Loading...
09/10/2003 - Packet FILE COPY Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order Moll Call and Introductions Motion to call meeting to order,staff to take roll call. 2. Approval of Minutes—August 13, 2003 Motion from Board for minute approval. 3. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report—Dennis Koellermeier(15 minutes) 4. PW Director's Report—Ed Wegner(15 minutes) 5. Informational Items—Ed Wegner Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed. 6. Public Comments Call for any comments from public. 7. Non Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. 8. Next meeting date—Tuesday, October 21,2003,at 5:30 p.m. in the Water Auditorium,followed by a Joint Meeting with Tigard City Council in Town Hall 9. Adjournment—Approximate Time 7:00 p.m. Motion for adjournment. n Alight dinner will be provided. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d), (e), (fl&(h)to discuss labor relations,real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues and to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes August 13, 2003 Members Present. Beverly Froude, Brian Moore, Dick Winn, Patrick Carroll, and Bill Scheiderich (arrived late at 5:35 pm) Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Dennis Koellermeier, Sara Danz, Rich Sattler, and Twila Willson Visitors: Marc Delphine, Paul Owen, Chris Uber (MSA) and his daughter, Larry Eaton and Jason Melady of Groundwater Solutions 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Commissioner Patrick Carroll called the meeting to order and staff called roll. Bill Scheiderich was not present (but arrived late at 5:35 p.m.). 2. Approval of Minutes—July 15, 2003 Commissioner Brian Moore motioned to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2003, Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting and Commissioner Dick Winn seconded the motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. 3. Establishing Credit for Leak Wholesale Rate FY '03-04— Dennis Koellermeier Dennis Koellermeier reviewed the annual task of the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB)to set the average wholesale rate to use for leak adjustments throughout the year. Staff recommendation was to set the rate of$1.091 per ccf,which is the same rate Tigard purchases water at from the City of Portland. Commissioner Dick Winn motioned to approve the establishment of the wholesale leak rate at the recommended rate of$1.091 and Commissioner Brian Moore seconded the motion. The board voted to unanimously accept the motion. 4. Water Conservation Summer Program— Sara Danz Landscape rebate program—ended the third week in July. There was a great amount of support and participation in this program and budgeted funds for this program have been expended. Some adjustments will be made next summer to stretch landscape rebate dollars. Washing machine rebate program—started July 1, 2003. This program rebates $50.00 for the purchase of an energy star approved washing machine after July 1, 2003. Even/Odd Watering Days—still encouraging this guideline for landscape watering. Intergovernmental Water Board i August 13,2003 DRAFT COPY r Water conservation news spots—There have been several articles published in the Tigard Times and The Oregonian promoting water conservation as well as television publicity on channels 2 and 6 about Tigard's highest water peak in history on Tuesday, July 29th. Stuffers have been included with water bills in an effort to heighten conservation awareness. The design of the conservation calendar is being worked on and it will be going to the printer in September. Regional campaign efforts for water conservation include television and radio commercials, ads and interviews on news channels promoting wise water use and still being able to have a green lawn. 5. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report—Dennis Koellertneier Dennis Koellermeier distributed information about the production and supply from last month. With hotter weather this summer, new peak day highs were reached with the highest peak day demand of 14.28 mgd. The City of Portland is functioning a little differently than usual in that they generally hold off using their well fields until late in the year, however they have started early to augment their supply this year by blending Bull Run water(60%)with water from their test ASR wells (40%). This blending of water started about 30 days ago and they anticipate continuing another 30 days more. Tigard has not received any complaints from our water users due to this change in Portland's operating procedures. The Bull Run system's water storage volume is better due to augmenting the supply,which was a good operational decision. Tigard field operations in July were scaled back due to vacation schedules and minor repairs are performed. No big construction projects are scheduled when the system is operating at full speed. This phase of the Gaarde Street project is complete, but more will be done in later phases. 6. ASR Expansion Report— Ground Water Solutions Groundwater Solutions, Inc., representative Larry Eaton gave a thorough presentation on the ASR project. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation was distributed to board members and is included in the meeting file. Hydro geologic evaluations and infrastructure assessments have been used to determine what targeted sites to consider for ASR expansion locations. The targeted sites were: • Canterbury Well#1 • 10-mg Reservoir • Baggenstos Reservoir site#5 • Tigard Well #3 • Progress Quarry/Mentor Reservoir The study recommendations are to install a production well at the 10-mg Reservoir site and a test well at the Baggenstos site at a cost of$770,000 to $1,020,000. Mr. Koellermeier stated that there was a possibility of sharing data and exploring joint ventures as we approach the Beaverton boundaries and as both entities approach total capacity. Intergovernmental Water Board 2 August 13,2003 DRAFT COPY Commissioner Scheiderich requested the costs per mg for above ground storage compared with ASR. Mr. Koellermeier estimated that above ground storage is approximately $1-2/mg (steel - concrete). ASR wells cost $500,000 - $700,000 each and are usually good economical investments. Mr. Wegner stated that staff would begin developing RFP's to proceed with the work to drill a production well at the 10-mg Reservoir site and a test well at the Baggenstos property unless there were objections from the Board. Staff's objective is to get the production well operating so that injection can begin this fall and water can be withdrawn next summer. Money has been budgeted over the next two years for the development of the ASR project. Discussion of the timetable for construction through the operational stage followed and it was determined that it would be possible to complete the project. Land use issues should not hold up construction. The consensus of the Board was to press on with the plan outline as recommended. 