The URL can be used to link to this page

11/08/1995 - Packet File Copy i!;i�;:::.:::i� < �; ? ?i>�::'�i-); ? _ < S ' ? �? ` �...._..... ? i�`asi>r�_ _:. ' iS�� i��i<��'i:�i �`�.�:' ed ,:..... .... .. ;:: :. Wdd�iesda. l a e b 5 . y , . 2: Roll_ lI'aadhtrt�ctiQns 4 pproe;tetier 1' I95eetang l-untitte S Regtnalae . upPY Plait Ed Ryer 6,. Util� r;Bngrnces5 Baynery Reporttegnr x 8 Commss�aner sommeTits 9. Adlounment Elrecuti�e Se ron. The;IntexgipvernriYemhl Water Board may. go iritci Exi ua Sessxort under the prowl erns of: 0h} sc��:Ial�or . relahc r s, real properCy sact o s, and current and pending litigation: s es. Ail discussions withni*his session are confidential, therefore notlurig from'tMs meeting may kie:nisclosed by those<gresent lt,e gesea tataves of the news med al area 1 v ed` to attend this session, taut:must:not disclose any uLfarlriatzon discussed during:this . sessaon gatLy.\iwh1T1&ritg.agn' ........ ...... .. .. ` INTERG VERNM * ::::: ::;`*� ©..BOT t� w' Tilh,.: TR WiJ!Ml ::IM� 1�1a: '.: >'i;> ;:.:: :' ;''>; OCTOBE 1 ,. '199 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Scheiderich, John Budihas, Beverly Froude, Paul Hunt and Peggy Manning STAFF PRESENT: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller and Kathy Kaatz VISITORS PRESENT: Jack Polans, Eric Rothstein (CH2M Hill) and Robert Tomlinson (CH2M Hill) 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:34 p.m. 2. Roll Call Roll call was taken and all members were present as noted above. 3. Visitor Comments Jack Polans commented on the IWB Minutes of August 16, 1995 on page 1, number 3 (Visitors Comments) and stated that a) Mr. Leland's referral to a misunderstanding about population in effect made the City of Tigard in violation and, b) City Manager of Lake Oswego asked Mr. Polans to mail him the Oregonian article and did verify with the City of Lake Oswego, information regarding the lead content of their water and after telephoning the City of Lake Oswego was told by the City Manager that their people knew of the report of- the minor violation. Mr. Polans continued by commenting on the need for the media, newspapers and writers to get public input, which is a democracy in action and therefore Mr. Polans stated he requests that same consideration from government agencies. Mr. Polans continued by stating c) in the May 17, 1995 meeting of the IWB at 5:30 p.m., Chairman Scheiderich promised to hear Mr. Polans questions on item 5 (Water Rate Study Presentation) and then refused his questions. Mr. Polans then discussed EES's presentation on the Water Rate Study and stated he will discuss at a later date. Chair Scheiderich stated that the State law allows the public attendance at meetings, which is not the same as public input and this is what representative democracy is about. Mr. Scheiderich continued by saying that Mr. Polans has a representative on the Board (Mr. Budihas) and he can meet with him. 4. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Hunt to approve the minutes of the August 16, 1995 meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board, This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manning and passed unanimously. 5. Water Rate Study Contract - Wayne Lowry/CH2M Hill Mr. Lowry stated that back in May of 1995 this Board heard presentations from three consultants regarding the Water Rate Study and the Board made a recommendation to select CH2M Hill (Debra Davis and David Hasson). In June of 1995 the City Council approved this recommendation through the purchasing process and established a Contract with CH2M Hill. In August of 1995 both Debra Davis and David Hasson departed the firm of CH2M Hill within a few weeks of each other. It was discussed that Mr. Lowry learned of their departure from the firm by a phone call placed to CH2M Hill. In September of 1995 the City Manager went to City Council with this information and they looked to EES who was the second choice, although their initial proposal was considerable higher. EES did reduce their initial bid price to $24,590 although Council felt that was still enough higher that they should talk with CH2M Hill and see if their replacement staff would meet the needs of our study. Mr. Lowry stated that Mr. Rothstein and Mr. Tomlinson were asked to attend this meeting tonight to discuss their qualifications and background and the firms commitment to this study. CH2M Hill has stated that they are committed to complete the study under the original proposal with basically the same timeline. Mr. Lowry did state that no serious work has been completed on this study at this time. Mr. Lowry stated that the Board can proceed with CH2M Hill or can make another recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rothstein and Mr. Tomlinson distributed information regarding their qualifications and background. Mr. Rothstein stated that he appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Board at this time. Commissioner Manning question why CH2M Hill did not notify the City of the departure of the consultants? Mr. Rothstein stated that the timing of Mr. Lowry's call was approximately at the time that David Hasson had given his notice to CH2M Hill. Mr. Rothstein continued by addressing his background and qualifications as well as re-introducing the firm of CH2M Hill. IWB Meeting Minutes - October 11, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Rothstein stated that he would be the Project Manager with Mr. Tomlinson as one of the Project Economist assigned to the project and even though this would be a substantial change, the scope of work would continued as outlined in the original proposal. Mr. Rothstein stated that the study objectives would remain the same which includes: • Adequate revenue to meet system costs; • Equitable rates; • Conservation-oriented rate structure; • Fairness between current and future users; • Consistency with Oregon SDC laws; • Affordable rates and charges; and • Public acceptance. Mr. Rothstein stated that CH2M Hill would anticipate retaining the project schedule and they have currently been reviewing some of the basic system data and have begun the rate model development, at this point. Chairperson Scheiderich questioned the public acceptance aspect and generally was fairness perceived? Mr. Rothstein stated the there is always some element of controversy, although he is confident that during the preparation and distribution there is creation of understanding. Mr. Rothstein continued to state that there would be no further changes unless the City was notified. Commissioner Budihas questioned the time element with this notification? Mr. Rothstein stated it was not clear to him why the delay in notification since he was not in the office at the time of Mr. Hasson announcement. Mr. Lowry stated that he had placed a call to CH2M Hill on the day that Mr. Hasson had returned from vacation and had made the announcement to CH2M Hill that he was leaving the firm, although the City was never formally notified when Ms. Douglas left the firm. Mr. Budihas continued and asked what work had been completed to date? Mr. Lowry stated that at that point the work had stopped until this issue was resolved and brought back before this Board. Mr. Lowry continued by saying that at this point the highest priority was not to get the study completed but would rather have a higher quality study and have the work completed by mid January. Commissioner Manning stated that the Board was presented with the modeling assumptions and questioned whether they would weigh all assumptions and present all alternatives considered? Mr. Rothstein stated that they can provide those alternatives, but was not sure at what point would be the best preliminary results. IWB Meeting Minutes - October 11, 1995 Page 3 With no further discussion, Chairperson Scheiderich asked if there was a motion with a recommendation to City Council on proceeding with this project? Commissioner Hunt made a motion to continue the project with CH2M Hill which was seconded by Commissioner Manning. A voice vote was taken and passed three to two (Hunt, Manning and Scheiderich for and Budihas and Froude against). 6. Facility Use Survey - Randy Volk Mr. Wegner stated that the facility use requested from the Board has become more involved than anticipated. Mr. Wegner distributed a memo from Mike Miller with the preliminary information that has been gathered. Mr. Scheiderich stated that these results would also be beneficial to the City of Tigard. Mr. Wegner continued by discussing the contract with the School District for use at the Canterbury site, the City of Tigard use of Canterbury for storage, as well as the City of Durham's use of the Canterbury site for storage of duplicate records. Mr. Wegner also stated that the City of Tigard would be replacing the carpet in the Auditorium as of November 6, 1995. There was a brief discussion held on the use of this facility for the homeless shelter. Commissioner Hunt stated that last year this facility was used as a severe weather shelter but this year it has been proposed that it be used on a daily basis. The Board further discussed the use of this building for community purposes. Items discussed included limiting the food allowed within the building and the need to charge users to cover damages or periodic replacement of carpeting. Chairperson Scheiderich questioned when the Board could expect a full report? Mr. Wegner stated that a full report would be made available at the next meeting. 7. Director's Report - Ed Wegner Mr. Wegner distributed an information packet to the Board which included the water monthly report for August. Commissioner Hunt questioned the tour of the water facilities during the month of September? Mr. Wegner stated that the staff had been very busy, but would attempt to schedule that in the near future and will notify the Board. 8. Commissioner's Comments There were no further comments by the Board. IWB Meeting Minutes - October 11, 1995 Page 4 9. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Manning to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Hunt which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. kathy\iwb\10-11 mtg.iwb IWB Meeting Minutes - October 11, 1995 Page 5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner DATE: November 2, 1995 SUBJECT: Regional Water Supply Plan At the November 8 meeting of the IWB, we will need to discuss in some detail the Board's thoughts, comments and recommendations on the Preliminary Draft of the Regional Water Supply Plan. It is my intention to review with the Tigard City Council your comments, as well as staff comments on November 21 and then on December 12 the Council will make a recommendation to forward to the Steering Committee on the Preliminary Plan. I am enclosing some additional information on the Regional Plan that you may want to review prior to the November 8 meeting to incorporate into your comments. • Responses to June 1995 Newsletter; • Fall Newsletter clip and mail response; • Key public workshop comments (September, 1995) ; • Washington County Plan Public Workshop (September 26, 1995) , and; 0 IWB Meeting October 11, 1995 comments. Also enclosed is the four questions we should be addressing. We have provided an abundant amount of information on the Regional Water Supply Plan, maybe too much, but we wanted everyone to have the necessary information to make informed comments and recommendations. If we can provide you with other information, please contact Kathy or myself. i 9 i � i 3 1 NEW gix list .001.... .. ........... .....I ............................... REGIONAL anti :. ....... u st.: .:::.::::: . :. :... ......:............ THIS PLAN WAS FINANCED AND MANAGED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTICIPANTS: City of Beaverton Canby Utility Board Clackamas River Water Damascus Water District City of Fairview City of Gladstone City of Gresham City of Hillsboro Utilities Commission City of Forest Grove City of Lake Oswego Metro City of Milwaukee Mt. Scott Water District Oak Lodge Water District City of Portland Raleigh Water District Rockwood Water City of Sandy City of Sherwood South Fork Water Board: City of Oregon City/City of West Linn Tigard Water District City of Troutdale City of Tualatin Tualatin Valley Water District West Slope Water District City of Wilsonville City of Wood Village CONSULTANT TEAM: Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. Montgomery Watson Barney & Worth Murray, Smith & Associates Squier Associates Parametrix, Inc. McArthur & Associates Pete Swartz EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HISTORY OF THE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING EFFORT The Portland, Oregon, metropolitan region is located on the lower Columbia River, where the Willamette River joins the Columbia. Its urban area is made up of 3 counties and 24 cities with a combined 1990 population of 1,138,000. This population is growing. The region is served by a number of different surface water and groundwater sources. The water supply system operated by the City of Portland currently supplies about 750,000 people; the rest are served by a variety of sources, most notably the Clackamas River, the Trask River/Tualatin River system, and groundwater. In 1989, a number of the region's water providers convened to discuss future water supply issues. It was agreed that the region was going to face future supply shortfalls given current supplies, use patterns, and growth projections. A group called the Regional Providers Advisory Group (RPAG) was formed. It met on a monthly basis and had about 35 members. The RPAG process has evolved into a regional water supply planning effort of unprecedented scope. Phase 1 of this effort, which was completed in 1992, found that: ■ Water demands would increase significantly throughout the region; ■ Existing supplies would not meet all of these demands; ■ Conservation could play an important role in meeting regional water needs; and ■ New sources of water and efficient transmission systems offered the potential to meet these increasing needs. The Phase 1 "Water Source Options Study" evaluated 29 different water supply options that could potentially be developed to serve the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area's water needs and ranked these sources against a predetermined set of criteria. The evaluation concluded that six supply source options were worthy of additional analysis and should be carried forward to a second phase Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP). The six source options are: ES-1 ■ A third dam in the Bull Run Watershed; ■ Additional diversion and treatment capacity on the Clackamas River; ■ Diversion and treatment capacity on the Willamette River; ■ Diversion and treatment capacity on the Columbia River; ■ Raising the height of Barney Dam on the Trask River, thereby increasing the storage capacity of Barney Reservoir; and ■ Aquifer Storage and Recovery, involving the use of one or more of the region's surface water sources. Since the completion of Phase 1, the Joint Water Commission and the Tualatin Valley Water District have continued to pursue the Barney Reservoir options and have initiated construction on that project. The RWSP therefore focuses on the remaining five supply options. The RWSP also considers water conservation as a key resource option. This document reports on the results of the RWSP. Phase 2 was funded and managed by a group of 27 water providers in the metropolitan region.2 In 1994, the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) became the 28th participant. The project used the techniques of Integrated Resource Planning and was conducted by a team of consultants led by the firm of Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. Following is a list of the project participants: City of Beaverton* City of Portland Canby Utilities Board Raleigh Water District Clackamas Water District** Rockwood Water PUD City of Gladstone City of Sandy Clairmont Water District** City of Sherwood Damascus Water District South Fork Water Board City of Fairview City of Tigard City of Gresham City of Troutdale City of Hillsboro Utilities Commission* City of Tualatin 'An Environmental Impact Statement was being developed for this project before Phase 2 began. 