Loading...
07/12/2000 - Packet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area Wednesday, July 12, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order Motion to call meeting to order 2. Roll Call and Introductions Staff to take roll call 3. Approval of Minutes—June 14, 2000 Motion from Board for minute approval 4. Clute Property—Mike Miller (30 minutes) Discussion of the appeal on the land use for Clute property 5. IGA Restructuring -Ed Wegner/Tim Ramis (20 minutes) Discussion on restructuring on separate jurisdictions placing a water supply issue to a public vote. Board recommendation on further process. 6. Integrated Water Resource Management Strategy—Ed Wegner(10 minutes) Discussion of the status on the progress of the Integrated Water Resource Management Strategy 7. Informational Items Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed • City of Sherwood Resolution 2000-875 —creation of an agreement with TVWD for long-term water supply • Oregonian article(6-22-00)Priorities affect quest for water • Letter from Portland Water Bureau on summer 2000 augmentation and contingency plan • Oregonian article(6-29-00)on Summer water usage outlining the use of the Columbia Southshore Well fields. 8. Public Comments Call for any comments from public 9. Non Agenda Items Call for any non-agenda items from Board Members. Next meeting date August 9"' 10. Adjournment—Approximate time 7.00 p.m. Motion for adjournment • Light dinner will be served at 5:15 p.m. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d), (e),O&(h)to discuss labor relations,real property transactions,current and pending litigation issues and to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential;therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session,but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes June 14 2000 Members Present; Paul Hunt, Jan Drangsholt, Bill Schederich, and Patrick Carroll Staff Present: Mike Miller, Kim Swan, and Twila Willson Visitors: Paul Owen and Roel Lundquist Z. Call to Order Bill Schederich called the regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board to order at 5:37 p.m. 2, Roll Call and Introductions The recording secretary,Twila Willson, took roll call. Gretchen Buehner was absent. 3. Approval of minutes-May i0,2000 Commissioner Paul Hunt motioned to approve the minutes of the May 10, 2000, meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patrick Carr-oil and voted upon and passed unanimously. 4, CHZM Hill Water Study—Mike Miller/Art Grifth Mike Miller introduced Art Griffith from CHZM Hill who distributed copies of the Water Rate Study. Mr. Griffith presented the following information on the System Development Charge Update: • Summary of Existing and Proposed SDCs (system development charge) Existing SDC to Proposed SDC u 410 Zone: $986 to proposed $2,041 u Bull Mountain area: $1,507 to $2,763 n Higher SDC for larger meters • Policy Considerations Revised capital improvement projects Existing SDCs do not fully recover growth-related improvement costs —> No water supply project component of existing SDC -� Redistribution of cost responsibilities across customers enhances equity Under-recovery of growth-related costs will have adverse rate impacts —> CIP must be adopted prior to implementation of revised SDC • Regulatory Background Oregon Legislation Intergovernmental Water Board 1 June 14,2000 u Definitions Use of revenues, review procedures u Determination of fee amount, credits, limitations on contesting of fee and notification Authorized expenditure of fees Preparation of plan for capital improvements financed by system development charges u System Development Charge revenue accounting -� Reimbursement Fee u Recovers costs associated with the growth-related (or available) capacity in the existing system Determine the net plant investment Define system capacity Calculate the unit cost of existing infrastructure Calculate reimbursement fee for EDU (each dwelling unit) Improvement Fee Calculation 9 See flow chart n Sources of Information • Methodology -� Step 1: Capacity Cost Allocation II Project costs including bond issuance costs Excludes interest costs on debt financing and potential interest earnings Water Supply Project: applied system wide zz Distribution System: separate charges for 410 zone and Bull Mountain area -� Step 2: Unit Cost of Capacity 9 Allows for recognition of differences in use of facilities Step 3: Debt Service Credit u Benefits existing and new customers Present value of future debt service payments u Declines as debt service principal is paid No debt service for distribution system projects -� Step 4: Improvement Fee Schedule Water Supply- $1,432 u Debt Service Credit ($552) u Distribution System $2,041 -410 Zone $2,763 - Bull Mountain The following questions were addressed to Mr. Griffith and Mike Miller: Commissioner Schederich asked about the meter sizes for EDU, multi-family unit or commercial/industrial development. Mike Miller explained the meters sizes are based on what the demand is. SDCs are based on hydraulic capacity. Separate irrigation meters can be installed. The ultimate goal is to protect the meter from over-usage so meters are sized accordingly. Intergovernmental Water Board 2 June 14,2000 Commissioner Carroll asked what the meter sizes were. Mr. Miller explained that the standard meter size is 5/8"x 3/4"1 with 1"meters in larger homes. Commissioner Carroll asked how sprinkler systems were factored in. Mr. Miler stated that many times the developer would include that in the plans. Many times the homeowner runs the sprinklers at the wrong time and does not get the pressure desired. Automated sprinkler systems, if set up correctly, should not have an adverse effect on the meter capacity. Commissioner Drangsholt asked if the requirement to install interior fire sprinkler systems effected the water meter. Mr. Miller stated that it does effect the meter and there is a current policy where the plumbing plans for the home are examined, a 1" meter can be installed at it's cost, but the SDC's are paid on a 5/8"x 3/41 . Commissioner Carroll asked what happened to a meter if too much water was sucked out of it. Mr. Miller explained that it would fall apart as the meters are plastic inside. Some have bronze bodies, but some are all plastic. Commissioner Patrick Carroll motioned to recommend to the Tigard City Council that they adopt the new proposed SDC schedules as presented that night. Commissioner Paul Hunt seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. 5. Water Conservation Update—Kim Swan Kim began her presentation with the work that is taking place locally. ➢ Many classroom presentations have been made in the schools. There is a puppet show presentation, "Where's Rosie?"which is geared for first and second graders. Other resources include activities and videos. These have all been good tools to get the water education conservation message across. Kim has seen just over 2,000 children this year. She has received numerous"thank you"notes and letters from the teachers and students. She shared a few of those letters and pictures with the board. She targets children because they take the conservation message home and they will help parents change habits. ➢ This is the fourth year of the residential water audit program. This is being done in conjunction with Portland,TVWD, Hillsboro and Gresham. TruGreen Land Care won the contract. Letters are sent to high water use customers offering them the service in which TruGreen Land Care will go audit their site by looking at the landscaping and irrigation system, provide them with watering recommendations, soil recommendations and give them a watering schedule. Reminder cards were distributed to those customers which generated some more response to the program. ➢ Conservation information will be added to the City of Tigard's website. She is in the process of gathering information and researching other city's websites to see how best to present the information. That project completion date is planned for the end of the summer. Intergovernmental Water Board 3 June 14,2000 ➢ Conservation kits continue to be distributed throughout the area. Over 1,000 have been distributed to date. ➢ A summer utility bill insert is being prepared. It will start to go out with the July 1 billing process. Regional activities have changed over the years. In March 2000 the Regional Water Providers Consortium merged with the Coalition. The Coalition has become a technical subcommittee of the Consortium. She has been appointed to chair that committee for the next year. In July there will be meetings with some of the new members to get them up to speed with conservation. In August the Consortium Technical Committee meeting will be an open house to share ideas with other conservation staff members, displays will be up, and the website will be available. Ms. Swan continued to briefly explain some of the work planned for the coming year. A large portion of the regional conservation money goes for the summer campaigns. ➢ Award for the television spot was displayed. The television spot was shown. This is a paid TV spot. Broadcasters also often match public service announcements for those paid for. ➢ Billboard sample shown ➢ Metro bus transit ➢ Radio spot was also played ➢ Flyers were shown ➢ Continued youth education program ➢ Gardening shows ➢ Trade workshops with landscapers, architects, contractors 6. Leak policy discussion—Mike Miller Mr. Miller distributed a copy of Ordinance 96-02. He briefly explained the history of how staff has handled billing when leaks are involved. The board has requested that common grounds and policies be established. The current municipal code can be modified to increase the amount that staff can authorize. He suggested that staff be authorized a 50/50 share for excessive leak and be allowed to analyze the extenuating circumstances A discussion took place where the opinions expressed were that it was important to increase the staff's authority; there definitely was a need to set policy on how to operate, and staff authority to use judgement in select situations. Commissioner Schederich suggested standards to be prepared and presented for review. Commissioner Carroll questioned whether the emergency phone number was listed on the bill. He asked Mr. Miller to check and report on that. Mr. Miller indicated that in an emergency calls to the police go to WACCA who goes through the City's answering service. The service then contacts the emergency on-call personnel. Intergovernmental Water Board 4 June 14,2000 Commissioner Schederich also requested an absolute figure (maximum credit) be selected in the staff policy. Mr. Miller will set up guidelines for further discussion. Z Adoption of Water Master Plan—Mike Afiller Request recommendation from each of the boards to go back to Tigard City Council for the formal adoption of the Master Plan and the CIP. Commissioner Drangsholt motioned to approve the adoption of the Master Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Miller informed the IWB that the 3% water rate increase would go into effect July 1. The SDC portion goes back to City Council. The Sizemore issue is still the tricky part. It has gone to the Tigard City attorney office and they have recommended implementation with a change to methodology of the SDC. Commissioner Schederich said it would be a simple terminology change. He questioned whether notice had been sent out to the homebuilder's associations. Mr. Miller said that had not been done yet and reviewed past procedures. Me indicated the Tigard City Council must approve the entire package before implementation can begin. It is his goal to have this in place sometime in the fall. S. Inforinational Items Mr. Miller distributed informational packets and discussed peaking factor calculation. Wholesale operators met with Portland. Drastic weather changes cause hardships with high flows and ultimately there's no place to put water. The wholesale water users will not be penalized, but will dump water. Portland agreed to a 15% drop. Commissioner Carroll asked how much it would cost to put in an accurate flow meter. Mr. Miller thought it would be about $60,000 and would include other changes that were needed as well. Commissioner Carroll asked if Lake Oswego was an on demand contract. Mr. Miller indicated that since Summer 1998 he is not comfortable doing more than 1.5 mgd with Lake Oswego, but there are no repercussions if cut off today. We would notify them to allow them to modify their production. We are unable to go directly to Beaverton for water. The JWC wants to approve water coming from Beaverton. A brief outline was presented on improvements due to directional boring, flushing of hydraulic actuators, and King City fire hydrant replacements. Intergovernmental Water Board 5 ]une 14,2000 9, Public Comments—None is Non Agenda Items Roel Lundquist brought up customers on wells in Durham. Mr. Miller stated there is a Public Works employee who may gain from looping lines in that area. Commissioner Carroll stated it was unfair to exclude services because of that issue. Mr. Lundquist asked if the SDC would be waived. Mr. Miller and Commissioner Schederich both stated that they would be buying into existing capacity. 11. Adjournment Commissioner Carroll motioned for adjournment of the meeting. Unanimous approval for dismissal was at 6:55 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board 6 June 14,2000 TIGARD, ORFgON RESOLUTION NO. -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, INCREASING RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES FOR WATER AND WATER RELATED SERVICES. WHEREAS, Section 12.10.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides that fees and charges for water and water related services be established by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the current water rates are those established by Resolution No. 93-67 as amended by Resolution Nos. 96-02, 96-55 and 96-58; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the existing water rates are insufficient to pay all capital, operations, maintenance and administrative costs of the water system and that a rate increase is therefore needed; now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD RESOLVES THAT: SECTION 1: The customer charge established by Section 2 of Resolution No. 96-58 is increased to $3.66 per bimonthly period per account for all customer classes and meter sizes. SECTION 2: The booster charge for areas served by booster pumps established by Section 3 of Resolution No. 96-58 is increased to $3.22 per bimonthly period per account. SECTION 3: Water usage charges established by Section 4 of Resolution No. 96-58 are increased as set forth in this section. Water usage charges shall be charged for each 100 cubic feet of water and are established for the various customer classes as follows: Residential $1.35 Multi-Family $1.33 Commercial $1.57 Industrial $1.30 Irrigation $1.67 QO- RESOLUTION NO. Page 1 SECTION 4: The installation fees applicable to the Size of Meter Charge schedule and Bull Mountain Meter Rates established in Section 1 of Resolution No. 96-55 for meters 2" and under are increased to the amount set forth on the following table. Installation fees for meters 3" or greater are not changed. The total charges shall be increased to include the SDC amount plus the installation fees. Size of Meter Charge Schedule: Meter Size Installation Fees 5/8"x 3/4" $334.75 1" $587.10 1 1/2" $854.90 2" $1,014.55 SECTION 5: The Fire Service Connection fee established by Section l(a)(II) of Resolution No. 93-67 is increased to: Fee $1,287.50 per Fire Service Tap + 12% Fee based on Construction Costs. SECTION 6: The Fire Rates (Sprinklers) established by Section 1(b)(II) of Resolution No. 93- 67 are increased to the amounts set forth in this Section. The Fire Rates (Sprinklers) will be based on the size of the service going into the building or vault: $15.45 per month—6" or smaller; $20.60 per month— 8" or larger. SECTION 7: The charge for turning water off and on when water service is discontinued for non-payment of bill established by Section lof Resolution No. 96-02 is increased to: $25.75 during business hours; $36.05 after hours and on Holidays and Weekends. DO RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 SECTION 8: The rate for temporary use of a Fire Hydrant established by Section 2 of Resolution No. 93-67 is increased to $25.75 for hook-up service, plus $25.75 per month for continued use, in addition to the rates established by Section 4 of this resolution. SECTION 9: All rate changes included in this resolution will be effective beginning July 1, 2000. PASSED: By U n CM I m a is vote of all Council members .present after being read number and title only, this day of , 2000. Catherine Wheatley, City Record APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day o , 2000. yor—City of Ti rd Approved as to form: �ityyAttorney Date RESOLUTION NO. 27 Page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Wegner, Director of Public Works Y,�U) FROM: Mike Miller, Utility Manager RE: History of Clute Property Acquisition DATE: July 7, 2000 Background to Tigard providing operations: The Tigard Water District once provided water service to the cities of King City, Durham and two thirds of Tigard, as well as areas of unincorporated Washington County mostly contained on Bull Mountain. In 1993, the cities of Tigard, King City and Durham withdrew from the Tigard Water District. Since 1994, the City of Tigard through intergovernmental agreements (IGA) has provided the operation of the water system to all entities. The objective has been, and continues to be, that the water system for the Tigard Water Service Area, which is the boundary of the original water district, remain intact and be operated as a single system. Under the IGA, assets were divided into two categories; system assets and other assets. System assets are the assets necessary for the operation of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original Tigard Water District. Personal and intangible properties are system assets as well as water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements or other property necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original Tigard Water District. Other assets are assets not necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original Tigard Water District. As stated in the IGA other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the asset is located. Regardless of whether or not a property is considered a system asset or other asset, section 4.13 of the IGA states that all system assets and other assets shall be pledged by the Cities (Tigard, King City and Durham) and the Tigard Water District to Tigard. All system assets and other assets shall be managed by Tigard and shall be utilized by Tigard in order to provide services to properties, residences and businesses in the original District. The IGA, in Section 3, establishes the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB). The IWB was empowered to make recommendations to the Tigard City Council on water service issues and have the following responsibilities: • Make a continuing study of the rate structure of the water system. Clute Property Page 2 • Consider and prepare plans for and make recommendations to the Tigard City Council for a long-range operation and management program. • Investigate and study means of effecting economies in operation and management. • Review and make recommendations of to the Tigard Budget Committee and Council on all budget requests for water operation and maintenance. • Study and consider ways and means of improving the water system and services, which it provides. • Study and make recommendations on Tigard's program for providing insurance for system assets and operations. • Make a continuing review of any and all rules and regulations regarding the water system which may be adopted by the Tigard City Council and periodically make recommendations to the Council for additions or amendments of such rules and regulations. • Work with other agencies and jurisdictions in a cooperative effort to plan for future water supply needs of the area. • Make recommendations to the Tigard City Council relative to all of the above- mentioned matters and as well as to any other matters which the IWB may feel to be for the good of the water system, the overall public interest and for the benefit of the consumer. Tax Lot 600 (Clute Property): In 1990, the Tigard Water District had their master plan.updated. Within their master plan the need for a reservoir to be constructed on the Menlor property was again identified. The first time the reservoir was identified was in the 1986 Bull Mountain Water Master Plan. In 1994, the City of Tigard assumed responsibility for the entire Tigard Water Service Area and reassessed the master plan as well as the water supply plan that was completed in 1986 and 1990 for the Tigard Water District. Through an independent review of the master plans, and the continued high growth on Bull Mountain, the City determined that a new 3.5 million-gallon reservoir was necessary to be constructed upon the Menlor site. In 1995, the City of Tigard began the process of preliminary design of the 3.5 million gallon Menlor Reservoir. Three points of access to the proposed reservoir site were identified: SW Sunrise Lane; Tract G located within Bull Mountain Meadows; and SW 154th Avenue. Although the Water System had a 10-foot access strip to SW Sunrise Lane, the steepness of the street, poor condition of the pavement and possible requirement from Clute Property Page 3 the County for total replacement of the street from the .terminus to SW Bull Mountain Road made this option economically unfeasible. Another access point, through Tract G, was also found not to be the preferred access due to the necessity of routing all of the construction traffic through an existing established neighborhood. The only option left was for the City of Tigard, on behalf of the water system, to try and obtain either an access road easement or purchase the property at the south terminus of SW 154th Avenue (Tax Lot 600). It is important to note that the statement "on behalf of the water system" is referring to the fact that Tigard operates the entire water system for all parties of the [GA. Contained in the Division of Assets report, proportionate interests in assets are as follows: Tigard Water District 17.59%; City of Tigard 73.38%; City of King City 4.6% and the City of Durham 4.43%. Negotiations with the property owner (Ms. Clute) began in 1995. Negotiations continued until May 1997, when after relocating the access road from a straight extension of SW 154th Avenue, Ms. Clute requested that the access road be located on the west side of the parcel. This is where the access road was ultimately constructed. Appraisal Report: In January 1997, an appraisal report was completed on the Clute property. Since market value is the major focus of most real property appraisal assignments, it was used in this report. The current economic definition in the US is "the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale". In 1997, prior to IGA between Washington County and the City of Tigard to provide Urban Services, the property was zoned R15 in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, also known as the Bull Mountain Community Plan. At the time of the appraisal the highest and best use of the property was to maintain the existing dwelling and shed, to rebuild the existing garage (which was torn down after the City purchased the property) at another location on the property and develop the remaining land into seven single family lots averaging approximately 5,000 square feet. Fair Market value, at the time was estimated at $287,000. This figure was the basis for negotiations to acquire the access easement. However after continued negotiations the City decided to purchase the entire property and on May 29, 1997, the City utilizing dedicated water funds purchased Tax Lot 600 for $350,000. Discussions of Land Use: In 1996, prior to submitting the permit application to Washington County, the City held a public meeting for the surrounding neighborhoods to get their feelings and concerns for the 3.5 million-gallon reservoir project. At this meeting, some of the neighbors were under the impression that the Menlor site was to be a combination park and reservoir site, since there was an organization looking for park space in that area. The Public Works Director, Ed Wegner, stated that the use of the remainder of the eleven-acre site Clute Property Page 4 has not been determined at that time. