Reeds ort 4,593 5.3 338.7 4.05 0.89
Richland 150 0.05 0 0 0
River rove 345 0 0 0 0
Rockaway Beach 1,350 1.5 93.58 847 442
Rogue River 2,185 1.4 117.06 0.71 0.53
Roseburg 21,235 na na na na
Rufus 214 na na na na
Salem 154,510 205 13,191.13 97.59 37.81
Sandy 8,823 1.25 401.58 5.46 0.73
Scio 783 0.5 30.24 4.88 1.15
Seaside 6,100 2.25 484 4.6 1.3
Seneca 183 0 0 0.07 0.04
Shady Cove 2,850 0.45 100.61 0.71 0.25
Sheridan 6,020 3 457.6 3.5 0.8
Sherwood 16,450 0 0 0 0
Silverton 9,649 2.5 370.44 5.8 0.78
Sisters 1,875 0.4 64.54 0.23 0.23
Spray 140 0 0 0 0
Springfield 57,320 175 0 165 0
Stanfield 2,100 1 0.26 48 0.17 0.15
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 33
WASTEWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Peak Wet Peak Dry
Total Capacity Total Amount Weather Weather
of Treatment of Wastewater Flow in 2008 Flow in 2008
Plants(s) Treated in 2008 (mil/gallons (mil/gallons
City Population (mil/gallons per da milgallons) per daper da
Sta ton 7,800 1.37 602.31 4.78 1.853
Sublimity 2,285 0 0 0 0
Sweet Home 9,045 7.7 679.895 0 0
The Dalles 11,500 4.15 798 8.51 7.17
Toledo 3,612 2.6 265.56 3.5 0.71
Tualatin 26,040 368 2400 250 77.7
Turner 1,730 0 0 0 0
Ukiah 249 0.27 0 0 0
Union 1,954 0 0 0 0
Vale 2,000 53.6 1.09 0.004 0.004
Wald ort 2,145 0.7 82.67 0.68 0.231
Warrenton 4,448 0 0 0 0
Waterloo 239 0 0 0 0
West Linn 25,236 na na na na
Westfir 325 0.03 unknown 0.025 0.01
Weston 745 0.3 24.82 0.13 0.33
Winston 5,800 5.8 400 7 0.7
Yachats 780 0.33 55 0.98 0.21
Yamhill 965 0.13 37.61 0.46 0.1
Yoncalla 1,115 1 0.16 1 200 0.24 0.14
34 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX B-3a
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION
Summary Information
In what year did the city
last change its
wastewater rates?
avera a How did the rates chap e? number of res onses
Response by Number of Change in
Population Responses Year > 10 years Increased Decreased rate structure Other
0-1,000 37 2007.17 2 22 1 2 2
1,001-5,000 43 2007.81 0 36 2 1 0
5,001-10,000 18 2007.65 2 14 0 1 2
10,001-25,000 16 2008.69 0 13 0 0 0
25,001 and up 13 2008.85 0 12 1 0 0
Total Responses 127 2007.88 4 97 4 4 4
In what year did the city
last change its
wastewater rates? How did the rates change?
Change in
City Population Year > 10 years Increased Decreased rate structure Other
Albany 48,770 2009 ✓
Amity 1,480 2005 ✓
Arlington 650 2006 ✓
Ashland 21,800 2009 ✓
Astoria 9,851 2009 ✓
Bandon 3,300 2009 ✓
Banks 1,435
Bay City 1,265 2009 ✓
Beaverton 60,000 2009 ✓
Brookings 6,465 2009 ✓
Brownsville 1,755 2009 ✓
Burns 2,664 2009 ✓
Butte Falls 450 2008 ✓
Cannon Beach 1,650 2009 ✓
Carlton 1,755 2008 ✓
Cave Junction 1,730 2005 ✓
Columbia City 1,975 2009 ✓
Condon 795
Coos Bay 16,670 2009 ✓
Cornelius 11,464 2009 ✓
Corvallis 54,880 2009 ✓
Creswell 5,058 2004 ✓
Culver 1,325 2009 ✓
Dallas 15,360 2008 ✓
Damascus 12,851
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 35
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION
In what year did the city
last change its
wastewater rates? How did the rates change?
Change in
City Population Year > 10 years Increased Decreased rate structure Other
Dayton 2,500 2008 ✓
Dayville 175 2002 ✓
Detroit 92
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715 2009 ✓
Elgin 1,730 2009 ✓
Fairview 8,000 2009 ✓
Falls City 965 2009 ✓
Florence 9,410 2009 ✓
Garibaldi 881 2009 ✓
Gaston 610
Gervais 2,406 2007 ✓
Glendale 955 2009 ✓
Gold Hill 1,100 2004 ✓
Grants Pass 33,217 2008 ✓
Gresham 101,221 2009 ✓
Haines 435 2009 ✓
Halfway 355 2006 ✓
Halsey 840 2009 ✓
Happy Valley 12,643
Heppner 1,420 2009 ✓
Hermiston 15,297 2009 ✓
Hillsboro 66,226 2008 ✓
Idanha 227
Imbler 283
Independence 9,375 2000 ✓
Ione 314
Island City 995 2006 ✓
Jefferson 3,085 ✓
John Day 1,845 2009 ✓
Johnson City 600
Jordan Valley 240 n/a
Joseph 1,105 2009 ✓
Junction City 5,345 2009 ✓
Klamath Falls 19,462 2009 ✓
La Grande 12,682 2009 ✓
Lafayette 3,925 2005 ✓
Lake Oswego 33,800 2009 ✓
Lakeside 1,560 2007 ✓
36 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION
In what year did the city
last change its
wastewater rates? How did the rates chan e?