'The City of Vancouver and Clark County, Washington chose not to participate in Phase 2. The Phase 2 participants are all Oregon jurisdictions. ES-2 City of Forest Grove* Tualatin Valley Water District* City of Lake Oswego West Slope Water District City of Milwaukie City of Wilsonville Mt. Scott Water District City of Wood Village Oak Lodge Water District Metropolitan Service District (Metro) *Denotes members of the Joint Water Commission. **The Clackamas and Clairmont Water Districts have recently merged to form Clackamas River Water. SCOPE OF THE PHASE 2 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN The scope of the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) is comprehensive. It includes the following major elements: (1) An active and ongoing public information and involvement program. (2) Development of policy objectives that reflect the important regional values that this plan must attempt to meet. (3) Development of a logical and defensible demand forecast for the region. (4) Evaluation of five potential supply sources. (5) Identification and evaluation of possible transmission system improvements and expansions. (6) Identification and evaluation of a broad range of voluntary and mandatory demand management and conservation options available to the region. (7) Development and evaluation of integrated resource strategies based on the information developed in the foregoing elements. A sophisticated modeling tool was developed to assist this process. (8) Identification of short-term and long-term actions that the region must undertake to ensure that the needs of the regional water providers and ES-3 . e their customers are met throughout the planning period, which runs through the year 2050. This report contains the preliminary results of the RWSP. The plan is "preliminary" at this point because of the critical need for public feedback over the next several months on the report contents. Based on that input, the plan will be finalized in early 1996. Chapters of the preliminary plan document provide descriptions of all RWSP elements. For most of these, more detailed documentation has been prepared over the course of the project in the form of interim reports or technical memoranda. These are listed in Appendix A of the plan. Arrangements to review these documents may be made through participating water providers. THE REGION'S NEED FOR NEW RESOURCES A key conclusion of the RWSP is that, with current resources and facilities supplemented by the resource additions to which the region's providers have already committed, the earliest point at which the region will need major new supply additions will be around the year 2017. This point is illustrated in Figure ES-1, which shows a simple comparison between available supplies and peak-day demands under extreme weather conditions, assuming no utility-sponsored conservation programs. An active conservation effort by providers can put off this need until at least the early-to-mid 2020s. This does not imply that there is no work to be done until that time. There is; in fact, much to be done in the near-term to ensure that the region meets the needs of its water customers. Some of these near-term actions include the timely completion of resource additions to which the regional providers have committed, development of necessary transmission and interconnection facilities to meet the needs of all providers, conservation program planning and implementation, and design of a suitable institutional and financial structure to govern the delivery of water service in the region. ES-4 Figure ES-1 Comparison of Regional Peals-Day Demand To Existing and Committed Supply Portland Metropolitan Region 1992--2050: All Customer Classes Millions of Gallons per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.-. . . . . . . . . 650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 - 500- 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 500 _ e 450 . . . . . . _ . . - tea. __ ---. -" '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 . . . . . . . . . . . ----------------= ------ .-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Forecast Scenarios High Growth $ Baseline ----- Low Growth '+' Supply 01 AT JG95 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING PROCESS Public information and involvement (PI&I) has been a cornerstone of the RWSP. Water provider participants demonstrated their commitment to PI&I by making it a key element of the project's scope, Substantial fiscal and staff resources have been dedicated to ensuring that the values of the citizenry are understood and heard. From its inception, the RWSP was designed to obtain input from various audiences through a mix of activities. Some activities targeted the general regional population, while others involved those with specific interests. Through this process, providers also attempted to promote consensus-building concerning the process and findings of the Plan. Vehicles used to obtain that input and inform the public about the project have included: ■ A broad range of written materials made available to the public; ■ A variety of workshops, roundtable discussions, and public forums; ■ Over 80 interviews of key stakeholders in the region; ■ A detailed public opinion research study; ■ A survey to assess the value that customers place on water supply reliability; ■ More than 100 presentations to interested agencies, organizations, and citizens; ■ Various newsletters, informational materials, and bill inserts; ■ An Environmental Task Force of environmental organization representatives and government officials to review the environmental analysis; ■ Exhibits at county fairs in Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties; ■ Two focus groups with residential water customers; ES-6 ■ A slide show on the RWSP; and ■ A 15 minute RWSP video. Thus, there has been, throughout the planning process, a great deal of information exchanged between project participants and interested citizens, organizations, and decision makers. Over 300 persons receive regular notification of committee meetings and documentation of ensuing discussions. Approximately 3,300 citizens receive updates and invitations to submit feedback through newsletters and other information pieces related to the project. Many customers have received bill inserts on the RWSP process. In turn, project participants have received input from over 3,200 people through surveys and public workshops or briefings. Participating providers made it a priority to listen to the public. Several key public values and priorities have emerged from the PI&I effort. The issues that people most care about include: ■ Cost ■ Equity ■ Water quality ■ Environmental protection ■ System reliability ■ Efficient water use ■ Implications of growth Not surprisingly, these key issues reflect the diverse interests of the region's citizenry. The goal of the public involvement process has been to capture the range of interests and concerns held throughout the region. REGIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVES The PI&I efforts provided key input to the development of a set of regional policy objectives developed specifically for the RWSP. The policy objectives, along with associated evaluation criteria, provide a framework to design and evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of alternative resource configurations. The region's water providers have not attempted to prioritize the policy objectives. This is consistent with not providing a single "best" resource plan. Rather, the plan presents several options that emphasize different sets of objectives. The plan makes ES-7 tradeoffs among these options clear. The region must now make choices among these . alternatives. Some of the policy objectives complement each other, while others compete or conflict. The complexity of the water supply planning and decision-making process is appropriately reflected in the broad range of policy objectives identified. The policy objectives include: Efficient Use of Water ■ Maximize the efficient use of water resources, taking into account the potential for conservation, availability of supplies, practicality, and relative cost-effectiveness of the options. ■ Make the best use of available supplies before developing new ones. Water Supply Reliability ■ Minimize the frequency of water shortages of any magnitude and duration. ■ Ensure that the duration and magnitude of shortages can be managed (e.g., through the operation of raw water storage facilities or through access to alternative sources of water). Water Quality ■ Meet or exceed all current federal and state water quality standards for finished water. ■ Utilize sources with the highest raw water quality. N Maximize the ability to protect water quality in the future, including using watershed-protection based approaches. ■ Maximize the ability to deal with aesthetic factors, such as taste, color, hardness, and odor. ES-8 Impacts of Catastrophic Events ■ Minimize the magnitude, frequency, and duration of service interruptions due to natural or human-caused catastrophes, such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, floods, spills, fires, sabotage, etc. Economic Costs ■ Minimize the economic impact of capital and operating costs of new water resources on customers. ■ Assure the ability to relate rate impacts associated with new water resources to benefits gained within the region on an equitable basis over time. Environmental Impacts ■ Minimize the impact of water resource development on the natural and human environments. Growth ■ Be consistent with Metro's regional growth strategy and local land-use plans. Flexibility to Deal with Future Uncertainty ■ Maximize the ability to anticipate and respond to unforeseen future events or changes in forecasted trends. Ease of Implementation ■ Maximize the ability to address local, state, and federal legislative and regulatory requirements in a timely manner. ES-9 Operational Flexibility . ■ Maximize operational flexibility to best meet the needs of the region, including the ability to move water around the region and to rely on backup sources as necessary. Comparisons and tradeoffs among alternatives are facilitated through a set of measurable evaluation criteria. Each policy objective is associated with one or more evaluation criteria. Each alternative resource strategy is evaluated against these criteria. FUTURE WATER DEMANDS IN THE REGION A well-developed and defensible water demand forecast is critical to the RWSP. The demand forecast underlies the entire planning effort. The RWSP demand forecast was a complex undertaking that projected annual, seasonal, monthly, and peak-day demands for the region as a whole and for each of the three counties. These projections are based on demographic and employment forecasts developed as part of Metro's Region 2040 project. RWSP staff and consultants have coordinated closely with Metro staff throughout the process to ensure consistency. Tables ES-1 through ES-3 summarize the forecasting results for annual average, summer average, and peak-day demands respectively. The 1992 base demands are shown, as are the high, medium, and low demand forecasts for the year 2050, the last year of the planning period. Average annual growth rates over the planning period are also shown. These demands reflect naturally-occurring conservation, which results from legal, regulatory, and market forces which tend to increase water efficiency over time regardless of any utility conservation programs. ES-10 Table ES-1 ANNUAL AVERAGE WATER DEMAND FORECAST (MGD) AND AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1992 2050: High 2050: Medium 2050: Low Region 172 310 (2.1%) 264 (l.5%) 211 (0.7%) Multnomah County 97 144 (l.4%) 126 (0.9%) 106 (0.3%) Clackamas County 33 67 (2.6%) 56 (1.9%) 43 (0.9%) Washington County 42 99 (3.1%) 82 (2.4% 62 (1.4%) Table ES-2 PEAK SEASON WATER DEMAND FORECAST (MGD) AND AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1992 2050: High 2050: Medium 1 2050: Low Region 220 417 (2.3%) 350 (1.7%) 275 (0.8%) Multnomah County 123 190 (l.6%) 165 (l.1%) 136 (0.4%) Clackamas County 41 90 (2.8%) 74 (2.1%) 56 (l.1%) Washington County 56 137 (3.2%) 111 (2.5%) 84 (1.5%) Table ES-3 PEAK DAY WATER DEMAND FORECAST (MGD) AND AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1992 2050: High 2050: Medium 2050: Low Region 365 780 (2.7%) 667 (2.2%) 535 (l.4%) Multnomah County 183 305 (1.8%) 269 (l.4%) 227 (0.8%) Clackamas County 87 221 (3.4%) 185 (2.7%) 144 (1.8%) Washington County 96-7 255 (3.6%) 213 (2.9%) 164 (1.9%) ES-11 CURRENT AND COMMITTED RESOURCES Existing water systems in the region have an estimated usable storage capacity of 11.4 billion gallons and a delivery capacity of 413.8 million gallons per day (mgd). Current regional peak-day demand, even under weather conditions that approach the hottest and driest that the region has experienced over a 65-year historical period of record, is about 370 mgd. Despite this apparent excess capacity, some individual providers within the region do face more immediate shortfalls due to transmission and distribution system constraints. Existing water sources and facilities for the region include: ■ The Bull Run watershed, with two dams that impound 10.2 billion gallons of usable storage. About 750,000 residents of the region rely on the Bull Run as their primary supply. ■ The Clackamas River, on which regional providers have developed 66 mgd of intake and treatment capacity. The Clackamas is currently the primary source of water to 175,000 residents. ■ The Trask/Tualatin water system, which includes the 1.3 billion gallon Barney Reservoir on the Trask River, a conduit from the reservoir to the Tualatin River, and 43.5 mgd of intake and treatment capacity on the Tualatin. In addition, in most years, the region has access to 4.2 billion gallons from Hagg Lake, which is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and located on Scoggins Creek. This system supplies water to over 120,000 residents in the western part of the region. ■ The Columbia Southshore Wellfield, which was developed in the 1980s as an emergency backup and peaking supply source. Since 1986, the ability to use the wellfield has been limited to prevent migration of contamination plumes. As a result, the current usable delivery capacity of the wellfield is assumed to be 35 mgd. The City of Portland is working closely with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and with the responsible parties to implement a remediation program that restores the wells to their full capacity of up to 90 mgd. ■ Local sources, which are used by a number of smaller communities in the region for base use or peaking purposes. These are largely ES-12 groundwater sources scattered throughout the region and provide nearly 60 mgd of capacity. ■ Transmission lines, which range from 4-inch diameter pipes in small districts to the 66-inch diameter Bull Run Conduit No. 4. In addition to maintaining existing water supply sources and transmission facilities, the region's water providers are committed to completing several facility additions, expansions and improvements over the next two to ten years. The projects will provide another 80 mgd of delivery capacity and 5.2 Billion gallons of storage. These additions are not being evaluated as part of the Regional Water Supply Plan. Rather, the RWSP assumes these projects will be completed, and includes them in the plan's baseline resource assumptions or "base case". Resources to which regional providers have committed, but which are not yet operational, include: ■ The Barney Reservoir expansion, which will increase the water storage capacity of Barney Reservoir from 1.3 billion gallons to 6.5 billion gallons. This project is expected to be completed by 1998. In addition, improvements to the Joint Water Commission's intake and treatment facilities on the Tualatin River and addition of a new transmission line are expected to increase delivery capacity by 20 mgd to 63.5 mgd by 1997. ■ Additional Clackamas River capacity beyond the 66 mgd that already exists. Several Clackamas providers have committed to developing a total of 22.5 mgd of additional capacity. This would bring the total "base case" capacity on the Clackamas to 88.5 mgd. ■ Columbia South Shore Wellfield enhancements, which the RWSP assumes will increase the current 35 mgd of capacity to 72 mgd by 2005. Table ES-4 summarizes the existing and committed resources being assumed in the RWSP "base case." As discussed earlier, these committed resources enable the region to defer the need for further resources or facilities until at least the year 201.7. Without these committed additions, needs can occur as early as 2004. ES-13 Table ES-4 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN EXISTING AND COMMITTED SUPPLY SOURCES Existing ' Additional Committed Existing and Committed Usable Storage Usable Storage Usable Storage Delivery Capacity Capacity Delivery Capacity Capacity Delivery Capacity Capacity Source (mgd) (mg) (mgd) (mg) (mgd) (mg) Bull Run Res 1,2 210 10,200 210 10,200 Clackamas CRW 30 30 SFWB 20 10 30 Lake Oswego 16 4 20 Oak Lodge 8.5 8.5 Subtotal 66 22.5 88.5 Trask/Tualatin 43.5 1,153 20 5,214 63.5 6,367 Southshore WellBeld 35 37 72 Local Sources South 28.4 28.4 West 12.8 12.8 East 18.1 18.1 Subtotal 59.3 59.3 Total 413.8 11,353 79.5 5,214 