7. PW Director's Report— Ed Wegner Mr. Wegner announced that it would be necessary to go into an Executive Session before the end of the meeting to discuss real property transactions. Joint Water Commission —The last JWC meeting approved their attorney to draft an agreement for Tigard to become a member of the JWC. The draft document will be presented to the JWC at their October meeting, followed by Tigard's review before all entities sign the agreement. The agreement would provide Tigard with voting rights, but until the Hagg Lake Dam raise or other water expansion, Tigard would not have direct ownership of water rights. If the proposed timetable is kept, staff will ask the Board to prepare the necessary documents for Tigard to proceed with formal motions from all four agencies that comprise the IWB in October and November. Portland Wholesale Contract—The negotiations are underway on nomination of supply, rates and charges. Several meetings have been held to define the language and concepts and Mr. Wegner anticipates many more meetings before anything is finalized. The City of Portland provided some interesting information that the wholesale customers use 40% of the Bull Run water and provide 23% of Portland's revenue. Tigard is becoming less dependent on Portland as the ASR project expands and the JWC membership takes off. Tigard has not had to pay peaking penalties to Portland this year. Tigard has not eliminated the peaking risk possibility, but it has been minimized by utilizing other water sources such as the JWC,Tigard's wells, and Tualatin Valley. Mr. Koellermeier added that by proper operation management and limiting water use increases to10% per day, the peaking has been kept under control and penalties avoided. 8. Informational Items—Ed Wegner Informational packet articles were briefly described. Intergovernmental Water Board 3 August 13,2003 DRAFT COPY - ---------- 9. Public Comments— None 10. Non Agenda Items Commissioner Scheiderich requested information in the status of the Tigard Water District Board of Commissioners and Mr. Wegner explained that in the recent election all five positions on the Board were filled. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously voted on to go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.661(e)to discuss real property transactions. Upon reconvening, the consensus was to advise staff to proceed with the acquisition discussed in Executive Session. 11. Next meeting date— Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 5:30 pm in the Water Auditorium 12. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board 4 August 13,2003 DRAFT COPY Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Informational Items Supplement September 10, 2003 • Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2003 • Memo from Dennis Koellermeier to Craig Prosser, Finance Director, dated September 3, 2003, regarding Bull Mountain annexation impacts on the Tigard Water District • Brochure announcing `Water Rate Increases, Effective October 1, 2003", . included with billing statements REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING Minutes of June 4,2003 Consortium Board Chairman John Huffman called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers/Annex. Elected representatives from seventeen Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting (which is a quorum),including City of Beaverton, Clackamas River Water, City of Gladstone, City of Gresham, City of Hillsboro, City of Lake Oswego,Metro, Oak Lodge Water District, City of Portland,Powell Valley Road Water District,Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy, South Fork Water Board, Sunrise Water Authority, City of Tigard, Tualatin Valley Water District, and West Slope Water District. One other entity,the City of Wilsonville had staff present. Consortium member agencies not represented by elected officials at this meeting included City of Fairview, City of Forest Grove, City of Milwaukee,Raleigh Water District, City of Tualatin, and City of Wilsonville. Introductions: Introductions were made. Those in attendance included Commessioner Bruce Fontaine, and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; Councilor Susan McLain from Metro; Commissioner Dan Saltzman and Edward Campbell from the City of Portland; Commissioner John Huffman and Tom Pokorny from Powell Valley Road Water District; Commissioner Les Larson and Paul Savas from Oak Lodge Water District;District Board Vice-President Jim Duggan and Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District;District Board President Sandra Ramaker and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD; Commissioner Mike Grimm and John Thomas from Sunrise Water Authority; Councilor Ellie McPeak from the City of Lake Oswego; Council President Brian Moore and Dennis Koellermeier from the City of Tigard; Mayor Charles Becker,Dale Anderson and Keely Thompson from the City of Gresham; Councilor Don Allen from the City of Sandy; Councilor Mike Kapigian,John Collins and Kim Swan from South Fork Water Board; Commissioner Larry Soderholm, Joe Thompson and Kristi Senecaut from the City of Hillsboro; Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto and Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District;Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville; Councilor Carl Gardner from the City of Gladstone; Commissioner Forrest Soth and David Winship from the City of Beaverton; Lewis Seagraves from Boring Water District#24; and Loma Stickel,Rebecca Geisen, Lindsey Berman, and Patty Burk from the City of Portland/Consortium Staff. Approval of Minutes for March 5,20.03: The Consortium Board unanimously approved the March 5, 2003 minutes as written. Public Comment:None. Boring Water District Request for Membership: Lorna Stickel reported that she had been having discussions with the Boring Water District Manager and Board members out the Consortium and their interest in becoming a member of the Consortium. Ms. Stickel advised that as a result, the Boring Water District Board did approve at their May meeting, the request to the Consortium Board to become a member of the Consortium. A copy of the letter submitted to the Consortium Board Consortium Board Meeting Minutes June 4,2003 from the Boring Water District to request membership was included in the meeting materials packet. Ms. Stickel noted that Board action with a quorum is required to approve new members of the Consortium. Ms. Stickel introduced the Boring Water District Chairman Lew Seagraves. Mr. Seagraves commented that the Boring Water District has become more progressive in their management the past several years and recognizes, especially with the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion in the Boring/Damascus area that now would be a good opportunity for them to become a part of the Consortium. Consortium Board Chairman John Huffman asked for a motion to approve the Boring Water District as a new member of the Consortium. Commissioner Les Larson made a motion to approve the Boring Water District as a new Consortium member. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine seconded the motion. The Consortium Board unanimously approved the Boring Water District as a new Consortium member. Executive Committee Report: Consortium Board Chairman Jon Huffman gave a report of the Executive Committee(EC). Chair Huffman noted that the EC met on May 7, 2003. Chair Huffman commented that the Executive Committee's focus is to review and comment on items to be presented at the Consortium Board meetings,therefore,many of the items discussed at the EC meeting were available in the Board meeting material packets. The EC discussed and approved the June Consortium Board agenda,which included the logistics of the breakout sessions on the Strategic Plan. Regional Water Supply Plan Update: Lorna Stickel noted that a progress report on the Regional Water Supply Plan Update was included in the meeting materials packet and invited the Consortium Board members to read it at their convenience. Ms. Stickel commented that staff has spent a good deal of time on the water demand forecast The water demand forecast is the major item that is delaying our ability to move into modeling the alternative supply options scenarios. Ms. Stickel said she met with Metro to discuss costs to rerun the base case and about their general reluctance to use the base case for further runs of the water demand forecast. Metro is in the process of updating the