Change in
City Population Year > 10 years Increased Decreased rate structure Other
Lexington 260
Lincoln City 17,260 2009 ✓
Lowell 950 2009 ✓
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640 2009 ✓
Malin 805 2008 ✓
Medford 76,300 2009 ✓
Merrill 869 2006 ✓
Mill City 1,680 2008 ✓
Molalla 7,590 ✓
Monmouth 9,565 2009 ✓
Myrtle Creek 3,665 2005 ✓
Myrtle Point 2,541 2009 ✓
Newberg 22,953 2009 ✓
North Bend 9,636 2003 ✓
North Plains 1,905
Oakland 954 2009 ✓
Ontario 10,991 2006 ✓
Philomath 4,610 2008 ✓
Port Orford 1,275 2009 ✓
Portland 550,000 2009
Powers 730 2007 ✓
Redmond 25,000 2009 ✓
Reedsport 4,593 2009 ✓
Richland 150 2009 ✓
Rivergrove 345
Rockaway Beach 1,350 2009 ✓
Rogue River 2,185 2009 ✓
Roseburg 21,235 na
Rufus 214 2000 ✓
Salem 154,510 2009 ✓
Sandy 8,823 2008 ✓
Scio 783 ✓
Seaside 6,100 2008 ✓
Seneca 183 2009 ✓ ✓
Shady Cove 2,850 2002 ✓
Sheridan 6,020 2009 ✓
Sherwood 16,450 2009 ✓
Silverton 9,649 2009 ✓
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 37
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION
In what year did the city
last change its
wastewater rates? How did the rates change?
Change in
City Population Year > 10 years Increased Decreased rate structure Other
Sisters 1,875 2009 ✓
Spray 140 2009 ✓
Springfield 57,320 2009 ✓
Stanfield 2,100 2007 ✓
Stayton 7,800 2008 ✓
Sublimity 2,285 2009 ✓
Sweet Home 9,045 2009 ✓
The Dalles 11,500 2009 ✓
Toledo 3,612 2009 ✓
Tualatin 26,040 2009 ✓ ✓
Turner 1,730 2006 ✓
Ukiah 249 ✓ ✓
Union 1,954 2009 ✓
Vale 2,000 2009 ✓
Waldport 2,145 2009 ✓
Warrenton 4,448 ✓
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 2009 ✓
Westfir 325 2007 ✓
Weston 745 2004 ✓
Winston 5,800 2009 ✓
Yachats 780 2006 ✓ ✓
Yamhill 965 2007 ✓
Yoncalla 1,115 2006 ✓
38 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX B-3b
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
InformationSummary
If wastewater rates are based on
Average Wastewater water consumption, is there a
Monthly cost (5000 seasonal adjustment for wastewater
Responses by Number of gallmo.; 668.4 c.f./mo.) (i.e. winter average used for summer months)
Population Responses In-Cit number of responses)
0-1,000 37 $34.62 3
1,001-5,000 43 $39.12 17
5,001-10,000 18 $36.17 9
10,001-25,000 16 $31.26 9
25,001 and up 13 $30.36 11
Total Responses 127 $35.61 49
If wastewater rates are based on
Wastewater Monthly water consumption, is there a
cost(5000 gal/mo.; seasonal adjustment for wastewater
City Population 668.4 c.f./mo.) In-Cit i.e.winter average used for summer months
Albany 48,770 $38.49 ✓
Amity 1,480 $48.11 ✓
Arlington 650 $38.00
Ashland 21,800 $26.97 ✓
Astoria 9,851 $38.42 ✓
Bandon 3,300 $21.43 ✓
Banks 1,435
Bay City 1,265 $30.94
Beaverton 60,000 ✓
Brookings 6,465
Brownsville 1,755 $36.90 ✓
Burns 2,664 $28.04
Butte Falls 450
Cannon Beach 1,650
Carlton 1,755 $38.77
Cave Junction 1,730 $31.00 ✓
Columbia City 1,975 $24.15 ✓
Condon 795
Coos Bay 16,670 $43.92 ✓
Cornelius 11,464 $30.80 ✓
Corvallis 54,880 $28.83 ✓
Creswell 5,058 $42.20 ✓
Culver 1,325 $33.00
Dallas 15,360 $38.40
Damascus 12,851
Dayton 2,500 $25.00
Dayville 175 $28.00
2009 Water,Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey _ 39
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
If wastewater rates are based on
Wastewater Monthly water consumption, is there a
cost(5000 gallmo.; seasonal adjustment for wastewater
City Population 668.4 c.f.lmo.) In-Cit i.e.winter average used for summer months
Detroit 92
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715 $43.00
Elgin 1,730 $17.25
Fairview 8,000 $31.58
Falls City 965 $37.00
Florence 9,410 $38.86
Garibaldi 881 $46.50
Gaston 610
Gervais 2,406 $37.00
Glendale 955 $40.00 ✓
Gold Hill 1,100 $31.17
Grants Pass 33,217 $27.84 ✓
Gresham 101,221 $24.09 ✓
Haines 435
Halfway 355 $17.46
Halsey 840 $26.00
Happy Valley 12,643
Heppner 1,420 $23.10
Hermiston 15,297 $18.48 ✓
Hillsboro 66,226 $30.79 ✓
Idanha 227
Imbler 283
Independence 9,375 $24.82
Ione 314
Island City 995 $40.00
Jefferson 3,085 $36.25 ✓