493.3 16,567 4 _ ANALYSIS OF SOURCE OPTIONS For each source option, possible facility locations were screened to identify representative sites, which the RWSP defines as: Potential facility locations that merit detailed analysis because they offer the highest likelihood of successful permitting and potential development based on preliminary analyses of technical, land use, water quality, environmental, cost, and other relevant factors. Identified representative sites are as follows: ■ Bull Run Dam 3: Bull Run River canyon just downstream of Log Creek and about one-half mile downstream of the confluence of Blazed Alder Creek and the Bull Run River. ■ Clackamas River: A consolidated facility adjacent to the current Clackamas River Water site.' ■ Willamette River: Just upstream (west) of the existing railroad bridge in Wilsonville on the north side of the river on property currently owned by Oregon Pacific which is currently used for sand and gravel operations. ■ Columbia River: Just below the Sandy's mouth, on a site currently used for gravel mining and storage. ■ Aquifer Storage & Recovery: Two sites, one in the Powell Valley area southeast of Gresham and the other in the Cooper-Bull Mountain area about four miles to.the southwest of the City of Beaverton in Washington County. Extensive analyses of each option were then performed. Areas, analyzed include: ■ Water Availability and Water Rights ■ Raw Water Quality and Treatment Requirements ■ Environmental Impacts ■ Vulnerability to Catastrophic Events 'Several configurations were considered that use this consolidated facility instead of or in conjunction with the various existing or planned Clackamas River facilities. ES-15 ■ Costs ■ Ease of Implementation One of the key conclusions is that all of the surface sources can readily be treated to meet or surpass all safe drinking water standards. These analyses formed the basis of ratings of each option against key evaluation criteria and provided crucial information to the development and assessment of alternative resource strategies. Table ES-5 summarizes the ratings of the source options. ANALYSIS OF TRANSMISSION OPTIONS In addition to the source options, transmission is critical to efficiently meeting the region's needs. The region's transmission systems include several components, including: ■ Pipelines that move treated water from the treatment plant to the regional storage reservoirs; ■ The regional reservoirs themselves; ■ Major lines linking sources to demands in other parts of the region; ■ Major lines designed to serve demands within a portion of the region; and ■ Local "spokes" to serve the needs of individual providers. Representative regional reservoir sites for the surface source options are as follows: ■ Bull Run and Columbia sources: Existing Powell Butte reservoir site. ■ Clackamas source: Forsythe Road site near the unincorporated community of Outlook in Clackamas County. Willamette source: Cooper Mountain site in unincorporated Washington County west of Beaverton. ES-16 Nine major representative transmission corridors were identified, as follows: ■ Lusted Hill/Powell Butte ■ Columbia River/Powell Butte ■ Powell Butte/Clackamas River ■ Powell Butte/Beaverton ■ Clackamas/Tualatin ■ Clackamas/Forsythe Road ■ Willamette/Tualatin ■ Tualatin/Beaverton ■ Cooper Mountain/Beaverton Corridor alignments were chosen for each of these based on preliminary land use, environmental, and geotechnical analyses. Based on specified design criteria, cost functions were then generated for each corridor. These cost functions also included base cost estimates for the local "spokes" between the corridor and the appropriate local providers. The final components of the transmission system are the "spokes" that deliver water to the local providers from one of the major transmission lines. For each provider., these spokes were sized to meet the projected 2050 demand deficit based on forecasted high peak-day demands. As discussed below, a key plan implementation issue for the region is the specific local interconnections that are needed to ensure that provider needs are met in the near-term as well as the long-term. The region should attempt to configure these local transmission additions to be consistent with the adopted long-term regional resource strategy. ES-17 Table ES-5 RATINGS OF SOURCE OPTIONS Raw Vulnerability to Ease of Natural Human Water Water Watershed Catastrophic Implemen- Source Option Environment Environment Quality Aesthetics Protection Events tation Bull Run Dam 3 4.9 31.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 15 4.5 Columbia 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.5 5.0 3.3 3.5 Willamette 1.0 2.5 2.2 2.0 4.0 2.5 4:0 Clackamas (>50 mgd) 2.4 1.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 Clackamas (s 50 mgd) 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 ASR -T 1.5 -F 2.2 3.0 3.0 N/A* 2.0 3.0 Note: Ratings range from 1 to 5; lower scores are preferred. * This issue was not directly addressed in the RWSP. It is assumed that rigorous wellhead protection programs will be required for any ASR site. It is critical that the development of regional, subregional, and local transmission options meets local needs over the entire planning period in a manner consistent with the region's anticipated ultimate resource configuration. At times, there will be some friction between short-term local needs and long-term regional needs. The manner in which this friction is resolved must recognize that a regional plan that cannot flexibly meet the ongoing needs of the participant providers will not retain the critical support of those providers. These needs should, however, be met in the context of the strategic direction the region has chosen. ANALYSIS OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS A basic premise of the RWSP is that water conservation is a resource that can play a key role in meeting future water needs and that this resource must be carefully considered and subjected to the same level of analysis as are supply sources. A comprehensive framework was used to examine water conservation to assure that all viable conservation technologies and management practices are considered. The framework began by specifying a large universe of potential conservation measures. These measures were then subjected to a qualitative screen to narrow the focus to those that had potential value to the region. For those measures that passed the qualitative screen, technology profiles were developed that described each measure's key technical and economic characteristics. The profiles formed the basis of an economic screen of the remaining measures. The next step was to combine measures passing both screens into effective conservation program concepts. A conservation program is a set of conservation measures bundled for delivery to a defined target market of customers. The results of this step are presented in Table ES-6, in which the program concepts are divided into three levels in increasing order of "aggressiveness." Detailed descriptions were developed for each of 24 program concepts. In addition, estimates were made of the further savings that could be achieved through conservation pricing programs beyond those already in place in the region. The RWSP also included a preliminary analysis of opportunities for increasing water reuse and recycling, and for the direct use of stormwater. Options evaluated include: ■ Stormwater capture ■ Cisterns ■ Gray water systems ES-19 ■ Recycling of 'industrial cooling water ■ Reuse of treated wastewater effluent DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE STRATEGIES The final product of the RWSP is a set of resource strategies that best meet the region's needs as expressed through the policy objectives. There are many possible strategies that reflect the tradeoffs the region must make among the policy objectives. In light of the importance of future uncertainties, it is useful to distinguish between a resource sequence and a resource strategy. ■ A resource sequence is a linear progression of resource and transmission additions over the planning period. Note that a resource sequence does not provide flexibility for the region. It is a single development path that does not respond to changing future conditions. A resource strategy is a multi-branched "tree" of sequences that defines actions that should be taken under various sets of uncertainty outcomes. It is a "road map" of recommended actions under a wide range of future conditions, and provides a series of points at which the region can respond to new information about then-current conditions. ES-20 Table ES-6 REGIONAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM CONCEPTS Commercial, Industrial, Commercial, Industrial, Residential Indoor Residential Outdoor Institutional Indoor Institutional Outdoor Level 1 Public education and Public education and Commercial plumbing and CI&I outdoor education and awareness awareness appliances education awareness Customer landscaping HVAC workshops C&I watering practices workshops workshops Trade ally landscaping Trade ally landscaping workshops—res.portion workshops—C&I portion Level Indoor audit (combined with Outdoor audits Commercial'indoor audit CI&I outdoor audits outdoor) Incentives for new efficient HVAC financial incentives Large landscape audits Appliance incentives and landscaping and irrigations equipment tagging systems Industrial process technical Incentives for new efficient assistance and incentives landscaping and irrigation systems Level3 Ultra low-flush toilet rebate Landscaping ordinance Ultra low-flush toilet direct Landscaping ordinance installation and incentives Incentives for early retirement of single-pass cooling Water Supply Reliability One of the fundamental goals of the RWSP is to address the issue of water supply reliability. This goal is embodied in the policy objective of "minitniz(ing) the frequency of water shortages of any magnitude and duration." In many ways, supply reliability is basic to the RWSP, as concern about future unreliability is the key reason the region's providers joined to develop the plan. The region must ultimately choose a desired level of future reliability, just as it must make choices about other policy objectives. Tradeoffs occur between increased reliability levels and other important objectives, such as minimizing costs and environmental impacts. Policymakers must understand the consequences of different reliability levels to make informed decisions. To accomplish this, resource sequences and strategies were defined for each of three reliability levels. The definition of these reliability levels was guided by the key finding that, given existing and committed resources, the Portland region will have sufficient total water supply volumes to avoid all volume=related shortages for the entire planning period (i.e. through 2050), even under high demand and low flow conditions. However, in the absence of further resource and facility additions, the region,will face shortages in . delivery capacity on high-demand days. Since the region must concern itself with shortages in delivery capacity that are driven by peak demands, the alternative reliability levels should be defined accordingly. Thus, the key distinctions in reliability relate to the level and frequency of shortages during peaking events. A system that achieves Level 1 reliability would be perfectly reliable. No shortages would be experienced even under the worst historical weather conditions. ■ A system that achieves Level 2 reliability would allow for no more than a 10% peak day shortage for any of the three counties under the worst historical weather conditions. ■ A system that achieves Level 3 reliability would allow for no more than a 20% peak day shortage for any of the three counties under the worst historical weather conditions. ES-22 Resource Sequences That Achieve Level 1 Reliability There are many ways for the region to add resources and facilities to ensure that future shortages do not occur. The RWSP proposes five approaches to meeting the region's needs and achieving this highest possible level of reliability. Each of these five sequences was designed to emphasize different policy objectives or combinations of objectives. Table ES-7 provides a guide to the key policy objectives addressed by each sequence. The sequences themselves are illustrated in Figure ES-2. Each of these sequences assumes high demands. These resource sequences were evaluated against the evaluation criteria. Table ES-8 shows the results of the key assessments. Table ES-7 KEY POLICY OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED BY LEVEL 1 RESOURCE SEQUENCES Natural Water Use Raw Water Catastrophic Sequence Environment 'Efficiency Quality Costs Events 1.1 ✓ ✓ 1.2 ✓ ✓ 1.3 ✓ ✓ ✓ 1.4 ✓ Of 1.5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ES-23 Table ES-8 PERFORMANCE OF LEVEL 1 RESOURCE SEQUENCES AGAINST KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA Cost Water Quality Catastrophic Events Expected Seasonal Efficiency: % Unserved Demand in Present Present Conservation Worst Year Without: Value Value Savings for 2nd No. of Ease of Societal ($ Utility Planning Natural Raw Water Watershed Largest New Implemen- Sequence millions) ($millions) Period Environment* Quality*,t Protection* Bull Run Source Sources tation* 1.1 Natural 996.6 962.9 10.57% 1 2.2 2.1 23% 1.5% 1 2.5 Environment/ Efficiency 1.2 Raw Water 722.2 802.6 5.04% 4.9 1.2 1.3 60% 0.7% 0 4.5 Quality/Efficiency 1.3 Cost/Water 611 647.6 5.04% 3.2 2 2.1 16% 9.0% 1 3.1 Quality/Efficiency 1.4 Catastrophic 635.1 673.9 5.04% 2.9 2.2 2.1 2% 0.7% 3 3.8 Events/.Efficiency 1.5 Costs/Natural 647.9 673.9 5.04% 2.1 2.2 1.8 2% 0.9% 2 3.3 Environment/ Catastrophic Events/Efficiency * Comparative scale ranging from 1-5 with 1 as the most favorable rating and 5 as the least favorable rating. t Volume weighting of raw water quality ratings of new sources. Resource Strategies That Achieve Level 1 Reliability For each of the five sequences, associated resource strategies that reflect demand uncertainty were developed. These strategies indicate how future resource and facility development activities would vary as future demands deviate from earlier forecasts. In all cases, the objective would still be to achieve Level 1 reliability. To illustrate, a resource strategy diagram is shown in Figure ES-3. Table ES-9 shows the expected values of the key evaluation ratings for each of the strategies.' The flexibility rating is based on the number of possible resource paths in the strategy. 'These expected ratings are based on assumed probabilities for each possible demand outcome (high, medium, or low) for the successive demand reassessments that occur throughout the planning period. ES-25 Table ES-9 EXPECTED VALUES OF KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LEVEL 1 STRATEGIES Costs Water Quality Present Value Present Societal Value Utility Natural Raw Water Watershed Strategy ($million) ($million) Environment* Quality* Protection* Flexibility* 1.1 864.3 797.8 1.0 2.0 1.8 3 Natural Environment/Efficiency 1.2 580.6 619.9 4.1 1.2 1.2 5 Raw Water Quality/Efficiency 1.3 494.0 501.4 2.2 1.7 1.7 3 Costs/Water Quality/Efficiency 1.4 534.4 546.9 2.2 2.1 1.7 1 Catastrophic Events/Efficiency 1.5 539.9 539.9 1.8 2.1 1.5 2 Costs/Natural Environment/ Efficiency/Catastrophic Events *Comparative scale ranging from 1-5 with 1-as the most favorable rating and 5 as the least favorable rating. Implications As mentioned earlier, these results indicate that—even if the region were to pursue the highest possible level of reliability and future demands turn out to be high—major resource additions would not be required until well into the 2020s. This conclusion assumes that the region pursues a menu of conservation programs that focus on outdoor uses and is critically dependent on the region's developing committed sources in a timely manner. If the region undertakes those near-term activities, there is considerable time before additional sources must be developed. ES-27 Figure ES-2 Level 1 Resource Sequences-High Demand 1995 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 1 Level 1 Reliability € i Sequence 1.1 Maximum I Natural Environment/ conservation Willamette— 60 mgd■ Willamette—50 mgd ■ Efficiency Willamette— '50 mgd ■ Sequence 1.2 Outdoor I East-South Raw Water Quality/ conservation 0 (75 mgd) Bull un Dam 3 ■ Efficiency East-Wet(75 mgd) • , I Sequence 1.3 Outdoor Clackamas—50 mgd ■ Clackamas—33 mgd ■ Columia 4-55 mgd■ Costs/Water Quality/ A conservation I Columbia 50 mgd ■ Efficiency East-West(75 mgd) • i Sequence 1.4 Catastrophic Events/ Outdoor ASR E&W ■ Columbia —50 mgd ■ Columbia —25 mgd ■ Efficiency AL conservation • East-South(50 mgd) Willamette—50 mgd ■ Willamette—25 mgd ■ West-South(20 mgd) Sequence 1.5 ' Costs/Natural ASR E&W ■ Willamette—50 mgd ■ Willamette—50 mgd ■ Environment/Efficiencyt Outdoor i I Catastrophic Events A conservation ♦ South-East(50 mgd) Clackamas—50 mgd ■ South-West(25 mgd) A Conservation • Single Direction.Transmission ■ Supply Option ♦ Bidirectional Transmission 95-920293.ponLbe47N5.ap Figure ES-3 Level l Reliability — Strategy 1.5 Number of possible Willamette sequences=35 Willamette H50 mgd 50 mgd M I ______ Clackamas _ M H - - Willamette H 50 mgd H 100 mgd ASRM,L----------------------------------- Clack—50 m d Wit lam to—10-0 mgd --=------------ H Wil—50 mgd H Clackamas—'M0 mgcF M Clackamas—40 mgd --------------------- -------------- -------- ---------- I M M Clack—40 H L L --M- ............