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that the City is not opposed to putting in walking trails, although this has not been determined. The City is striving to keep the remainder of the site in a natural state by keeping tree removal to a minimum. When checking through the old records there is no indication that anything other than two reservoirs would be placed on the site. A second reservoir was originally proposed in the 1986 Bull Mountain Water Master Plan. Another question from the neighborhood meeting was raised as to whether or not the entire eleven acres would be fenced. Mr. Wegner stated that the City would work with the neighborhood and that the City would probably fence the area along the roadside and leave the majority of the site in a natural state. At the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Tigard City Council, Mayor Nicoli responded to a question from a concerned citizen as to whether or not the City had promised to adjacent homeowners a park on the Clute property or if the City would grant permits to build three residential homes. Mayor Nicoli stated that the City (along with Washington County) had purchased more land directly uphill of the Menlor reservoir land to use as a City Park in the future. Mayor Nicoli continued by stating that the park would not be developed immediately as it was outside the City limits at this time. At the February 24, 1999 meeting of the IWB, Commissioner Scheiderich questioned whether the surplus property from the Menlor project would be sold that year and will these funds go into the Water fund. Mr. Wegner stated that this surplus property would probably be sold during that fiscal year. He continued by saying that the Menlor reservoir site is complete with the exception of some landscaping. The IWB will need to decide what to do with the remainder of the Clute property that was purchased at the bottom of the site. The original intent was to purchase this property (Clute) which was needed to construct the reservoir and then sell the surplus property. Staff's recommendation will most likely be to sell the additional property including the house and utilize those funds to purchase property adjacent to the Menlor reservoir at a higher level (550 zone). At the July 14, 1999 meeting of the IWB, Public Works Director, Ed Wegner discussed the Clute property. Mr. Wegner stated that everything we needed with the property has been completed and we need to make a decision on the use of the property. Mr. Wegner identified three options with the Clute property: • Hold onto the property and house. • Donate to the greenspaces for park lands and nature center. When Tigard did their valuation of parks that area was deficient in greenspace, however, since that time quite a bit of property has been purchased above the Menlor site in addition to other properties. • Sell the property. Sell off as is and go through a Minor Land Partition. Some neighbors have approached the City to see if there is interest in selling property adjacent to their properties. Mr. Wegner stated that the staff recommendation was to sell this property and purchase property within the 550 zone. Clute Property Page 5 Mr. Wegner stated that staff needs some direction from the IWB on the future of this property. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned and recommended that Metro be approached to valuate the desirability for the preservation of open space, by way of significant drainage basin or significant stand of trees, etc. Mr. Wegner stated that we had not consulted Metro on this issue at that time. Mr. Scheiderich also made the recommendation to get a realtor's advice on whether it would be logical to partition this property. Commissioner Hunt questioned the ability to purchasing property at the 550 zone and was it reliant upon the sale of the Clute property. Mr. Wegner stated that the funds generated from the sale of the Clute property would allow us to replenish the capital fund. Commissioner Froude stated the interests of some of the neighbors in a community center. Metro was contacted shortly after the July 14, 1999 IWB meeting. At that time Metro indicated that they were not interested in purchasing the property or determining a value of the property. We have once again contacted Metro, as recently as July 6, 2000, and at the time of writing this memorandum we are waiting for a response. At the November 10, 1999 meeting of the IWB, Commissioner Scheiderich questioned the status of disposing of the surplus property. Mr. Wegner stated that we have not worked on that property at this time. It was discussed that the site is approximately 2 acres and that the purchase price was approximately $219,000 and the estimated value of the remaining property was somewhere around $200,000. Mr. Wegner stated that this issue would have to be discussed after the next meeting. At the January 12, 2000 meeting of the IWB, Mike Miller, Utility Manager for Tigard, stated that the surplus portion of the Clute property has been identified and will be proceeding with the Minor Land Partition beginning on January 20, 2000, with a pre- application meeting to be held on January 27. Mr. Miller continued by stating that this process will take approximately two months once the partition has been completed. Zoning: As stated previously, the original zoning designation for the property was Washington County's R15. However, Washington County Ordinance No. 487 established a framework to delegate and transfer to the City of Tigard responsibility for the provision of certain urban services to provide more efficient public service to the citizens of the Urban Services Area (Bull Mountain and Walnut Island areas). Through an intergovernmental agreement, Washington County transferred and delegated certain services including quasi-judicial and ministerial planning services, including the issuance of development decisions and code enforcement services. In order to accomplish an effective and efficient delegation and transfer of services it was noted in Ordinance 487 that local regulations applicable to the affected area must be uniform and that changes to the County" Community Development Code were required. Specifically that the most uniform and efficient way would be to have the City to administer its own regulations, and other relevant standards with minimal County regulatory overlap, because Tigard's planning regulations are in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals. Clute Property Page 6 In Section 801-8.2 of Ordinance 487, County land use designations and districts within the Urban Services area were replaced by Tigard land use designations and districts. Since Tigard does not have an R-15 (15 units per acre) residential designation, the County amended its designations and districts contained in their R-15 areas to Tigard zoning R-25 (Multi-family 25 units per acre). The R-25 zone is the closest zone that Tigard has that would allow 15 units per acre. Tigard does have an R-12 zone that allows up to 12 units per acre, but that would not have maintained what was allowed by the original County zone. The planning designation for R-25 in Tigard is medium-high density 13-25 units per acre. Also in section 801-8.2.1 B.1 a of Ordinance 487, states that legislative decisionmaking may only be undertaken by the County in the manner specified in the Washington County Community Development Code and County Comprehensive Plan provisions. In other words it is the County that would have to grant a rezoning of the Clute property. Specific Issues Raised by Neighbors of the Clute Property: Why is the City of Tigard the applicant for land use approval? As stated in the IGA, the cities of King City, Durham and Tigard, along with the Tigard Water District pledged all their assets to Tigard. All system assets and other assets are managed by the City of Tigard and shall be utilized by the City in order to provide water services to properties, residences and businesses in the water service area. Also in the IGA, paragraph 5 of the Recitals states: "The Cities and the District agree that it is in their best interest if King City, Durham and the District were to be an integrated part of a water supply network receiving water service from Tigard's city water department. Tigard will receive revenue from water users in Tigard, King City, Durham, and the District, and with that revenue Tigard will provide the funds to pay for expenses incurred in providing water service". Since Tigard is in charge of all of the funds for the water system, which includes operation, maintenance and capital funds, and Tigard is operating the entire system on behalf of the other entities, Tigard as the operator of the system should be the applicant. Please remember that the Intergovernmental Water Board is only a board and does not have funds available to it to purchase property or equipment. Also the Tigard Water District, even though it is a special service district and still has taxing authority within the unincorporated area, does not have the funding necessary to purchase property. In fact the Tigard Water District's annual budget is approximately $20,000 per year. Why can the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) decide on whether the property can be sold or used as open space? Paragraph 6 of the Recitals of the IGA between the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District states: "The Cities and District agree that it is in their best interest to share authority for decision-making regarding the long-term water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and future water customers of the original District". Clute Property Page 7 Since the Clute property was an integral part of the capital improvement project of constructing the Menlor reservoir and that each entity owns a proportionate interest in the Clute property, deposal of surplus property, which is a capital asset, would need to be recommended by the IWB, and Tigard would need to act upon that recommendation. Also it is the intention of the IWB to utilize the proceeds from the sell of the Clute property to purchase another property to site a reservoir within the 550 zone on Bull Mountain. The purchase of reservoir property at the 550 zone is in the approved 2000- 2001 fiscal year capital improvement plan that was recommended by the IWB and adopted by the Tigard City Council. In Section 5.D.3 of the IGA states "...For capital improvements made subsequent to entering into this Agreement that are determined to be system assets, the Cities and District shall have a proportionate interest in such `system asset'...". Again this is to just show that all system assets are jointly owned. Why is the deed to the Clute property in the City of Tigard's name? Again, since Tigard holds all funding and revenues, and that Tigard is responsible for managing the water system including capital projects on behalf of the other entities, Tigard should be the deed holder of the property. Attachments: • City of Tigard Resolution No. 93-64, approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District. Included in the attachment, as exhibit A, is the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District that also forms the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB). • Washington County Ordinance No. 487, which establishes a framework to delegate and transfer to the City of Tigard responsibility for the provision of certain urban services to provide more efficient public service to the citizens of the Urban Services Area (Bull Mountain and Walnut Island areas). As an attachment to Ordinance 487, is the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Tigard and Washington County. • Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Recommendation and Staff Report on the Special Use Approval and Development Review for a 3.5 million-gallon water storage reservoir. • City of Tigard Memorandum, dated June 29, 2000, from Dick Bewersdoff to Jim Hendryx on the land partition. I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. C3-&-/_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, APPROVING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND 'APPOINTING THE WATER DISTRICT'S MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD CREATED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT. BE I`I' RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD THAT: SECTION 1: The Intergovernmental Agreement for water services between the City and Tigard Water District, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement. SECTION 2: The City Recorder is authorized to do all things necessary to secure signatures from the Tigard Water District and to deliver a copy of the signed Agreement to the City of -King City and the City of Durham. SECTION 3 : ` oh+� sClu�C�f �, is designated as the City's member on the Intergovernmental Water B and created under Section 3 of the Agreement. �L (AL 1� uuAnk is designated as the City's alternate member on the Intergovernmental Water Board. PASSED: By UXVAX6 muw3 vote of all Council members present after being read bnumber and title only, this ' da of �Ce*nU , 1993 . w Cathy Wheatley, City R order APPROVED: This Q day o ) , 1,993 . Gerald wards, Mayor Approved as to fo A-�� V_ C y AttoxWey Date• A-_�/rQ ach\tigatd\jwa\igat&twd.rts r ' EXHIBIT A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT FOR DELIVERY OF WATER SERVICE TO TERRITORY WITHIN THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES This Agreement is made and entered into by the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation, (hereinafter "Tigard") and the Tigard Water District, a domestic water supply district existing under ORS Ch. 264, (hereinafter "District") . Tigard and District are jointly referred to herein as "the Parties. " Unless identified as "original , " District refers to the remnant district. RECITALS• 1. The cities of Tigard, King City and Durham (collectively the "Cities") withdrew from the original District effective July 1, 1993 . 2 . Pursuant to ORS 222 . 540, the District is obligated to turn over to the Cities its water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements and other property in the area withdrawn from the District as it existed on June 30, 1993 , (original District) that are not necessary for the operation of the remainder of the water supply system of the District. 3 . The area withdrawn by Tigard was a major portion of the original District. Because of this, Tigard is entitled to a major portion of the original District' s infrastructure pursuant to ORS 222. 540. King City and Durham are entitled to smaller portions of the original District's infrastructure. Furthermore pursuant to ORS 222. 550, should the District dissolve, Tigard will be in a position to obtain all of the District' s remaining assets which have not been distributed under ORS 222. 540. 4 . With the assets and infrastructure obtained by its withdrawal from the original District, Tigard is creating a city water department. 5. The Cities and District agree that it is in their best interest if King City, Durham and the District were to be an integrated part of a water supply network receiving water service from Tigard's city water department. Tigard will receive revenue from water users in Tigard, King City, Durham, and the District, and with that revenue Tigard will provide the funds to pay for expenses incurred in providing water service. 6. The Cities and District agree that it is in their best interest to share authority for decision-making regarding the long- term water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and future water customers of the original District. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 1 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 7 . The Parties shall continue to prepare independent tax coordination plans. 8 . Tigard and the District acknowledge that they have authority to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement pursuant to the powers contained in Tigard' s Charter, ORS 264 . 210 and ORS 190 . 010. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: 1. Mission Statement. The Cities withdrew from the original District with intent to take a more active role in planning and operating a domestic water supply system for the Southeast Washington County area in order to provide the residents of that area with the highest quality water service at the lowest possible cost. In keeping with that intention, the Parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement commit to working together to provide all of the residents and undeveloped property in the original District with a clean, economical water. supply. The Parties further commit to working together and with other agencies and jurisdictions in a cooperative effort to plan for the future long term water supply needs of the area. 2 . Term. This Agreement will be in full force and effect until December 31, 2018, unless sooner terminated by one or both of the Parties. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the other party a minimum of ten years prior to the effective date of termination. Tigard recognizes that by this Agreement, it is assuming the responsibility to provide water to the inhabitants of the District for the duration of this Agreement unless a reasonable alternative domestic water supply is available to the District and the Agreement is terminated. 3. Intergovernmental Water Board. A. Tigard will establish an Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) . The Intergovernmental Water Board will consist of five members. Members of the Board will be appointed by the respective governing bodies as follows: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 2 (12/23/93 - FINAL) Tigard - One Member King City - One Member Durham - One Member District/Unincorporated Area - One Member At Large. - One Member selected by a majority vote of the Other Members B. Intergovernmental Water Board Terms. (1) Initially, three Board members shall be appointed for a term of three years (from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996) and two Board members shall be appointed for a term of two years (from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995) . There shall be a drawing of lots to determine which Board members will serve two years and which will serve three years. Thereafter, Board members shall have two year terms. (2) Board members shall be appointed in December for the following two year term. Each term will begin on January 1. Each term will end on December 31 and each Board member shall serve until a successor has been appointed. Members may be re-appointed to succeeding terms. Vacancies may be filled in the same manner as a regular appointment. (3) Board members shall be an elected official serving on the respective governing body except for that member selected by a majority vote of the other members. Each respective governing body may appoint an alternate to attend meetings in the place of a regularly appointed Board member. The alternate shall be appointed in the same manner and must meet the same qualifications as the regularly appointed Board member. C. Tigard may appoint city officials as ex officio members of the Intergovernmental Water Board to assist the Board in its duties. They shall serve at the pleasure of the Tigard City Council and shall have no voting privileges. D. A quorum of the Board shall be three (3) members. All actions of the Board shall require at least three (3) votes, excluding abstentions. E. The Intergovernmental Water Board will make recommendations to the Tigard City Council on water service issues and will have the following responsibilities: (1) to make a continuing study of the rate structure of the water system. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 3 (12/23/93 - FINAL) i (2) to consider and prepare plans for and make recommendations to the Council for a long-range operation and management program. (3) to investigate and study means of effecting economies in operation and management. (4) to review and make recommendations to the Budget Committee and Council on all budget requests for operation and maintenance. ( �) to s:udy ozd consider ways and means -,f iuproving -hE-- water system and services which it provides. (6) to study and make recommendations on Tigard' s program for providing insurance for system assets and operations. (7) to make a continuing review of any and all rules and regulations regarding the water system which may be adopted by the Council and periodically to make recommendations to the Council for additions or amendments of such rules and regulations. (8) to work with other agencies and jurisdictions in a cooperative effort to plan for the future water supply needs of the area. (9) to make recommendations to the Council relative to all of the above-mentioned matters and as to any other matters which the Intergovernmental Water Board may feel to be for the good of the water system, the overall public interest and for the benefit of the consumer. F. Power to Grant Variances (1) Except when prohibited by subsection 2 of this section, upon application, the Intergovernmental Water Board may grant variances from the Water system . rules and regulations enacted by the City of Tigard when it finds that: a) strict application of the rules and regulations create undue economic hardship for the applicant with no significant benefit to the water system; b) the variance requested has no material adverse effect upon the water system and it is consistent with established policies of the Tigard City Council. (2) The Intergovernmental Water Board may not grant variances relating to annexation of property, fire protection requirements, cross-connection requirements, fees, rates and charges. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 4 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 3 2 e 4 . Division of Original District Assets. A. Pursuant to ORS 222. 540 (4) , the District agrees that the division of assets after withdrawal from the original District by the Cities shall be consistent with the following concepts: (1) Assets include real, personal and intangible property. "Intangible property" includes but is not limited to: moneys, checks, drafts, deposits, interest, dividends and income. (2) Assets will be divided into two groups: a. System Assets: Assets necessary for the operation of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District, not including those "other assets" of Tigard. Personal and intangible property are system assets. Water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements or other property necessary for operation of the .City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District are system assets. b. Other Assets: Assets not necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District. Other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the asset is located. Water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements or other property not necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District are other assets. B. All system assets and other assets shall be pledged by the Cities and the District to Tigard. All system assets and other assets shall be managed by Tigard and shall be utilized by Tigard in order to provide water services to properties, residences and businesses in the original District. C. Should one of the Cities or the District terminate its water service agreement with Tigard, the Cities' and the District's proportionate interest in a system asset shall be determined based upon the following formula: Jurisdiction's Proportionate Interest = (A + B + C) /3 A = Jurisdiction's Percentage of Current Consumption in original District B = Jurisdiction's Percentage of Current Real Market Value in original District INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 5 (12/23/93 - FINAL) C = Jurisdiction's Percentage of Current Meters in original District The Cities' and the District' s proportionate interest in a system asset capital improvement shall be based upon the capital improvement's depreciated value. The depreciated value shall be based upon the useful life of the capital improvement under generally accepted accounting principles using a straight line method of depreciation. D. Upon termination of this Agreement, other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the asset is located. 