population forecast based on the December 2002 Urban Growth Boundary decision. This forecast will be officially allocated to the cities and counties within the Metro service district. Ms. Stickel advised that the Consortium Technical Subcommittee(CTSC) discussed this issue in March and decided to proceed with the population numbers already obtained from Metro. A matrix chart showing the status of each demand node was prepaied and the CTSC agreed on proper surrogate entities to be used for entities without adequate data Dr.Hossein Parandvash has developed water demand forecast for the provider entities to be included in the Confluence model nodes. A summary of the annual averages, peak season, and peak days was developed in an Excel spreadsheet for all the provider nodes and was sent to the entire Consortium Technical Committee(CTC)in late April. Ms. Stickel noted that various water providers met May 8 at Metro with Metro population forecasting and mapping staff to get information about the forecasts,take feedback and comments, and to hear from Metro about the population forecast numbers and future forecasting that will be conducted. Ms. Stickel said once 2 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes June 4, 2003 the water providers have had an opportunity to provide comments about their forecasts and changes have been made,the forecast would be incorporated into the Confluence model. Rebecca Geisen commented that the conservation element of the RWSP Update is complete. She noted that the report from Planning Management and Consultants,Ltd. (PMCL)is finished and it will be distributed to all Consortium members. The Executive Summary was included in the meeting materials packet. Ms. Geisen reported that Consortium water providers have provided responses to her request for identification of specific conservation programs for individual provider nodes and that these programs have been summarized in a matrix. The matrix was provided in the meeting materials packet. Ms. Geisen reminded the Board members that it was the decision of the Consortium to provide a menu of conservation programs to choose from, in addition to a base level of programs. Ms. Geisen explained that this approach provides a more realistic view of what conservation program costs and savings can be expected in the Integration Model when supply options are considered. Ms. Geisen noted that the matrix shows all the water providers,the programs that were evaluated by the consultant and the provider selections. Ms. Geisen advised that the average annual cost and savings were provided. The average cost and savings is a calculation that averages the cost and savings over the entire life of the program(average 30 years). The actual cost will vary from year to year depending on ramp-up costs,program evaluation costs, and other factors. Ms. Geisen said that it is important to remember that the average annual costs and savings was calculated on a regional level assuming that all the providers would participate and that the costs would be shared among everyone based on the number of accounts. Ms. Geisen noted that the information provided in the matrix gives an idea of estimated costs and savings but will change based on the number of providers participating in any given program.Ms. Geisen said the next step would be to begin program implementation. Ms. Stickel commented the RWSP Update project has been delayed more than six months into a third year largely as a result of the need to validate a number of more detailed aspects of the RWSP Update associated with population and service areas as they relate to the water demand forecast. As a result, staff estimates that it will not be possible to complete the Confluence modeling, evaluate the results and prepare a preliminary RWSP Update for local entity review and comment until the end of 2003. Therefore,the contracts with Economic and Engineering Services,Inc. (EES) and Fiske and Associates are recommended for extension until June 30,2003. These contract extensions have been approved by the City of Portland as the contract agent and must also be approved by the Consortium Board. The Consortium staff and CTSC are not recommending any additional funds for the project,however, a carryover will be used to complete the work as well as a small amount of staff time included in the Budget and Work Plan for FY 2003-04. Ms. Stickel noted that a Board resolution requesting any budget carryover in FY 2002-03 for the RWSP Update work completed as a part of the two year special assessment or as part of the Consortium staff work contained in the base budget($30,000 total)may be carried over to FY 2003-04 to complete the RWSP Update was included in the meeting materials packet. Consortium Board Chairman John Huffinan asked for a motion to approve a budget carryover in FY 2002-03 for the RWSP Update work to be carried over to FY 2003-04 to complete the RWSP Update. Councilor Don Allen made a motion to approve the budget carryover from FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04 for the RWSP Update work. Commissioner Forrest Soth seconded the motion. The 3 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes June 4, 2003 Consortium Board unanimously approved the budget carryover from FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04 for the completion of the RWSP Update work. Conservation Committee Report: Chair Huffman noted that District Board President Sandra Ramaker had attended the Pacific Northwest Section American Water Works Association(AWWA) conference in Boise Idaho in May. Ms.Ramaker commented that while at the conference she had the privilege to accept on behalf of the Consortium,two awards. One was a special achievement in water conservation for the program"As the Faucet Turns". The other award was for excellence of communication for the cartoon waterworks map done by the Consortium Conservation Committee (CCC). Ms. Berman announced that the summer media campaign kicked off Monday,June 2.A kick off event took place at Waterfront Park and included all of the Consortium Conservation media partners. She noted that AM Northwest did a brief television segment from the event. A new radio campaign has been developed. The voice over and music for both the television and radio campaign has been changed to freshen up the message. Ms. Berman noted that the Consortium would be partnering with the Portland Area Radio Council(PARC)in August with their conservation campaign,which will give the Consortium an opportunity to participate in a whole new conservation marketing campaign as well. Ms. Berman played both the radio and television advertisement for the Consortium Board members. Ms.Berman noted that in the activity report that was included in the meeting materials packet was a section of the activities of the CCC and invited the Consortium Board members to read about them at their convenience. Ms.Berman said that the youth web page would be launched June 25. Ms. Berman noted that this web page is only in its first phase and that the CCC hopes to be able to add more information and activities for kids in subsequent stages. Ms.Berman reported that included in the meeting materials packet was a letter from the Friends of the Earth organization and Greg Nickels,the Mayor of Seattle asking for an endorsement from the Consortium to support the Voluntary Water-Efficient Product Labeling Program. They are recommending that the Environmental Protection Agency create and maintain a voluntary labeling program in cooperation with manufactures and distributors of major water using appliances, plumbing products,cooling systems irrigation devices,landscape materials, and other commonly sold products that use water. Ms.Berman advised that the CCC is recommending that the Consortium endorse this program. Chair Huffman asked for a motion to endorse the Voluntary Water-Efficient Product Labeling Program. Commissioner Mike Grimm made a motion to endorse the Voluntary Waxer-Efficient Product Labeling Program. Councilor Don Allen seconded the motion. The Consortium Board unanimously approved the endorsement of the Voluntary Water-Efficient Product Labeling Program. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine asked if this endorsement would be in the form of a letter from the Consortium Board signed by Chair Huffman. Ms.Berman advised that a written letter was not 4 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes June 4, 2003 necessary. She said the.Consortium simply needed to return the position statement signed by Chair Huffman acknowledging the Consortium's support of the program. Commissioner Jim Duggan commented that the Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD)Board has decided to endorse this program as well. Commissioner Mike Grimm noted that Sunrise Water Authority Board has also endorsed the program. Chair Huffman asked that all the Consortium Board members to consider the endorsement of the program at their own individual Board level. Ms. Berman commented that Chris Shaw from Rockwood Water PUD was nominated as the new Chairman of the Consortium Conservation Committee. Election of Officers and Consortium Technical Subcommittee Members: Consortium Board Chairman John Huffinan noted that next on the agenda was the election of a new Consortium Board Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Chair Huffinan said the new officer's term would commence at the September 2003 Board meeting and would be for one year. Chair Huffman opened the nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Mike Grimm nominated Commissioner John Huffman from Powell Valley Road Water District for the position of Consortium Board Chairman. There were no other nominations. Commissioner Forrest Soth seconded the nomination. The Consortium Board unanimously approved the nomination of Commissioner John Huffman as the Consortium Board Chairman. Chair Huffman opened the nominations for the Consortium Board Vice-Chairman. Mayor Chuck Becker nominated District Board President Sandra Ramaker. Commissioner Jim Duggan nominated Commissioner Mike Grimm. There were no other nominations. Ms. Stickel reminded the Board members that the Consortium Board Chair and Vice-Chair must come from different counties,therefore, since Commissioner Huffman is from Multnomah County,Ms. Ramaker would not be eligible for the Consortium Vice Chair position because Rockwood Water PUD is in Multnomah County as well.The Consortium Board unanimously approved the nomination of Commissioner Mike Grimm as the Consortium Board Vice-Chairman. Chair Huffinan advised that next would be the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Consortium Technical Committee. Ms. Stickel explained that one of the things that had been done in the past few months was that a questionnaire was sent out to all of the Consortium Technical Committee members to try to ascertain why attendance at the CTC meetings had been decreasing. Ms. Stickel reminded the Board members that in the month prior to a Board meeting,three meetings occur leading up to and in preparation for the Board meeting,the monthly CTSC meeting,the quarterly EC meeting and the quarterly CTC meeting. As a result,the agenda items would become very repetitive especially for those members of the CTSC. Ms. Stickel noted that the CTC meetings have been having difficulty meeting quorum requirements. Ms. Stickel noted that the questionnaire asked several questions as to why members felt there was a decrease in meeting attendance and what could be changed about the meeting schedule to help improve participation. The questionnaire summary was provided in the meeting materials packet. 5 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes June 4, 2003 Ms. Stickel advised that as a result of the survey,it was determined that reducing the number of meetings would help and it was the decision of the Consortium Technical Subcommittee to combine the Consortium Technical Committee meeting with the Consortium Board meeting. It was thought since the many CTC members attend the Consortium Board meetings with their elected Board representative,combining the CTC and Board meetings seemed a natural progression. Ms. Stickel commented that any-CTC member is encouraged to attend the monthly CTSC meetings if they desire. Ms. Stickel noted that the combination of the two meetings would be done on a trail basis and if it was felt that the combination of the Technical Committee and Board meetings was not working, other arrangements could be made. The June Consortium Board meeting is the first meeting of this nature and as a result,the election of the CTC Chairman and Vice Chairman needed to be done at this meeting. Ms. Stickel noted that the current CTC Chairman is Harvey Barnes from Rockwood PUD and that his two-year term limit is completed. Harvey Barnes opened nominations for the Consortium Technical Committee Chairman position. Mr. Barnes noted that Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water has been serving as the CTC Vice Chair. John Thomas nominated Dale Jutila for the Consortium Technical Committee Chairman. Greg DiLoreto seconded the motion. There were no other nominations. The Consortium Technical Committee unanimously approved the nomination of Dale Jutila as the Consortium Technical Committee Chairman. Mr. Barnes opened the nominations for the Consortium Technical Committee Vice Chairman position. John Thomas nominated Ed Wegner from the City of Tigard. Greg DiLoreto seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. The Consortium Technical Committee unanimously approved the nomination of Ed Wegner as the Consortium Technical Committee Vice Chairman. Ms. Stickel noted that while the Board members are conducting the breakout sessions,the CTC members would caucus by county to select the members of the Consortium Technical Subcommittee. Ms Stickel reminded the meeting participants that the CTSC is comprised of ten members,three members from each county and Metro. Metro is an automatic member of the CTSC by the Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA). In Metro's responses to the questionnaire,they suggested that Metro might not need to be a member of the CTSC. Ms, Stickel advised that to change anything in the IGA,it would take action by each individual entity Board or Commission and this could be done at the same time as the Preliminary RWSP Update. The CTC members selected the following entities as members of the Consortium Technical Subcommittee. The representatives from Clackamas County are Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water,John Collins from South Fork Water Board, and Dan Bradley from Oak Lodge Water District. The representatives from Multnomah County are Dennis Kessler from the City of Portland,Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD, and David Rouse from the City of Gresham. The representatives from Washington County are Ed Wegner from the City of Tigard, Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District, and David Winship from the City of Beaverton. 