John Day 1,845 $31.00 ✓
Johnson City 600
Jordan Valley 240 $17.94
Joseph 1,105 $17.69
Junction City 5,345 $42.95 ✓
Klamath Falls 19,462 $ 6.96 ✓
La Grande 12,682 $32.26
Lafayette 3,925 $58.64 ✓
Lake Oswego 33,800 $36.71 ✓
Lakeside 1,560 $45.00
Lexington 260
Lincoln City 17,260 $38.84
Lowell 950 $38.90
40 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
If wastewater rates are based on
Wastewater Monthly water consumption, is there a
cost(5000 gal/mo.; seasonal adjustment for wastewater
City Population 668.4 c.f./mo.) In-Cit i.e.winter average used for summer months
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640 ✓
Malin 805 $14.00
Medford 76,300 $13.11 ✓
Merrill 869 $32.00
Mill City 1,680 $38.52
Molalla 7,590 ✓
Monmouth 9,565 $31.92
Myrtle Creek 3,665 $68.00
Myrtle Point 2,541 $34.42 ✓
Newberg 22,953 $48.21 ✓
North Bend 9,636 $25.25
North Plains 1,905
Oakland 954 $49.40
Ontario 10,991 $27.90 ✓
Philomath 4,610 $35.78 ✓
Port Orford 1,275 $66.63
Portland 550,000 $44.18
Powers 730 ✓
Redmond 25,000 ✓
Reedsport 4,593 $57.00 ✓
Richland 150
Rivergrove 345
Rockaway Beach 1,350 $34.95
Rogue River 2,185 $44.27 ✓
Roseburg 21,235
Rufus 214
Salem 154,510 $40.24 ✓
Sandy 8,823 $23.04 ✓
Scio 783 $23.25 ✓
Seaside 6,100 $46.44
Seneca 183 $15.00
Shady Cove 2,850 $43.00
Sheridan 6,020 $32.50
Sherwood 16,450 $31.16 ✓
Silverton 9,649 $47.63 ✓
Sisters 1,875 ✓
Spray 140 $43.00
Springfield 57,320 $36.87 ✓
Stanfield 2,100 $41.25 ✓
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 41
WASTEWATER RATE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
If wastewater rates are based on
Wastewater Monthly water consumption, is there a
cost(5000 gal/mo.; seasonal adjustment for wastewater
City Population 668.4 c.f.1mo.) In-Cit i.e.winter average used for summer months
Stayton 7,800 $40.04 ✓
Sublimity 2,285 $42.80
Sweet Home 9,045 $40.86 ✓
The Dalles 11,500
Toledo 3,612 $55.75 ✓
Tualatin 26,040 $30.40 ✓
Turner 1,730 $60.46 ✓
Ukiah 249
Union 1,954
Vale 2,000 $40.00
Waldport 2,145 $57.06 ✓
Warrenton 4,448
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 $12.74
West-fir 325 $37.50
Weston 745 $42.50
Winston 5,800 $36.00
Yachats 780 $45.83
Yamhill 965 $51.68
Yoncalla 1,115 $35.00
42 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX B-4
WASTEWATER PLANNING INFORMATION
Summary Information
Does the city's
Are the wastewater wastewater rate
plants releasing Does the city maintain an asset ordinance have an
stream water that is management system for its automatic CPI/
quality limited wastewater utility? Income adjustment?
(TMDL)or under number of responses) number of responses)
S
pecial regulation? Yes, Yes,
Responses by Number of (number of adequately inadequately
Population Responses responses) funded funded No Yes
0-1,000 37 13 6 8 12 1
1,001-5,000 43 21 6 10 18 8
5,001-10,000 18 7 2 5 11 2
10,001-25,000 16 7 2 9 2 1
25,001 and up 13 8 5 3 4 1
Total Responses 127 56 21 1 35 47 13
Does the city's
wastewater rate
Are the wastewater Does the city maintain an asset ordinance have an
plants releasing management system for its automatic CPI/
stream water that is wastewater utility? Income adjustment?
quality limited Yes, Yes,
(TMDL)or under adequately inadequately
City Population special regulation? funded funded No Yes
Albany 48,770 ✓ ✓
Amity 1,480 ✓
Arlington 650 ✓ ✓
Ashland 21,800 ✓ ✓
Astoria 9,851 ✓ ✓
Bandon 3,300 ,/ ✓
Banks 1,435
Bay City 1,265 ✓ ✓
Beaverton 60,000 ✓ ✓
Brookings 6,465 ✓ ✓
Brownsville 1,755 ✓ ✓
Burns 2,664 ✓
Butte Falls 450 ✓ ✓
Cannon Beach 1,650 ✓ ✓
Carlton 1,755 ✓ ✓ ✓
Cave Junction 1,730 ✓ ✓
Columbia City 1,975 ✓
Condon 795
Coos Bay 16,670 ✓
Cornelius 11,464 ✓
Corvallis 54,880 ✓ ✓
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 43
WASTEWATER PLANNING INFORMATION
Does the city's
wastewater rate
Are the wastewater Does the city maintain an asset ordinance have an
plants releasing management system for its automatic CPI/
stream water that is wastewater utility? Income adjustment?