5. Asset Ownership/Water Rates/Revenues. A. Tigard's Utilization of Assets. (1) The Parties agree that all system assets in which the Parties have an undetermined proportionate interest and all other assets received as a result of the division of assets after withdrawal from the original District by the Cities shall be utilized by Tigard in order to provide water services to properties, residences and businesses in the original District. The District's ownership interest in the assets shall remain though the assets are being utilized by Tigard, unless and until transferred to Tigard by agreement or operation of law. Tigard will maintain and insure the real and personal property assets it utilizes. The Parties agree to execute all documents necessary to allow utilization of the assets by Tigard. (2) Tigard agrees that it will maintain, preserve and keep the assets it utilizes in good repair and working order. Tigard may appropriate from the water fund all moneys necessary to meet this obligation. (3) Tigard shall keep the assets free of all levies, liens and encumbrances except those created by this Agreement or consented to by the governing body of the District in writing. The Parties to this Agreement contemplate that the assets will be used for a governmental or proprietary purpose by Tigard and, therefore, that the assets will be exempt from all property taxes. Nevertheless, if the use, possession or acquisition of the assets are determined to be subject to taxation, Tigard shall pay when due all taxes and governmental charges lawfully assessed or levied against or with respect to the assets. Tigard shall pay all gas, water, steam, electricity, heat, power, telephone, utility and other charges incurred in the operation, maintenance, use, occupancy and upkeep of the assets. Where there is shared use of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 6 (12/23/93 - FINAL) assets, these costs will be shared in an equitable manner. (4) Tigard shall maintain (i) casualty insurance insuring the assets against loss or damage by fire and all other risks covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement then in use in the State of Oregon and any other risks reasonably required by District in an amount equal to at least the replacement value of the assets and, (ii) liability insurance that protects District, including its officers and commissioners, from liability arising from Tigard's operation of the water supply system in an amount satisfactory to District and (iii) worker's compensation insurance covering all employees working on, in, near or about the assets :�is required under the laws of the State of Oregon. Tigard shall furnish to District, certificates evidencing such coverage. All such insurance shall be with insurers that are authorized to issue such insurance in the State of Oregon, shall name District as additional insured and shall contain a provision to the effect that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified materially and adversely to the interest of District without first giving written notice thereof to District at least ten (10) days in advance of such cancellation or modification. All such casualty insurance shall contain a provision making any losses payable to Tigard and District as their respective interests may appear. Tigard may meet any of these requirements through a self-insurance program. Such insurance requirements may be waived in writing by the governing body of the District. (5) To the extent permitted by law, Tigard shall indemnify, protect, hold harmless, save and keep harmless District from and against any and all liability, obligation, loss, claim and damage whatsoever, regardless of cause thereof, and all expenses in connection therewith, including, without limitation, counsel fees and expenses, penalties and interest arising out of or as the result of the entering into of this Agreement, the ownership of any asset or any accident in connection with the operation, use, condition, possession, storage or return of any asset resulting in damage to property or injury to or death to _any person; provided, however, that Tigard shall not be deemed to be indemnifying District for claims arising from its own conduct. The indemnification arising under this paragraph shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement for any reason. B. The fees, rates and charges charged by Tigard for providing water services to properties, residences and businesses in District shall be the same as those charged within Tigard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tigard may impose higher fees, rates and charges for providing water service to properties, residences INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 7 (12/23/93 - FINAL) and businesses when the cost of providing such service is greater due to unusual circumstances, including, but not limited to additional cost to pump water up hill to reach customers. Any higher fees, rates and charges imposed for providing water service shall be reviewed by the Intergovernmental Water Board prior to taking effect and shall be limited to covering the actual additional costs of providing such service. When higher fees, rates and charges are imposed, they shall be consistently applied in both Tigard and the remainder of the original District, except that at the request of the District, Tigard will collect on behalf of the District additional charges imposed by the District on District customers. C. Moneys/Revenues. (1) Moneys and revenues for system capital improvement shall be held by Tigard in a fund dedicated solely for this purpose. (2) Moneys transferred to Tigard as a result of the division of assets after withdrawal from the original District by Tigard which were previously dedicated by the District to system capital improvement shall be used solely for system capital improvement by Tigard in accordance with subsection 5.D. (3) Moneys deposited in a reserve fund for revenue bonds of the water system are not a- system asset and are not subject to the system asset distribution formula in Section 4 of this Agreement. (4) The Parties agree to develop a methodology for system development charges and to impose and collect such charges in their respective jurisdictions. If any of the Cities or District fail to impose system development charges as contemplated herein, then the other parties may elect to terminate collecting system development charges within their jurisdictions. . The Parties agree that Tigard should collect the system development charges imposed by the District until such time as Tigard imposes its own charge. D. Capital Improvements. (1) (a) Capital projects shall be implemented in accord with a long-range capital improvement program supported by sound engineering analysis, in the best interests of water customers within the original District, ignoring city boundaries. i 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 8 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 1 (b) The capital improvement program must be approved by the governing bodies of one less than the number of jurisdictions holding an ownership interest in the water system. A governing body may not unreasonably withhold consent if the program is supported by sound engineering analysis, is in the best interests of water customers within the original District and consistent with the goal of working together to provide all of the residents and property in the original District with a clean, economical water supply. If a proposed capital improvement program is not approved as provided for in this subsection, then the governing bodies of any two jurisdictions may request mediation under the provisions of ORS Chapter 36 to determine if approval of the program has beenunreasonably withheld. (c) Tigard shall prepare and deliver to the District a proposed. Capital Improvement Plan no later than June 30, 1994 for consideration by the Cities and the District. The District's Capital Improvement Plan dated June, 1993, will guide Tigard's spending on capital projects until a capital improvement program is adopted pursuant to subsection (b) . (2) The capital improvement program shall establish the location of a capital improvement whether within Tigard, King City, Durham or the District and shall distinguish whether a capital improvement qualifies as a system asset or other asset. (3) Capital improvements made subsequent to entering into this Agreement that are determined to be other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the improvement is located. For capital improvements made subsequent to entering into this Agreement that are determined to be system assets, the Cities and the District each shall have a proportionate interest in such "system asset" capital improvement's depreciated value. The depreciated value shall be based upon the useful life of the capital improvement under generally accepted accounting principles using a straight line method of depreciation. The Cities' and the District's proportionate interest in such "system asset" capital improvement's depreciated value shall be determined based upon the formula in Section 4.D. of this Agreement. (4) Should one of the Cities or the District terminate its water service. agreement with Tigard, such jurisdiction { shall have rights to the use of all system assets equal to its Jurisdiction's Proportionate Interest as INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 9 (12/23/93 - FINAL) t determined above. Tigard shall be provided reasonable compensation for any use of its water system necessary for the continued reasonable use of a system asset by a jurisdiction. If the asset is not essential to the operation of such jurisdiction's water system, Tigard may terminate such jurisdiction's rights in the system asset capital improvement by payment of a sum equal to the Jurisdiction's Proportionate Interest in the depreciated value of such system asset. (5) The Parties acknowledge that the water system currently serving the original District is an integrated system. To the e,-,tent that either Party should terminate this Agreement, the Parties agree to cooperate with each other and to enter into such agreements necessary for the continued reasonable operation of the resulting water systems. E. Long-term water supply contracts shall be entered into in accord with the best interests of water customers within the original District, ignoring city boundaries. Long-term water supply contracts must be approved by the governing bodies of one less than the number of jurisdictions holding an ownership interest in the water system. A governing body may not unreasonably withhold consent to a contract if the contract is supported by sound engineering analysis, is in the best interests of water customers within the original District and consistent with the goal of working together to provide all of the residents and property in the original District with a clean, economical water supply. If a proposed long-term water supply contract is not approved as provided for in this subsection, then the governing bodies of any two jurisdictions may request mediation under the provisions of ORS Chapter 36 to determine if approval of the contract has been unreasonably withheld. F. The District shall receive an annual rebate equal to 1% of the previous year's water sale revenue within the District for District expenses. In addition, Tigard, at the District's request, will appropriate and deliver an amount not to exceed $40,000 from Tigard's initial (1/94 to 6/94) water fund budget for District operating expenses for the period from January 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995. Tigard will reimburse-.the District from water system revenues the cost of the District's Division of Assets study undertaken to fulfill the District's obligations pursuant to ORS 222.540. G. Accounting (1) Water activities will be accounted for in the same manner as other enterprise activities currently under the jurisdiction of Tigard. Expenditures directly linked to INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 10 (12/23/93 - FINAL) water activities will be recorded in the water fund. Applicable indirect charges will be apportioned to the water fund in the same manner as such charges are apportioned to other enterprise funds to properly reflect the costs associated with each activity. Tigard shall use generally accepted accounting principles applicable to utility enterprises for the recording and identifying of all revenues and expenditures made for the water system. The Intergovernmental Water Board shall review such allocation and methodology. (2) The accounting method used by Tigard shall, to the extent possible, document the use of assets by Tigard for non- water system activities. Use of assets by Tigard for non-water activities shall be funded from resources other than the water fund. H. The Parties to this Agreement shall not have the right to transfer ownership of or remove system assets or any interest therein received or kept as a, result of the Cities' withdrawal from the original District or any interest in system assets acquired during the term of this Agreement without written consent of the other Party. Neither the benefits received by the District nor the obligations incurred under the terms of this Agreement are assignable or in any manner transferrable by the District without the written consent of the City. I. No part of this Agreement shall be interpreted as a waiver of either Party's statutory rights upon annexation of territory. 6. Indebtedness. A. Each of the Parties shall be liable for their respective share of the debt, if any, acquired or retained as a result of the Cities ' withdrawal from the original District. B. Tigard may incur, without the consent of the District, debt relating to the water supply system, provided-payment of the debt is fee, rate or charge based. If the debt is to be paid for by means other than fees, rates or charges, Tigard must have approval and consent of the governing body of the District in writing prior to incurring such debt. The District shall be liable for its proportionate share of any debt for which it has given its written approval and consent. C. Tigard is authorized to perform the function and activity of incurring water revenue bond indebtedness for the water system by authorizing the issuance of water revenue bonds pursuant to ORS 288.805 to 288.945, as .amended, for the financing of water system capital improvements. Such debt may be secured by a pledge of INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 11 (12/23/93 - FINAL) water system revenues, appropriate rate covenants, and mortgaging of water system assets. Tigard may not mortgage water system assets without first receiving the written consent of the Cities ' and District' s governing bodies. D. If this Agreement is terminated by either Party and indebtedness remains under Section 6.A. or has been incurred and approved by the District in manner described in Section 6.B. , District shall either: 1. Pay in full, within 60 days of the effective date of termination, its proportionate share of the indebtedness; or 2. Pay annually its proportionate share of the indebtedness as payment is due. 7 . Services Provided By Tigard. A. Tigard will provide water to properties and customers in all jurisdictions equally. If circumstances require water restrictions, each jurisdiction shall share equally. The District may not sell water provided through this Agreement to a third party without the prior written consent of Tigard. B. Tigard will provide equally and in a manner consistent with the terms of this Agreement all services required for delivery of potable domestic water to properties and customers within the cities of King City and Durham as well as the territory of the District, including but not limited to system repair and maintenance, water distribution, new installations, system upgrades, and billing functions. Tigard is under no obligation to provide such water services to areas annexed to the District subsequent to this Agreement. C. District agrees that Tigard is empowered to use any right of condemnation possessed by the District that is necessary to provide water services consistent with the terms of this Agreement, and will take any action necessary for Tigard to exercise that right on the request of Tigard. D. To the extent that such agreements or contracts are transferrable, the District agrees to take the necessary action to transfer its water supply agreements or contracts with the City of Portland and the City of Lake Oswego to Tigard in order to facilitate the provision of water services consistent with the terms of this Agreement. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 12 ( 12/23/93 - FINAL) i I E. The District may use the former Tigard Water District office building for meetings of the District Board and for receipt of the Board's correspondence. To the extent that Tigard charges other governmental entities for use of the building, the District agrees to compensate Tigard a reasonable amount for use of the building. F. Tigard agrees to assist the District in preparation of budgets, organization and noticing of meetings and other administrative duties at the request of the District. The.District agrees to compensate Tigard a reasonable amount for such assistance. 8 . Rules and Regulations. A. The Rules Rates and Regulations for Water Service Handbook, (November, 1992) , adopted by the Board of Commissioners Tigard Water District is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. B. The Tigard City Council may modify, alter or repeal the rules, rates and regulations in Exhibit "A. " Rules and regulations will be modified, altered or repealed only after the Intergovernmental Water Board has had the opportunity to study the proposed rules and regulations. The Intergovernmental Water Board is .empowered to make a continuing review of any and all rules and regulations regarding the water system which may be adopted by the Council and periodically to make recommendations to the Council for additions or amendments of such rules and regulations. The Parties agree to comply with the rules and regulations currently in effect and as hereafter adopted by. the Tigard City Council, and water service to the District shall be governed thereby. 9 . Extension of Service. A. Extension or modification of District's water distribution system shall be done only with prior written approval of District. Furthermore, Tigard will not make any extensions or service connections within King City's or Durham's Urban Growth Boundary without permission from the King City or Durham City Council. B. For the unincorporated area within the District, it is the governing body of the District which, subject to the rules and regulations specified in Section 8, has the authority to allow connections to the water supply system. j C. Residents located within the District shall not be responsible for any expenses associated with efforts of the City of Tigard to withdraw .from the Tualatin Valley Water District to reach the goal of having a single water purveyor for the City. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 13 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 10 . Employee Benefits/Personnel . All employees of the Southeast Washington County Joint Water Agency shall become employees of the City. The City shall accept such employees with all existing benefits and salary, including, but not limited to, health, retirement, disability insurance, wages, vacation and compensatory time. Nothing in this subsection is intended to limit the City's authority to alter benefits or salary except as such authority is otherwise limited by this Agreement or by the provisions of ORS 236. 605 to 236. 650. 11. Annual Meeting. The governing bodies of the Parties to this Agreement shall meet annually with the Intergovernmental Water Board to discuss and consider issues related to this Agreement. The Intergovernmental Water Board and the Tigard Water Department shall issue an annual report on its activities to the Parties at this meeting. 12 . Attorneys Fees. In the event any suit, action or other proceeding is brought with regard to this Agreement, or to enforce any of the provisions hereof, the prevailing party in any such suit, action or other proceeding, or any appeal therefrom, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees. Attorney fees which are awarded pursuant to this Section may not be paid from the fees, rates and charges collected by Tigard for water services. 13 . Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 14 . Ratification of this Agreement. Prior to the effective date of this Agreement, each Party shall enact a resolution ratifying the Agreement. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 15. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be approved by the governing bodies of the District and Tigard. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 14 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 16 . Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 1994 . CITY O /T ARD; OREGON Attest: By TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, OREGON Attest: By: dgard\agacdWD.iga(12/23/93 -final) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 15 (12/23/93 - FINAL) j i,6 12:46 1996 FnOt!: 503 248 9085 TO: 2473 =AGE: 2 i9�15/9E MON 12_39,FAZ 503 248 9085 PRESTO~ LSA'RMVED PLANNING 2002 SEP1S (AAI ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW ARTICLE (VIII FOR THE WASHINGTON COTJTM ORDINANCE NO, 487 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDING THE WEST (TIGARD COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE BULL (MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLAN The Board of County Commissioners for Washington County, Oregon ordains: Section 1. A.. Washington County (County) currently provides a variety of services W that area of unincorporated land generally described in the West Tigard Community Plan, and the Bull Mountain Community Plan, including Walnut Island and an area north of the Tualatin River and East of Mghway 99, but excluding the area immediately adjacent to King City, all as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit 1 map and Exhibit 1 A legal description incorporated herein by reference below. This area is hereinafter ref6r:ed to as"affected area." B. The County desires to adopt the City planning and zoning regulations, with limited exceptions more specifically establisbed in the attached F�chibit 4, to govern land and certain other uses End activities within the affected area. These new planning and zoning regulations shall become Article VIII of the Washington County Community Development Code. The City regulations adopted by this Ordinance includes regulations governing planning and zoning,including the City enforcement methodology; and C. With the adoption of this Ordinance, the County is establishing a framework to delegate and transfer to the City of Tigard (City)responsibility for provision of certain urban services to provide more efficient public service to the citizens of the affected area,the City and County, through the mechanism of an intergovernmental agreement implementing this Ordinance. The services to be transferred and delegated to the City through an intergovernmental agreement to follow adoption of this Ordinance include quasi-judicial and ministerial planning services, including the issuance of development decisions and code enforcement services. D. The County and City have determined transfer and delegation of such services from the County to the City will provide more efficient urban services,including planning services,to the aflbcted area;and E. In order to accomplish an effective and efficient delegation and transfer of service provision and responsibility in the manner contemplated, the local regulations applicable to the affected area must be reasonably uniform and changes to the County's Community Development Code are required; and F. It is most uniform and efficient for the City to administer its own regulations, and other relevant standards with minimal County regulatory overlap, which City planning regulations are acknowledged as being in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and changes to the County's Community Development Code are required;and G. The existing West Tigard Community Plan recognizes the desirability of coordinated planning functions with the City and ; Page 1 -ORDINANCE NO.487 J�R'IS�179�40Q OOQ1W A917.DDC - ;,.,o 410 a_CD 7�: 2473 FAGt: 3 . — 09/16/96 MON 12:41 F.SI 503 248 9085 PRESTON L4ff FIRM f 003 H. A portion of the affected area is within the City s Active Planning Area. In this area outside of the City limits, the County makes decisions on individual development proposals, zoning and public improvement projects, with the City having a right of review and comment on such proposals and projects; and .I. The existing urban planning area agreement (UPAA) between the City and County calls for cooperative efforts between the City and County governments to provide efficient and high quality services to the citizens of both jurisdictions and this agreement will be amended to effectuate this Ordinance and the UPAA is hereby amended to the extent necessary to reflect the Ordia ce amendments herein established; and J. Under ORS 195.060 to 195.085,urban services agreements are authorized between urban service providers governing the provision of certain urban services including parks, open space, recreation and streets, roads and mass transit; and K. Under ORS 215.170, the City and County are authorized to jointly agree on the management of land located within the Urban Growth Boundary,and L. Under ORS Chapter 190, the County is authorized to transfer and delegate to the City by agreement certain functions otherwise provided by the County in order to provide efficient public service; and K The City has functionally equivalent plan and zoning designations to be applied to the affected area because of the historic coordination between the County and the City, among other things. No Statewide Planning Goal (Goal)impacts, either direct or secondary, will occur as a result of the adoption of this Ordinance, as the affected area will be moved from one Goal complying zone of a particular classification (i.e., residential to residential, industrial to industrial)to another. The County's adoption of the most equivalent City plan designation and zoning district for the affected area ensures no direct or secondary Goal impacts. N. The County Board of Commissioners initiated this action prior to September 1, 1996 and, therefore, the County does not intend the adoption of this Ordinance to trigger the new Goal 5 rule, effective on September 1, 1996. In a telephone conversation with the Land Use and Transportation Department Director,the DLCD Director confirmed this-understanding;and O. The County Counsel is hereby authorized to codify this Ordinance as is deemed appropriate by counsel and to make such administrative revisions as required to effectuate proper codification. Section 2. The following exhibits, are attached and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth hereat: A Exhibit 1: , Land Use and Zoning Map of Affected Area B. Exhibit lA Gereral Legal Description of Affected Area of Ordinance 487 Page 2- ORDINANCE NO. 487 11p'1.K�ly9D�p.p,(`�WyA$1{�,ppC ' 091.1$ 12:48 1996 FROM: 503 248 9085 TO: 2473 PAGE: 4 09/16/96 MON 12:42 FAX 503 248 9085 PRESTON LSR' FIRM Z004 C. Exhibit 2: Goal 5 and Natural Area Map for Unincorporated City of Tigard Area D. Exhibit 3; County District B Boundary and Areas of Special Concern for Unincorporated Tigard Area E. Exhibit 4: Text of Article VIII Amendments to County Community Development Code F. Exhibit 5: City of Tigard Community Development Code(Title 18) G. Exhibit 6: City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Section 3. Effective Date; Lnplerne.dat:cn This Ordinance is effective thirty (30) days after the date of enactment, specified below. This Ordinance shall apply only to development and applications for development submitted, initiated or commenced, as more specifically provided in Exhibit 4, on or after May 1, 1997. ENACTED this _ day of , 1996, being the reading and public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Washington Courcy, Oregon. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON CHAIRMAN RECORDING SECRETARY READING PUBLIC HEARING First Second Third Fourth Recording Secretary: Date: Page 3 -ORDINANCE NO. 487 i,wt�auo.o-oo.ncaav�n.00c f .. 1•, •'+o r �o.J .ah�. ...,., LSO ..JCJ I v. l-4(J FAGS: J 09/16/96 MON 12:42 FAX 503 248 9065 PRESTON LAR FIRM j005 ORDINANCE No.487 EXHIBIT 4 SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 ARTICLE VIII LAND USE AND ZONLNG FOR CERTAIN PORTIONS OF UNINCORPORATED CITY OF TIGARD AREA 801-1 Intent and Purpose The purpose of this Article VIII is to establish the regulations applicable to that area of land generally described in the County s Rest Tigard Community Plan and the Bull Mountain Community Plan, including Walnut Island and an area north of the Tualatin River and East of Highway 99, but excluding the area immediately adjacent to King City, all as more specifically established on the map attached as Exhibit 1 to this Ordinance, on the legal description attached ar Exhibit 1A(affected area). 801-2 SCODe 801-2.1 Applicability Land and structures within the affected area may be developed only in a manner consistent with this Ordinance. This Ordinance applies to any person developing land and structures and to the successors in interest of such persons and to any process associated with such development. 801-2-2 Application Submission All applications for any Iocal government approval of any kind within the scope of this Ordinance shall be submitted for review and approval or denial, together with the appropriate application or other fee required by resolution adopted under the procedure set forth in this Ordinance. 801-3 Transition 801-3.1 This Ordinance applies to all applications and actions falling within its scope or commenced or initiated on or after May 1, 1997. Applications within the scope of this Ordinance submitted to the County prior to May 1, 1997 and which are also subject to ORS 215.428, shall be processed under the regulations in effect at the time the application was first submitted, unless the applicant provides a written request to the County that this Ordinance apply to the pending applications and including a waiver of the 120-day processing limitation provided in ORS 215.428 adequate to enable a final local decision on the pending application under the regulations imposed by this Ordinance,which includes all local appeals. 801-3.2 The determination regarding the adequacy of the applicant's requested waiver of the above referenced 120-day limitation period shall be made in the sole discretion of the County or its designee, which designation may be expressed by an implementing intergovernmental agreement or other means, and shall not be subject to any local appeal- The determination regarding the adequacy of the applicant's proposed 120-day waiver shall be reviewable only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100. / Page 1 -EXHIBIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO.487 )AWL%% ";-ZWAXWJ= 09ilb 12:00 1996 FROM : 503 246 9365 10: 2413 C: C 09/16/96 MON 12:44 F.0 503 248 9085 PRESTON L4R FIRM 006 ORDINANCE No.487 EXHIBIT 4 SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 801-3.3 Where County development approval has been previously granted or a building permit issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, the approval or building permit for which such prior County approval has been granted is subject only to those County standards governing such approval or permit on the date approval is finally granted or such building permit is finally issued. Provided, however, alleged violations of such County standards shall be prosecuted under the code enforcement, nuisance and other administrative provisions adopted by this or other Ordinance specifically governing the affected area. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to prevent ORS 215.428 from governing the standards applied to evaluate certain applications, as required by law. 801-4 Replacement 801-4.1 As specified herein, this Ordinance replaces the existing Washington County Community Development Code standards applicable to all development and development proposals within the scope of this Ordinance and within the affected area, with the City of Tigard Community Development Plan. Specifically, this Ordinance replaces the Maps of the West Tigard Community Plan and the Bull Mountain Community Plan with Exhibit 1 and 3; replaces the County Comprehensive Framework Plan with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, including the City Comprehensive plan background documents, provided however, the Framework plan shall apply to quasi-judicial plan amendments. 801-4.2 All inconsistent County regulations, including Community Development Code provisions, whether adopted by Ordinance or resolution, are hereby determined to be inapplicable to development and application for development within the affected area, that are also within the scope of this Ordinance. The determination of inconsistency shall be made by the applicable County decisionmaker, unless such authority is delegated and transferred to a City authority pursuant to an implementing Intergovernmental Agreement. All City regulations adopted by this Ordinance hereby become regulations of the County and, therefore, are deemed part of this CDC Article VIII. 801-5 Int=retationn Questions regarding the regulations or plan provisions applicable to individual development and applications therefore, and to what extent such regulations or plan provisions apply, shall be resolved by the decisionmaker to whom such request is directed. 801-6 Definitions 801-6.1 Generally: The definitions contained in the City regulations specifically adopted by this Ordinance shall apply to all matters governed by this Ordinance. 801-6.2 Application: Means any request for a local action of a type falling within the scope of this ordinance. Page 2-EXHIBIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 �,wtxtvaaswnai-_aoc t 09/16/96 MON 12:45 FAX 503 248 9085 PRESTO\ LkW FIRM Z007 ORDINANCE No. 487 EXHIBIT 4 SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 801-6.3 City: Means the City of Tigard. However, where the word "City" appears in a City of Tigard Ordinance provision herein adopted, the word "City" shall mean County, but nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.4 City Administrator: Means the City Administrator for the City of Tigard. However, where used in a City Ordinance provision adopted by this Ordinance, City Administrator shall mean County Administrator. Provided however, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City by means of an implementing intergovL,,rmcnt,,1 agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-.6.5 City Attorney: Means an attorney representing the interests of the City of Tigard. However, where used in a City Ordinance provision adopted by this Ordinance, City Attorney shall mean County Counsel. Provided, however, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.6 City Employee: Means an employee of the City of Tigard. However, where used in a City Ordinance provision adopted by this Ordinance, City Employee shall mean County Employee. Provided, however, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.7 City Finance Director: Means the finance director of the City of Tigard. However, where used in a City ordinance provision adopted by the County in this Ordinance, shall mean County Finance Director. Provided however, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.8 City Council: Means the City of Tigard City Council. However, where used in a City Ordinance provision adopted by the County in this Ordinance, the word Council or City Council shall mean Commissioners or County Commissioners. Provided, however, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.9 County: Means Washington County. Provided however, nothing in this Ordinance nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating authority to the City by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. -801-6.10 Community Development Director: Means the Community Development Director for the City of Tigard. Where used in a City Ordinance provision adopted by the Courcy in this Ordinance, the words Community Development Director shall mean the Page 3 -EXHIBIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 JAV,%X 5PQ wAWCDOC 09/-,'5 12:52 1995 rn041- --1-3 240 9065 10: L41.1 rF n -09/16/96 MON 12:46 FAX 503 248 9085 PRES'T'ON L,R FIRM 0008 ORDINANCE No.487 EXHIBIT 4 SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 Washington County Director of Land Use and Transportation. Provided, however, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City Community Development Director or other City authority by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.11 Development: Means any building or mining operation, making a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land, dividing land into two or more parcels or lots, including partitions and subdivisions as provided in ORS 92. 801-6.12 Hearings Officer: Where used in a City Ordinance provision adopt:-d by the County in this Ordinance, the word Hearings Officer or Hearings Official shall mean the Washington County Hearings Officer or Hearings Official. Prcvided, boweves, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City Hearings Officer or other City authority by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.13 Planning Commission: Where used in a City Ordinance provision adopted by the County in this Ordinance, the word Planning Commission shall mean the Washington County Planning Commission. Provided however, nothing shall prohibit the County from transferring and delegating such authority to the City Planning Commission or other City authority by means of an implementing intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS chapter 190. 801-6.14 Roads: Means any public way designed for use by vehicular traffic including automobiles, motorcycles,trucks, transit and bicycles, including rights of way. 801-7 Consistengy with Plan and UAs 80I-7.1 Consistency with State and Federal Law It is intended that this Ordinance be consistent with applicable state and federal law. To the extent that provisions of state or federal law are determined to have mandatory application to the affected area and to any application or activity otherwise governed by this Ordinance, the mandatory, applicable state or federal law shall be applied as if fully set forth hereat. 801-7.2 Consistency with Statewide Planning Goals This Ordinance involves land subject to three types of County land use districts and designations. These Zoning districts are Residential,Industrial and two County overlay districts— the District B Overlay and the Area of Special Concern Overlay. The District B overlay and Area of Special Concern overlay continue to apply,unchanged. Page 4-F-NH031T 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 HR13'�Lb4'�TR'A3H�'DOC 00/1.6 12:54 1996 FRW. : 533 248 9385 i0: 2473 "PACE: 9 09716/95 MON 12:47 FA% 503 248 9065 PRESTON LkW FIRM Q009 ORDINANCE No.4V EXHJBIT 4 SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 The City and County plan designations and zoning districts at issue here (Residential and Industrial) are functional equivalents in all respects, including for purposes of County Statewide Planning Goal (Goal) compliance. Both the County and City Residential and Industrial zoning districts and plan designations are acknowledged as being in compliance with the Goals by the Land Conservation and Development Department. With regard to the Residential designations and districts, this Ordinance is neutral with regard to the County's Goal 10 (Housing) compliance. There are no direct or secondary effects on the Board's continued Goal 10 compliance. This is because after review, the County interprets its aclm-owledged County residential designations and districts to authorize and support equivalent housing opportunities, both in type and cost, to those City designations and districts herein adopted. Regarding other Goals, no goal impact, either direct or secondaryv-ill occur by the change from acknowledged County designations and districts to City designations and districts. Equivalent opportunities with respect to citizen involvement, open spaces, air, land and water quality and quantity, economic opportunities and access thereto, recreation, public facilities and services and transportation are provided under the adopted City designations and districts, as was available under the County designations and districts herein replaced. No changes to safety and natural disaster awareness or health issues are made or presented by this Ordinance. The area is within the Metro UGB and,therefore, is presumptively available for urbanization. In any case, the acknowledged County designations and districts were acknowledged at urban densities for urban level uses, and continue to be available for the same. The County Industrial zoning district and plan designation is at issue within the affected area only with respect to a single, particular property (subject property). This County Industrial zoning is replaced with the City's Light Industrial District and corresponding City plan designation. The Board interprets its own code to mean, for Goal compliance purposes, the only meaningful difference between the City Light Industrial zone district and plan designation and the County's Industrial zone and plan designation, is the City's Light Industrial zone (LI) allows convenience sales, and the County Industrial District does not. However, as with the Residential districts and designations, both County Industrial and City LI district and designations are acknowledged as being in compliance with the Goals and both can be, and are, equally applied to the subject property without any adverse direct or secondary effects on County Goal compliance. Under either the County Industrial or City LI plan designation and zoning district, the subject property may be utilized for industrial purposes. Moreover, the subject property is substantially limited by a 100-year flood plain,identified on Federal Emergency Management(FEMA) maps as covering approximately 3/4 of the subject property. This would be a substantial limitation on the development of the subject property for heavier industrial uses in any case. In addition, the subject property is currently being considered for acquisition by the Unified Sewerage Agency for public purposes, which purposes may not directly contribute to the economy of the County or State or the County's industrial base. The subject property is not within an industrial park and is not specifically relied upon by the County or identified by it as a significant County industrial land asset. The County specifically interprets its own code to mean the extent of the subject land's suitability for County industrial purposes in any case is consistent, for Goal 9 .compliance purposes, with the uses authorized under the City LI district and plan designation. There is no Goal 9(Economy of the State) or other direct or secondary Goal impact from applying the City's Page 5 -EXMIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 »wZ.zwr�arwusamc 00/16 12:55 1996 rR34t: 6003 248 -00085 TO: 2473 SAGE: 10 DQ16/96 )60N 12:49 FAX 503 248 9085 PRESTON 1-kW FIRM 2010 ORDINANCE No.487 EXHIBIT 4 SEPTENMER 9, 1996 LI zoning district to the subject property. The County's Goal 5 inventory and program are entirely preserved by this Ordinance. Therefore there are no Goal 5 impacts, whether direct or secondary, from the adoption of this Ordinance. Furthermore, because this Ordinance was initiated prior to the effective date of the new Goal 5 administrative rules, the County is not required to apply the newly revised Goal 5 administrative regulations, in any case. There are no Goal 12 (Transportation) impacts, either direct or secondary, as no transportation facility or standards is affected in a way affecting the Count)?s Goal 12 compliance by the County's let islative adoption of acknowledged City regulations herein and the adoption of functionally equivalent City zoning districts and designations to the affected area. In sura, this Ordinance triggers no Goals and has no other direct or secondary. Goal effects. This is because acknowledged Cpunty and City Goal programs are preserved and effective and, where changed, the Board interprets its own code to mean the replacement regulations are substantially similar to those replaced. This Ordinance simply provides a means for intergovernmental cooperation in an effort to provide more efficient and cost effective public service to the citizens of the affected area as well as the City of Tigard and Washington County. 801-7.3 Consistency with County Charter This ordinance is intended to be consistent with the adopted County Charter. In the event of a determination of inconsistency,the charter shall control. 801-7.4 Comprehensive Plan This Ordinance does not amend or alter the applicability of the text of either the Bull Mountain or the West Tigard Community Plan. It amends only the maps of these two community plans to apply the functionally equivalent zoning districts and plan designations of the City of Tigard to these areas, as shown on the attached Exhibit 1 map, which map contains land more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1A legal description, both of which are herein incorporated. Provided, however, the Bull Mountain Community Plan resource overlay districts (District B and Areas of Special Concern) are preserved and carried forward in this Ordinance as shown on the attached Exhibit 3 also herein incorporated. The Board specifically interprets the amended maps to be consistent with the West Tigard and Bull Mountain Community Plans governing the affected area. The Board specifically interprets this Ordinance as being consistent with the County Comprehensive Framework Plan because the Framework plan is implemented through the community plans with which the this Ordinance is consistent. Because it does not apply to non-plan amendment individual decisions, the Framework Plan is replaced by the City Comprehensive plan provisions, provided however,the Framework plan shall continue to apply to quasi-judicial plan amendments. In addition, the imported City zoning districts and approval standards are functional equivalents of those of the County. The proposal is also consistent with the County Transportation plan governing the affected area as the County Transportation plan, to Page 6-EXMIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 ]1MLx17Aq,ANA6}p.DOG V 69"/16/96 MON 12:50 RAI 503 248 9085 PRESTON LkW FIRM 0011 ORDINANCE No.487 EXHIBIT 4 SEPTE1+,0ER 9, 1996 the extent it applies to individual decisions, applies unchanged in the manner stated in the Bull Mountain Community Plan- 801-8 Land Use Related Standards Applicable to the Affected Area 801-8.1 Roads and sidewalks The City's Title 15.04 "Streets and Sidewalks" is hereby adopted by the County as if fully set forth hereat as local regulatory standards applicable to streets and sidewalks within the. affected area, as those terms are defined by the City of Tigard Municipal Code. These provisions are supplementary to those Street and Utility and Improvement Standards specified in City of i gard Community Development Code Title 18.164, also incorporated herein_ as svccified below. 801-8.2 Zoning and Planning The following County land use designations and dis-a-ic-s within the affected area are replaced by the following City land use designations and districts The West Tigard Community Plan and Buii Mountain Community Plan maps and any other maps covering the affected area, are hereby amended to reflect the following designations and districts, in addition to reflecting the herein preserved County overlay districts (District B and Areas of Special Concem) shown on attached Exhibit 3. Exhibit 1 reflects the following designations and districts: Land Use District/Plan Designation Washington County City of Tigard City of Tigard Land Use Zoning Plan Designation Districts/Plan Designation R-5 Res. 5 units R-4.5 SFR 7,500 sq ft Low density 1-5 units /acre' /acre R-6 Res. 6 units R-7 SFR. 5,000 sq ft Medium density 6-12 /ate units/acre R-9 Res. 9 units R-12 Multi-family 12 Medium density 6-12 /acre units/acre units/acre R-12 Res. 12 units R-12 Multi-family 12 Medium density '6-12 /acre units/acre units/acre R-15 Res. 15 units R-.25 Multi-family 25 Medium High density /acre units/acre 13-25 units /acre R-24 Res. 24 units R-25 Multi-family 25 Medium-High density /acre units/acre 13-25 units/acre IND -Industrial I-L Light Industrial Light Industrial Page 7-EXHIBIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 liR1.1C11S9bSN'l�42DOC 09/16/96 MON 12:51 FAX 503 248 9085 PRESTON L4R FIRM Z012 ORDINANCE No.487 E7=IT 4 SEPTEMRM 9, 1996 801-8.2.1 Adopting City of Tigard Community Development Code Title 18 A. Except as specifically provided to the contrary in this Ordinance, both the City's Title 18 "Community Development Code' and the City Comprehensive Plan in effect on October 31, 1996, are hereby adopted by the County as the sole local regulatory standards, background, justification and guidance applicable to applications for any and all land uses requiring ministerial or quasi-judicial decision making within the affected area, as if such standards,background,justification and guidance were fully set forth hereat. B. County Technical Assistance County employees s --Ji provide requested techn'cal assistance to City Officials applying the County Ordinance provisions established. below, according to a methodology mutually established by the County and City in an implementing intergovernmental agreement. 1. Legislative Decisionmal-Lng (a) The Washington County Community Development Code (CDC) provisions and County Comprehensive Plan provisions governing legislative decisionmakang continue to apply to the affected area and such legislative decisionmakdng within the affected area may only be undertaken by the County in the manner specified in the CDC and County Comprehensive Plan provisions. (b) The County shall coordinate all legislative decisions in the affected area with the City and shall consider all City suggestions. The manner in which such coordination shall be accomplished will be specified in the implementing intergovernmental agreement. 