--. --------- Clackamas L ----- M --- --------------- 40 mgd ASR Wil—50 mgd L H Clack—50 mgd Clack—50 mg H Wit—100 7hgdw Outdoor M Wil—100 mgd __ _ ASR _ , _ Clackamas—10-mgd-- - rack—10 mgd --------------------------- ------------- ----H Conser- M M - vation M'LL Clack—40 mgd M -------------------- ---- ---L ASR ____ L M Clack—40 mgd Clack—40 mgd L ------------------------------M- ASR ASR L I----_- L M L ------------------- • Indicates on-line date 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 95-920293.Eig.Xi-18.7/95.th This does not mean the region can afford to defer a decision on which resource strategy will be pursued. As discussed below, the region faces many challenges in the short-term that will require action to ensure the needs of individual providers will be met. Policymakers' adoption of a long-term resource strategy will provide important direction to water providers, guiding near-term actions such as regional conservation program implementation and additions to the region's transmission system. Resource Strategies that Achieve Level 2 or 3 Reliability It is important to understand the implications of the region choosing less-than-perfect reliability, particularly in terms of costs. To illustrate, Level 2 and 3 strategies were developed that correspond to Level 1 strategies 1.2 and 1.5. Table ES-10 contains the mean values of key evaluation indices for these four new resource strategies. Their expected costs are significantly less than for their Level 1 counterparts. This key tradeoff between costs and reliability is one of many such tradeoffs that the region must make. ES-30 Table ES-10 EXPECTED VALUES OF KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LEVEL 2 AND 3 STRATEGIES* Costs Water Quality** Present Value Present Value Societal Utility Natural Raw Water Watershed Strategy ($million) ($million) Environment** Quality** Protection** Flexibility" 2.2 517.2 537.2 3.7 1.1 1.3 5 Raw Water Quality/Efficiency 2.5 494.1 487.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 3 Costs/Natural Environment/ Efficiency/Catastrophic Events 3.2 481.9 490.9 3.7 1.1 1.3 5 Raw Water Quality/Efficiency 3.5 476.2 462.9 1.7 2.2 1.4 5 Costs/Natural Environment/ Efficiency/Catastrophic Events rPro�bablity-weighted averages across all possible resource development paths. ranging from 1-5 with 1 as the most favorable rating and 5 as the least favorable rating. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A regional dialogue regarding the appropriate future level of water supply reliability should be undertaken. Yet, that decision does not have to be made before going forward with required near-term actions since the major impact of lesser reliability levels is to put off necessary resource additions even further. At the appropriate time, the region's decision makers must determine the desirable level of reliability for the region. While long-term system reliability does not influence near-term actions, many of the near-term actions the region must pursue will be affected by resource choices pursued over the long-term. Thus, it is critical for the region to consider the five strategies presented for Reliability Level ,1 and to select one of these or develop an alternative. Based on the evaluation of Strategies 1.1 through 1.5, the regional providers suggest a ranking based upon how well each strategy meets the entire range of policy objectives. Table ES-11 shows the ranking of the five strategies recommended by the regional providers. ES-32 Table ES-11 RANKING OF LEVEL 1 RESOURCE STRATEGIES Emphasized Policy Objectives Water Provider Strategy Natural Water Use Raw Water Catastrophic Ranking Number Resource Additions Environment Efficiency Quality Costs Events Outdoor Conservation, ASR, ✓ 1 1.5 Clackamas, Willamette ✓ ✓ ✓ Outdoor Conservation, 2 1.3 Clackamas, Columbia ✓ ✓ ✓ Outdoor Conservation, ASR, 3 1.4 Willamette, Columbia ✓ ✓ Outdoor Conservation, 4 1.2 Bull Run Dam 3IL ✓ ✓ 5 1.1 Maximum Conservation, ✓ ✓ Willamette Thus, based on the RWSP analysis conducted to date, water provider participants recommend Strategy 1.5 for consideration during preliminary RWSP review because it seems to best meet the broadest array of policy objectives identified through the planning process. This strategy focuses on the following major future resource additions: ■ Outdoor water conservation; ■ Aquifer Storage and Recovery; ■ The Clackamas River; and ■ The Willamette River The advantages of Strategy 1.5 include: ■ Relatively low costs; ■ Relatively low environmental impacts; ■ An emphasis on the efficient use of water; Y Relatively low vulnerability to catastrophic events; and ■ Flexibility to deal with future uncertainty. The overall raw water quality rating for Strategy 1.5 is comparable to Strategies 1.1 and 1.4. It is not as good as Strategies 1.2 or 1.3. The RWSP's raw water quality analysis has revealed that the quality of all the surface supply options is high when compared to most other municipal sources nationwide. The conservative treatment approaches recommended for the river sources will provide multiple-barrier protection against current and future contaminants•and will yield good-tasting water. Moreover, the Willamette and ASR will both be used primarily as peaking sources. For the vast majority of any year, the region will be served by the Bull Run, the Trask/Tualatin system, and existing local supplies (primarily groundwater). In addition, the likely injection source for ASR will be the Bull Run. The region's water providers are committed to an open and fair discussion about the merits of the alternative water futures available to the region. The public's response concerning the resource strategies presented and how these meet the region's needs is important. The providers fully recognize that no one "right answer" exists that perfectly meets all of the public's values. This is why several strategies are presented for consideration. Strategies 1.1 through 1.4 are also fully capable of meeting the region's water supply needs. They address some of the same policy objectives and, in many cases, do a better job at meeting particular objectives than Strategy 1.5. Nevertheless, none of the other alternatives seems to meet so many important objectives. ES-34 WHERE DOES THE REGION GO FROM HERE? Regardless of the strategy adopted by the regional providers, a range of issues must be addressed in the near term. Providers have already expressed their commitment to establishing an ongoing regional organization to meet the region's water supply needs following RWSP completion. The exact form and functions of this organization will be discussed over the next few months prior to adopting the final RWSP. However, a key overall role will be to ensure that the needs of all water customers throughout the region are met within the context set by the adopted Regional Water Supply Plan. It will also consider possible long-term changes to the current institutional and financial arrangements under which water service is delivered in the region. Not only must the ongoing relationships among the providers be defined, but so also must the critical role of Metro. Metro has the authority and responsibility to adopt and enforce the region's urban growth management strategy, including the adoption and revision of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Thus, there is a direct relationship between Metro's role and the job of the regional providers to serve the water needs of the growing metropolitan region. In addition, the Metro Charter requires Metro to adopt an Urban Water Supply and Storage Element in its Regional Framework Plan. As a RWSP participant, Metro itself will provide input on the preliminary and final RWSP documents. It will adopt the final RWSP by resolution. The relationship between the region's water providers and Metro requires further discussion as the region moves toward final adoption of a RWSP. Specific near-term actions that must be undertaken by the region include: ■ Adoption of a long-term regional resource strategy. ■ Continued maintenance, upgrades, and remediation of the Columbia Southshore Wellfield. M Expeditious completion of the Barney Reservoir and Joint Water Commission treatment plant and transmission expansions. ■ Timely development of the additional committed capacity on the Clackamas River. ■ Development of transmission and interconnection facilities to serve the short-term and medium-term needs of individual providers. It is critical ES-35 that these facilities be developed within the context of the adopted long-term regional strategy. ■ Planning and implementation of an appropriate mix of conservation programs. ■ Expanded coordination with the region's wastewater management agencies regarding the potential use of stormwater and treated effluent as non-potable water resources. ■ Actions necessary to maintain the viability of all source options considered in the RWSP. This last point deserves particular attention. Over the last two decades, events have shown that competing demands, coupled with increased regulatory requirements, will make securing water sources more difficult for the future. Contingencies must be considered if particular choices later become unavailable. The water providers should continue to protect their ability to utilize the water sources considered in the RWSP. This will require a variety of activities for each source option. In short, completion of the RWSP project signals the region's water providers to continue and redouble the collaborative and visionary efforts that they have begun. Among the benefits of the RWSP effort has been an increase in trust and understanding among the providers that has allowed a truly regional plan to be developed. It is critical that the providers capitalize on this trust and understanding to immediately begin to undertake the near-term actions that will lead to effective plan implementation and will meet the needs of the region's water customers. ES-36 Oi Regional Water Supply Plan Fall Newsletter Clip-and-mail Response Synopsis The Fall 1995 Regional Water Supply Plan newsletter was mailed to more than 3,500 individuals,and distributed to hundreds more. To date,fifty-three"clip-and-mail" responses have been received The vast majority of respondents reside in Portland. About half of these stated support for the planning effort and requested to be kept informed A summary of comments on the preliminary plan is provided below. A more detailed synopsis is attached Note. No more than eight individuals commented on any one topic(number shown in parentheses). Some commented on more than one topic. Implications of Growth/Sustainability/Limits(S) Five individuals raised concerns regarding projected growth in the region and the implications of growth for water resources. There is concern that the carrying capacity of the region has been or will be exceeded. Commenters urge the establishment of a sustainable balance between growth and resources(including water,sewer,air)to sustain that growth. It was recommended that growth should be"regionally coordinated,"and that economic planning should be such that a healthy economy does not rely on continual growth in population and resource consumption. Several individuals raised the concept of limits on growth. One person said-'Just say no." Equity/cost(3) It was suggested that"new users ought to pay higher incremental costs than burden existing users." It was also suggested that"Portland taxpayers and residents ought not to be forced to sacrifice quality to subsidize suburban growth"and to"let Washington County users finance their needs from the Willamette..." One commenter requested that near-term(out to 25 years)costs be provided since costs change over time. Another requested that programs aimed at meeting 2050 needs be carried out in"stair-step fashion." High-Tech Industries(4) Four individuals expressed concern about the impacts of high-tech industries coming to ..: the region. There are concerns regarding continued"recruitment"and tax breaks for these companies. One person cited potential impacts on the environment and future water source options from pollutants(they also mentioned agricultural runoff as an issue). Another person suggested that there be a limit on high-tech development in the region and that these companies should not"be released from tax responsibilities....". There is concern regarding the prospect that high-tech firms will use a lot of water while providing "low paying jobs"to local residents,"take profits out of state or even out of the country" and"don't support our schools or the services they are using." Public Education(4) Four persons cited and the need for and urged the provision of education(generally in the context of conservation and changing behavior toward the use of water resources). It was suggested education be used as a tool analogous to "preventive medicine"that people be offered incentives to attend educational workshops. Education in schools and through media was also encouraged Water Quality-General(5) Three individuals stated that water quality(and"safety')was among their highest values. Some state explicitly that they did not want their drinking water quality to go down(e.g., "maintain our current standards or better for drinking water"). One person asked why good quality water needed to be chlorinated. Another suggested that bridges be designed and modified to "divert any chemical spills into a containment area instead of into the river." It was also suggested that chemical dumping into sewers be limited EnvironmentaMatershed Protection and Stewardship(S) Five people provided comments specific to environmental issues. Several state that the environment was the most important value to them or one of the most important values. One person asked about plans to protect flora and fauna. Of these,three expressed concern specifically about watershed protection. One person stated that we need to "develop more protection for the region's watersheds..lees enact our value of stewardship of these streams by protecting them." It was suggested that roads be kept away from streams. It was requested that watersheds not be logged due to impacts on"purity and the efficiency of water storage." Concern about the effect of logging,mining,and urbanization in the Clackamas watershed was also mentioned. Conservation(8) Eight individuals stated their support for more aggressive conservation. (No concerns or opposition was submitted.) It was mentioned that"lawns are a big water guzzler." It suggested that land use laws require smaller lot sizes to reduce the amount of grass. One person asked for gardening information. Another urged that all new housing be required to install water saving toilets and plumbing fixtures. It was recommended that if large water users come to the region,to require that they"re-cycle water so no net water loss." Water Reuse and Recycling/Dual Systems(8) Eight individuals commented in support of water reuse and recycling,and a dual systems approach to meeting future water needs. Specifically mentioned were opportunities for use of treated effluent,graywater,and rainwater captured via cisterns(rooftop and below ground surface). One person expressed support for dual systems for all new developments. Several individuals suggested that Bull Run or equal quality water could be used in potable water lines while Willamette or similar quality sources could be used in separate non potable lines. :A couple of commenters referred to potential use of untreated groundwater and surface water for irrigation(e.g.,golf courses,parks,-lawns) and industrial purposes(washing ships,industrial cooling) Recycling fountains were also encouraged. Clackamas River Option(6) Six individuals raised questions and concerns about the Clackamas source option. Primary concerns involve impacts on instream flows and anadromous fisheries. Concern was also expressed about"urbanizing a drinking water watershed" and how pollutants will be removed Bull Run(8) Six individuals expressed desire for Bull Run water in the future. Of these,four expressed