6 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes June 4,2003 Breakout Sessions on the Strategic Plan: Loma Stickel reported that a memorandum titled "Strategic Plan Revision"was included in the meeting materials packet. Ms. Stickel advised that it seemed to be a good time to begin discussing the update of the five-year strategic plan at this meeting as it is anticipated that the September and December Board meetings would be dedicated to the Regional Water Supply Plan Update. The Consortium Board members broke out into three sessions to discuss the process for updating the Five-year Strategic Plan. Following the breakout sessions, each group returned to the Metro Council Chambers/Annex to summarize their group's discussion. Commissioner Mike Grimm, Commissioner Forrest Soth and Commissioner John Huffman were the spokespersons for each of the breakout sessions. Attached are the notes and summaries from those breakout sessions. Councilor Don Allen announced that on Sunday,June 22 the Sandy River Basin Watershed Council is having a summer picnic and get together. Five stewardship awards will be presented to deserving recipients. Councilor Allen invited interested meeting participants to attend. Councilor Allen asked for collateral conservation information for distribution at the event. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine asked the Consortium Board to request that the Consortium Technical Staff draft a resolution for the Board to consider regarding the MTBE issue currently going on in Orange County, California. Commissioner Fontaine explained that there is an issue in front of Congress about decreasing the manufacture's liability in clean up of MTBE in groundwater and surface water. Ms. Stickel asked if the next Board meeting would be timely enough for the Board consideration on this issue. She noted that if it needed to be prior to the September Board meeting, a resolution of such could be considered under the already adopted source water protection strategy and therefore the Executive Committee could endorse it. Ms. Stickel noted that she would work with the Consortium Technical Committee to draft the letter and send it to all of the Consortium entities. Chair Huffman commented that this would be Commissioner Les Larson's final Consortium Board meeting and thanked Commissioner Larson for all his work and dedication to the Regional Water Providers Consortium. Ms. Stickel reminded the Consortium Board meeting participants that the Division 86 Planning Rules workshop was being held the next day,June 5 at the Salem Public Library. A motion was voiced to adjourn the Consortium Board Meeting. The motion was seconded. The Consortium Board meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. The next meeting of the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board is Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Metro Council Chamber/Annex. Submitted by Patty Burk, Consortium Staff 7 CONSORTIUM_ BOARD MEETING BREAKOUT SESSION ON THE 5-YEAR STRATEGIC PLA_N JUNE 4,2003 WASHINGTON COUNTY BREAKOUT SESSION#1 Attendees: Councilor Forrest Soth and David Winship—City of Beaverton, Commissioner Dr. Larry Soderhohn and Joe Thompson—City of Hillsboro, Councilor Brian Moore and Dennis Kollermeier—City of Tigard,Board Vice President Jim Duggan and Greg DiLoreto—Tualatin Valley Water District, Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto and Jerry Arnold—West Slope Water District. Facilitator- Rebecca Geisen, City of Portland/Consortium Staff Recorder- Kristi Senecaut, City of Hillsboro Question#1: Is the mission statement and goals in the Five-year Strategic Plan still stated accurately, should any changes or issues be considered in the revision? • Might change if we build something_ together but not planned. • Change in mind set since 9/11. • Change the word"We"at the beginning of each statement to the word "To". This makes the statement objectives sound like actual goals rather than just being passive. • Include some elements of security objectives. • The first line of the first goal should read: To take ownership of and coordinate the implementation and revision. Question#2: Is the list of external and internal threats and opportunities still valid? Should changes be made to these lists? • EXTERNAL THREATS ❑ Add terrorism to the list. ❑ We have improved public awareness through conservation campaign and the website. ❑ Add Annexation(State bill 22 has taken care of some concerns) • INTERNAL THREATS ❑ OK • INTERNAL WEAKNESSES ❑ Communication has improved. ❑ Gaining members rather than losing them. ❑ Threat to individual plans worked out due to RWSP update. ❑ Apathy has decreased and there is greater participation. ❑ Breakout session has helped deal with size and cumbersome issues. ❑ Complacency now that we are being more successful and comfortable. ❑ There is a lack of success with regionalization-affected trust-turf protection. INTERNAL STRENGTH_ S ❑ Good consortium staff ❑ There is a lot keeping us together. We are a model for the rest of the nation. ❑ Good staff continuity at provision level. Everyone gets along. ❑ Members committed to vision e.g.,Boring's addition tonight. ❑ Award winning, strong conservation program. Question#3: Are the three key strategic challenges still the ones that the Consortium should focus on? What changes or issues should be considered in the revision,should one or more be dropped in favor of new challenges, or should new challenges be added? • Emergency preparedness-now that we have the framework and accomplished many of the goals,maybe it no longer needs to be defined as a key strategy. • Meeting water needs is, and always will be a challenge and a key strategy. • Can security and emergency procedures be combined? • Regional partnership-Do we need it? It still will always be a challenge. We should always question the validity of the whole thing in order to continue building and improving for a purpose. •. Strategy and communication between major suppliers. • Emphasis on securing effectiveness and collaborate efforts to better serve our customers. • Construct a summer supply plan. • What is the role of the consortium in treatment and operations as water providers? Question#4: In light of the actions taken over the last three years to meet the strategic goals listed for each of the three challenges,should new goals be considered? Should changes in circumstances be used to revise the strategic goals? • What do we do next? The consortium continues to grow and the budget is increasing, what do we do with it all? • Develop a clear goal objective for the Board. • Are regional projects a goal? It's time to start asking questions. Such as pipeline implementation within region(e.g. JWC and Portland). • Do we still want a regional emergency plan? • One objective that has not been met thus far,is to attend other Board meetings f CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING BREAKOUT SESSION ON THE 5-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 4,2003 MULTNOMAH COUNTY BREAKOUT SESSION#2 Attendees: Mayor Charles Becker and Dale Anderson—City of Gresham, Commissioner Dan Saltzman and Edward Campbell—City of Portland, Commissioner John Huffman and Tom Pokorny—Powell Valley Water District,District Board President Sandra Ramaker and Harvey Barnes—Rockwood Water PUD. Facilitator- Keely Thompson, City of Gresham Recorder- Lindsey Berman, City of Portland/Consortium Staff Question#1 Is the mission statement and goals in the Five-year Strategic Plan still stated accurately, should any changes or issues be considered in the revision? • Add"development"to planning and management. Question#2• Is the list of external and internal threats and opportunities still valid? Should changes be made to these lists? • EXTERNAL THREATS ❑ Who is external threat—"Government or Initiative"? ❑ Lack of public understanding about new water sources—Need more education. ❑ Apathy—unless negative impact$ or perceived quality or quantity. • INTERNAL THREATS ❑ Apathy. ❑ Turf protection. ❑ Competition—Rates,Water Source, Customers. ❑ Size... Demand for water-if one agency requires new infrastructure,would regional