2. West Tigard Community Plan and Bull Mountain Community Plan Text The textual provisions in the County West Tigard Community Plan and the Bull Mountain Community Plan continue to apply to the affected area in the same manner as before enactment and implementation of this Ordinance. Provided, however, the Comprehensive Framework plan shall not apply to individual permit decisions made regarding development and proposals for development within the affected area, because the Board hereby interprets the Comprehensive Framework Plan as applicable only to -quasi-judicial plan amendments and as guidance in the adoption of community plans and, accompanying maps and zoning ordinances. The Comprehensive Framework plan shall continue to apply to applications for quasi-judicial plan amendments. 3. Rezoning Affected Area, Amendment to Community Plan Maps The affected area is hereby rezoned to the City zoning districts and City plan designations as established on Exhibit I and in a manner preserving the Bull Mountain Community Plan District B overlay district and the Areas of Special Concern, as shown on the attached Exhibit 3. The Board specifically determines and interprets its CDC, Comprehensive Framework and Community Plans to establish the City zoning districts and plan designations imposed under this Ordinance and shown on Exhibit I are functional equivalents of the County land use standards, Page 8-EXHIBIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO.487 1-0.'.=9+PTa'A G.:.DOC Oy/i 6 12:59 1996 rhOM: 6li3 24b Z--.-66 TO: 2413 rAut: -13 -09/16/96 MON 12:52 FAX 503 248 9085 PRESTON I-kW FIRM X013 ORDINANCE No.487 EXHIBIT 4 SEFIE MER 9, 19% districts and designations previously applied to the affected area. The Maps of the West Tigard Community Plan and the Bull Mountain Community Plan are hereby amended to conform to the designations and districts imposed under this Ordinance and its Exhibit I as well as Exhibit 3. 4. Nonconforming Uses The CDC 440 provisions governing nonconforming uses shall be the sole local standards governing all nonconforming uses within the affected area, including any uses becoming nonconforming as a result of the adoption of this Ordinance. Applications concerning nonconforming uses shall be subject to the process herein adopted specified in the Tirard Zoning Code Ti+je 18 to which City nonconforming uses are subject. 5. Acknowledged County Goal 5 Standards The County has identified certain Goal 5 resources on particular land within the affected area. These identified Goal 5 resources are shown on the attached Exhibit 2, which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference The County designation of land as having a Goal 5 resource, including any such future designations, any development and approval standards from the CDC, Comprehensive and Community Plans applicable to these Goal 5 resources shall continue to apply, notwithstanding that the affected area is hereby rezoned to City zoning districts and planning designations. In this regard, the County specifically determines the County District B overlay shall continue to apply to the affected area as shown on the attached Exhibit 3. In addition, the County Areas of Special Concern shown on the attached Exhibit 3 shall also continue to apply to the affected area Review of applications subject to, and resolution of issues regarding, County Goal 5 inventory and County Goal 5 implementing standards shall follow City procedures applicable to "Sensitive bands" as specified in Title 18 of the Tigard Zoning Code, adopted herein. . 6. Home Occupations The City's regulations applicable to Home Occupations are hereby adopted by the County, except that the following additional CDC standards shall be applied to all applications concerning Home Occupations: (a) Outside storage of inventory, equipment, vehicles or other items associated with the Home Occupation is prohibited; and (b) Distribution of materials or sales of any kind outside of the home and structures accessory to the home is prohibited; and (c) Parking of a commercial vehicle used as part of the home occupation, including a truck or fif3h wheel, tractor or trailer of any kind,is prohibited. Page 9-EXHIBIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 NwlxvssoaaAuW-noc 09116. 13:00 1996 FROM: 503 248 9085 T0: 2473 PAGE: 14 U9/16/90 yoN 12:54 FAX 503 248 9085 PRESTON LkW FM14014 ORDINANCE No.487 EM-BBIT 4 S EFTEM BER 9, 1996 801-9 SevtrabilitY If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason determined to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court or adminiStrative tribunal having Jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such determination shall not affect the vabdity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, which shall continue to have full force and effect. Page 10-EXHIBIT 4 to ORDINANCE NO. 487 „ rw EXHIBIT 1 A Exhibit 1A The area affected by Ordinance 487 is described as follows: That area of urban unincorporated Washington County bounded by the south row line of Scholls Ferry Road to the north, the urban growth boundary line to the west, the north row line of Beef Bend Road to the south for the areas commonly known as Bull Mountain and Walnut Island areas; and those areas of urban unincorporated Washington County bounded by Highway 99W to the west, the Tualatin River to the south and the City of Tigard's corporate boundary to the north and east. • • • . � � � � . •, 111 1 111 111 111 �1 ♦�_ • •� �•••• h.��iJJ:/ - X1::11 ■:.. .nr a•I•�i•/ w ��,iI1- , i1•�II�'''�♦i••j ,•1■••i:. ■.,1 .11•i•IY i:: ::�•i•:iiiii ili��I•rl ltfl �h , •••••.f1•1 �11�1 �/ ♦. •.■. ♦ ♦♦11 / iini► 7•■. L11f1 11 •ii•• ::.. .�.m 1•�► 111 ,, ' �••• • • J Mai y ,•I-• .� .� ••i �• S-rU►�r.� �illlll� ■ •�,�,;►•:■ Ulf. �� / �■ I.♦ r ,1►�••• �♦M • i���iii i IJt /1:•�«►C► ♦i1�1=�e��I/ uili:.i�• ••���p lam y�r': � � h. 4,1 •/IIS ' �' �./•• 4Vry�nr y�•� .uun■.�/:1:i4•�ii i�I Ott II. � � , ` 1 s en e,•4 1 : � •nuau•• 9 �,•.•�.■••-••••II � � , • 1111111.'� ••��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIII ■ •• -/� • I• � ■�Illlflf1111•P� •■i• �:i. :1 �.- G'��_��i�••%\•i- Ii��lll�ll,llllllln/le■Ia •.flt/111=1■r 1 // �.••i• ♦.aa-'�. /� ! II �� :Vrii..aiii'.:• ffA'••� i.��1 q I/� �•`• `.�•eRomig A :♦ •uO ••r Iriiianu••i• •7 1111 �`,. ■f•a • • � � 4• /�• �� �•r■IIIIIIIIII/.nuunnunn! 1 �I� :►� �/ � � � {.` r I � �\.11111%St���•.•iii�I�■ J • h16 '.•r 42_ :i.•.:•ql�:: •�•�Pi Imo,1_-].a •••O ,•p-� �YI �►% •_ :71.nnuY.��In=•`•po '•q�nw�,'•�i • /!r-:71�•�ii ••• •• .2.� I, 4 .• ••• ■It• ll• II: 1`:S�u,i?1♦!•1�.,��•••-:I�t�l SIAL/III lllnu A -IIII:•il.\II►\II11, �1��\t► dnl�� .Ce•w:\,Illr=?•..iii' �ilullnnl p —■��SIC=i tl.��l::;':;,';;I���iii;:,ll►.� ::::E . if1111111■ Ian Is" •uu u� iii LIQ••.. 1. 11• •.��11►`1i t •I/rr1111111�� 1.\I•\I•• N=i��n■�� am .' 1 •/ _ ►ii 111111:m■�I Iam•1.��::•u urs ��i/is11% O .,,• t111!ay . �i . ' •• • 1. 11 i.► ? i• ' f u••■ -peNLpnt r-I••1'1114.W' �• i� A • \/11 • • ^ J it tnl•Yaiit i�•-:•nl :■Ui ♦ i Q•••% �. -`�, 1 7 c: . mt •\�•• :In � ` Ro aur •••�� r-/• � �1�� i� I' / ' •• 11 1,1 Ur1('/.:,i•r 11 T[/ I ■/.�� 1flf �� �•r. iliii■19■■ •••.:n\■■D ou�i 11��'•i •-/1111!! 'I�, �� ` i�i�i� �/ :iia ( :•L 1■1 1 1 .:'� C1 1' i/ IIII' = 1 t 1111IIII '�IS IiI y..i•:a/.• �� ..: �. ■ .� t. IIIIIIII /tunuu tYlu I,auUr�:ji1 �nn /.• ■ `■ II,� � ypo o►a- �_ua :Inr m 1 IL'1■�� !�'1' ��IIIIIIIIIa■IIIIIII�r�ll Iff1.,vie iiiiliii 11111 is Illrrla::.. 1 X111 \r111tltflf` MEN_"1'�—1111,���1�I•�\■ ••/11'1 q 1►ilnnnll alauau uunnlll•m1 ItllRomig `�•i: •�uuY11'nlll\•quay wnunie yu .a • � ��■ .qnn �_ �.. �.•• his unjju■ono•clow=:.w �� i��uo►. •1111111110 �� •�� ��1�• q •- It null.•:a a• aur I ��I ♦♦ t W� •. \a ml nuu 1� MIR / �♦ ♦. ��♦�������\�y t�1� unr.__law► � " •■.l11/I►`� ♦ 1 I•♦1 •O.•.I;' •��.,1111::IIII III L� �• • :.aq■.• gllll.lalaml' r �•. �hiii��i■,� �h IN••�r: i•� �.. ,•/IIN•� �'1•Q uVtfI111t111 '•pupl;uur�:- - '. ',; ` • .•'•.•: �Ipr� � HO•.~{11111111=L auuap-se 3 ►iy■�I.t•��J•.;� �%1�' a■.I1�� :w■11. ��91s=�1u11111115 1:- ,\�,�� ,♦� .•• �.�• \Q►'��••.4•�• X11 �. =�a�• .ii■■1■1■1. ■�•riil►� •••aa �+�I�.: 11i:::N ■■r.�••r.i�ll��■��.1 lalCl� �� �� : .J/ 1♦O p♦�♦♦� 1\h 1 = �.u..� •t GL�■■r1�i�i_/.au\1a._�..nay�_• _� . �S _ 1111111,•,.•. 9-•.•• 1 ►•�_ ,-.. ..uu..,j�,1+I ��i===� • .III/� f ♦ ♦/ / IIIIr1.11►�.��,1 t ■Inl 1 1�� ■� ��� � � 141E sees 7-9-1/•�m/r,� .• 1? •► 1 r 1I�1�■► ���� ��■��.••I ■1/111111.• • .liw■ �■■■■■■■/■ II •11 �, �■•\ 1 I •,1' Joe�1l■iii••i II.■r�:ii■ aa� ■■ If■■C • 11111■/► ��� 1 fC is ,�s' ■■. ■■ �•._� Ila•: �, ■�■■���1'��:/IIIIItr��\��■n■_ .'11 t 1� ■■■r//1 i■ r �` !4 iii/ ■��a■7.1 hJn■�• 11111/1 w ■.■- € \al ■ tea.• .1 C IIrRoom 1 ; �. / 1■ 1 ■ ■ . to .., . ��■■■1 .,.• ♦•' ... �...... I♦1 ■�s//■■�J r�1•• ����'i i♦1►• •fir ♦ I� / 1111111���� : .Iri �Iflf�aatr/� ••t►i-i It♦� ' I•...■�'•�� I�1► LL '... . ► ♦ •h■■ 1111 ■ ,pov. • ;S • ■111 :11.111 �.-iul Bill11 ♦ ••1■� liif�i i�a S� _ !�'�-:>; - _ ..t.l�Ii•\..I II��_ I� ■1.4/x♦•�_I■� �■� nuuW�► � _ 11u►�suuuNa ■� Illlu■ ' ,,�r ;�:r'� �:i 1\�\i i jii i•••.•�•i•i•:•• � ' 7 ill ti%%,..'' ,''. _����IIIIIIR��•:�•,���i�1•l,7*.) ' r r,: �bRI:S:; n�'1, :�•v�1 WON foo I Ilia 41 21 It MW . ■■■x,11-11�'f• . .IIiuC,. .•..r �''� ' ;:/!"": :::=.;; 111 1 ;.1�_� i. • /, I� ■ ��-����mpg pie Iu 1 lu�Ni■, • � I . ,F1� IGS,■i�i„I� I, _:�■i/lam 11111�� •, jii ii: iii / �� ■■S r. , �1■■� I'' Lrr uuun1:111••' i��E- r • 1■.i. ��� ■����_It' ,••.Yr:lll�`� III/G:� �.. v.u+✓••-�� . 1♦I�I:; �I�li 1111 1 111 ' " 111111111p-111:ul 111;� r'. is In ul,u„t,,, .., ,r,a ';■ '� i URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTON COUNTY This agreement is entered into thisWIL day of ry\cw,, , 1997, by WASHINGTON COUNTY, hereinafter"COUNTY" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter "CITY" both political subdivisions of the State of Oregon. WHEREAS, ORS 190.007 provides for the furthering of economy and efficiency in local government and that intergovernmental cooperation is a matter of state wide concern; and WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of government may enter into agreements for the performance of any and all functions and activities that a party to the agreement,its officers or agencies have authority to perform; and WHEREAS, Article IV(B)(2) of the Urban Planning Area Agreement called for a study of the transfer of responsibility for certain urban services from the COUNTY to the CITY to determine the cost effectiveness and feasibility of this transfer; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY believe it is in the best interest of efficiency and economy to transfer responsibility of certain services to the local unit of government consistent with the objectives of SB 122; WHEREAS, this agreement provides for a newly designed method to provide governmental services, is unique to the parties, and is subject to amendment; it is not intended to be used as a model agreement for other jurisdictions; URBAN SERVICES CNTERGOVERNN ENTAL AGREEMENTITIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Pale i 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. AREA AFFECTED BY AGREEMENT A. The area affected by the intergovernmental agreement is defined by Exhibit"1" to this agreement and is hereinafter referred to as the"area." II. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY A. The COUNTY agrees to delegate to the CITY any and all additional authority that it p•_)ssesses and which iF needed by the CITY to car-, out planning, developrien+, road functions and other related activities within the area. The effective date and terms of the delegation of authority are as provided for in this agreement. Among the actions to be authorized pursuant to this provisions will be: 1. Provision of planning information to applicants for development review for all land development proposed for the active planning area. 2. Performance of pre-application conferences. 3. Preparation of staff reports and performance of site visits for pending applications. 4. Coordination and provision of public notice of land use applications. 5. Collection of fees pertaining to development applications, building permits right-of-way use fees, systems development charges and traffic impact fees. 6. Presentation of staff recommendations pertaining to land use proposals at public hearings. 7. Preparation of administrative decisions for those applications that do not require public hearings, in keeping with the Tigard Community Development Code. S. Conducting of public hearings before the land use approval authority as provided by the Tigard Community Development Code. 9. Conducting of appeal hearings before the land use approval authority as provided by the Tigard Community Development Code. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTITIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Page 2 i 10. Preparation of final orders for all final decisions made pursuant to this agreement. 11. Representing the CITY in any appeal of a decision made by the CITY under this agreement to LUBA or any other court and representing the CITY in mandamus actions or any other actions in state or federal court. 12. Review of construction activities related to development approvals granted pursuant to this agreement for compliance with conditions of development approval. 13. Coordination with engineering and other appropriate staff for review and approval of public facilities related to development application and construction. 14. Interpretation of the applicable comprehensive plan and implementing regulations for the area. 15. Exercise of subdivision authority within the active planning area. 16. Processing and issuance of building permits for all construction activities within the area. Performance of all building inspecting and enforcement relating to permits issued. 17. Maintenance and improvements of roads within the area. 18. Issuance of all access permits and right of way use and right-of-way construction permits for the area. 19. Enforcement of code and permit violations including: a. Development and zoning violations b. Building code violations C. Conditions of approval violations d. Right of way permit violations e. Road and street hazards 20. Removing vegetation from right-of-ways. 2 l. Reviewing OLCC and DMV land use compatibility statements. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARDAVASHINGTON COUNTY Page 3 M. RES PONS IBELITIES OF THE PARTIES A. General Terms Regarding Responsibilities of the Parties. It is the intention of the parties hereto that there be no cost to the CITY in the undertaking of the responsibilities under this agreement. As to operational costs, the fee schedule adopted for development review and building permit services is intended to fully cover all direct and indirect costs to the CITY associated with development review and building permit functions. In recognition of initial start up costs and the assumption by the CITY of applications in process, an initial dollar transfers outlined below will be made by the COLTINTv to the CITY as provided fog h-rerr:. As of the date of this Agreement, the parties contemplate that there are three broad areas of cost of service in the Affected Area which is the subject of this agreement. Those areas of cost are: 1. operational expenses, 2. defense of litigation, administrative and LUBA appeals occasioned by development review and engineering review of development; and 3. liability under tort, constitutional and related theories. It is the intent of the parties that the CITY will be fully compensated for operational expenses relating to this Agreement. The remaining two described cost areas to the CITY will be analyzed as provided in Section (IV)(B) and (VI). B. The County agrees to perform the following activities as part of this intergovernmental agreement: 1. Transfer all documents, files, and computer data relevant to the particular services denoted in the agreement on or before the effective date of the agreement. The data shall be in a format compatible to the CITY's system. All costs associated with the creation and/or duplication of these documents, files and computer data shall be borne by the COUNTY. The documents to transferred are listed in Appendix 1. All documents shall be transferred before the effective date of this agreement. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREENtENTrFIGARDIWASH NGTON COUNTY Page 4 Z. Any service under this agreement provided by CITY that requires payment by COUNTY to CITY for such service shall only be required of the CITY as long as COUNTY makes the payments to CITY as required by this agreement. This agreement shall terminate if COUNTY is unable to make payments to CITY required under this agreement due to reductions in the COUNTY budget. 3. Transfers of all special fund allocations to the CITY for specific services denoted in this agreement shall be done before the effective date of the agreement or later as specified in this agreement. For all subsequent years, the allocations shall be made no later than 30 days after July 1 of each year. Any interest accrued by the CITY shall be used in furtherance of delivering such specific services. In the event of funding short falls for operational expenses arising out of the CITY's assumption of obligations under this agreement, the provisions of paragraph IV(A)(1) shall govern the transfer of additional funds to the CITY by the COUNTY. 4. Provide as needed technical assistance to the CITY to assist in those services requiring COUNTY expertise. Such technical assistance shall be delivered to the CITY at no charge and in a timely manner. More specifically, the COUNTY agrees to provide technical assistance in development review to assist the CITY's Community Development Department render appropriate land use decisions including "areas of special concern" and floodplain/drainage hazard areas, as defined in the COUNTY's Bull Mountain Community Plan. 5. Provide coordination with the CITY in updating and development of the COUNTY's transportation capital improvement program. 6. Adopt provisions of Tigard's Municipal Code and engineering standards, street standards and other City rules that are necessary for the CITY to have authority to fulfill the delegation provisions listed under section II of this agreement. 7. If at a quarterly meeting, it is determined that the COUNTY fee schedule is not adequate to compensate CITY for services performed, upon presentation of adequate documentation to this effect, COUNTY shall adjust its fee schedule for the area to attempt to cover the cost of the service. In addition, the cost recovery provisions of paragraph IV(A) shall apply consistent with the intent that there be no cost to the CITY for operational expenditures under this agreement. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/-FIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Pale 5 C. The CITY agrees to perform the following activities as part of this intergovernmental agreement: 1. Perform land development services (development assistance development _ review) on a daily basis consistent with the CITY Community Development Code as adopted by the COUNTY. 2._ Perform building inspection services (plan review, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, structural) on a daily basis consistent with the state law and the CITY code as adopted by the COUNTY. 3. Utilize the CITY's street standards as adopted by COUNTY in evaluating public and private development and/or projects in the area. 4. Perform road maintenance work for local public streets and receive payment for such work from the Urban Road Maintenance District, as described in Exhibit 2. 5. Perform road right-of-way maintenance on roads and streets and receive payment for such work from COUNTY Road Funds, as described in Exhibit 3. 6. Perform road maintenance work and receive payment for such work from Maintenance Local Improvement Districts, as described in Exhibit 4. 7. Perform road capital improvements and receive payment for such improvements from Traffic Impact Fees, as described in Exhibit 5. 8. Perform code-enforcement services on a daily basis consistent with the CITY codes as adopted by the County and receive payment for such enforcement, as described in Exhibit 6. 9. As of the date of this agreement, CITY shall impose a condition upon any applications which requires street lighting, that the applicant will agree to the formation of a Street Lighting District. 10. Take responsibility for and complete inspections and reviews for all existing building permits and complete review of all development permit applications (including requests for extensions on existing permits) that are filed after the effective date of this agreement and receive payments, as described in Exhibit 7. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTrFIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Page 6 11. Collect all pertinent fees and taxes relevant to building permits, traffic impact tax, sign permits, right-of-way use permits, sign permits and development application fees. CITY will use the COUNTY fee schedule for all engineering and development permits as that schedule is annually adopted by COUNTY. CITY shall apply its own fee schedule for building permits. CITY shall retain all fees it collects for its services. COUNTY shall continue to collect MLID and URMD assessments for this area and transfer them as provided for in this agreement under Exhibits 2 and 4. 12. All other actions reasonably necessary to carry out the authority given to CITY as provided for in the attached Exldbits. IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES AND RELATIONSHIPS The COUNTY and CITY agree: A. Operational Expenses. It is the parties' intent that this agreement be revenue neutral to the CITY. This agreement attempts to be revenue neutral through fund transfers and the collection of fees by CITY. It is expected that the fees gathered will cover the cost of those services including some enforcement or appeals of CITY decisions. However, if those funds transferred or fees gathered are not sufficient to pay for the services required by this agreement, the COUNTY shall in addition to adjusting the fees as stated in Section III(B)(7), reimburse CITY for the any deficiency remaining at the end of each quarter. Such reimbursement shall be made within thirty(30) days of a quarterly meeting or within thirty (30) days of the end of any fiscal year whichever is applicable. To be eligible to receive such payments for the deficiency, the CITY is required to: 1. Meet quarterly with COUNTY and give accounting records of the CITY's fund for these services that describe the cost of services and the revenues generated during the quarter. CITY shall also make estimates about levels of services, staffing requirements and revenue projections for the next quarter. The quarterly meetings shall aid in determining the fund transfers that are set in the annual meeting as described below. 2. Maintain a separate fund for all accounting functions relative to the area covered by this agreement. 3. Be in compliance with all other provisions of this agreement. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREENffiNT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Page 7 B. Defense of Appeals/Liability As described in paragraph II(A)(11) above, it is contemplated by the parties that LUBA or other-court actions may arise from the review of development in the area subject to this agreement. The CITY will undertake responsibility for defense of such actions. The cost of such defense will be borne by either the CITY or the COUNTY or a combination thereof as provided for in this paragraph. 1. When the CITY receives notice from any party that a LUBA appeal, court action or other legal review of the CITY's authority is contemplated by that party, t.,e CITY Community Dcvelopment Director snail immediately Notify the COUNTY Land Use and Transportation Director in writing. The Directors or their designee(s) shall confer to determine the source and nature of the requirement resulting in the disputed and the CITY's decision on whether or not to defend the action. The COUNTY shall have 10 days from the date of the CITY's notice in which to decide whether it wants the CITY to proceed in the defense of such action. If the COUNTY requests that the CITY proceed to defense where the CITY would otherwise elect not to do so, the COUNTY will fully reimburse the CITY for all costs of defense including direct and indirect costs. Similarly, if the CITY believes it is important to proceed the defense where the COUNTY does not concur, the CITY will absorb the cost. In cases where both parties believe it is important to defend an action, the parties will share equally the cost of defense. The same process shall apply in all subsequent appeals from the LUBA or court decision. In all other cases, the parties will resolve the dispute over cost using the dispute resolution methods contained in this agreement. The parties here recognize that the intent is that the party creating the cost should bear responsibility for that cost. 2. For constitutional takings claims and inverse condemnation claims, including civil rights actions alleging a taking County shall indemnify City for City's acts or omissions to a maximum aggregate amount of$500,000 on a "claims-made" basis. Claims must arise from acts or omissions occurring during the term of this Agreement and be actually received no later than two years after termination of this Agreement. This shall include defense costs, attorney fees and any settlements or judgments. Indemnification shall be on a 50/50 basis with the City participating in the first dollar of defense costs and any judgment or settlement, including attorney fees. In no event shall either party be responsible for any punitive damages awarded against the other party, its officers, employees or agents. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTYTIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Paze s In the event any portion of the area covered by this Agreement annexes, County's obligation under this paragraph shall cease as to any claims arising from the annexed area after annexation is final. County shall bear full responsibility for claims resulting from its approval of development prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 3. Consistent with the hold harmless provisions of paragraph VI, it is the parties' intention that each be responsible for liability arising out of its own employees' acts. 4. On July 1, 1997, Count,,shall create a 5500,000 insurance reserve fiv7d or account dedicated exclusively to satisfying its obligations under paragraph (2) above. In no event shall County be responsible for any costs, damages,judgments, settlements, or attorney fees arising from or relating to the acts or omissions of City except to the extent of the remaining balance of this reserve. Notwithstanding termination of this Agreement, this reserve shall continue until either of the following occurs: the fund balance is expended in defense or on behalf of City as described in paragraph(2) above or all claims against City filed within two years of termination of this Agreement are finally resolved and paid. Each fiscal year, County staff shall make a recommendation to the Board regarding availability of funds to replenish the reserve and the Board shall seriously consider such action. City may terminate this Agreement on 90 days' notice if County declines to replenish the reserve in any future budget year. 5. City shall confer with County at the first opportunity if City has reason to think that a land use application or decision of City is likely to be contested beyond the City's internal review process or may give rise to a claim for damages. C. Dispute Resolution. To the extent possible, COUNTY and CITY staff will observe the rules, standards and regulation reference by this agreement. In the case of a dispute about the terms of this agreement or how to effectuate this agreement, the COUNTY and CITY staff will immediately refer the dispute to the COUNTY Director of Land Use and Transportation and the CITY Community Development Director to resolve the dispute. If the Directors have not resolved the dispute within 30 days, the dispute shall be forwarded to the CITY and COUNTY Administrators. If the matter cannot be resolved by the Administrators within 30 days, it shall be forwarded to the Council and the Board for resolution_ If the matter still cannot be resolved, the arbitration provisions of ORS 190.710-190.800 shall apply- URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/'I'IGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Page 9 D. Amendments. Requested amendments to this intergovernmental agreement shall be submitted in writing to both the COUNTY Land Use and Transportation Director and to the CITY Community Development Director with adequate explanations as to the necessity of such amendment. A decision by the Directors to either reject or accept the amendments must be made in no more that 30 days from the receipt of the request. After review and approval by the Directors, the amendments must be submitted to the CITY Manager and COUNTY Administrator for signature or presentation to the Board and Council. The CITY Council and the COT NTY Board of County Commissioners grant authority to the CITY Manager and the COUNTY Administrator to make such changes as needed to this intergovernmental agreement to effectuate the intent and purpose of this agreement. For amendments that will result in a financial impact, the amount of the financial impact needs to be within the Administrator's and Manager's delegated authority. Any amendments outside this authority need to be made by the Council and the Board and must be submitted to the Board and Council within 90 days of the Administrator's or Manager's receipt of the proposed amendments. E. Annual Review. COUNTY and CITY will jointly conduct an annual review of this intergovernmental agreement beginning November 1 and ending no later than January 30 of each year to allow adjustments to upcoming COUNTY and CITY budgets. Such joint review shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the agreement, procedures, and the delivery of service in meeting the requirements of the agreement. The annual review shall also evaluate the costs of providing the services, reimburse the CITY for operating deficits described in section IV(A), and adjust such moneys that are transferred to the CITY to render services under this agreement. The CITY and COUNTY agree to take the results of this meeting, along with any amendments to the agreement made pursuant to paragraph D above, to their respective Board and Council within 30 days of such meeting. The Board and Council agree to take action on such request consistent with this agreement. F. COUNTY will make changes in Article VIII of its Community Development Code (CDC) necessary to adopt changes in the CITY's development code as it applies to the area. COUNTY and CITY shall work together to ensure that all CITY code changes are promptly adopted by COUNTY. G. The parties agree to coordinate planning efforts under Metro's 2040 Growth Concepts at a time mutually agreeable to the parties. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEN ENT/TIGARD/wASHTNGTON COUNTY Page 10 H. City shall maintain $3,000,000 aggregate general, professional and automotive liability insurance for claims arising from its acts and omissions in the area subject to this Agreement. County, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as an additional insured (except that County need not be named on professional insurance if that is unavailable). County shall pay to City the first year premium to a maximum of$5,000.00. The premium for subsequent years shall be paid by City as an operating expense. City shall periodically monitor the insurance market to determine if coverage for takings and inverse condemnation claims is available. If so, County may elect to pay the premium for said insurance in lieu of maintaining the insurance reserve provided for herein. I. In the event City elects to terminate this Agreement prior to the end of the five (5) year term as provided for in section V City agrees to return to County any equipment purchased with proceeds furnished by the County pursuant to this Agreement. V. TERM OF AGREEMENT A. This agreement shall be effective upon execution by both parties and shall remain in effect for five (5) years, or until terminated by mutual agreement of both parties. By mutual agreement, this agreement may be extended for another five(5) years. Either party may terminate this agreement between the dates of March 1 and July 1 of any year with 90 days written notice to the other party. B. The CITY shall be responsible for processing all permits or applications for this area which have not been completed at the time of the termination of this agreement. C. Except for County's obligation to indemnify City for City's acts or omissions, the parties' obligations as regards LUBA cases and to indemnify and defend each other pursuant to Section VI shall survive termination as to any claim arising from the actions of either party during the term of this Agreement. County's obligations to indemnify City for City's acts or omissions shall survive only to the extent of claims within two years of the termination of this Agreement and to the extent of funds remaining in the insurance reserve. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTfrIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Pa,,e l i VI. HOLD HARMLESS A. Subject to the limitations.of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, CITY shall hold harmless and indemnify COUNTY, its Commissioners, employees, and volunteers agents against any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses (including all attorney(s) fees and costs), arising out of or resulting from CITY's performance of this agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the acts or omissions of the CITY, except as provided in section (IV)(B). B. Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort Clams Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, County shall hold h;rmless and ind-anify CITY, its Councilors, employees, agents and volunteers against all claims, damages, losses and expenses (including all attorney fees and costs) arising out of or resulting from COUNTY's performance of this agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the acts or omissions of COUNTY, except as provided in section (IV)(B). VII. GENERAL PROVISION A. SEVERABILITY: COUNTY and CITY agree that if any term or provision of this contract is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the contract did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid. B. THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE DESCRIBED HEREIN AND SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS OR PROPOSALS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ALL OTHER CONIIVIUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONTRACT. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR . CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT WILL BE BINDING ON EITHER PARTY EXCEPT AS A WRITTEN ADDENDUM SIGNED BY AUTHORIZED AGENTS OF BOTH PARTIES. This agreement commences on June 2, 1997. All applications or request for permits received by COUNTY between May 1, 1997 and June 1, 1997 will be transferred to CITY for all remaining actions necessary for those applications and permits. URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Page 12 In WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Urban Services Intergovemmental Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGONCIT OF TIGARD BY - 4,!;� � BY Linda PetersJim Nicoli Chair, Board of County Commissioners ayor, City of Tigard Date / rf Date 297 Approved as to form: Approved as to form: 4oju n,av o City Attorney pj b/aarvvoo6I/"vptm ig7(5n/97) APPROVED WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS pp MINUTE ORDER b .....q.7 DATE ....................... G.. 7.............. 9YC�;f' J ''LRRR OF THE ARD URBAN SERVICES INIERGOVERNNENTAL AGREEIENT/i'IGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY Pale 13 111 �`'i1�L"� !�' - �'�"�� �� • 1 �1 ■ t�� � �, fir.; 1� ♦ .� . -0000 - � ■■nll .i EXHIBIT 2 Urban Road Maintenance District Responsibility for services under the URMD shall not take effect until November 1, 1997. CITY shall provide maintenance of urban roads in the area to keep existing roads in the URMD consistent with the work program to be negotiated each year and the funding provided by the District. CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints from the area concerning road conditions and maintenance. The funding for the URMD will expire in 1998/1999. The last day for the imposition of assessment for this District will be November 1999. Once the funding expires, the duties for urban road maintenance ander this District and under this agreement will cease. City shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance performed under this fund. City shall receive payment from the County from the UMRD in the amount of $1,620.00 as of November 1, 1997. This money is for minor maintenance duties for the remainder of the 1996- 1997 year. There after, the City shall receive an amount that will be negotiated between the parties for a work program for the following year. This amount shall be established during the annual meeting of the parties as specified in the agreement. Payment shall be made by COUNTY within thirty days of July 1 each year for the duration of the agreement. EXHIBIT 3 Road Fund Maintenance CITY shall assume responsibility for road maintenance duties described in this exhibit as the Road Maintenance Program on November 1, 1997. CITY shall provide maintenance of roads in the area to keep existing roads consistent with the work program to be negotiated each year and the funding provided by the District. CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints from the area concerning road conditions and maintenance. CITY shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance performed under this fund. CITY shall receive payment from the COUNTY from the COUNTY Road Fund in the amount of $41,343.00 as of November 1, 1997. Thereafter, the CITY and COUNTY shall mutually agree upon a work program and an amount to be received for such work program for the following fiscal year at the annual meeting of the parties. Road Maintenance Program There are 44.95 miles of road to be maintained in the transfer area with 30.07 miles of local roads, 4.24 miles of minor collector roads and 10.64 miles of major collector roads respectively. Road maintenance is scheduled and service requests prioritized as per the county's road prioritization policy. The COUNTY's Road Maintenance Priority Policy provides guidelines for allocation of our maintenance funds. These guidelines shall be used to help establish the yearly work program for the area. The policy defines various maintenance activities by type, ranging from legally mandated services, to total reconstruction. A numerical value is assigned to each activity based on the road's functional classification with major arterial and collectors given first priority for general maintenance. Minor collectors and local roads are given a higher level of service with the passing of the URMD program, however without renewal the maintenance service on these roads Will follow our priority matrix and receive emergency and hazard abatement only. Emergencies and hazards are given top priority, for example all stop signs and stop ahead signs damaged or down are repaired within two hours of notification. For collector roads that are both in area, as well as the unincorporated portion of Washington County, CITY shall assume full maintenance responsibility. (Example: Bull Mountain Road). Development affecting the arterials and collector streets within the transfer limits has already happened and appears to be "built out". Traffic Operations Program Traffic Operations provides support to include analyzing traffic control device warrants to insure and enhance roadway safety. Also provided are traffic analysis, studies, reports and pre-marking services as necessary. Traffic Operations staff support the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program by conducting traffic studies and obtaining traffic count data. Staff work with individuals and citizen groups to address neighborhood livability issues and implement traffic enhancements. A $5,452.00 allowance has been provided for this purpose. Neighborhoods requesting traffic calming shall be ranked and prioritized as per CITY's current method. An amount of$7,500 shall be used for projects that would normally qualify under CITY's program. Funds may also be used for education tools such as readerboards, banners, and community outreach. The Mountain Gate Subdivision has requested traffic calming in their neighborhood. Under COUNTY's current program they do not rank high enough to qualify for funding. The Homeowners Association has verbally agreed to pay for traffic calming improvement themselves. It is recommended that CITY complete any necessary staff work and engineering development to get this project off the ground. Night Road Logs: To ensure a high standard for maintenance of signs and striping, CITY shall conduct night road logs checking for reflectivity once a year on arterials and collector roads. This is accomplished with 2 employees working as a team, covering an average of 55 lane miles per night or 7 lane miles per hour. Street Name Limits Mileage 115th Avenue Fonner Street to City Limits 00.18 121st Avenue Walnut Street to Gaarde 01.66 Street 131 st Avenue Beef Bend Road to Fischer 01.06 Road 150th Avenue Sunrise Lane to Beef Bend 02.32 Road Bull Mountain Road Highway 99W to Beef Bend 06.18 Road Fischer Road Highway 99W to 131st 01.36 Avenue Fonner Street Walnut Street to 121st 01.66 Avenue Gaarde Street City Limits to 121st Avenue 00.89 Roshak Road Bull Mountain Road to End 00.56 of AC Tiedeman Avenue Walnut Street 00.03 Walnut Street 106th Avenue to 135th 03.16 Avenue 19.06 lane miles Station Counts: In order to track traffic trends and monitor the level of service, CITY shall conduct counts at the following established stations. Average cost during the 95/96 fiscal year was $63.97 per count. Street Name Cross Street Location 150th Avenue Beef Bend Road .3N #439 Bull Mountain Road 150th Avenue lE 9403 Walnut Street 122nd Avenue .1W 9438 Traffic Maintenance Pro_ am Striping and Stencils: No work proposed for this fiscal year. Vegetation Program: No work proposed for this fiscal year. A minimal payment of$3,000.00 for incidental brush removal. Drainage Program Drainage requests, including emergency situations are currently handled by the Unified Sewerage Agency. The major collector roads are not scheduled for ditching until the 1999/2000 fiscal year_ However, an $6,000.00 budget will be transferred to CITY for drainage maintenance, emergency response and additional citizen requests not currently identified by USA. The following work program shall be completed for the upcoming fiscal year by CITY: I. Bull Mountain Road: Ditch south from Roshack Road and install rip- rap in ditch as needed. 2. Bull Mountain Road: Reshape ditch and install shoulder rock at 11670 SW Bull Mountain Road -- mailbox installed in flowline of ditch, light flooding of property. 3. 150th Avenue: Light ditch work at 14400 SW 150th Avenue, homeowner mailbox located in ditch blocking flow. 4. 121 st Avenue&Walnut Street: Spot ditching at inlets and outlets of the driveways and road crossing tiles. EXHIBIT 4 Maintenance Local Improvement Districts As of May 1, 1997, CITY shall impose a condition on any land use application requiring the creation of roads, for the establishment of a Maintenance Local Improvement District. CITY responsibility for service under the Maintenance Local Improvement Districts shall not commence to November 1, 1997. As of this date, CITY shall provide maintenance of roads covered under applicable Maintenance Local Improvement Districts in the area following a work program as mutually agreed to by the parties. CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints from the area concerning road conditions and maintenance. CITY shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance performed under this fund. CITY shall not receive any payments from the COUNTY from the Maintenance Local Improvement Districts for 1996-1997 year. There after, the CITY shall receive an amount that will be negotiated between the parties for a work program for the following year. This amount shall be established during the annual meeting of the.parties as specified in the agreement. Payment shall be made by COUNTY within thirty days of July 1 each year for the duration of the agreement. i EXHIBIT 5 Traffic Impact Fees CITY shall assume responsibility for collecting traffic impact fees for the area as of date of the agreement. Funds shall be spent for projects in the area as determined by CITY working with the COUNTY in conjunction with the Washington County Coordinating Committee. A work program shall be established for the area by the parties for the area at the annual meeting of the p;l ties. Funds allocated •`rom the TIF shall ust-d to finance the agreed upon work program CITY shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for improvement made under this fund. CITY shall collect these fees and shall be responsible for all accounting and auditing for these fees. EXHIBIT 6 Code Enforcement CITY shall assume responsibility for code enforcement as of the date of this agreement. CITY shall enforce codes and respond to citizens complaints and prosecute violators for violations of Washington County Code Articles VIII and IX(Ordinances 487 and 488). CITY shall keep a log of all complaints and the response time to these complaints as well as the results of the complaints. CITY shall keep all fines levied from violators. County shall pay a base amount of$15,000.00 with this amount being transferred to the CITY on May 1, 1997. At the end of the fiscal year 1997-1998, if CITY has responded to more than 71 cases in the area COUNTY shall pay an additional amount of$150.00 for each case not to exceed $30,000.00. a EXHIBIT 7 Building Permits City shall issue all building permits, for all activities requiring permits under the Building Codes and other CITY codes as adopted by COUNTY and perform all inspections in a timely manner. CITY shall assume responsibility for completing existing permits on the date of this agreement and all building permits requested for the area thereafter. County shall pay City $200,000.00 to complete existing building permits. These funds shall be transferred as of the day of the agreement. CITY shall keep an accounting of all funds collected and expenses in maintaining the building inspection program. Funds collected by CITY shall be used to operate the CITY building permit program for the area. PJ b/acm/990061/acti vp In.ex3(4/1 l/97) 1 APPENDIX 1 File, Document & Computer Data Transfers ♦ FEMA Maps ♦ County Zoning Map ♦ County Assessor's`:'ax Maps (two sets) ♦ Subdivision Plats ♦ Address maps ♦ County Assessor's Property Owners List (including those within 250' of Urban Services Boundary) ♦ County Comp Plan Map and Transportation Plan Map (Modification of original Transportation Plan to identify all new collectors and proposed collectors.) ♦ Benchmark Map &Description(include both Tigard and Urban Services Area) ♦ Full-size Street Map with index and parcels (include both Tigard and Urban Services area) ♦ As-built Drawings for Public Streets and Subdivisions ♦ Electronic Download of Sierra Permit Information ♦ Digital Orthophotos ♦ Detailed Natural Resource Information(if available) ♦ Identification of Special Problem Areas ♦ Contact names and phone numbers of Washington County staff 41996 LJ ArtCASEFILE: 96-480-SU/D as ington County Department of Land Use and Transportation APPLICANT: Land Development Services City of Tigard Mr. Ed Wegner 155 N First Ave,Suite 350 City Hal l Hillsboro,OR 97124 13125 SW Hall Blvd RECOMMENDATION Tigard. OR 97223 & STAFF REPORT APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Chris Uber PROCEDURE TYPE III Murray, Smith & Associates. Inc CPO:4B COMMUNITY PLAN: 121 SW Salmon #1020 Bull Mountain Portland, OR 97204 LAND USE DISTRICT: CONTACT PERSON: R-6 (Residential 6 units per acre) Mr. Chris Uber PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: OWNER: ASSESSOR MAP#: 2S1 5DB same as applicant LOT#:-x}00 SITE SIZE: 11.03 acres LOCATION: 225 ft. south of the current ADDRESS:-1 3425 SW Sunrise Lane terminus of SW 154th Av south of Firtree Dr. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION: Special Use Approval and Development Review for a 3.5 million gallon water storage reservoir October 17, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer adopt the attached Findings (Attachment C) and approve the application Q-Ublect tC the imposition of the Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment B. Attachments: A. -Vicinity Map B. - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL C.- Staff Report D.-Transportation Report E.- Street Trees �1�1 11111111 !�OR � •/. ,. .; . . ... .• /. .-// .I ilk] IILi���11 :��1111 � X1111 . • illlllll�' 1111Fri :! � -� . ..■. 1111 ���� NOW CII 1 _ Nil,tic'-yam�? fi" R ��.'�5� •I ycb�fy�Zr�'s L f�•�'c��.,��ry'i�'¢s al�F�< // �,,...;'X.a`z���e�-K� ?ei'd'S.� ,...._..x:�w.n...ra.