support specifically for a third dam in the Bull Run watershed. The primary reason cited was raw water quality and minimal treatment levels. One person asked if Bull Run could be used as a source for Aquifer Storage and Recovery"instead of spilling it or building a third dam." One person expressed concern that a Bull Run Dam had been approved without public consent. Columbia River(8) Two individuals expressed support for the Columbia River option. One expressed surprise that it was excluded "even allowing for the presence of the Hanford project." One person asked for more public information on the"health and degree of usage"from the Columbia River. I One person asked if withdrawals from the Columbia River accelerate the effects of • contamination sources. Four people expressed opposition to the Columbia River option. Pollution from Hanford (e.g.,through groundwater discharge to the river)and paper mills were cited as problems. Willamette River(7) Three individuals expressed support for the Willamette River. This option was encouraged as a way to avoid future impacts on Clackamas River fisheries. It was also suggested by more than one individual that use of treated,filtered Willamette water will create a"greater incentive to clean up that river,which will benefit everyone-"wildlife, people,the environment." Another stated that"if the Willamette inlet were located downstream of Portland,Portland would be more careful to not pollute it." Four individuals expressed concern or opposition to the Willamette source option. Water quality was cited as a reason for concern. One person felt that the Willamette option was "snuck in"to too many of the strategy alternatives. They cited that"it has been editorialized that the Willamette is a"jobs project"for the water industry. They feel that the pie-charts used to illustrate future source capacities are"minimizing or diluting the possible effects of Willamette water on the quality of drinking water. Aqu(fer Storage and Recovery(4) Four individuals expressed some interest in ASR and asked for more information. Of these,one supported the use of Bull Run water for ASR. Another expressed concerns about the potential for ASR to influence adversely the background quality of groundwater and expressed interest in learning about prospective ASR sources. It was suggested that aquifers on the west side of the region might not be suitable for ASR. Groundwater(Wellhead protection(4) One individual noted that they did not want to use water from wells due to water quality concerns. One individual expressed interest in remediation of the Columbia South Shore Wellfield. Someone asked that pollution be"blocked" from affecting the wellfield or that a new wellfield be developed. Another expressed strong support for wellhead protection using land acquisition. Public Involvement(2) One person asked that additional public workshops be held prior to making decisions and expressed concern that the decision-making process is too fast. They stated an opinion that the public is uninformed and that media attention to project details is insufficient. Another expressed concern that public involvement events are not held at convenient times(i.e.,at openings of hunting and fishing seasons). Storage(1) One person noted that it would be beneficial to have more storage on the west side of the region. Benchmarks(1) One person expressed interest in discussing"benchmarks"for the Regional Water Supply Plan. s Regional Water Supply Plan Fall Newsletter Clip-and-Mail Response Synopsis The Fall 1995 Regional Water Supply Plan newsletter was mailed to more than 3,500 individuals,agencies and organizations. About 2,000 more have been distributed. To date, fifty-three"clip-and-mail"responses have been received. The vast majority of respondents reside in Portland. About half of these stated support for the planning effort and requested to be kept informed. A summary of the views on the preliminary plan is provided below. A more detailed synopsis is attached. Note: No more than eight individuals commented on any one topic(number shown in parentheses). Some commented on more than one topic. Growth/Sustainability/LimitB(6) Water Reuse and Recycling(8) • Carrying capacity is being exceeded. There is strong support for and • Need sustainable balance between interest in use of treated wastewater, growth and resources. graywater,cisterns,and untreated groundwater and surface water. Equity/Cost(3) • New users should pay more/existing Clackamas Option(6) residents should not subsidize growth. There is concern about impacts on • Let new users have Willamette water. instream flows,fish,and"urbanizing" • Stair step plan implementation. this"drinking water watershed." Sigh-Tech Industries(4) Bull Run Option(8) • Limit recruitment and tag breaks. • Some strongly prefer Bull Run Dam 3. • Concern about,pollution impacts. • Bull Run might be a good source for aquifer storage and recovery. Public Education(4) • Use education as"preventive Columbia River(8) • medicine." Both support and concern for this • Conservation education is needed to option were expressed. (More were help people change their behavior. concerned about water quality, • Educate in schools and use the media Hanford and paper mill-.) Water Quality-General(S) Willamette River(7) • Water quality is among some people's • Both support and concern for this most strongly held values. option were expressed. • Some expressed a desire to retain at • The majority of commenters on this least current level of water quality. option were concerned about water • Some do not trust treatment. quality. • Some noted that use of the Willamette Environmental Protection(6) will provide an incentive to clean up • Some people expressed strong values the river to the benefit of wildlife, regarding protection of the people and the environment. environment as key in deciding how to meet future water demand. Aquifer Storage and Recovery(4) • Several emphasized the importance of • Both support and concern about this source quality protection through option were expressed.Concern watershed protection. relates to impacts on groundwater quality and suitability of aquifers Conservation(8) • Strong support(especially for outdoor Groundwater(4) conservation)was expressed. • Concern about water quality • Respondents submitted a host of • Do wellhead protection and clean-up. conservation ideastsuggestions. Public Involvement(2) • Need more input before decisions. rf v,. 'i a - RESPONSES TO JUNE, 1995 NEWSLETTER Over 3,500 citizens, organizations and agencies were asked a number of questions in a clip and mail portion of the June, 1995, newsletter. We received 240 responses. Chief among the questions offered were those asking citizens to indicate which policy objectives were important to them. Acknowledging that difficult tradeoffs are sometimes necessary, they were asked to rank the following: • Absence of water shortages throughout the year • Reliability of water supply year in, year out • Quality of the treated water that comes out the faucet • Quality of the raw water at its source • Avoiding environmental impacts • Mitigating, if possible, environmental impacts • Conservation programs • Low monthly water rates Citizens were also asked about their suggestions for communicating with the public and obtaining input. Policy Objectives and Public Values Responses fell into four general categories: Reliability and Cost One group of respondents identified absence of water shortages and low monthly rates as their top priorities. Uninterrupted service and low cost were the primary concerns of roughly 20%. Environmental Protection Another cluster of respondents indicated that protection of the environment, and pursuit of"low impact" options such as conservation programs, were most important. Approximately 30% preferred this category. Water Oualiq—Source and at the Tan The rest of those providing opinions focused on water quality. Although they all stressed the importance of high quality water, they were fairly evenly split between the means of accomplishing this goal. Of this 50%, slightly more than half suggested that the quality of water at its source was of paramount importance. These respondents were more likely to express unease about the Willamette River or Columbia River options, and appeared to predominantly reside within the City of Portland limits, enjoying historical reliance on 'the Bull Run. The others preferring high quality water expressed confidence in the water providers' ability to develop, treat and deliver new water supplies that would meet their exacting standards.. A number indicated that what really mattered to them was the quality of their water at the tap. This yroup would be more comfortable with supply options other than the Bull Run, if they j0=to be necessary or otherwise important. This was especially the case where tradeoffs could be made to protect or enhance other important values, such as the environment or cost. Public Information and Involvement Advice Citizens mailing back response forms were supportive and complimentary of the public information and involvement activities employed in connection with the RWSP. Many emphasized the value to them of the newsletters, and the opportunity to respond via the clip and mail portions. A large number urged continued use of newsletters and public meetings as a reliable means of keeping in touch with the public and for obtaining informed input. Bill inserts and media coverage of ongoing efforts were also supported. A number of respondents offered several interesting observations. A central theme for many was the limited time available for staying informed and participating in important public processes. They suggested that the press of often competing civic, neighborhood, governmental, and family activities was simply too much for many citizens. While most would like to keep abreast and get involved, time is too limited and many are simply stretched too thinly. As one woman said, "please don't make us go to any more meetings!" Accordingly, alternative modes of communication were advised. As mentioned above, quite a few respondents preferred the clip and mail opportunities that could be provided in newsletters or bill inserts. To them, it serves as a quick and direct mode of two-way communication. A large number of respondents also urged utilization of computer networks and the internet. To these, the internet provides an ideal means of providing a great deal of detailed information, allowing citizens to read and understand as much as they wish, Additionally, the networks also provide a quick and direct means of communicating with governmental entities, they said. A KEY PUBLIC WORKSHOP COMMENTS September, 1995 Cost •What will it cost to implement any of these options? •Are there other components of"cost" that need to be considered? oHow can we save money? Conservation Be aggressive. *Landscape ordinances may work well. *Consider regional schemes, especially through pricing *But be mindful of potential regional differences; uniform standards may not work in all areas. Non-potable/Alternative sources •Consider dual systems or pilot projects where the high quality water is used for domestic/dribking purposes, and lower quality water is used for outdoor and industrial purposes. •Explore the effectiveness of wastewater reuse and direct industrial or irrigation uses of non-potable water(e.g., Port of Portland experiments). Water Quality •A number of concerns were expressed regarding the quality of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. *Some strongly preferred the Bull Run(primarily Portland residents). *others were open to additional options. *Several mentioned that the most important aspect is the quality of the water that comes out of your tap, not the original source. Regional vs. Local needs and sources Many Portland activists urged Portland to keep the Bull Run water and force people in other cities to accept "lower quality" sources. *If new growth drives the demand, some said, give the new residents other sources.' *Others urged a regional approach, suggesting residents-of the.entire region deserved adequate supplies of high quality water. Growth and New Demand o Can we control growth and stop or postpone demand for more water? September 26, 1995 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC PLAN WORKSHOP e ANY FUNDING SOURCES IDENTIFIED? The recommendations include an ongoing organization to evaluate and tackle these issues (how to pay, assess costs fairly, etc.) The continued regional cooperation may take the form of an intergovernmental agreement. ♦ NEWS REPORTS REGARDING BOTTOM FISH WITH CANCER AND BIRTH DEFECTS. PROBLEM WITH USING WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER BECAUSE OF RUNOFF, SEWER, CATTLE AND ESTROGENIC CHEMICALS. WE'RE SLOW TO RECOGNIZE HEALTH HAZARDS(E.G. CIGARETTES). Have had significant amount of work and technical reports address these issues. Pilot studies on Willamette and Columbia. Some studies even included water spiked with pesticides. Reports say treated water meets or exceeds all standards. Causes of fish defects not known. One study involved raising three generations of fish in pulp mill effluent and landfill leachate—and could not reproduce deformities. Deformities may be genetic. By the time we get to Willamette(2035), if we get to the Willamette, we will know more. We don't want to underplay the issue. As we learn things, we'll have plenty of time to change our course, and treatment regimes are designed to be very conservative(multiple barriers). s ESTROGENIC CHEMICALS MUST BE OXIDIZED - And they will through ozonation, and other techniques. ♦ HOW CRITICAL IS IT IF SOME OF THE ENTITIES OPT OUT? ISSUES OF EQUITY COME UP . Very interactive process-team approach will continue. Institutional issues are important to the participating agencies. The Preliminary Plan does not recommend a "regional" system, necessarily. Recommendation is for regional planning/coordination to continue in meeting future needs. The Steering Committee-has talked about inviting more entities to join organization. The first effort included collective funding and sponsorship: quite unique. - .Y 'tam' .i.�: ..C, a, 1_., r':� ...�a�:: . .. - .- .;,�.._ ..7.•j..F:..:..: • w e THREE AREAS TO MAKE PROJECT GO Source Finances - who will pay? Who will govern? We're going a long way from making decisions without first taking a hard look at financing and governance. That will be one of the priority issues for any continuing regional discussions. ♦ WANTS NEXT WORKSHOPS TO PROVIDE TYPED LIST OF ISSUES PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. ♦ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE IN BULL RUN LAST YEAR WAS SALE OF OLD GROWTH -NEED TO KEEP OLD GROWTH FOR 1VIITIGATION. ♦ COMMISSIONER LINDBERG ARTICLE- NO WILD SALMON RUN ISSUES IN BULL z RUN, ARE THERE? DOES HE ADVOCATE THE WILLAMETTE.- Commissioner Lindberg has not advocated the Willamette as a source—although people have been urged to weight the tradeoffs. ♦ WOULD LIKE TO SEE LITTLE SANDY; FEWER ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. ♦ COST: ONCE DAM IS BUILT IN BULL RUN OPERATING AND MP!NTENANCE COSTS*WILL BE LOW. s WHO WELL PAY FOR THE TREATMENT? THOSE WHO WILL GET THE WATER? ♦ IF NO BOND MEASURE-HOW TO PAY? ,a ♦ LITTLE HISTORY OF CATASTROPHIC EVENTS IN THE BULL RUN. ♦ IF SPILL IN RIVER -THERE'S NO WAY TO SEND ALARM. ♦ COULD CATASTROPHIC EVENTS HURT TREATMENT FACILITY ON THE WILLAMETTE? ♦ GOING TO BULL RUN IS NOT TOO FAR FROM POPULATION CENTERS-JUST LOOK AT LOS ANGELES. ♦ NO STUDIES TO LOOK AT COST OF CURTAILING GROWTH INSTEAD OF BUILDING SUPPLIES? ♦ IS REGION ARE WE STUDYING OTHER ALTERNATIVES SOLELY TO BUILD CASE TO GET FEDERAL PERMIT FOR BULL RUN? ♦ FUNDING: WE SHOULD CARE WHAT REGION'S WATER WILL LOOK LIKE 1000 YEARS FROM NOW. SHOULD WE USE INCREASED GROWTH TO PAY FOR NEW SUPPLY? yfi. ♦ THE CITY OF PORTLAND SHOULD CURTAIL SUPPLYING WATER TO OUTSIDE AREAS. PAYING FULL COST WILL MAKE WATER USE LESS ATTRACTIVE. ♦ PORTLAND IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING BULL RUN WATERSHED. Concerned about allegations that Bull Run environmental effects are a smoke-screen. Numbers on owl habitat. Last commercial logging was several years ago. New dam would require removai of heart of habitat area. ♦ FISH: CONCERN IS SANDY RIVER MAINSTEM, DOWNSTREAM FROM BULL RUN. BROAD BASE OF CONCERN REGARDING COHO AND CHINOOK RESTORATION. ♦ WHERE WAS THE CITY OF PORTLAND FOR DECADES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION? ISN'T PORTLAND BEING INCONSISTENT WITH DAM #3? Key players were different. Look to folks here and now. We learn, and gain different views of our responsibilities. i Need cost information for environmental i hpacts ♦ OPTION TO DUMP WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER IN TUALATIN? ♦ CONTROLLING GROWTH? WE HEAR "WHY DON'T WE PLAN MORE?" HAVING TROUBLE COPING WITH GROWTH. ♦ THE PARTICIPATING AGENCIES HAVE WORKED WITH METRO THROUGHOUT THE'PROCESS. LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING GOING ON TOGETHER. ♦ SURPRISED TO SEE OREGONIAN REPORT THAT THE WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER WOULD BE PUMPED UP TO CHEHALEM CR. Idea was raised in context of supply, wastewater management, and irrigation,could address many of the issues. Today, it is difficult to develop these types of major infrastructure facilities. USA addressed with Level IV treatmem..For water supply,• makes sense to go proximate to demand. ♦ IS REUSE BEING CONSIDERED? STATUS? IT TAKES LOTS OF WORK. Agree in near term strategy. Level of treatment varies. .. 