group support& share funding. ❑ Lack of shared expectations. ❑ Vulnerability of losing members. ❑ Perception of threat to individual plans. ❑ Poor communication internally&externally. ❑ Lack of understanding of regulations. ❑ Lack of evaluation tools. INTERNAL STRENGTHS v History since 1990. ❑ Trust is building over time. ❑ Strong& active-PASSION. ❑ Excellent staff support. ❑ Power in numbers representing common issues&concerns by multiple agencies representing the Consortium. ❑ Better understanding of other agencies through membership. ❑ Economies of scale. ❑ Collaboration not coercion.. ❑ Involvement of elected officials increases visibility. Question#3• Are the three key strategic challenges still the ones that the Consortium should focus on? What changes or issues should be considered in the revision,should one or more be dropped in favor of new challenges,or should new challenges be added? • Meeting water needs-source development&transmission&funding of. • Emergency preparedness—especially now. • Building a better regional partnership. Question#4: In light of the actions taken over the last three years to meet the strategic goals listed for each of the three challenges,should new goals be considered? Should changes in circumstances be used to revise the strategic goals? • Long-term rate stabilization. • Ensure quantity&quality of water. • Manage asset not entity(lots of water). • Does regional collaboration help or hinder? CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING BREAKOUT SESSION ON THE 5-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN JUNE 4,2003 CLACKAMAS COUNTY BREAKOUT SESSION#3 Attendees: Commissioner Bruce Fontaine and Dale Jutila—Clackamas River Water, Councilor Carl Gardner—City of Gladstone, Councilor Ellie McPeak—City of Lake Oswego, Commissioner Les Larson and Paul Savas—Oak Lodge Water District, Councilor Don Allen— City of Sandy, Commissioner Mike Grimm and John Thomas- Sunrise Water Authority, Councilor Mike Kapigian and John Collins—South Fork Water Board,Jeff Bauman—City of Wilsonville and Lewis Seagraves—Boring Water District. Facilitator- Kim Swan, South Fork Water Board Recorder- Patty Burk, City of Portland/Consortium Staff Question#1: Is the mission statement and goals in the Five-year Strategic Plan still stated accurately, should any changes or issues be considered in the revision? • Goal#1 should read"...coordinate the revision and implementation of the ...",revision should come first. • Need to state conservation, implementation of the plan is implied. • Avoiding under"Meeting Water Need".—Funding for transmission systems. Too much focus on new supply,Need to look at more transmission&plan for it. • Strategies-Could combine strategies#2 & 3 and add strategy for conservation. -doing a lot for conservation should have it's own strategy. • Goals should be to create a regional water supply,which creates an efficient regional system; the RWSP is simply a vehicle to get us there. The RWSP itself should not be the goal.. . • Would a regionalized system improve planning& supplies? Commissioner Bruce Fontaine commented that conservation should be included in one of the strategies. Commissioner Don Allen concurred. He stated that conservation should be brought to the forefront and needs to be stated in the goals for the Plan. Commissioner Mike Grimm commented that we need to develop a regional water supply plan partnership that really promotes the efficient use of water. He stated that in regards to goal#1, simply saying we will revise and implement the Regional Water Supply Plan does not get it done. Commissioner Grimm noted that the Consortium should focus more on efficiencies and partnerships. Question#2: 1) Is the list of external and internal threats and opportunities still valid?2) Should changes be made to these lists? INTERNAL STRENGTHS • Public awareness is better. • Turf protection is better/perception for working together. INTERNAL THREATS/WEAKNESSES • Growth takes focus away from regional efforts by having to focus on local problems. • Costs of dues-Cost for more interlocking transmission and high cost.for infrastructure • What are our benchmarks?Have we been effective,how do we know if we have been effective? • Inequities of infrastructure costs. • Division 86-could been seen as an asset or threat. With limited funds we need to make sure we are getting the bang for our buck. Need to see benefits and be able to measure them. • Is Division 86 an indicator/or complications for taking water out of streams, societal concerns. • Get too much paperwork,makes it too easy not to show up for meetings. • Public needs more education on water supply issues, stewardship.of water supplies and emergency situations. Councilor Allen commented that he felt public awareness of the Consortium is better and that turf protection issues have improved. He stated that the Consortium conservation program has developed nicely. Paul Savas commented that the Division 86 and 315 rules can be seen as a threat or an asset. He noted that if Consortium members can not meet the rule requirements for conservation,they will pull their funding and go it on their own. Question#3: Are the three key strategic challenges still the ones that the Consortium should focus on? What changes or issues should be considered in the revision,should one or more be dropped in favor of new challenges,or should new challenges be added? • Something was missing—Didn't see RWPC at Bun Run Drinking Water Authority table. Consortium missed it totally-we all should have been there. • This organization has grown up and needs to step up. o Example-The Regional Transmission and Supply Study is done but not implemented. o Conservation program aren't enough. • Appears goals and strategies are mixed up. ' • How would it work to let go and give policy decisions to one agency? • Look for ways to regionalize-get on to the next step. • Several example of success-i.e. Joint Water Commission. • Need to look at the"big picture". ❑ i.e., Wilsonville had a problem no one stepped up so they had to go it alone., • Need to show customers that the Consortium can offer economies of scale and better stewardship of our resources. • The EmergencyNulnerability threat is a new thing-need to do more work here. • Need to work on and more with the Regional Transmission Study. • Does it create a ploblem if you have 1 large interlocking system, does it make you more vulnerable? • Emergency interties between water sources are good. John Thomas commented that if the Consortium's role is to improve the planning and management of water supplies then we should have been involved as a Consortium in the Bull Run Drinking Water Supply Agency. He noted that if that is the Consortium's goal then the Consortium, as a group should have been at the table. Councilor McPeak commented that to just do conservation is not enough. Dale Jutila commented that maybe the Consortium role in regional planning should be to explore strategies on how to find ways to collectively plan for regional supplies. Commissioner Grimm stated that we need to be better stewards of our resources and show customers that we can reach economies of scale by doing that. Councilor McPeak noted that the need for planning for emergency/security threats may be the push toward cooperation that is lacking today. Commissioner Fontaine concurred and noted that the Consortium needs to work better together on emergency preparedness. Councilor McPeak stated that we need to begin implementing the Regional Transmission and Supply study and tie it into emergency planning,vulnerability assessments and supply needs Question#4• In light of the actions taken over the last three years to meet the strategic goals listed for each of the