quality limited Yes, Yes,
(TMDL)or under adequately inadequately
City Population special regulation? funded funded No Yes
Creswell 5,058 ✓ ✓ ✓
Culver 1,325 ✓
Dallas 15,360 ✓ ✓
Damascus 12,851
Dayton 2,500 ✓
Dayville 175 ✓ ✓
Detroit 92
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715 ✓ ✓
Elgin 1,730 ✓ ✓
Fairview 8,000 ✓
Falls City 965 ✓ ✓
Florence 9,410 ✓
Garibaldi 881 ✓ ✓
Gaston 610
Gervais 2,406 ✓
Glendale 955 ✓ ✓
Gold Hill 1,100 ✓ ✓
Grants Pass 33,217 ✓ ✓ ✓
Gresham 101,221 ✓
Haines 435 ✓
Halfway 355 ✓ ✓
Halsey 840
Happy Valley 12,643
Heppner 1,420 ✓
Hermiston 15,297 ✓ ✓
Hillsboro 66,226 ✓
Idanha 227
Imbler 283
Independence 9,375 ✓ ✓
Ione 314
Island City 995 ✓
Jefferson 3,085 ✓ ✓ ✓
John Day 1,845 ✓
Johnson City 600
Jordan Valley 240 ✓
Joseph 1,105 ✓ ✓
44 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
WASTEWATER PLANNING INFORMATION
Does the city's
wastewater rate
Are the wastewater Does the city maintain an asset ordinance have an
plants releasing management system for its automatic CPI/
stream water that is wastewater utility? Income adjustment?
quality limited Yes, Yes,
(TMDL) or under adequately inadequately
City Population special regulation? funded funded No Yes
Junction City 5,345 ✓ ✓
Klamath Falls 19,462 ✓ ✓ ✓
La Grande 12,682 ✓ ✓
Lafayette 3,925 ✓ ✓
Lake Oswego 33,800 ✓
Lakeside 1,560 ✓ ✓
Lexington 260
Lincoln City 17,260 ✓
Lowell 950 ✓ ✓
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640 ✓
Malin 805 ✓
Medford 76,300 ✓ ✓
Merrill 869 ✓
Mill City 1,680 ✓ ✓
Molalla 7,590 ✓
Monmouth 9,565 ✓
Myrtle Creek 3,665 ✓
Myrtle Point 2,541 ✓ ✓
Newberg 22,953 ✓ ✓
North Bend 9,636 ✓
North Plains 1,905
Oakland 954 ✓ ✓ ✓
Ontario 10,991 ✓ ✓
Philomath 4,610 ✓ ✓
Port Orford 1,275 ✓ ✓
Portland 550,000
Powers 730 ✓ ✓
Redmond 25,000 ✓
Reeds port 4,593 ✓ ✓
Richland 150 ✓
Rivergrove 345
Rockaway Beach 1,350 ✓
Rogue River 2,185 ✓ ✓ ✓
Roseburg 21,235
Rufus 214 ✓
Salem 154,510 ✓ ✓
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 45
WASTEWATER PLANNING INFORMATION
Does the city's
wastewater rate
Are the wastewater Does the city maintain an asset ordinance have an
plants releasing management system for its automatic CP1l
stream water that is wastewater utility? Income adjustment?
quality limited Yes, Yes,
(TMDL) or under adequately inadequately
City Population special regulation? funded funded No Yes
Sandy 8,823 ✓
Scio 783 ✓ ✓
Seaside 6,100 ✓ ✓
Seneca 183 ✓
Shady Cove 2,850 ✓ ✓
Sheridan 6,020 ✓
Sherwood 16,450 ✓
Silverton 9,649 ✓ ✓
Sisters 1,875 ✓
Spray 140 ✓
Springfield 57,320 ✓ ✓
Stanfield 2,100 ✓ ✓
Slayton 7,800 ✓ ✓
Sublimity 2,285
Sweet Home 9,045 ✓
The Dalles 11,500 ✓
Toledo 3,612 ✓ ✓
Tualatin 26,040 ✓ ✓
Turner 1,730 ✓
Ukiah 249 ✓ ✓
Union 1,954 ✓
Vale 2,000 ✓
Waldport 2,145 ✓ ✓
Warrenton 4,448
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 ✓
Westfir 325 ✓
Weston 745 ✓
Winston 5,800 ✓
Yachats 780 ✓
Yamhill 965 ✓
Yoncalla 1,115 ✓ ✓
46 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
APPENDIX C-1
STORMWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
L Summary Information
Does the city offer
stormwater fee reductions
for onsite stormwater
Are stormwater rates included in the wastewater rates,or is it a separate management?
utility fee? number of responses number of responses
Storm-
Storm- Storm- water fees No charge No
water water fees are paid to for storm- storm-
fees are a a joint water water If yes,
Responses by Number of included separate district with services service nature of If yes,
Population Responses in rates utility fee I the county provided provided Other Yes reduction amount
0-1,000 37 1 2 0 5 4 1 0
1,001-5,000 43 4 2 1 9 1 0 0
5,001-10,000 18 1 9 0 2 0 1 4
10,001-25,000 16 1 8 0 3 1 0 3
25,001 and up 13 1 9 1 1 0 0 8
Total 127 8 30 2 20 6 2 15
Responses
Does the city offer
stormwater fee reductions
Are stormwater rates included in the wastewater rates,or is it a separate for onsite stormwater
utility fee? mana ement?
Storm-
Storm- Storm- water fees No charge No
water water fees are paid to for storm- storm-
fees are a a joint water water If yes,
included separate district with services service nature of If yes,
City Population in rates utility fee the county provided provided Other Yes reduction amount
Albany 48,770 /
Amity 1,480 /
Arlington 650
Ashland 21,800
Astoria 9,851 /
Bandon 3,300 V
Banks 1,435
Bay City 1,265
Beaverton 60,000 V V
Brookings 6,465
Brownsville 1,755
Burns 2,664
Butte Falls 450
Cannon Beach 1,650 /
Carlton 1,755 V
Cave Junction 1,730
Columbia City 1,975 /
Condon 795
Coos Bay 16,670 ./
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 47
STORMWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Does the city offer
stormwater fee reductions
Are stormwater rates included in the wastewater rates,or is it a separate for onsite stormwater
utility fee? mana ement?