3 We should explore, conduct pilot projects, etc.- - Reuse may play a key role in certain parts of the region and future uses. ♦ FLOWS IN TUALATIN HAVE INCREASED WITH GROWTH. THERE IS NOT A TEMPERATURE PROBLEM (MAY BE MORE THAN FLOWS). LOOK AT DEMAND BEFORE GOING INTO PRISTINE BASINS ♦ PORT PROJECT: EXAMPLE OF PILOT PROJECT. City of Portland exploring with Port of Portland the possibility of using untreated river water(e.g., ship washing) instead of Bull Run water. ♦ COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION -COMPARE COST OF SOURCES AND CONSERVATION. How many low flush toilets would supply a chip plant? Looking at all costs, 3rd dam in BR is most expensive. Low flush toilets as resource-saves water when we don't necessarily need it- (e.g., winter). Government standards require low flush toilets, which was considered in the Plan as "naturally occuring conservation." ♦ REGARDING WATER SAVINGS AND CONSERVATION: BE SURE TO CONSIDER EFFECTS ON REVENUE? The impact on government revenue has been considered in the plan. The impact on rates and bills will have to be considered, ultimately. ♦ DEALING WITH GRAY WATER(LOWER BELLS?) ♦ CONSERVING A UNIT OF WATER IS REVENUE LOST- NEED TO ADDRESS THIS POINT AS WE IMPLEMENT. ALSO PUSH OFF DATE OF COSTLY NEW SUPPLY-AN AVOIDED COST IS AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT. THE DATE CAN VARY. ♦ WILL WE BE IN A CRISIS WHILE WE ARE DELAYING NEW SOURCES? WILL A CRISIS BE USED BY GOVERNMENTS TO FORCE THE'PUBLIC TO GO ALONG WITH UNSATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVES IN 20-30 YEARS? ♦ WHAT IS METRO'S ULTIMATE ROLE IN THE WATER SUPPLY ISSUE? Regional framework plan-Water supply planning element in Metro charter. Metro executive has said NOT interested in taking on water supply. Metro council is participant in this water planning process and will adopt the plan. ♦ CONCERN THAT IF IT IS OK TO DRINK MULTI-PURPOSE SUPPLY(E.G. WILLAMETTE),WHAT WOULD THEN STOP PORTLAND FROM ALLOWING RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN BULL RUN. ;tea . .-.- . -. ,.r: ., .. - - . ., _.. .._. ... - -. .. '' ._.?`:� _ ... . .,- ., . . .:. ...•.;;;;x�e`. 503-623-6133 BUREAU OF WATER 266 P02/02 SEP 20 195 07:58 Qpesdons to ask Councils and Commissions m Answer ju their October hearings 1) In the preliminary Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) proper by the water provider staff there are a number of long term supply resource strategies which are presented. The providers have reoammended one of these long term strategies based on an equal balance between the various key policy values which were identified during the project The choices presented in the plan, however, allow decision makers to select other alteratives based on different policy value emphasis. Which of these key policy values are most important to you in meeting your future water needs? Costs The efficient use of water Environmental impacts System rehabilf y Diversity of sources Quality of the water sources (including factors of raw water quality, treatment levels required, and protectability of the upstream watershed) Are there other policy values that are equally or more Lmportant to you, if so what are they? 2) Do you agree with the recommended strategies contained in the Preiiminaxy Regional Water Sapply Plan? if so, why? What strategies specifically do you not support and why? 3) that changes would you recommend for consideration in the final RWSP?Wiry? 4) Do you support the concept of forming a formal consortium of water providers through the adoption of an intergovernmental agreement when the final RWSP is adopted? What types of funtions do yon think the region's wager provider should carry out in a cooperative approach? if you do not support a formal organization how would you recommend that these functions be carried out? IWB JOINT MEETING WITH PARTICIPATING AGENCIES OCTOBER 11, 1995 • Twenty-Six people in attendance Public cor=ents and questions: 0 Did Plan address effect of large industrial users on the system? • Water reuse - Recycling, conservation by large industrial users, irrigation/wastewater costs provide incentives. • Ownership of potential sites? • Aquifer storage and recovery. Testing in region (Salem and Seattle) . State legislature allows increase. • Willamette River - cost of water production and transmission, water quality, availability of water rights, use of Willamette for industrial and irrigation usage. 0 Conservation issues - Need for public education, regulation of swimming pools, need for outdoor conservation, implementation of inverted block rates, landscapers nursery - high users to pay more, institutional audits for conservation (schools, etc. ) . • Metro 2040 Plan - populations figures and forecast demand figures, future of Metro involvement, continuance of water providers forum. • Columbia well fields - remediation program. • Transmission - do we have adequate, reliable transmission from sources to providers, water lose, leakage. o�XNKE 0 OR�N CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE October 10, 1995 Jack Polans 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place King City, Oregon 97224 Dear Jack: Thank you for the June 2, 1995 Oregoni article on the quality of drinking water. The article insert, "In Oregon"stated that Lake Oswego is affected by excessive levels of lead. This statement, is misleading. The City regularly monitors its raw water and finished water, and water at the tap of Lake Oswego homes. The quality of the City's finished water meets all federal drinking water standards. However, the water at the tap of several homes exceeded the federal action level for lead. During two rounds of sampling of 60 homes, only one home exceeded the action level for lead both times. It is believed that the source of lead is from the service line between the meter and the home. The City conducted a desktop evaluation of corrosion control measures to reduce the lead levels at the tap. This study was completed in October 1994 and submitted to the Oregon Division of Health for its review and approval. The recommended method of reduce lead levels is to raise the pH of the finished water. An increase in pH reduces the solubility of lead and less lead is leached into the water from residential services and plumbing fixtures. The Oregon Division of Health has concurred with the recommendations of the City. Thank you for your interest in the City's water system. Ve truly yours, Do gl . Schmitz City anager DJSjm c: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor Lake Oswego City Council Members IRn"A^ Avemie • Pnst Office Box 369 • Lake Osweizo,Oregon 97034 • (503)635-0215 9 FAX(503)697-6594 Memorandum City of Tigard,Oregon TO: Intergovernmental Water Board FROM: Wayne Lowry,Finance Director twy- SUBJECT- Utility Billing and Collection DATE: November 2, 1995 Since the merging of Water and Sewer billing in 1994,we have been reviewing our billing and collection process to ensure that it is fair and equitable to customers and also ensures that utility charges are collected in an efficient manner. Tigard Municipal Code section 12.08 includes the City's old collection'process which was to tum delinquent sewer accounts over to the assessor each year for collection with property taxes. In addition, Tigard Municipal code section 12.10 includes the Water system rules and regulations, some of which deal with collection of utility charges. The draft ordinance to be discussed with you on November 8 repeals TMC section 12.08 amends TMC 12.10 and establishes a new section 12.03 to deal specifically with the billing and collection of the combined utility charges. . Most of the procedures included in this ordinance are our current policy,however some of the sections amend our current policy to facilitate the billing and collection process. I will be at the November 8 meeting of the IWB to make a presentation on these changes and to gain input from the members of the IWB on the billing and collection procedures. I would then like a motion to forward this issue to the Tigard City Council for official action as amended by the IWB. If you have any questions on this information prior to the meeting,please call me at 639-4171 ext.345. CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 95- A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE FEES. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard City Council deems it necessary to adopt provisions for the collection of delinquent charges for Utility Services provided by the City of Tigard;and, WHEREAS, the City of Tigard combined Water, Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water billings to cut costs and to increase the level of customer services, now,therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 12.08, Collection of Sewer User Fees, of the Tigard Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 2: Section 12.10.070, Credit for Water Maks, is amended as follows: When a water leak occurs on the customer's side of the water meter resulting in an unusually high water bill, customers can apply for a credit to their water bill equal to 1/2 of the cost of the leak (above the normal bill), up to a maximum of $+58 $165. Customers must apply for the credit in writing, to the City, and forward proof of the leak being fixed in a timely manner. 4 Section 2: Section 12.10.120, _Pgyment - Delinquency, of the Tigard Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 3: Chapter 12.03, Billing and Collection of Utility Charges, is added to the Tigard Municipal Code and attached hereto as, Exhibit"A". PASSED: By vote of all members present after being read by number and title only,this day of , 1995. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1995. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 12.03 BILLING AND COLLECTION OF UTILITY CHARGES 12.03.010 Definitions. (a) Utility Charges. Any combination of water service charges, sanitary sewer service charges, surface water charges or other fees and charges authorized by the Tigard City Council or the Unified Sewerage Agency imposed on users of utility services. (b) Delinquent Utility charges not paid by the due date specified on the bill for such charges are considered delinquent. (c) User User shall mean any person who uses property which maintains connection to, discharge to, or otherwise receives services from the City's storm, surface water, sewer or water systems. The occupant of occupied properly is deemed the user. If the property is not occupied,the person who has the right to occupy it shall be deemed the user. 12.03.020 Rates. Charges. Fees, Penalties, Collections (a) Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order number 95-34 and Ordinance Number 26,27,28,and 29 as amended are hereby adopted by reference and shall be in full force and effect as part of this municipal code. (b) Collections from utility customers will be applied first to interest, penalties or other fees and charges,then to Surface Water charges,then to Sanitary Sewer charges, and finally to Water charges. 12.03.030 Delinquent Collection Procedures. (a) Billing Cycle - Utility charges will be billed to users every other month or as water meters are read. Utility bills will be placed in the United States Mail no more than 5 days after the water meter is read or 60 days after the prior billing for non water customers. Such utility bills shall state the amounts and types of charges included in the bill and shall state the due date for the utility charges. Such due date shall not be less than 14 days from the date bills are mailed. (b) Reminder Notice - For those Utility Charges not paid by the due date, a reminder notice will be sent to the customer. The Notice shall state the amounts and types of charges past due and the date by which such charges must be paid to avoid tum off procedures. The reminder notice shall be placed in the United States Mail not less than 14 days after the original due date on the original bill. (c) Shut off Notice - For those utility charges not paid by the due date stated on the reminder notice, a shut off notice shall be hung on the front door of the dwelling or place of business at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled actual shut off. The City shall maintain a list of all shut off notices indicating the time and location the notice was placed and by whom. The shut off notice shall state the amounts and types of charges past due and the date and time such charges must be paid to avoid actual shut off of services. (d) Shutoff Procedure - All accounts determined to be unpaid 48 hours after a shut off notice has been placed on the premises shall be listed and scheduled for shut off. The 48 hours shall be counted on business days only and shall not include Holidays or weekends. On the day scheduled for shutoff, the drop box shall be opened and the days mail receipts will be reviewed to determine if any applicable payments have been received. The list as amended will then be delivered to the appropriate crew members who will then shut off and lock those meters on the list. (e) Reconnection Charge - A charge of $20.00 will be added to each account that has been shut off before water service can be reconnected. The charge covers the cost of the delinquent collection process and the cost of the actual turning off and on of the meter. The reconnection charge shall apply even if actual shut off is not performed due to the payment of the past due balance made to the crew member in the field just prior to shut off. The reconnection charge shall be $30.00 for reconnection requested offer normal operating hours and on weekends. (f) Meter Disconnection - A Charge of $10 shall be added to each account in which a meter is turned off and locked for non payment if the customer or other party cuts the lock and turns the meter back on without prior approval of the City. In addition to the lock charge,the meter will be removed from the ground and the water service capped off. Water service shall not be reconnected until the customer has paid the past due utility charges including the reconnection charge,the lock charge, and reimbursed the City for the cost of removing and reinstalling the meter on a time and materials basis. , (g) Multifamily Housing collection process - When accounts for multifamily housing complexes using master meters rather than individual meters becomes delinquent,the company or individual responsible for payment of the utility bills shall be notified of the past due status of the account in the normal process set forth in section 12.03.030. However, in lieu of the shut off procedure,the responsible party shall be notified in writing that the shutoff procedure will be followed if the delinquent utility charges are not paid within thirty days. Accounts not paid within the thirty days will be notified and turned off in accordance with section 12.03.030 (c) and (d). 12.03.040 Delinquency Collection Procedures-Sewer only Customers For utility charges on accounts without water service, delinquent amounts may be collected using the following collection methods in lieu of the shutoff procedure set forth in 12.03.020 (c), (d), (e): (a) Delinquent utility charges may be collected through the use of a collection agent. The Finance Director or designee shall have the authority to select a collection agent and sign necessary documents. (b) Delinquent utility charges may be collected by filing a claim in the appropriate court. The Finance Director shall have the authority to request pursuit of such claims by the City Attorney and shall have the authority to sign and file necessary documents. (c) Delinquent utility charges may be collected by turning the Uncollected balance over to the Washington County Tax Assessor for inclusion on tax bills as allowed by ORS 454-225. This method of collection shall only be used If the user of the services being billed is also the owner of the premises connected to the system. The owners approval must be received in writing allowing the turnover. Accounts being collected in this manner shall be charged a turnover fee of 3%and shall be turned over to the Assessor each year by July 15. (d) Delinquent utility charges may also be collected by disconnecting utility services. Disconnection may involve the physical disconnection of incoming or outgoing utility service pipes and facilities. Disconnection shall only be pursued with the approval of the City Administrator. Actual costs of disconnection shall be calculated and must be paid by the utility service user before reconnection is established. 