three challenges,should new goals be considered? Should changes in circumstances be used to revise the strategic goals? (Did not get to this question in time allotted) MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Prosser, Finance Director FROM: Dennis Koellermeier, Assistant Public Works Director RE: Bull Mountain annexation impacts on the Tigard Water District DATE: September 3, 2003 Per your request The Public Works Department, in cooperation with your staff, have evaluated the impacts that the potential annexation of the Bull Mountain area into the City of Tigard would have on the Tigard Water District. We have concluded that significant impacts will occur, and will need to be resolved in a cooperative agreement between the City and the District. Background The Tigard Water District is an ORS 450 organization comprised of approximately 3,500 accounts and roughly bounded by Barrows Road on the north, Tigard City limits on the east, Beef Bend Road on the west and King City on the south. The district is located completely inside the Urban Growth Boundary. The District is a part of the Intergovernmental Water Board, which is comprised of King City, Durham, Tigard, and the Tigard Water District. The Tigard Water District is comprised of those properties that are inside the Urban Growth Boundary but outside the city limits of any of its partner city's, an area commonly referred to as the unincorporated area. Our analysis looked at two major impacts, the first being financial and the second being institutional. Financial.lmpacts By prior agreement, the district's only revenues are comprised of 1% of total water sales that occur within it's boundaries. All water sales are billed and managed by the City of Tigard, and this 1% is remitted on an annual basis. The attached table was developed to tabulate the financial impacts of annexation of the Bull Mountain area into the City of Tigard. In summary, the Tigard Water District is comprised of approximately 3500 accounts which produce total annual sales of approximately$1,842,350. These sales would generate approximately $18,000 of revenues, based on the 1% of sales formula. When the Bull Mountain annexation is Tigard Water District August 28, 2003 Bull Mountain Accounts Route#2, 10, 12, 36, 37, 38, 39,42, 3,41 (000-0860, 8023-9999) Water Sales (Previous Customer Type #Active Accounts #Suspended Accounts 12.Months) Residential 2,880 69 $837,838.05 Commercial 2 0 $1,554.71 Irrigation 26 7 $27,314.56 Multi-Family 27 0 $30,508.58 Total 2,935 76 $897,215.90 All Other TWD Accounts Route#92,98, 86, 84,41 (0851-8022) Residential 459 12 $101,340.91 Commercial 4 3 $3,996.64 Irrigation 7 0 $4,949.84 Multi-Family 38 1 $834,844.73 Total 508 16 $945,132.12 Note: Given the water sales for the previous twelve month period,the Tigard Water District would receive$8,972.16 in revenue. MEMORANDUM "Ak TO: Ed Wegner FROM: Sally Mill RE: Water Quality Comparison - Update DATE: September 4, 2003 As requested by the Intergovernmental Water Board, I have developed a table comparing the water quality of the Westside water supplies as well as an article of explanation. Initial discussions requested that this information be published in the City of Tigard's monthly newsletter— Cityscape. September's edition was scheduled to be an 8-page run which provided enough space to include the water quality comparison article and table. Unfortunately, September's edition was cut to 4-pages causing many submissions to be reduced and/or cut. The water quality comparison was included in the latest edition of Cityscape however, only a portion of the article was published which referred readers to the website for more information. Attached is a copy of what was published in the Cityscape as well as the information as it is presented on the intemet. ..a -- KiRlaN man Now s � wwwid.tigard.or.us September 2003 _ _ Volume XXI No.9 Water quality Earlier this summer Tigard water customers received a copy of Tiga.rd's annual water quality report for drinking water. All drinking water systems are required to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA)standards. Last year,Tigard supplied over 2.4 billion gallons of water to our consumers. Tigard purchases more than 90 percent of its water supply from the City of Portland,Joint Water Commission and supplements the remaining water demand with city-owned groundwater wells. Visit the City of Tigard web site, _ www.ci.tigard.or.us,to view data about the quality of water Tigard receives from our suppliers. A number of citizens continued to express concerns regarding Wilsonville's use of the Willamette River.as a drinking water source. Wilsonville's data can also be viewed on the Tigard web site, www.ci.tigard.or.us. Cruisin' the Tigard Blast! Goal 5 Open House Parade - Pancake Feed - Music The Tualatin Basin Partners for September 13, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. Natural Places(partners)will hold an This year's event will be on Main Open House on Goal 5 Natural Re- Street as a one-day only spectacular! sources planning Wednesday,Sept'em The Tigard Blast 2003 parade will ber 10,from 3:30 to 7:30 P.M.at Beaverton Public Library.The Open be at 10 a.m.on Main Street.Mark Mason and Dave Anderson from 1190 House will provide an opportunity for Tigafci citizens to become familiar with KEX's Mark and Dave Show will be our the Partners'work and provide ideas Grand Marshals!There is no parade and comments to City,County and entry fee. Get your group together and Metro staff on natural resources plan- decorate a trailer, car or truck.It's not only fun,it's a great way to promote your Beaverton Public Library is our organization and show your located at 12375 SW 5th Street; community spirit. 503-644-2197. If you have any questions,please For more information,contact City direct them to Dave Owen,Parade Chairman at BugOut926@aol.com or of Tigard Associate Planner Julia.Hajduk at 503-639-4171, ext. 2442. call 503-866-1658. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL: MAYOR]IM GRIFFITH CRAIG DIRKSEN BRIAN MOORE SYDNEY SHERWOOD NICK WILSON Home I Search Name to the city ©,f Tigard. Oregon Search MEMEW City Hall Business Community Police Library Help 3 Sep 2003 Search for.: Quick Links Westside Water Supply-A Comparison in Water Quality Home Home>City Hall>Departments>WWote_r>Water Quality Program>Lono Term water Supp(Options>Westside Water Supply-A Comparison in Water Quality Bid Advertisements ry City Council Agenda Earlier this summer Tigard water customers received a copy of Tiigard's annual water quality report for drinking Ci sca g-Newsletter water. This report explained the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) standards for drinking water. All Construction in Tigard water systems are required to meet these standards when providing drinking water. Of the over 250 •_Development Code contaminants water systems are required to test for, very few, if any, were present in Tigard's water system. Of Events Calendar those contaminants detected, all were at levels below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by the EPA. Forms Last year,Tigard supplied over 2.4 billion gallons of water to our consumers. Since Tigard does not have ;,Job 0 oortunities ownership in a water supply capable of meeting our consumers' growing demands,Tigard purchases over 90% • New to Tigard? of its water supply from the City of Portland and Joint Water Commission.Tigard supplements the remaining . News water demand through the use of city-owned groundwater wells. Considering the amount of water Tigard Parks in Tigard purchases from other agencies, the following table was created in order to display the"quality" of water ;Tigard Municipal Code received by Tigard from our suppliers. (Please note that the analysis results provided are the"highest" amount - Volunteer Opportunities of contaminant detected.) Water Division In addition, a number of citizens have continued to express their concerns regarding Wilsonville's use of the Willamette River as a drinking water source. Wilsonville's data has been included to provide citizens with a way Online Services to compare Tiigard's drinking water quality to the quality of Wilsonville's water. GIS online Maps View the Water Quality Comparison Table Library Catalog-WILInet, utility Payments (Please note, only detected contaminants are included. For all three sources, the vast majority'of contaminants ..Vendor Registration were not detected. Examples of non-detected contaminants include Arsenic, Fluoride, Mercury,PCBs and Dioxins.) Printer Friendly version (IE 5.0+or Netscape 6.1+only) Questions,comments,suggestions?Fill out the feedback form. Legal DiscJefiner nvacy Policy trity of Tysr�1,,,1,31��SVy_H�I�.