Storm-
Storm- Storm- water fees No charge No
water water fees are paid to for storm- storm-
fees are a a joint water water If yes,
included separate district with services service nature of If yes,
City Population in rates utility fee the county provided provided Other Yes reduction amount
Cornelius 11,464 ✓
Corvallis 54,880 ✓ J
Creswell 5,058 J
Culver 1,325
Dallas 15,360 ✓
Damascus 12,851
Dayton 2,500
Dayville 175 ✓
Detroit 92
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715
Elgin 1,730 ✓
Fairview 8,000 ✓
Falls City 965
Florence 9,410 ✓
Garibaldi 881 ✓
Gaston 610 ✓
Gervais 2,406 ✓
Glendale 955 ✓
Gold Hill 1,100 J
Grants Pass 33,217
Up to 27%
in bill if
100%on-
Gresham 101,221 ✓ ✓ site storm-
water
manage-
ment
Haines 435
Halfway 355
Halsey 840 ✓
Happy Valley -
Heppner 1,420
Hermiston 15,297 ✓
Hillsboro 66,226 ✓ ✓ If storm 100
Idanha 227
Imbler -
Independence 9,375 ✓
Ione 314
48 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
STORMWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Does the city offer
stormwater fee reductions
Are stormwater rates included in the wastewater rates,or is it a separate for onsite stormwater
utility fee? mana ement?
Storm-
Storm- Storm- water fees No charge No
water water fees are paid to for storm- storm-
fees are a a joint water water If yes,
included separate district with services service nature of If yes,
City Population in rates utility fee the county provided provided Other Yes reduction amount
Island City 995
Jefferson 3,085 ✓
John Day 1,845
Johnson City 600
Jordan Valley 240
Joseph 1,105
Junction City 5,345
Klamath Falls 19,462 ✓
La Grande 12,682 ✓
Lafayette 3,925
50%for
residential,
and
commercial
is reduced
Lake Oswego 33.800 by the Varies
percent of
quality and
quantity
improve-
ment
Lakeside 1,560
Lexington 260
Lincoln City 17,260
Lowell 950 ✓ ✓
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640 ✓
Malin 805 ✓
Medford 76,300 ✓
Merrill 869
Mill City 1,680 ✓
Molalla 7,590 ✓
Monmouth 9,565
Myrtle Creek 3,665
Myrtle Point 2,541
Newberg 22,953 ✓ ✓ Comm.Cust Varies
Rate& Up to
North Bend 9,636 ✓ ✓ Quality 1/3 off
Control
North Plains 1,905
Oakland 954
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 49
STORMWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Does the city offer
stormwater fee reductions
Are stormwater rates included in the wastewater rates,or is it a separate for onsite stormwater
utility fee? mana ement?
Storm-
Storm- Storm- water fees No charge No
water water fees are paid to for storm- storm-
fees are a a joint water water If yes,
included separate district with services service nature of If yes,
City Population in rates utility fee the county provided provided Other Yes reduction amount
Ontario 10,991
Philomath 4,610
Port Orford 1,275
Portland 550,000 On site Up to
measures 35%
Powers 730
Redmond 25,000 /
Reedsport 4,593 /
Richland 150 /
Rivergrove 350
Rockaway 1,350
Beach
Rogue River 2,185 /
Roseburg 21,235
Rufus 214
Salem 154,510
Reduction
or
Sandy 8,823 ,/ elimination Up to
of 100%
impervious
surface
Scio 783 /
Seaside 6,100
Seneca 183 /
Shady Cove 2,850
Sheridan 6,020 ./
Sherwood 16,450
Silverton 9,649
Sisters 1,875
Spray 140
Springfield 57,320
Stanfield 2,100
Stayton 7,800 V
Sublimity 2,285
Sweet Home 9,045
The Dalles 11,500 ,/ Water if Full
onsite
Toledo 3,612 ./
50 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
STORMWATER QUANTITY INFORMATION
Does the city offer
stormwater fee reductions
Are stormwater rates included in the wastewater rates,or is it a separate for onsite stormwater
utility fee? mana ement?