12.03.050 Other Fees and Charges (a) Returned Check Charge -A $15.00 charge will be added to accounts for any checks returned from the bank unpaid for any reason . Upon receiving a returned check staff will contact the customer and ask if they would prefer to have the check redeposited ,replaced by another check, cash or money order. If a redeposited check is again returned by the bank, an additional charge of $15.00 will be added to the account. The related payment applied to the account will be reversed and the obligation for the utility charges will be reinstated. After a check is returned twice from the bank unpaid for any reason, cash or money order will be required to avoid the turnoff procedures.. (b) Repair or replacement of new construction water meters - Once installed, new meters placed for new construction will be the responsibility of the meter purchaser. Any costs associated with the repair or replacement of damaged or missing meters will be charged to the original meter purchaser. Such costs may include but are not limited to gaskets, meter boxes, lid inserts, meters, pressure regulator valves and related labor and materials. 12.03.060 Utility Charge adjustments and payment agreements. Errors in billing or collection shall be corrected in a timely manner by the City. Resulting credits on accounts or refunds shall be made as expeditiously as possible. Disputed billings or other collection transactions shall be dealt with as follows: In recognition of the existence of exceptions to normal circumstances in some cases, Authority is granted as follows for adjustments to utility charges and to the implementation of payment agreements. (a) The Finance Director or designee shall have the authority to waive utility charges up to $50.00. Such waiver may be made based upon a written request from the customer and for good cause. Good cause may include but is not limited to correction of user or account information,failure of the City to send a bill, demonstrated failure of a user to receive a bill, correction of measurement of either fixture units or equivalent service units and adjustments to the time in which requester became the user. Waivers may include returned check charges, reconnection charges or utility charges. The Finance Director shall make a quarterly report to the City Administrator indicating all such waivers giving the amounts and reasons amounts were waived. (b) The City Administrator or designee shall have the authority to waive utility charges up to $250.00. Such waiver must be made based upon a written request from the customer and for good cause. Good cause may include but is not limited to correction of user or account information, failure of the City to send a bill, demonstrated failure of a user to receive a bill, correction of measurement of either fixture units or equivalent service units and adjustments to the time in which requester became the user. The City Administrator shall receive a written report of findings from staff and then weigh the evidence presented by the customer and the staff before making any such waiver. (c) Any requests to waive utility charges above $250.00 shall be made in writing to the Intergovernmental Water Board. The Finance Director may schedule the request on the next available agenda and so notify the customer at least one week in advance. All materials related to the request shall be made available to the Board and the customer may be allowed to make a presentation to the Board at the discretion of the Board Chairman. (d) The Finance Director may enter into a payment agreement with a customer to facilitate the payment of delinquent utility charges. Such agreements shall not exceed the term of three years, current charges must be paid when due, and the agreement must be signed by both parties and must be a legally binding agreement. Breach of such an agreement by the customer shall result in further collection efforts. Payment agreements for amounts over $10,000.00 must be approved by the Tigard City Council. 12.03.070 Customer Appeal process (a) Customers shall have the right to appeal billing decisions made by staff. If a customer is not satisfied with a decision,the customer may appeal to the Finance Director within fourteen days of the decision in writing explaining the issue and justification for the customers position. Finance Director decisions may be appealed to the City Administrator within fourteen days of the decision in a similar fashion. City Administrator decisions may be appealed within fourteen days of the decision to the Intergovernmental Water Board. Board decisions are considered final. 1 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2 FOR THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 3 OF THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 4 (An Ordinance Prescribing Charges 5 (for Use of the Unified Sewerage Agency (Surface Water Management System and for 6 ORDINANCE NO. 26 (Services Provided by the Unified (Sewerage Agency; Prescribing Procedures 7 (for Payment of Charges; Repealing (Ordinance No. 25; and Declaring an 8 (Emergency. 9 The Board of. Directors .of ..the. Unified .Sewerage Agency ..of. .. 10 Washington County, Oregon ordains.- 11 rdains:11 SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS 12 A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to authorize charges, 13 rates and fees for use of, and discharge to, the public surface 14 water management system; to provide a process for appeals from 15 certain decisions of the Agency relating to such charges; and to 16 provide for collection of delinquent charges. 17 B. The Unified Sewerage Agency was duly established pursuant 18. to ORS Chapter. 451, _and-.ha.s.:author.ity for.-sanitary sewerage, . and. 19 storm and surface water, including drainage. The Board finds that -. 20 the operation and maintenance of the Agency surface water 21 management system should be funded through user charges imposed 22 for the discharge of storm and surface water to the public storm 23 and surface water system, thereby charging those persons and 24 activities using or receiving service from that system, rathe.r' 25 than by imposing a tax upon property. 26 C. .The Board. finds that. the .de.ci.sion._of. the Oregon Supreme Page 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 26 FILED APR 11 1994 1 uNiFllD SEWERAGE AGENCY A-ENGROSSED 2 IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 3. FOR THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 4 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 5 (An Ordinance Prescribing the Rules and 6 (Regulations Governing the Use and (Operation of the Sanitary Sewerage 7 ORDINANCE NO. 27 (System and the Storm and Surface (Water Management System; Requiring 8 (Permits for Use of each System; (Adopting Certain Appeals Procedures 9 (and Enforcement Provisions; (Repealing Ordinances 21 and 24 and 10 (Declaring an Emergency 11 The Board of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency of 12 Washington County, Oregon ordains: 13 SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS 14 A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to authorize rules and 15 regulations for the sanitary sewerage system and for the storm } 16 and surface water system; to provide a process for adopting U ./ additional and more detailed rules and regulations for such W 1/ Q 18 systems; to provide a process for appeals from certain decisions W 0 19 of the Agency; and to provide a comprehensive enforcement program 3 20 and procedures therefor. oZ B. The Unified Sewerage Agency was duly established W O 21 V 'LW pursuant to ORS Chapter 451, and has authority for sanitary X022 W m 23 sewerage, and storm and surface water, including drainage. In 0 z 24 order to enhance and maintain the water quality of the Tualatin River and its tributaries within and without the USA, to meet Q 25 W26 state and federal permit and regulatory requirements, and to W 0 Page 1 - A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE 27 LSS\ORDINANCE\ORD 27\4-11-94 FILED MAR 111994 RLU%Jif:.,J u[r'AKiMLNT UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 1 IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2 FOR THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 3 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 4 (An Ordinance Prescribing Charges for Use 5 (of the Unified Sewerage Agency Sanitary (Sewerage System and for Services Provided 6 (by the Agency; Establishing System ORDINANCE 28 (Development Charges for the Sanitary 7' (Sewerage System and for the Storm and (Surface Water Management System; $ (Prescribing Procedures for Payment and (Collection; Establishing an Administrative 9 (Appeal Process; Repealing Ordinances 20, 22, (and 23; and Declaring an Emergency 10 11 The Board of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, Oregon ordains: 12 SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND FINDINGS 13 14 A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to authorize charges, 15 rates and .fees for use of, and discharge to, the sanitary sewerage system; to adopt systems development charges consistent 16 with the requirements of ORS Chapter 223 (1993 edition) ; to ti 17 a provide a process for appeals from decisions of the Agency; and u, 18 to provide for collection of delinquent charges. 19 3 o B. The Unified Sewerage Agency was duly established 20 W v . Wo. pursuant to ORS Chapter 451, and has authority for sanitary 0 21 +� W sewerage, and storm and surface water, including drainage. The c 22 J ° Board finds that the operation and maintenance of the Agency : 23 Z = 24 sanitary sewerage system and a portion of construction of the U system should be funded through user charges imposed against Q 25 Z 26 %U 0 Page 1 - ORDINANCE 28 FILED JUN 0 31994 Xt IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECORDS DErAN I MENT UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY FOR THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON (An Ordinance Relating to Charges for (Use of the Unified Sewerage Agency (Sanitary Sewer System and Surface Water ORDINANCE 29 (Management System; Prescribing Procedures (for Payment of Charges; Amending Ordinance (Nos. 26, 27 and 28; and Declaring an (Emergency. The Board of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, Oregon ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. A. The purposes of this Ordinance are: 1) to amend provisions of Ordinances 26, 27 and 28 to allow theAgency and member cities to implement sanitary sewer service charges based on the customer's volume of water consumption; 2) to facilitate billing of sanitary sewer service charges and storm and surface water management system user charges by intergovernmental agreement; 3) to amend the formal administrative review process for actions of the Agency; and 4). to revise administrative procedures and collection remedies relating to service charges. B. The Board. hereby finds that it is necessary and appropriate to adopt a system of sewer use charges based upon water consumption to the extent practicable. A rate structure based on average measured volume of water usage for a representative 1 — ORDINANCE NO. 29 (Amends Ords. 26, 27, & 28) LSS\0RDINANC\0RD29.USA\sb l t 1 IN THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 2 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 3 In the Matter of Adopting a Revised ) Schedule of Charges, Rates and Fees ) 4 Relating to the Sanitary and Storm ) and Surface Water Management Systems ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 5 and Related Services of the Agency; ) 6 Adopting Revised Administrative ) Provisions; Providing for Interest ) No. US A 95 3� and Delinquency Charges; Superseding ) 7 Resolution and Order No. 94-32; ) Pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 26, 28, ) ' 8 and 29; Directing Publication of ) 9 Notice Pursuant to ORS 305. 583 (8) ; ) and Declaring an Effective Date of ) S 10 July 1, 1995. ) i � 11 The above-entitled matter came before the Board at its ' n 12 regular meeting of June 27, 1995; and 0 i2 13 It appearing to the Board that it did adopt Ordinance ? = 14 Nos. 26, 28, and 29, which authorize adoption of certain 15 charges, rates, fees and penalties relating to the Agency 16 systems, and for services provided by the Agency; and that 17 certain of the existing USA charges contained in Resolution 18 and Order No. 94-32 are now in need of amendment; and 19 It appearing to the Board that the proposed charges, 20 rates, fees, interest, penalties and administrative 21 provisions, contained in Exhibit "A, " attached hereto and by 22 this reference incorporated herein, carry out the standards 23 and objectives contained in the above-referenced Ordinances; 24 and 25 It appearing to the Board that Exhibit "A" also contains 26 a schedule of system development charges relating to the Page 1 — RESOLUTION AND ORDER (Revise Rates) LS\RES0LUTE\RATE196.R&0sb\5-95 Engineers Planners Economists Scientists Portland Office October 17, 1995 130324.A0.01 Mr. Wayne Lowry, Finance Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Water Rate and SDC Study Dear Mr. Lowry: I would like to thank you and the Intergovernemental Water Board for your decision to retain CH2M HILL, Inc. to conduct your water rate and SDC study. I can assure you and the Board that we are completely committed to this important project and will complete the project's scope of work within the budget and 12 week schedule to which we originally agreed. A copy of the project schedule is enclosed. CH2M HILL agrees to commit the following staff to this project: Eric Rothstein, Project Manager, and Bob Tomlinson, Project Economist. This commitment will be for circumstances normally within CH2M HILL's control. CH2M HILL reserves the right to substitute staff, after approval by the City of Tigard and the Intergovernmental Water Board, for situations that are not within control of CH2M HILL. These situations could include, but are not necessarily limited to, force majeure or termination of employment. Wayne, I apologize for the confusion surrounding Dave Hasson's departure and appreciate your understanding and cooperation during the last month. If you have any questions, please call me at (503) 235-5022 ext. 4451. Serving Oregon and Southwest Washington from two locations: Portland Office 825 N.E.Multnomah,Suite 1300,Portland,OR 97232-2146 503.235.5000 503.235.2445 FAX Corvallis Office 2300 NW Walnut Blvd..Corvallis.OR 97330-3538 503.752.4271 503.752.0276 FAX Mr. Wayne Lowry Page 2 October 13, 1995 130324.A0.01 Sincerely, CH2M HILL rim Maciariello Vice President Enclosure c: Eric Rothstein Bob Tomlinson TIGARD WATER RATE & SDC STUDY Schedule Timeline WEEK 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 Organize Study 2 Revenue Require ments 3 Cost of Service 4 Draf Rates �4 5Draf SDCs 6 Fina cial Plan 7 Draft Repc rt g Final Report 9 Rate Model 10 Meetings MEMORANDUM CWHILL TO: Wayne Lowry, City of Tigard FROM: Eric Rothstein, CH2M HILL DATE: October 30, 1995 SUBJECT: Tigard Water Rate Study Status Report PROJECT: 13 03 24.A0.01 This status report on the water rate study is for the first week of the study period through Friday, October 27, 1995. We received the water system data from EES on Friday, October 20, 1995. Thus we consider Monday, October 23, 1995 the start date for our analyses which means the 12 week study period will end on Friday, January 12, 1996. To date, we have organized our study files and reviewed the data that we received. The data seems to be complete. We will start to develop the computer models and input the data this week. We will call you, as needed, for further interpretation of the data. We will set up a meeting within the next two weeks to review estimated revenue requirements and project status. Thank you. CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTALAMOUNT DUE OF UTILITY DEPARTMENT 4' J 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET 107.46 P O. BOX 230000 UT[LrrY TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN DEPARTME 1 (503) 639-1554 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503)639-4171 14'24E, '-:�'W 132'Fl) AVE v 11 -7 4 11--JARD 'J'r —a t PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT ----- ----- -- - --- - -- --- -- - - ----- --- --- ---------- NAME 'C ACCOUNT NO. 0 C 'U PA NT SERVICE LOCATION 14-12-10 SW 133RD AVE TYPE OF SERVICE FROM TO SERVICE RES METER RE.ADINq, USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU.FIT CODE CODE AMOUNTS 31 14 Jug 5 3L 7= Ml N w C 38. 