(}Ivd,_Tig�rd,Qi�7��3��4}_439-4,171 http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/city_hall/departments/water/water quality/ltwso/quality_comparison.asp 9/3/2003 P ��f }. .ir� .y"r� .,k-„ �vp�,,"aupq:�,�irr� �',.4 '�4�9,i�'�I'i�r��Z�,�� •s'y'C m,''�"5, ravq","y';,�C;Y°r`d:'h.'ws;Y,��'wY'"'u,',• ,. y!' 7 x7",•5"Sr.:*,..{Wi�Cd y 'r„ r 3'fi ""4+T,Fri d A,��� �i'q�` h` I, '. wnw«' +, ,� �+, y C+ 'S'' , YpY�,4{,} i y,� `$r,.Nu i rs.« "c';✓::r``. � � 9�. z �� � + :� a, �,�• ,�„�;.i i Jedbral(EPA)Drinking ater� andandards Jointi i Portland WilsonvilleWat Al ll i ntaminant Level) (Tualatin River iWatershed) d. Total Coliform Bacteria less than 59'0 of monthly samples Non Detect Detected in 0.35%of samples collected In February Non-Detect 90%of samples must have 20 or fewer bacterial 100%of samples had 20 or fewer bacterial colonies Non Detect Fecal Coliform Bacteria Non Detect per 100 milliliters of water Colonies er 100 milliliters ofwater --- ----- -- Giardia 99.9%of activation Non Detect 1 sample of 126 liters of water had 12 cysts Non elect Cryptosporidium - - - ----- basseded on-- n t ----- treatment technique Non-Detect One samle of 126 liters of water had 3 oocysts Non-Detec Barium 2.000 ppm Non-Detect Non-Detect _0.008 ppm Non-Detect Non-Detect Non-Detect Fluoride 4.000 ppm Nitrate+Nitrite i 10.000 ppm 1.000 ppm 0.050 ppm _ 0.300 ppm Sodium Unregulated 12.700 ppm 1600 ppm 7.210 ppm ------ Turbidity _ - -- - -- --- - ---- - - - - 0.50 NTLI -------- —�--- -- Not Applicable - - 2"200 NT - - Applicable 0.100 NTU Filtered Systems 0.070 NTU PP Not ica Unfiltered Systems 5.00 NTLI pp U Not Applicable- — — I Distribution System(Action Level=90th Percentile of Samples) 0.00 3 ppm - -- --- --- - Lead Action Level=0.015 ppm 0.003 ppm 0.017 ppm — Copper Action Level=1.300 ppm 0.200 ppm 0.500 ppm _ 0.260 ppm Source Waters Lead 0.015 ppm Non-Detect Non-Detect Non-Detect Copper 1.300 ppm, Non-Detect Non-Detect Non'-Detect rP otal Trihalomethanes 80.000 ppb 47.000 ppb 19.000 ppb 19:000 ppb otal Halecacetic Acids 60:000 ppb 53.000"ppb 29.000 ppb 6:000 ppb ty „ � � 15.000 Cillo 1.7120 pCil14 Non Detect 1:200 pCill4 Gross alpha particles P _ Gross beta particles 50.000 pCil14 12.200 pCl/l4 Non Detect _ 5.010 pCiA4 The above information was obtained from the State of Oregon's Department o HumanServices-Dunking Water Program at www.ohd:hr.state.or.us/dwa/index.cfm. rl WHAT,IS SEFNG DONE BY Tk1E,CITY Tigard would like to help you save TO KEEVCOST,DOWN? water and money! We offer free IMPORTANT NOTICE Since the Tigard Water Service'Area indoor and outdoor conservation does not owni a water source capable kits to our customers. of supplying enough water to meet For the Tigard Water Service current demands, Tigard continues We also provide a $50 rebate to Area, serving Tigard, King to .pursue ownership in a secure, customers who have purchased a City, Durham, and the ,_long-term water source. Currently, water efficient washing machine Tigard-is pursuing the option of be- after July 1, 2003. unincorporated area of Bull corning a,member of the Joint WA- 'ter Commission (JWC). Other rpern- For more information on Tigard's bens include theCities of Beaverton, water conservation Program, call Hi:ttsboro; Forest ,Grove, and the (503) 718-2599. Tualatin Valley.;Wter District._ The Water Rates are Changing „lWC draws_water from the Trask,_£t Effective October 1 , 2003 Tualatin Rivers Water'-shed. In addition, to butter address consumer`�` fldctuatin,9 demand, Tird ccintiou± s to utilize and ex- =pand the Aquifer Storage Recovery , A5,111--p0gr..am;, ASR i_s- a,_prucess, h, ch.;nvotv,es.;injocting water, into. an,agoifer for.storage and use at a later date. Because"Tigard's daily water demand` can double in the` summer season, the'City has found It necessary,,to explore=options for CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON handling-this surge in demand. 13125 SW Hall Blvd For more information visit our web Tigard, OR 97223 site at www.ciAtkArd.or .us/water. (503) 639-4171 WHY IS THE RATE INCREASE NEEDED RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE HOW DO TIGARD'S NEW RATES AT THIS TIME? Presently, the Tigard OCTOBER 1 , 2003 COMPARE WITH OTHER CIT Water Service Area purchases 90% of the water supply from wholesale Water usage charges, including IES? water agencies to meet demand. customer charges and booster charges These wholesale water agencies are are as follows: City Average Bi-Monthly Water Bill increasing their water rates. In an Wilsonville $61.64 effort to deal with the additional cost ' i urre t N : Beaverton $42.70 of purchasing water, the City of Tigard " Tualatin $39.40 has found it necessary to increase . Residential(RES) S1,31 51�18afSherwood $36.94 water rates. Aulti-family(MiJR) ' $1�b9 $ : 9" Tigard $33.62 Forest Grove $32.18 In addition, the Tigard Water Service Commercial(COM)'' $1.99 $2.11 Hillsboro $31.54 Area population continues to grow Industrial (IND) $t.65 $11.75 which in turn increases the demand for water. In order to continue provid- irrigation{SRR) $2.1z $z.25 PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE ing a reliable supply of safe, clean Booster.Charge $3.89 $4.12" The Tigard Water Service Area expects drinking water, the Tigard Water Customer Charge $4.40 $4.66• rates to continue to rise with the Service Area must maintain and up- (Billed at 100 cubic feet of usage) needs of its water distribution sys- date the water distribution system. *Per billing period tem. Tigard is constantly working to HOW MUCH IS THE RATE INCREASE? improve the quality and quantity of All related water charges will increase This means for the typical residential water by identifying capacity build- ing projects, implementing capital by 6%. customer that uses the annual system improvement projects, updating se- average of 16 ccf of water during a curity measures, maintaining preven- WHEN WILL THE RATE INCREASE TAKE two-month period, the water bill EFFECT? October 1, 2003 would increase from $31.76 for the tative programs, supporting conser- vation programs, and conducting wa- billing period to $33.62. The amount ter quality monitoring programs. WILL THERE BE ANOTHER RATE IN- of each customer's increase will vary CREASE? Yes, the October 1, 2003 depending upon the amount of water rate is part of a three-year rate plan used. that started in 2002. In 2004, there Questions? Call the City of Tigard will be a rate increase of 6%. This at (503) 639-4171 or visit the web three-year plan was developed to site at www.ci.tigard.or.us. minimize the impact of having one very large rate increase in one year. Sign-in Sheet for Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting September 10, 2003 Name(Please Print) Would you like to speak to the Board?