Storm-
Storm- Storm- water fees No charge No
water water fees are paid to for storm- storm-
fees are a a joint water water If yes,
included separate district with services service nature of If yes,
City Population in rates utility fee the county provided provided Other Yes reduction amount
Exempt if no
Tualatin 26,040 runoff from 100
100 year
storm event
Union 1,954
Vale 2,000 ✓
Waldport 2,145
Warrenton 4,785
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 ✓
Westfir 325
Weston 745
Winston 5,800
Yachats 780 ✓
Yamhill 965
Yoncalla 1,115 ✓
------- -. .-. . .. -- —. -------
2009
----2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 51
APPENDIX C-2
STORMWATER RATE INFORMATION
Summary Information
Does the city maintain an asset
management system for its When did the city last
stormwater utility? change its stormwater Does the city's
number of response rates? ear stormwater rate
Over 10 ordinance have an Average
Yes Yes(not years ago automatic CPI/Income monthly
Responses by Number of (adequately adequately Year (number of adjustment?(number cost
Population Responses funded) funded) No (average) responses) of responses) In-Cit
0-1,000 37 0 1 7 2004 0 0 $0.00
1,001-5,000 43 2 1 8 2007 1 2 $1.88
5,001-10,000 18 0 2 9 2007 0 2 $4.49
10,001-25,000 16 1 8 1 2009 1 1 $4.37
25,001 and up 13 2 2 6 2008 1 0 $6.55
Total 127 5 14 31 2008 3 5 $4.87
Res onses
Does the city maintain an asset When did the city last
management system for its change its stormwater Does the city's
stormwater utility? rates? ear stormwater rate
Yes Yes(not ordinance have an Monthly
(adequately adequately Over 10 automatic CPI/Income cost
city Population funded) funded) No Year years ago adjustment? In-Cit
Albany 48,770 ✓
Amity 1,480 ✓
Arlington 650
Ashland 21,800 ✓ 2009 $4.17
Astoria 9,851 ✓
Bandon 3,300
Banks 1,435
Bay City 1,265
Beaverton 60,000 ✓ 2009
Brookings 6,465 ✓ 2009 ✓
Brownsville 1,755
Burns 2,664
Butte Falls 450
Cannon Beach 1,650 ✓ 2009 ✓
Carlton 1,755 ✓
Cave Junction 11730
Columbia City 1,975
Condon 795
Coos Bay 16,670 ✓
Cornelius 11,464 ✓ 2009 ✓ $4.25
Corvallis 54,880 ✓ 2002 $4.98
Creswell 5,058
52 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
STORMWATER RATE INFORMATION
Does the city maintain an asset When did the city last
management system for its change its stormwater Does the city's
stormwater utility 7 rates? ear stormwater rate
Yes Yes(not ordinance have an Monthly
(adequately adequately Over 10 automatic CPI/Income cost
City Population funded) funded) No Year years ago adjustment? In-Citv
Culver 1,325
Dallas 15,360 $2.00
Damascus 12,851
Dayton 2,500
Dayville 175
Detroit 92
Dunes City 1,467
Echo 715
Elgin 1,730 ✓
Fairview 8,000 ✓ 2009 $8.12
Falls City 965
Florence 9,410 ✓ 2008 $4.16
Garibaldi 881 ✓
Gaston 610 ✓
Gervais 2,406 ✓ 2003 ✓
Glendale 955 ✓
Gold Hill 1,100
Grants Pass 33,217
Gresham 101,221 ✓ 2009 $8.60
Haines 435
Halfway 355
Halsey 840 ✓
Happy Valley 12,643
Heppner 1,420 2008
Hermiston 15,297
Hillsboro 66,226 ✓ $4.25
Idanha 227 2009
Imbler 283
Independence 9,375 ✓ $6.18
Ione 314
Island City 995
Jefferson 3,085 ✓ ✓
John Day 1,845
Johnson City 600
Jordan Valley 240
Joseph 1,105
Junction City 5,345 2009
Klamath Falls 19,462
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 53
STORMWATER RATE INFORMATION
Does the city maintain an asset When did the city last
management system for its change its stormwater
stormwater utility? rates? ear Does the city's
stormwater rate
Yes Yes(not ordinance have an Monthly
(adequately adequately Over 10 automatic CPI/Income cost
City Population funded) funded) No Year years ago adjustment? In-Cit
La Grande 12,682 ✓ 2009
Lafayette 3,925
Lake Oswego 33,800 ✓
Lakeside 1,560
Lexington 260
Lincoln City 17,260
Lowell 950
Lyons 1,150
Madras 6,640 ✓ 2009
Malin 805
Medford 76,300 ✓ $5.20
Merrill 869
Mill City 1,680
Molalla 7,590 ✓
Monmouth 9,565
Myrtle Creek 3,665 2009
Myrtle Point 2,541 2004
Newberg 22,953 ✓ $3.80
North Bend 9,636 ✓ $4.50
North Plains 1,905 2006
Oakland 954 2009
Ontario 10,991 ✓ $1.16
Philomath 4,610 ✓ 2009 $0.75
Port Orford 1,275
Portland 550,000 $8.64
Powers 730 ✓ 2002
Redmond 25,000 ✓
Reedsport 4,593 ✓ $3.00
Richland 150 ✓ 2009
Rivergrove 345
Rockaway 1,350 2009
Beach
Rogue River 2,185 2005
Roseburg 21,235 ✓ $3.45
Rufus 214
Salem 154,510 ✓ ✓
Sandy 8,823 ✓ $3.00
Scio 783 ✓ 2002
54 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
STORMWATER RATE INFORMATION
Does the city maintain an asset When did the city last
management system for its change its stormwater
stormwater utility? rates? ear Does the city's
stormwater rate
Yes Yes(not ordinance have an Monthly
(adequately adequately Over 10 automatic CPI/Income cost
City Population funded) funded) No Year years ago adjustment? In-Cit
Seaside 6,100 2009
Seneca 183
Shady Cove 2,850
Sheridan 6,020 ✓
Sherwood 16,450 ✓ 2009 $11.77
Silverton 9,649
Sisters 1,875
Spray 140
Springfield 57,320 2008 $9.84
Stanfield 2,100 2008
Stayton 7,800 ✓ 2009
Sublimity 2,285 2009
Sweet Home 9,045 ✓ $1.00
The Dalles 11,500 ✓
Toledo 3,612 ✓
Tualatin 26,040 ✓
Turner 1,730
Ukiah 249 2008
Union 1,954
Vale 2,000 ✓ 2009
Waldport 2,145
Warrenton 4,448 ✓
Waterloo 239
West Linn 25,236 ✓ $4.35
West-fir 325
Weston 745
Winston 5,800
Yachats 780 ✓
Yamhill 965
Yoncalla 1,115
2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey 55
APPENDIX D-1
The following pages include the survey instrument,
"Survey on Utility Rates: Water/Wastewater/Stormwater."