28 m BASE 71, 0 �0' 51 W CURRENT BILLING 1.07. 46 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD 55 LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED Ix'27. ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, 107. 46 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE UTILITY DEPARTMENT 23i"S 29".2"D O�F 'n'-44- 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET 12 1/04-/ 19 9 5 107.46 P O. BOX 230000 ung" AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN DEPAIM", I (503) OREGON 97281-1999 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503)639-1554 or (503)639-4171 1`:..LENDLY F"EMINDEl' 0C--t: U P A N'T 1_4 :4t SW 133 3 RD PI'v"E:. TIGPil:'',D OR PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT --- -- --- -------- - - --- -- --------- ------ --------- NAME ACCOUNT NO. 360'12922'9 0 UIPA N T SERVICE -4� SW 1331RD AVE LOCATION SERVICE FROM t:3 0 1 0. 1 995 TO 1 1 1.995 TYPE OF F E q- SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER 1BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT. 100 CU.Fr.. CODE CODE AMOUNTS PAST DUE 6 PAST DUES 39. 71 PAST DUE 5.51 THIS ACCOUNT IS PAST -DUE. IF . YOUHAVE MADE PAYMEr--JT, PLEASE AC-CEPT OUR 1�*-IND', D THIS NOTICE. OTHERWISE, Y D Ul Fi.-' R.E M Ir T A N E B RE TURIN -M A i L W ILL. li',E A P P F:E C 1'A E D. THANiL:,' Yol-11 CURRENT BILLING, LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE 1.(")'7. 4 SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL 07. 46 AMOUNT DUE`, KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE UTILITY DEPARTMENT ,r:-c 1 /I:�r,;'1'�'a::� i J/ 'O 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET P.O. BOX 230000 LaluwAMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN `neN.aHr�o-rrr �, TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 �e ® (503) 639-1554 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503)639-4171 ;.JRl_iLI: NT NOTil_Fw r:: :; h. : :: �c� ,1 . AN `i•.�.`r;.i �?411 1.,._.... :� t"11Y'G. ..r.1.1-. PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT --- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - --- - - -- - -- --- ---------- NAME ACCOUNT NO. a..... SERVICE LOCATION 1-42-:16 SW 1 S2;F:D AVE TYPE OF SERVICE FROM TO SERVICE RES 0c3.` 1 E: 1'i'i'S 1 U METER READING USAGE IN SEWER:. ;,; WATER , BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 C.U.FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS F.,A_ _1. MJF °t F'AJ LU 7 IL THIS t",E.•1_O It'N IF 1.S PAS-i" DUE. !!NLE'SS F'AY!`'(E i`to"F' I' ADE IN FULL OR SAT I SF AI'_ "ORY {-1RR NGEI E_ a ARE MADE BY 10: 0) AM ON THE DUE: DATE SHOWN, THE WATER WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR D I SCUNNE1.:'�I Oty. A FEE 01 2 n c(-, W T LI_ ESE 1�I—I,��RGED TO "f URN THE WATEF": BA F,:: ON a)UR Ttl1=i BUrEI i MESS HOURS, AFTER: H0U ::S T'HE FEE S [.,.1 13 ED l,IIL_1_ D;_ .SSS=:1. :=:s n TF'F—.' YOU ~'CURRENT BILLING LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 1 t)' .46 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION PLEASE PAY ON REVERSE SIDE THIS AMOUNT TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 12.08.010 Chapter 12.08. COLLECTION OF SEWER after the date of billing. Unpaid charges after USER FEES this date shall be deemed delinquent and together with interest,costs and penalties may be 12.08.010 Responsibility for payment. recovered in an action at law by the city of 12.08.020 Billing alternates--City harmless in Tigard. (Ord. 83-36§4, 1983). delinquency disputes. 12.08.030 Date of billing. 12.08.050 Delinquent amounts added to tax 12.08.040 Delinquency. roll. 12.08.050 Delinquent amounts added to tax roll. In accordance with the fees and charges 12.08.060 Penalties not reduced by change of ordinance_of-the city and Oregon Revised occupancy. Statutes 454.225; the city will accrue penalties, interest and costs on delinquent accounts and on 12.08.010 Responsibility for payment. or before July 15th certify to the Washington County tax assessor the delinquent amounts to The city of Tigard, as billing agent for be added to the tax roll next prepared. (Ord. Unified Sewerage Agency,prepares billings on a 83-36§5, 1983). quarterly basis to sewer users. The person who owns the property served by the sewerage 12.08.060 Penalties not reduced by change of system is responsible for payment of the sewer occupancy, user charge for that property, notwithstanding the fact that the property may be occupied by a Change of occupancy of premises found tenant or other occupant who may be required delinquent shall not be cause for reducing or by the owner to pay the charges. [ORS 454.225.1 eliminating the penalties set out in this chapter. (Ord. 83-36§1, 1983). (Ord. 83-36§6, 1983).M 12.08.020 Billing alternates--City harmless in delinquency disputes. The city of Tigard will bill property owners for sewer services, but may bill an alternate party(tenant,trustee,agent,etc.),upon receiving written notice from the property owner.The city shall be held harmless in any disputes between landlord and tenant regarding the collection of delinquent sewer services. (Ord.83-36§2, 1983). 12.08.030 Date of billing. The date of billing shall be the first day of the month for which the sewer user charge is calculated. (Ord. 83-36§3, 1983). 12.08.040 Delinquency. Sewer user charges are due and payable to the finance director no later than thirty days 12-08- 1 Reformatted 1994 SEPTEMBER 1995 WATER MONTHLY REPORT Revenues/Expenditures: Month of September Year to Date Prior Yr. to Date % of Budget Revenues: Water Sales $444,493.22 $1,381,655...82 $1,390,876.63 Meter Sales 32,750.00 117,547.41 92,145.00 Developer Fees 0.00 9,970.88 29,704.18 -Other Income 28,542.22 75,398.34 22,928.58 Total Revenue $505,785.44 $1,584,572.45 $1,525,654.39 39% Expenditures: Personal Services $54,379.48 $173,927.91 $179,775.00 Material Services 202,038.77 484,468.51 506,361.40 Capital Outlay 26,232.83 88,751.75 68,067.84 Cap. Proj. Res. Fund 00.00 00.00 00.00 *Total Expends. $282,651.08 $747,148.17 $754,204.24 18% SDC Fund: $44,412.33 $153,442.59 $107,947.00 41% SDC Fund Balance: $1,808,112.18 * City accounting system is on a cash basis Meter Installations: 5/8" x 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" Total Durham 0 0 0 0 0 0 King City 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Area 6 1 0 0 0 7 City of Tigard 36 4 0 0 0 40 Total for September 47 Water Consumption and Loss: Total 100 cubic feet of water purchased or produced 258,939 ccf Plus amount of water from storage during September and consumption not billed in August 103,045 ccf Total 100 cubic feet of water billed <301,291 ccfl Net amount of water in storage < 16,250 ccfl Amount of water consumed but not yet billed < 32.800 ccfl Total Water loss 11,643 ccf 4% r Work Accomplished: Durham • Water Division personnel responded to a few routine requests to check for water leaks or low water pressure at the customer's service. • Water Division personnel replaced a defective 3/4-inch pressure regulator in the Afton Commons neighborhood. King City • Water Division personnel responded to a few requests to check for low or no water consumption and water leaks at the meter. Unincorporated Area • Water Division personnel replaced two 3/4-inch regulators that were malfunctioning; replaced two 5/8" x 3/4" water meters; responded to 13 requests to check for low or no water consumption and six requests to check low or high pressure. • Water Division personnel repaired a leak on a 6-inch cast iron water main on SW Howard Drive that failed. • Water Division personnel installed six 1-inch water services on SW Beef Bend Road for future development. • Water Division personnel repaired three 3/4 inch water services that were damaged by a contractor installing other underground utilities. • Water Division personnel installed 48 3/4-inch water services and one f- inch water service for Mayview, a single family residential development located on SW Scholls Ferry Road west of SW Menlor Drive. • Water Division personnel 'installed one 1-inch combination air and vacuum release valve and started installing 3/4-inch water services for Kerrons Crest III, a single family residential development located south of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the western boundary of the service area. A1136 3/4-inch water services will be completed during the fist week of October. City of Tigard • Water Division personnel replaced 12 3/4-inch pressure regulators and 12 5/8" x 3/4" water meters that were malfunctioning. In addition Water staff also responded to 44 calls to check on water leaks at the meter, replace damaged meter boxes or checked reports of low water pressure. • Water Division personnel installed 62 3/4-inch water services for Castle Hill III, a single family residential development located on the west side of SW 135th Avenue and SW Walnut Street. • Water Division personnel installed 60 3/4-inch water services for Hillshire Woods, a single family residential development located between SW Fern Street and the summit of Bull Mountain. The remaining 42 3/4-inch water services are to be installed in October. • A private contractor excavated and installed a utility vault for a new pressure reducing facility located in the Hillshire Woods subdivision. Vaults for pressure reducing facilities are usually installed by Water Division personnel. However, due to the work load of this past summer Water crews were not available. Therefore the contractor performing the water main installations for the subdivision was contracted with to install the vault. • Water Division personnel repaired a 6-inch water main that failed on SW Highland Drive and SW Kable Lane. • Water Division personnel made a temporary repair on a 2-inch water service located on SW Hunziker Street. • Water Division personnel replaced a water sample station that was damaged by a private contractor in the Arlington Ridge subdivision. Status Report: On September 14, we decreased our water purchases from TVWD, from 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 1.4 mgd, in order to purchase an additional 0.56 mgd from the City of Portland. The purchases from Portland was to confirm our intent of purchasing additional Bull Run water. However, due to the cool weather and the beginning of the fall rains our water demand decreased. Because of the decrease in water demand and the additional purchases of Portland and TVWD water, our purchases of Lake Oswego water fell to 50% of average daily purchases. On September 25, in response to a Lake Oswego Treatment Plant request, we stopped purchasing water from Portland and TVWD. Due to the nature of the continuing negotiations with Lake Oswego, we deemed it necessary to purchase our historic average daily demand from Lake Oswego in a show of good faith. Wells 1 and 2 are still on line and will continue to produce water until at least November 30, to help offset some of the costs associated from buying TVWD and Bull Run water this last summer. Sheetl Date Lake O. in Bull Run TVWD in Well#1 in Well#2 in Well#3 in Total MG MG in Demand MGD in MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD_ PurJProd. Storage in MG 10/1/95 3.54 0.576 0.58 4.696 18.72 4.526 10/2/95 2.85 0.58 0.584 4.014 17.49 5.244 10/3/95 3.26 0.579 0.581 4.42 17.27 4.64 10/4/95 3.93 0.579 ., 0.584 5.093 17.62 4.743 10/5/95 3.57 0.579 0.583 4.732 18.25 4.102 10/6/95 2.55 0.579 0.582 3.711 17.71 4.251 10/7/95 3.61 0.579 0.581 4..77 17.74 4.74 10/8/95 3.04 0.577 0.578 4.195 17.56 4.375 10/9/95 3.92 0.579 0.581 5.08 17.64 5 10/10/95 3:4 0.579 0.579 4.558 18.09 4.108 1-0/11/96 3.19 0.574 . 0.579 4.343 18.1 4.333 10/12/95 3.26 0.5$3 0.577 4.42 18.64 3.88 10/13/95 3.24 0.578 1 0.578 4.396 18.58 4.456 10/14/95 3.19 0.582 0.581 4.353 18.51 4.423 10/15/95 2.85 0.581 0.578 4.009 18.04 4.479 10/16/95 3.38 0.579 0.575 4.534 18.22 4.354 10/17/95 3.38 0.583 0.578 4.541 18.37 4'.391 10/18/95 3.22 0.584 0.578 4.382 18.7 4.052 10/19/95 3.28 0.583 0.576 4.439 18.71 4.429 10/20/95 2.69 0.584 0.579 3.853 18.3 4263 10/21/95 2.35 0.584 0.579 3.513 17.83 3. 983 10/22/95 3.48 0.584 0.58 4:644 17.89 4.584 10/23/95 3.45 0.583 . 0.575 4.608 18.41 4.088 10/24/95 2.75 0.581 0.574 3.905 17.92 4.395 10/25/95 3.3 0.581 0.576 4.457 17.67 4.707 10/26/95 2.84 0.581 0.574 3.995 18.23 3.435 10/27/95 3.52 0.581 0.575 4.676 17.44 5.466 10/28/95 2.91 0.58 0.572 4.062 18.72 2_.782 10/29/95 3.04 0.548 0.539 4.127 18.63 4,217 10/30/95 3.34 0.598 0.587 4..525 18 5.155 10/31/95 2.76 0.58 0.571 3.911 18.18 3.731 Averages 3.196452 #DIV/0! #DIV/01 0.579935 0-.5772261 4.3536131 18.10258 4.365548 Page 1 s MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan FROM: John Acker DATE: October 23 , 1995 SUBJECT: School District use of Canterbury The Tigard Water District entered into an agreement with the Tigard School District in March 1993 . The agreement states that it is binding on successors. The agreement also states that the term of the agreement shall be one year. The school district has the use of two shop bays totaling 2, 900 square feet plus outside storage for 11 mini busses. Which is what is currently is being used. The school district pays $175 per month ($2100/yr) which has been billed by the water district each July. The bill has not yet been sent for the FY 95-96 year. The utilities are arranged as follows: GAS There is only one gas meter for the building. Gas is used to operate three large ceiling mounted heaters - one in the district side and two in the City side, each with its own thermostat. We typically keep our thermostat set fairly low. My guess, is that the school district uses a much greater amount of gas to heat than we do. I do not know if the split is 3 : 1 or 2 : 1 or what . ELECTRICITY There is one meter for the building. The school district uses electricity for lights, coffee pot, etc. and for bus heaters in the winter. The City uses electricity to operate a pump station year-round and to operate a well pump during the summer. There is no way to determine accurately what the split is with electricity either, but we use by far the greater amount . C WATER There are two meters for the building. One meter is for the inside of the building which includes the bathroom. This meter includes the sanitary sewer charge. The other meter is for the outside hose bib. This meter includes the stormwater charge. Neither meter is charged for water use. Both meter bills are paid by the City The way to accurately split utility costs is to add meters and split the systems so that each use area has a separate meter. I have not looked into the cost of doing so but can if you like. For watdr there is already a reasonable split in the meter and systems - the inside meter including sanitary sewer charge to the district, the outside meter and stormwater charge to the City. Additionally, there is the question of the school district paying for their water usage. Please let me know if you need further work. Also the school district needs to be billed for this fiscal year but I will wait until I hear if you want changes before I proceed. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Ed Wegner FROM: John Acker DATE: November 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Water Facility use As a part of the review of facilities used for water purposes I looked at the use of the conference rooms at the water building over the past year. Since we have no record of actual use, this information is based on room reservations. Auditorium 0%WatPublic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%- Water er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% 16%- Other Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tigard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211-o King City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Tigard Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% Conference Room Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3390 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%- Other %Other Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% Tigard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52% King City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00, Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Tigard Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 * 760-, of this use is for the auditors which includes audit of the water fund. Estimate that a large portion of this time is spent on water related work 40% - 60% VISITORS PLEASE REGISTER Date: Meeting: Name (please print) Do you wish to speak? Nes or no 5 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.