56 ��� 2009 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges Survey
League of Oregon Cities
Survey on Utility Rates
Water/Wastewater/Stormwater
INTRODUCTION
The following survey requests information regarding your city's essential utility services. We ask that you complete
all sections of the survey to ensure that all relevant information on the utilities are gathered. This survey has five
sections to complete with an extra blank page on the end for additional comments(only complete the sections
pertaining to your city/system):
I. Water Services
Il. Wastewater Services
III. Stormwater Services
IV. Utility Billing
V. Utility Rate Schedules(Or the city can send in the their rate schedule/ordinance)
Does your city provide any of the following utility services?(check all that apply):
❑ Water
O Wastewater
❑ Stormwater
O None of these services
❑ Provide the following services jointly with special district(s):
1
I. WATER SERVICES
Service Po uln ation
I side ity Limits Outside Cily Limits
Service Population(permanent residents):
Service Population(includingk seasonal
Number of Connections:
Facilities and Water Source
1. Total miles of water lines(all sizes):
2. Water source:
❑ Surface
❑ Ground
❑ Wholesale
❑ Other:
3. Water Source is:
❑ Gravity Fed
❑ Pumped
❑ Other:
4. Distance(s)from source to city:
Age and Capacity
5. Age or Average Age of Water Plant(s):
6. Total Capacity of Water Plant(s)(gallons per day):
7. What is the total amount of water treated in 2008(gallons):
8. What was the peak flow of water treated in a 24-hour period in 2008(gallons):
9. How much treated water storage do you have(gallons):
10. How much untreated water storage do you have(gallons):
11. At what capacity is your entire water system operating? %
12. When is your water system projected to be at maximum capacity(year—e.g.2010)?
13. Does your city have an approved water conservation and management plan?
❑ Yes Water Resources Department Approval Date:
❑ No
14. What is the annual measured(or estimated)water loss(unaccounted for water)of your system?
96
❑ Water loss not measured
2
15. If water loss is measured(or estimated):What is the method used to determine the amount of water loss in
your system?
❑ Estimate
❑ Recently adopted IWA/AWWA water loss methodology
❑ Comparison of production meters and customer metered volumes
❑ Other:Please Indicate
❑ Don't know
Water Rates and Charges
16. What is the rate structure for your city's water service?
❑ Flat Rate
❑ Inclining Block Rate
❑ Declining Block Rate
❑ Other
Fiir all rate sltuctuics.plcase send the I:mironm�nial l�itr,�nc�('�i�te�l l'(_1_t or��'of"Your Gtiatcr rt11
schedule so that a compm-.ihve rate Can he..conductcd. Plea c he sure the have,rate and usage
rates are included for resicleniial/commercial, find custoincrs inside cite limits vs.outside. It tin not
have a tee schedule,please complete the !able attached to the survey.
17. What percent of the city's water rate revenue accounts for debt service? 9b
18. Does the city maintain an asset management system for its water utility?
❑ Yes(adequately funded)
❑ Yes(not adequately funded)
❑ No
19. When did the city last change its water rates(year)? ❑ Over 10 years ago
20. How did the rates change?
❑ Increased
❑ Decreased
❑ Change in Rate Structure
❑ Other:
21. Why did the city change its water rates?(check all that apply):
❑ State/Federal Mandate ❑ Treatment Costs ❑ Labor Costs
❑ Inflation/CPI ❑ Capital Improvement ❑ Reason Unknown
❑ Other
22. Does the city's water rate ordinance have an automatic CPI/Income adjustment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
3
H.WASTEWATER SERVICES
Service Population
Inside CiLy Limits Outside Cily Limi
Service Population(permanent residents):
Service Population(including peak seasonal):
Number of Connections:
Lines.Facilities&Treatment
1. Total Miles of Sewer Lines(all sizes):
2. Number of Pump/Lift Stations:
3. Number of Treatment Plants:
4. What percent of the city's wastewater lines is"combined sewer"? (In combined sewers,the wastewater
lines are used for both stormwater and wastewater.) %
5. What level of sewage treatment is provided to city wastewater? (check all that apply)
❑ Primary ❑ Nitrogen Removal
❑ Secondary ❑ Phosphorous Removal
❑ Advanced Treatment
6. Are the wastewater plants releasing stream water that is quality limited(TMDL)or under special
regulation?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Age and Capacity
7. Age or Average Age of Treatment Plant(s):
8. Total Capacity of Treatment Plants(s)(gallons per day):
9. What is the total amount of wastewater treated in 2008(gallons):
10. Peak Wet Weather Flow in 2008(gallons per day):
11. Peak Dry Weather Flow in 2008(gallons per day):
12. At what capacity is your entire wastewater system operating? %
13. When is your wastewater system projected to be at maximum capacity(year—e.g.2010)?
4
\Vir,tcwllcl Raw",
Pleaw send the EFC a copy of y oil r wws("N%ate I rate schedule.IMIlle.sn that a rale an a I vsis can be
conducted. Please be.stile the ba.w rate and LISail-C rates arc included for resil len(ill l/coill file rcial,and
cw'loillels imide City hillit'; vs. outside. 11'you (14)riot ha\e a fee sclic(lille.please Colliplele the table
1-i,titllichcd to the survey.
14. If wastewater rates are based on water consumption,is there a seasonal adjustment for wastewater(i.e.
winter average used for summer months):
11 Yes
0 No
15. What percent of the city's wastewater rate revenue accounts for debt service? Rb
16. Does the city maintain an asset management system for its wastewater utility?
• Yes(adequately funded)
• Yes(not adequately funded)
• No
17. When did the city last change its wastewater rates(year)? El Over 10 years ago
18. How did the rates change?
• Increased
• Decreased
El Change in Rate Structure
0 Other:
19. Why did the city change its wastewater rates?(check all that apply):
• State/Federal Mandate 11 Treatment Costs 0 Labor Costs
• Inflation/CPI 0 Capital Improvement 0 Reason Unknown
0 Other:
20. Does the city's wastewater rate ordinance have an automatic CPI/Income adjustment?
• Yes
• No
Other Wastewater Programs
21. Does your city administer an industrial wastewater pretreatment program?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Does the city apply or provide reclaimed water to public/private property?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. If yes,what percentage of total reclaimed water is reused/applied? %
24. Please describe ownership and use of the property where the application occurs(i.e.city park,private golf
course,industrial cooling tower,etc.)
25. Does the city apply biosolids topublic/private property?
❑ Yes
❑ No
26. If yes,what percentage of biosolids is applied? %
27. Please describe ownership and use of the land where the application occurs(i.e.city park,private golf
course,etc.)
6
HI.STORMWATER SERVICES
Current System Characteristics
I si a it Limits Outside Cit Limits
Number of Customers/Connections:
Stormwater Rates
1. Are stormwater rates included in the wastewater rates,or is it a separate utility fee?
❑ Stormwater fees are included in wastewater rates
❑ Stormwater fees are a separate utility fee
❑ Stormwater fees are paid to a joint district within the county
❑ No charge for stormwater services
❑ No stormwater service provided
❑ Other:
2. Does the city offer stormwater fee reductions for onsite stormwater management?
❑ Yes(nature: amount:—___ 1
O No
If the city charges-a fee,plcase Li[d.113c TJ (1,ci cow of 011r�(ol D1v 1tei nttc..SchCLlule so Owt a co>nl)native
gate analysis can be Conducted. Please he sure the base tate and usage rates etre included for
resideniial/ccimliiercial,and imide city' limits vs.outside.If you do not have a ice schedule,
please complete the table attached to the survey.
3. What percent of the city's stormwater rate revenue accounts for debt service? %
4. Does the city maintain an asset management system for its stormwater utility?
O Yes(adequately funded)
❑ Yes(not adequately funded)
❑ No
5. When did the city last change its stormwater rates(year)? ❑Over 10 years ago
6. How did the rates change?
❑ Increased
❑ Decreased
❑ Change in Rate Structure
❑ Other:
7. Why did the city change its stormwater rates?(check all that apply):
❑ State/Federal Mandate ❑ Treatment Costs ❑ Labor Costs
❑ Inflation/CPI ❑ Capital Improvement ❑ Reason Unknown
❑ Other
8. Does the city's stormwater rate ordinance have an automatic CPI/Income adjustment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
7
IV.UTILIY BILLING
1. How often are bills issued?
❑ Monthly
❑ Bi-Monthly
❑ Quarterly
❑ Other:
2. Does the city contract out for billing services?
❑ Yes
❑ No
3. If no,what computer software program does the city use?
4. Does the city charge a late fee for delinquent bills?
17 Yes
O No
5. If yes,what is the late fee rate(e.g.5%of bill,or$5 flat fee)?
6. How many days passed the due date are allowed before the late fee is assessed?
7. Does your city disconnect water service due to nonpayment?
O Yes
❑ No
]'lease send the ETV a comm of your city's Xet shutoff 1)01icy.
8. Does the city provide waivers or reductions to certain utility customers(low income families,senior
citizens,schools,etc.)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. If yes,please describe the waiver/reduction:
Customer Type Amount of Waiver Utility Bill Waived/Reduced
Reduction (check all that apply)
❑Water ❑Wastewater o Stormwater
❑Water ❑Wastewater o Stormwater
o Water o Wastewater o Stormwater
o Water ❑Wastewater o Stormwater
❑Water ❑Wastewater ❑Stormwater
o Water ❑Wastewater ❑Stormwater
8
V.Utility Rate Structure
Water
Customer Type Meter Size Base Rate Lsage Included Volume Rate
Wastewater
Customer Type Meter Size Base Rate Usaae Included Volume Rate
10
Stormwater
Customer Tyne Lot Size Base Rate Additional Charge
1 ',
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone: 503-639-4171
TIGARD
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Date July 6, 2010
Number of pages including cover sheet 3
To:
Q" The City of King City (Fax No. 503-639-3771)
E(The City of Durham (Fax No. 503-598-8595)
From: Kathy Mollusky
Co: Ci1y of Tigard
Fax #: 503-684-8840
Ph #: 503-718-2594
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Agenda
MESSAGE:
Please post the attached agenda for die upcoming meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board.
Thank you.
1:TNGTAX.00T
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 07/05/2010 23:00
NAME COT-PW
FAX 5036848840
TEL 5036848840
SER.# 000L9N215453
DATE DIME 07/05 22:59
FAX NO./NAME *825036393771
DURATION 00:00:46
PAGE(S) 03
RESULT OK
MODE STANDARD
ECM
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 07/05/2010 23:03
NAME COT-PW
FAX 5036848840
TEL 5036848840
SER.# 000L9N215453
DATE,TIME 07/05 23:02
FAX N0./NAME 5035988595
PAGE(S)
DURATION 3:00:45
RESULT OK
MODE STANDARD
ECM