•kse� I/ /1 • II 7• .7: � •11 I/ :1/ I/ •I I /I III 11 I/ 1I •IJ .II • Casefile 96-480-SU/D Attachment B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES THE APPLICANT SHALL: A. Submit to Building Services (640-3470) for review and approval: Grading/drainage plan consistent with the standards of Sections 410 and 412 (Type I procedure). B. Submit to the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (648-8621) for review and approval: Application for USA site development permit in accordance with R&O 91- 47/91-75. NOTE: Erosion control permit and inspection fees are due upon submittal of final plans. C. Submit to Land Development Services, Project Planner (Albert Boesel, 681-3835): 1. Submit copy of easement agreement allowing utilization of Tax Map/Lot 2S1 51)B/600 as access to the project site. II. PRIOR TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL THE APPLICANT SHALL: A. Obtain an Access Permit for construction of rhe driveway approach from the terminus of SW 154th Avenue. NOTE: Contact Land Development Services (Teri Cramer, 681-3834) to obtain the required forms. B. The following documents shall be executed: 1. Sign and record a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve and . r Casefile 96-480-SU/D Conditions of Approval - Page 2 maintain SW Sunrise Lane to County standards between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Bull Mountain Road. 2. Dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 30 feet from centerline of SW Sunrise Lane adjacent to the site. NOTE: Contact the Survey Division (Jamil Kamawal, 693-4543) to obtain the required forms. C. Submit to Land Development Services, Project Planner (Albert Boesel, 681-3835): 1. Final Approval form (Type I procedure). 2. Final Approval fee. 3. Replanting plan prepared by a qualified biologist or plant ecologist for disturbed areas at the site entrance, along the access road and at the base of the reservoir. 4. Install protective fencing at the drip lines of all trees to be retained within the vicinity of proposed grading activities. Submit written verification from a consulting arborist that the fencing is adequate to protect trees from damage caused by excavation, fill and construction equipment. 5. Written verification from a registered professional engineer that the private street into and through the project site has been built to the standards of Section 409. III. PRIOR TO BUILDING OCCUPANCY AND/OR FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL: A. Site improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved final plans. B. All facilities and improvements required by USA shall be completed and approved by USA. IV. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: Casefile 96-480-SU/D Conditions of Approval - Page 3 A. Adequate sight distance shall be continuously maintained by the property owner. This may require the property owner to periodically remove obstructing vegetation from the road right-of-way. B. Access to the site shall be from SW 154th Avenue through Tax Map/Lot 2S1 5DB/600 C. Landscaping and street trees shall be maintained in accordance with Section 407-8.10. Maintenance shall include, but is not limited to regular watering, weeding, pruning and replacement. D. Obtain a Sign Permit prior to the placement of signs on the site unless otherwise exempt under Section 414-5. E. This development shall be constructed in accordance with the conditions of this decision, the approved final plans and the standards of the Community Development Code (Section 207=6.1). F. All conditions of approval shall be binding upon all heirs, successors and assigns (Section 207-6.1). G. Transferability of this Development Permit shall be in accordance with Section 201-8. H. The removal of any tree over 6 inches in diameter shall require the approval of a tree removal permit. I. This approval shall automatically expire two years from the date of this approval, unless development has commenced, an application for an extension is filed, or this approval is revoked or invalidated (CDC Section 201-4). . a Casefile 96-480-SU/D Attachment C STAFF REPORT I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS A. 1990 Washington County Comprehensive Plan B. 1984 Bull Mountain Community Plan C. 1994 Washington County Community Development Code: 1. Article II, Procedures: Section 204-4 Type III Procedure Section 207-6 Conditions of Approval 2. Article III, Land Use Districts: Section 303 R-6 District 3. Article IV, Development Standards: Section 404 Master Planning Section 405 Open Space Section 406 Building, Siting and Architectural Design Section 407 Landscape Design Section 408 Neighborhood Circulation Section 409 Private Streets Section 410 Slopes and Grading Section 411 Screening and Buffering Section 412 Drainage Section 413 Parking and Loading Section 414 Signs Section 415 Lighting Section 416 Utilities Section 423 Environmental Performance Standards Section 426 Erosion Control Section 430-105 Public Utility 4. Article V, Public Facilities and Services: Section 501-5 Standards for Development Section 502 Sidewalk Standards D. 1989 Transportation Plan E. Ordinance No. 379 -Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance F. Resolution and Order No. 86-95 - Determining Traffic Safety Improvements Under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance G. Ordinance No. 318 - Uniform Road Improvement Standards H. Resolution and Order No. 91-47 - Concerning Erosion Control, Water Quality and Quantity II. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page.2 Sewer: Unified Sewerage Agency Streets: Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation Drainage: Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation Water Quality and Quantity: Unified Sewerage Agency Erosion Control: Unified Sewerage Agency Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Transit: Tri-Met Police Protection: Washington County Sheriff III. FINDINGS A. Background Information: 1. The applicant requests Special Use Approval and Development Review for a 3.5 million gallon water storage reservoir. 2. Access to the site is proposed from the current terminus of SW 154th Avenue located north of the project site. A single parcel of land lies between the terminus of SW 154th Avenue and the project site; it contains one single family residence. This parcel is not owned by the applicant. At the time of this Review an access easement had not been granted allowing the applicant utilization of the northerly abutting property for access to the project site. The applicant states that negotiations continue with the property owner. 3. The site contains no drainage hazard areas and/or wetlands/water areas according to the County Flood Plain Series and National Wetland Inventory maps. 4. There were no letters of comment received regarding this application. B. 1990 Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan: There are no specific Plan policies or goals which affect this request that are not implemented by the Code or the Community Plan. The Framework Plan requires development applications to be in compliance with the Community Development Code and the applicable Community Plan. By demonstrating in this report that the request complies with the standards of the Code and the Community Plan, this Plan requirement will be satisfied. C. 1984 Bull Mountain Community Plan: Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page 3 The site is located in the Summit and Slopes subarea. The site is located in Mineral and Aggregate District B. The site is designated as a Significant Natural Resource. The Community Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. When built in conformance with the conditions of approval, the project will be in compliance with the community plan. D. 1994 Washington County Community Development Code: 1. Article II, Procedures: Section 204-4 Type III Procedures STAFF: This application is being reviewed as a Type III application. A public notice advertising the request has been mailed to all property owners within 250 feet of the site. A public notice sign has been posted on the site as required by the Community Development Code (CDC) Section 204-1.4. The posting affidavit is in the Casefile. Section 207-6 Conditions of Approval: 207-6.1 The Review Authority may impose conditions on any Type II or III development approval. Such conditions shall be designed to protect the public from potential adverse impacts of the proposed use or development or to fulfill an identified need for public services within the impact area of the proposed development. Conditions shall not restrict densities to less than that authorized by the development standards of this Code. STAFF: Conditions of approval must be imposed to ensure compliance with the standards of the Code and other County regulations and to mitigate any adverse impacts the use may have on the surrounding area. 2. Article III, Land Use Districts: Section 303 R-6 District STAFF: The proposed public utility (water storage reservoir) is allowed in the District through the Special Use Standards outlined in Section 430-105 (below). Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page 4 The proposed siting of the water reservoir meets all the yard requirements of the R-6 District (Section 303-6). The site plan indicates the water reservoir approximately 34 feet above proposed finished grade. The applicant states it will not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet in accordance with Section 303-6.3. 3. Article IV, Development Standards: Section 404 Master Planning STAFF: The applicant has submitted the information required by this section in the form of a site plan showing topography, the proposed access and siting of the water reservoir. The general area of existing trees is also shown. For the immediate development site, Section 404-1.3, Table I, requires the size, species and location of trees six inches or greater in diameter be shown; the general groupings of other species shall be shown. The entire text and maps of the Water Supply Plan for Bull Mountain Area Tigard Water District is included with this application. This plan, developed for the City of Tigard in September, 1986, explores and discusses the future water supply needs of the Bull Mountain Area. The Plan includes: recommendations for supply facilities needed to provide water distribution systems throughout the study area; a schedule for construction of these facilities; and the costs to construct and operate the facilities. The recommendations included in this Plan are based on population projections and allowed densities of the service :.rea. Of relevance to this particular Revie:•: is the study's reference for the need of a water reservoir at the 410 foot elevation at a location south of Scholls Ferry Road. Section 405 Open Space AFF: Section 405-1.1 requires areas mapped as a Significant Natural Area on the Community Plan to be preserved as open space, except as otherwise provided. The applicant's site plan and narrative indicate clearing limits for the proposed facilities. All existing trees and Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page 5 vegetation will be removed within the limits of the access road and reservoir. In order to minimize the impact on existing vegetation the access road will also serve as a utility corridor(Section 405-2). As required by this Section, areas within the project site not affected by construction of facilities will be left undisturbed. Although not addressed, it appears ownership and maintenance of the entire parcel will remain with the Tigard Water District (Section 405-5.2). Section 406 Building, Siting and Architectural Design STAFF: The development is permitted within the primary district through Special Use review. The reservoir is sited to maintain all minimum setback and lot coverage requirements and meets the maximum height requirements of the primary district (Section 406-1.1; 1.2; 1.3). The solar plan submitted with the application indicates the approximate limits of the tank's shadow at December 21st. The shadow does not encroach on abutting properties. The reservoir will be poured concrete. A cement colored finish will be sprayed onto the concrete. Section 407 Landscape Design STAFF: Section 407-7 requires street trees to be planted along all public and private roadways and access drives. However, the access drive which passes through Tax Map/Lot 2S1-5DB/600 will be expanded in the future to serve residential development and Staff balievcs straet trees should not be required at this time. The need for street trees will be addressed through future residential development of this parcel. Undisturbed existing trees and replanting as required by Section 422 shall serve as street trees along the interior access drive. A minimum of 25% of the buildable land area pursuant to Section 407-1.2 shall be used for landscaping in residential districts (Section 407-1.3). All areas of a building site not identified in a site plan or development Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page.6 plan application as intended for a specified immediate use shall be landscaped except where enclosed and blocked from the view of public streets by solid fencing or buildings (Section 407-1.6). Generally, the remaining on-site natural vegetation will be adequate to meet these requirements. However, Section 430-105.5 of the Code requires the applicant to consider the compatibility of the facility with existing surrounding uses and uses allowed by the plan designation. The applicant's narrative states that final landscaping design will include provisions for a locking security gate and may include provisions for an ornamental brick entrance way and cast iron fencing. Besides the entrance gate and brick work, Staff believes some form of natural landscaping will be required at the entrance to replace vegetation removed as part of roadway construction. This replanting plan shall be guided by a biologist or landscape architect. Section 407-3.3 requires a description of trees to be removed and an explanation of the purpose of removal. This Section also requires a site plan showing the location, size and species of trees six inches or greater in diameter. For forested areas that are larger than five acres, the general locations of trees may be shown with one or more detailed one acre sample areas. An ecologist's report submitted with the application describes the trees to be removed and the purpose of removal (see Section 422 below). A tree removal plan was also submitted. Trees within the access road alignment and reservoir footprint and toe of slope are to be removed. Section 408 Neighborhood Circulation STAFF: A neighborhood circulation plan, as required by the Traffic Impact Statement (May 7, 1996), is included with the application. The roadway proposed as access to the project site takes into consideration the future residential development of Tax Lot 600. Further discussion of proposed access to the site can be found in Attachment `D', Transportation Report. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page 7 Section 408-5.4 requires development which is not single-family or duplex residential to provide on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The applicant's narrative proposes a locked gate at the entrance and the site to be fenced. On-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation will not be required. Neighboring residents will most likely be able to continue walking the undeveloped portion of the site. Section 409 Private Streets STAFF: The private street into and through the site shall be built to the standards of Section 409-3.3.A(1). The applicant proposes a 12 foot wide paved access road. Section 410 Slopes and Grading STAFF: The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading plan. A final grading plan as required by Section 410 will be submitted prior to any work being done on the site. Section 411 Screening and Buffering STAFF: Properties to the north are designated R-15, at the south and east R-6 and the west is designated R-9. Section 411-5 requires Screening and Buffering Type 1 at the north and west; no screening is required at the south or east. The natural on-site vegetation shall serve as screening and buffering. This natural vegetation also includes any replanting required by Section 422 and Section 430-105. Section 4,.2 Drainage STAFF: Pursuant to Resolution and Order No.'s 90-30 and 90-38, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has the responsibility for review and approval of storm drainage plans as well as erosion control plans. The applicant will be required to obtain approval from USA for the proposed drainage plan prior to any on-site work. The applicant has submitted preliminary storm drainage plans. Section 413 Parking and Loading Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page8 STAFF: Staff has determined that Section 413-9.2.L. is the most similar use mentioned to the proposed water storage reservoir (Section 413-2.3). This section requires two parking spaces. The site plan indicates adequate surfaced area (Section 413-5) is being provided for parking. Section 414 Signs AFF: No signs are proposed at this time. A sign permit in accordance with Section 414-1 must be obtained prior to the placement of a sign(s) at the site. Staff encourages signage be installed which identifies the property owner and gives a phone number to call in case of emergencies. Section 415 Lighting AFF: No lighting plan was submitted with the application. Lighting shall meet the requirements of Section 415. Section 416 Utilities STAFF: All new utilities will be located underground as required by Section 416-1.1. Section 417 Irrigation STAFF: Disturbed areas are required to be replanted with native plant species or with salvage native plants removed for replanting on the site. These shall be irrigated in accordance with instructions from a registered biologist or environmental consultant. Section 422 Significant Natural Resources STAFF: The site is designated a Wildlife Habitat by the Bull Mountain Community Plan and is therefore subject to the requirements of this Section (Section 422-2.3). The applicant states that the resevoir will cover 3% of the site area and paving, 4% of the site. It is further stated that landscaping will utilize 4% of the site. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page.9, The applicant has submitted a Significant Resources Inventory Report prepared by an Ecologist. This report states that most of the site is mixed conifer-deciduous forest with a small meadow located in the northwest portion of the site. This meadow habitat (approximately 1 acre) is a remnant farm field. Within the forest habitat, Douglas-fir is the dominant overstory tree. Other overstory trees include big-leaf maple, madrone, and red alder with a few scattered individual western red cedar (as small trees and seedlings) and a Ione western hemlock. Canopy closure averages 85% at full leaf. Tree recruitment occurring as seedling or sapling trees is present for all overstory species. Average dbh for Douglas-fir trees range mostly from 11 to 14 inches. Scattered individual fir trees were measured at 16, 24 and 30 inch dbh, mostly occurring in the southern portion of the site. Generally, the forest habitat has the character of a naturally regenerated forest as typified by the variety of age/sized trees and the more open character of the overstory which allows for side lighting resulting in well developed shrub and herbaceous vegetative layers. The Significant Resources Inventory Report states that within the forest habitat, the shrub and herbaceous layer is native, diverse and highly developed. Dominant shrubs include tall Oregon grape, Oregon hazel, vine maple and thimbleberry. Other shrubs include red elderberry, large sword fern, English holly seedlings, ocean spray, red huckleberry, salal, wild rose and Indian plum. The forest habitat is in healthy condition and is primarily dominated by native species. Dead wood habitat exists as downed wood and standing snags. The Ecologist states that generally, the downed wood may be missing bark and the tree is embedded into the soil but not completely soft. Most of the downed wood is small, less than 12 inch dbh with the exception of the southern most portion of the site and the southeast corner where recent logfalls of large (greater than 20 inch dbh) Douglas-fir are located. Several large stumps occur scattered throughout the site. They are mostly in an advanced state of decay. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page,10 The project site is located on the break between the Summer Creek and the Tualatin River basins. No permanent water features were observed on-site. However, there is a small naturally occurring drainage contour just north of the existing water line which transects the site from west to east near the southern boundary. This drainage appears to function as a winter or early spring runoff area. Two perennial small creeks are located within .25 miles to the east and west of the site. No unique habitat features were identified on the site. There are no wetlands on the site. The Ecologist reports observing wildlife and their sign during the visit to the site. There wildlife included: rufous-sided towhee, Swainson's thrush, Bewick's wren (territory call), pileated woodpecker (old and fresh sign), mourning dove, red-breasted nuthatch, chestnut-backed chickadee, dark-eyed junco (with young), northern flicker, golden-crowned kinglet, mole (sign) and coyote (sign). Pileated woodpecker is a State Sensitive species. The Ecologist states it is likely that other bird and mammal species occur within the site which provides suitable habitat for songbirds, small raptors, mice, insects, among other birds and mammals. Herpetofauna, such as ensatina, may be present under leaf litter and downed logs. The Wildlife Habitat Assessment form used to develop a qualitative score for the value of the site's wildlife habitat rated the site as 'high'. The 'high' rating is based on the presence of two habitat types - forest and meadow, species and structural diversity, the dominance of native plant species, general habitat health, the site's connection to other habitats to the east, west and south, the proximity to water (less than .25 miles away) and its lack of disturbance both past and present, with the exception of the meadow/farm field. The site provides suitable nesting, foraging, denning and travel habitat for a variety of birds, mammals, insects and possibly herpetofauna. The Ecologist's report recommended four mitigation measures: (1) Time clearing activities to avoid nesting ti Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page-1.1 periods for birds, generally March through June; (2) Retain all existing large diameter overstory trees not required for removal due to road and reservoir placement. Many of the large Douglas-fir have been marked with a blue blaze for removal. These trees provide important habitat and seed source for regeneration and will be important habitat components for the pileated woodpecker as recommended by Oregon Department of Forestry and Wildlife in the Sensitive Species plan. (3) Replant disturbed areas with native plant species/salvage native plants that will be removed for replanting on the site. (4) Retain periphery buffer to provide travel and cover for wildlife occurring within the site. Section 430-105 Special Use Standards, Public Utility STAFF: Section 430-105 allows approval of a public utility service facility based upon a study submitted by the applicant which includes: 430-105.4.A. The need for the facility, present or future; and how the facility fits into the utility's Master Plan. STAFF: In September of 1986 a report titled "Water Supply Plan for the Bull Mountain Area"was prepared for the Tigard Water District by Gilbert R. Meigs, Consulting Engineer. This plan recommended the construction of two reservoirs to serve the 410 foot pressure zone. The plan recommended that one of these reservoirs have a capacity of 2.5 million gallons and be constructed at the Menlor site. Since the 1986 report, the City of Tigard has determined that an older, existing, 0.8 million gallon reservoir serving the 410 foot pressure zone and located one ;rile cast of the Menlor site, should be removed from service in the near future. Because of this, the original 2.5 million gallon reservoir has been increased to 3.5 million gallons. A vicinity map showing the location of the Menlor site is included with this application; the Menlor site is the current project site. The plan also recommended that a second reservoir, with a capacity of 1.0 million gallons and an overflow elevation of approximately 470 feet be constructed at the Menlor site as well. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page,12 Engineering considerations with regards to water flow and pressure dictate the placement of water reservoirs. The placement of all reservoirs recommended by the Water Supply Plan report, including the presently proposed reservoir, take into account lower elevation pressure, the expense of additional pumping stations, pipeline sizes, currently functioning reservoirs and established pressure zones. The need for the facility is outlined in the report. The surrounding Districts, R-6 (Residential 6 units per acre), R-9 (Residential 9 units per acre) and R-15 (Residential 15 units per acre) allow further residential development. Although these surrounding Districts will most likely not be developed to their full potential because of topography, the need for a supply of water will continue to increase as development pressure within the Urban Growth Boundary continues to escalate. The report also sights the installation of sewer lines within the study area by Unified Sewer Agency as further indication of future growth within the Bull Mountain area. 430-105.4.B. The minimum area required for the facility for the present and anticipated expansion. STAFF: The site is 11 acres in size. The applicant's narrative states that the proposed layout of facilities on the site will accommodate future construction of pumping and piping facilities south of the proposed reservoir that may be required should other water storage or pumping facilities ultimately be constructed on or near this site. The proposed site layout also provides opportunities for alternate uses or sale of the rel-naining property should no additional facilities be constructed at the site. 430-105A.C. What measures will be used to minimize damage to paved roads and natural resources or open space. STAFF: The site will gain access from SW 154th Avenue, a paved roadway. No measures were presented with which the applicant would minimize roadway damage. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page 13 Only the minimum vegetative cover and trees will be removed to accommodate construction activities, the roadway and water storage reservoir. Natural resources and open space will be protected following a registered biologist's and/or ecologist's guidance. Any disturbed areas will be replanted with native vegetation as proposed by the applicant and consulting ecologist. 430-105.5 Site size and yard shall be based upon a site plan submitted by the applicant. The site plan shall consider especially, the compatibility of the facility with existing surrounding uses and uses allowed by the plan designation. STAFF: The applicant has considered compatibility with surrounding existing residential developments and uses allowed by the Bull Mountain Community Plan. An ornamental brick entrance way and cast iron fencing is proposed at the entrance. All disturbed areas which remain undeveloped are proposed to be replanted. Any remaining slope of the cut area needed to place the reservoir is proposed to be stabilized following Section 410, Slopes and Grading. Staff is satisfied that the applicant is cognizant of, and has addressed all compatibility issues. Section 426 Erosion Control STAFF: Section 426 requires erosion control measures in the Tualatin River and Oswego Lake sub-basins during construction to control and limit soil erosion. Section 426- 5.2 allows the erosion control plan submission and review to be deferred until the time of any on-site work or construction. The applicant shall therefore be required to submit an erosion control plan consistent with the requirements of Section 426 prior to any physical change or construction on the site. On July 1, 1990, Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) assumed responsibility for erosion control within their district boundaries. The applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan to USA for their approval prior to any on-site or off-site work or construction. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page.14 4. Article V, Public Facilities and Services: Section 501-5 Standards for Development STAFF: Required public services and facilities can be provided to the site to serve the proposed use. All of the agencies listed in Section II of this staff report have stated they can adequately serve the development subject to complying with their standards. The findings and recommendations for transportation standards are found in the Transportation Report, Attachment "D", and are hereby incorporated as findings. Section 502 Sidewalk Standards: STAFF: The findings and recommendations for sidewalks are found in the Transportation Report, Attachment "D", and are hereby incorporated as findings. E. Transportation Plan: STAFF: The findings and recommendations for transportation standards are found in the Transportation Report, Attachment "D", and are incorporated as findings herein. F. Ordinance No.'s 379; Traffic Impact Fee: STAFF: The Traffic Impact Fee is required of all new development and constitutes an assurance to satisfy a development's requirement to provide additional capacity to major collectors and arterial streets needed for development. This fee is based on the number of daily trips a site generates and is due at issuance of a building permit. G. Resolution and Order No. 91-47 - Erosion Control, Water Quality and Water Quantity: ,$TAFF: Resolution and Order 91-47 adopted standards and regulations for the Unified Sewer Agency's (USA) review and approval of erosion control measures. The applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan to USA for their approval prior to any on-site or off-site work or construction. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Staff Report - Page•15 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The required findings can be made for all of the applicable Code sections. When constructed in accordance with the Conditions of Approval, the project will be in compliance with the Community Development Code and the Community Plan. Therefore, the request fora 3.5 million gallon water storage reservoir can be approved subject to the Conditions of Approval. G:\USERS\ALB\96480\DOC 4 ATTACHMENT D TRANSPORTATION REPORT CASEFILE: 96480-SU/D DATE: October 17. 1996 APPLICANT: City of Tigard APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Chris Uber. Murray Smith &Associates LOCATION: 225 ft.south of the terminus of SW 154th Av south of SW Firtree Dr. TAX MAP/LOT: 2S1 5DB/400 Staff has reviewed this request for adequacy of transportation facilities and services and submits the following findings and recommendations. FINDINGS: 1. PROJECT PROPOSAL: This request is for preliminary approval for a 3.5 million gallon water reservoir. This development will generate minimal vehicle trips provided it is an unmanned facility. 2. ACCESS: Access to the site is proposed from a single access from SW 154th Avenue. An single parcel of land lies between the current terminus of SW 154th Avenue and the project site. This parcel is not owned by the applicant and contains a single family residence. At the time of this review, an easement had not been granted allowing the applidant utilization of the vacant property for access to the project site. The applicant states that negotiations continue with the property owner. A ten foot wide pole portion of the parcel extends from the southeast corner of the property east to SW Sunrise Lane. This portion of the parcel has not been proposed as access to the site. SW Sunrise Lane is designated as a Minor Collector on the Transportation Plan. The existing vertical and horizontal alignment of SW Sunrise Lane does not meet road standards. An alternative future alignment for SW Sunrise Lane has been developed which locates SW Sunrise Lane approximately 400 feet west of the current right-of-way, along the east property line of this site (not the flag pole, but the east property line with a north-south dimension of 615 feet). This alignment has not been officially adopted or established through development of adjacent or nearby properties, so right-of-way dedication cannot be required at this time. However, the applicant should be advised that right-of-way may be needed in the future for the realignment of SW Sunrise Lane. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Page 2 Tract'G' extends from the Bull Mountain Meadows No. 2 subdivision into the northwest corner of the project site; the Tract is approximately 25 feet in width. Plat Restrictions state the Tract is a roadway, utility and waterline easement to Tigard Water District. The applicant states that usage of this access would require that construction traffic be routed through the subdivision. 3. RIGHT-OF-WAY: a. SW 154th Avenue is a County urban Local Street. Existing right-of-way does not front the site but terminates approximately 225 feet north of the project site. Existing right-of-way at the terminus point is 38 feet across its entirety. b. SW Sunrise Lane is a County urban Minor Collector. Existing right-of-way is 20 feet from centerline. C. Section 418-2.2 and 501-8.4 of the Community Development Code requires additional right-of-way to be dedicated when the existing right-of-way is deficient. To meet this standard, 10 feet of additional right-of-way must be dedicated along the site's frontage of SW Sunrise Lane. 4. IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE: a. SW 154th Avenue is designated to ultimately be improved to an L-7 standard with a 2 lane section,curb, sidewalk and storm drain. Currently, this road is improved to this standard at the existing terminus point but not south of the terminus through to the project site. b. SW Sunrise Lane is designated to ultimately be improved to a C-12 standard with a 2 land section, curb,sidewalk and storm drain. Currently, this road is improved to a gravel road. C. Washington County is currently unable to adequately maintain both SW 154th Avenue and SW Sunrise Lane due to a lack of funds. d. CDC Section 501-8.1.6(4)requires that the property owner sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve and maintain those local and minor collector roads which are not improved in accordance with Washington County's Uniform Road Standards and which abut or provide direct access to the development site. As stated above in Finding #4.a through c, the site's access roads are not improved to County standard or maintained by the County. Therefore, the property owner shall sign a waiver of non-remonstrance. 5. SURFACE WIDTH AND STRUCTURAL CONDITION: a. Sections 501-8.1.B(2)(a) and (b)of the Community Development Code require a site's access road to have a minimum five year paved wearing surface and structural life to a 22 foot width, between the proposed development and the nearest adequate collector or arterial. The nearest adequate collector or arterial is Scholls Ferry Road. b. No roadway exists south of the existing terminus of SW 154th Avenue therefore, the existing roadway is unacceptable. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Page 3 C. The existing surface and structural condition and width of SW Sunrise Lane is unacceptable. The surface is gravel. This roadway is not proposed as access to the project site therefore, no requirements will be required at this time. However, if the roadway is utilized as access to the project site in the future, improvements may be required. 6. ACCESS SPACING: a. The minimum access spacing standard for SW 154th Avenue is 10 feet, measured between access points on each side of the road as required by Section 501-8.5.B(1) of the Community Development Code. Access to the project site must therefore be restricted to meet this spacing standard. b The minimum access spacing standard for SW Sunrise Lane is 50 feet, measured between access points on each side of the road as required by Section 501-8.5.6(2) of the Community Development Code. If SW Sunrise Lane is utilized, access must be restricted to meet this spacing standard. 7. SIGHT DISTANCE: a. Section 501-8.5.E.of the Community Development Code and Section 210.7 of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards require adequate intersection sight distance be provided at a site's access to a County or a public road in accordance with the standards of Section 501-8.5.E. b. Intersection sight distance is acceptable at the proposed access location to SW 154th Avenue. The required intersection sight distance is 250 feet in both directions based upon a legal speed of 25 m.p.h. C. Minimum intersection sight distance shall be required if SW Sunrise Lane is utilized as access to the project site. The required intersection sight distance is 250 feet in both directions based upon a legal speed of 25 m.p.h. 8. DRAINAGE: a. Roadway drainage is acceptable up to the current terminus of SW 154th Avenue however, any roadway constructed to the project site shall provide adequate drainage. b. Roadway drainage al:,ng the site's frontage of S'vd Sunrise Lane is unacceptab;e. The ditch needs to be cleaned, graded and shaped to provide proper roadway drainage. Section 501-8.1.C. of the Code requires each parcel to have adequate roadway drainage. This roadway is not proposed as access to the project site. 9. SIDEWALKS: a. A sidewalk exists along SW 154th Avenue at its current terminus north of the project site. b. A sidewalk does not exist along the site's frontage of SW Sunrise Lane. C. Section 502-6 of the Community Development Code requires a sidewalk to be constructed along a site's road frontage when one does not exist. A permit for the construction of the sidewalk is required to be obtained prior to obtaining final approval and the issuance of a building permit. Casefile 96-480-SU/D Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: I. PRIOR TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL THE APPLICANT SHALL: A. Obtain an Access Permit for construction of the driveway approach from the terminus of SW 154th Avenue. B. The following documents shall be executed: 1. Sign and record a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve and maintain SW Sunrise Lane to County standards between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Bull Mountain Road. 2. Dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 30 feet from centerline of SW Sunrise Lane adjacent to the site. 11. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: A. Access to the site shall be from SW 154th Avenue through Tax Map/Lot 2S1 5DB/600 B. Adequate sight distance shall be continuously maintained by the property owner. This may require the property owner to periodically remove obstructing vegetation from the road right-of-way and/or on site. Attachment E STREET TREES Recommended Street Trees: ACER, platanoides columnare 'Columnar Norway' - Columnar Norway Maple ACER, platanoides schwedleri nigra 'Crimson King' - Crimson King Maple ACER, platanoides 'Fairway' - Fairway Sugar Maple ACER, rubrum 'Red' - Red Maple ACER, rubrum 'Red Sunset' - Red Sunset Maple ACER, platanoides 'Royal Red' - Royal Red Maple ACER, platanoides 'Summershade' - Summershade Maple CERCIS, canadenis - Canadian Red Bud FRAXINUS, americana - White Ash FRAXINUS, americana 'Autumn Purple' - Autumn Purple Ash GINKGO. biloba - Maidenhair Tree GINKGO. biloba 'Autumn Gold' GINKGO. biloba 'Fairmount' GLEDITSIA, triacanthos 'Sunburst' - Honey Locust LIQUIDAMBAR, styraciflua - American Sweetgum LIRIODENDRON, tulipifera - Tulip Tree MAGNOLIA, grandiflora - Southern Magnolia PLATANUS, acerifolia - London Plane Tree QUERCUS, palustris - Pin Oak QUERCUS, rubra - Red Oak TILIA, americana - American Linden TILIA, cordata - Little Leaf Linden Trees Not Permitted as Street Trees: Agricultural-fruit bearing trees (apple, pear, plum, cherry, etc.) Acer, saccharinum - 'Silver Maple' Acer, negundo - 'Boxelder' Ailanthus, gladulosa -'Tree-of-heaven' Betula; birches (Common species and varieties) Ulmus; elms (Common species and varieties) Morus; mulberry (Common fruiting species and varieties) Salix; willow (Common species and varieties) Coniferous evergreen (Fir, Pine, Cedar, etc.) City of Tigard Community Dever-pment ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Jim Hendryx FROM: Dick Bewersdorff DATE: June 29, 2000 SUBJECT: Land Partition at 13230 SW 154th Avenue/MLP2000-00003 (x-Clute property) You requested information regarding the above property. Zoning: R-25, Medium-High Density Residential. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium-High Residential. Allowed Use of Pro ert : This zone allows types of single-family (attached and detached) and mu ti- amiy ousing with a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet for multi-family and 3.050 square feet per unit for single-family detached. Also permitted are mobile home parks/subdivisions, day care, utilities, colleges and community recreation are conditional uses. Retail services are permitted as long as limited to ground floor level of multi-family projects, not to exceed 10% of the total gross square feet of the building. Density: Upto 25 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density allowed is 80% or 20 units per acre of the net developable area after subtracting streets, slopes, wetlands, etc. The partition application indicated 27,780 square feet of net developable area on the remaining parcel. This would mean 18+ units at 100% density and 15 dwelling units at the minimum 80°'o density if developed. The City can not enforce CC&R's that do not mee' minimum densities. Property Size: 1.74 acres to be split into two lots of .39 acres and 1.35 acres. Re-Zone/Plan Change Jurisdiction: Washington County, See Section 801-8.2.1.B.1.a in the attached r inance amending ounty plan to City designations. The attached Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement further omits mention of City responsibility for Plan Amendments within the Urban Service boundary and thus stays with Washington County. Washington County Contact: Bill Avery 681-3832. Appeal: Appeal filed by J. Ramsey on June 16, 2000. Scheduled for public hearing with the Hearings Officer on July 24, 2000. i:\curp1n\dick\memos\mIp2000-3 x-elute property memo.doc © MONTGOMERY WATSON Serving the World's Environmental Needs Water Managers Group Preliminary Feasibility Study for a Hagg Lake Dam Raise January 1999 r.a y 7 Water 1llfastewater 'Water Resources PesI9n/BUIId C t"► t egernent Preliminary Feasibility Study for a Hagg Lake Dam Raise Introduction The Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) project has considered strategies for water resources management in the Tualatin River Basin. One objective of the IWRM Strategy is to ensure a safe, reliable and cost-effective water supply into the future for multiple water resources needs in the Basin. Increased needs for water to meet instream, municipal and agricultural water demands are anticipated before the year 2050. The Water Managers Group (WMG) has recommended that several water supply alternatives be considered to meet future needs. One of these options is an expansion of existing storage at Henry Hagg Lake. Hagg Lake is currently used for municipal and agricultural supply and for flow augmentation of the Tualatin River during the summer and fall months. This technical memorandum discusses the results of a preliminary feasibility study of increasing storage at Hagg Lake by raising the existing dam. This work has been conducted by Montgomery Watson and Comforth Consultants. The study addressed three primary areas: • Engineering feasibility; • Geotechnical feasibility; and • Environmental feasibility The primary objectives of this preliminary investigation are to identify potential `fatal flaws' which could cause the project to be technically or legally infeasible,to identify major issues of concern, and to refine cost estimates for a dam raise. This preliminary study is the first step in the consideration of this water supply option. More detailed investigations must be completed to fully understand the issues and costs associated with the project. Preliminary Engineering Evaluation This section describes the existing dam and associated facilities. The technical feasibility of two dam raise heights has been evaluated, for a 20-foot raise and a 40-foot raise. The required facilities are described for each case, and a cost estimate for the two scenarios is presented. This section also contains a description of the methods and results of an operations study performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the raised dam. The final section assesses the feasibility of raising the dam. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 1 Hagg Lake Dam Raise 1. 0 Existing Project Facilities Scoggins Dam. The dam is a zoned embankment structure located approximately 25 miles west of Portland, Oregon on the east slope of the coast range. The project is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and was constructed from 1972 to 1975. Regulation of water began in January of 1975. It contains about 4,000,000 cubic yards of material. The dam crest is 2,700 feet long and is 116 feet above the bed of Scoggins Creek. A more complete description of the dam itself is contained in the geotechnical evaluation results. Reservoir and Perimeter Road. The reservoir at completion of the dam contains the following storage amounts. Storage Top of Capacity Elevation (Acre-feet) (Feet) Dead Capacity 3,980 229.0 Inactive Capacity 2,330 235.3 Active Conservation 23,600 272.9 Joint-use Capacity 30,000 303.5 ___77d Surcharge Capacity 2,630 305.8 A two-lane asphalt road circles the reservoir. It is about 11 miles long and has experienced slides. Some of its length is less than 20 feet above the maximum pool, some sections would require relocation if the dam were to be raised. Spillway. The spillway is located on the left abutment. The spillway is a chute type about 810 feet long. At the top of the spillway there is an intake transition to two radial gates which are 19 feet wide and 20.5 feet high. Immediately downstream of the radial gates is a bridge for the road across the dam. The chute starts downstream of the radial gates and varies in width from 43 feet at its upstream end to 49 feet at its downstream end. A stilling basin, 50 feet wide by 132 feet long, is located at the end of the chute. It has a horizontal floor and contains chute blocks at its upstream and downstream end. See Figures 1 and 2. Outlet Works. The outlet works are also located on the left abutment. At the upstream end of the intake is a 28-foot high intake tower which has trash rack covered openings on its four sides and top. A six-foot diameter pipe runs 455 feet from the intake structure to a Gate Chamber that is a concrete encased cavern. The Gate Chamber is 15.5 feet in diameter and contains a hydraulically operated rectangular shutoff gate, four feet by five feet. Downstream of the Gate Chamber is a 10.3 foot diameter horseshoe tunnel containing a 64-inch main transmission pipe and an 18-inch bypass pipe. The tunnel extends 531 feet downstream to the tunnel access structure. At the Tunnel Access Structure the main pipe branches into a 44-inch pipe to the outlet works and a 36-inch pipe for municipal water delivery which is presently capped. The 44-inch Scoggins Preliminary Feasibility Study Page 2 Hagg Lake Dam Raise f Creek Branch extends 324 feet to the outlet structure. Two pipes branch off this pipe and deliver water to a stilling structure that transports water to the fish capture facilities. The outlet structure contains two two-foot three-inch square gates and an 18-inch jet flow gate for the bypass line outlet. It also contains the piping and valves to supply water to the fish capture facilities and an operator's office. The fish capture facilities have not been used in about 20 years, however the valves are exercised annually and are kept in operating order. See Figures 1 and 2. 2.0 Project Operation The dam and reservoir are operated for water supply and flood control. The releases for water supply and flood control were maintained in the operations study. The operating criteria and requirements are explained in Section 4. 3.0 Hagg Lake Dam Raise A twenty-foot dam raise was initially evaluated as a reasonable starting point. This dam height appeared to be feasible for maintaining an acceptable frequency of filling of the reservoir, and had reasonable economic consequences. For example, a dam raise above twenty feet would extend the embankment into the valley downstream of the left abutment, and the entire outlet structure would have to be rebuilt. A second dam raise height of 40 feet was selected for further evaluation based on discussion with the Water Managers Group on September 16. These two alternatives are described below. 3.1 Twenty Foot Dam Raise All elevations in the existing dam would be raised twenty feet . The crest of the dam was increased from about 313.0 to 333.0. The top of Joint Use Capacity would increase from 303.5 to 323.5 and top of Surcharge Capacity would increase from 305.8 to 325.8. Assuming that the intake level would remain the same, the available storage would increase from 53,600 acre-feet to 80,200 acre-feet. This provides an additional 26,600 acre-feet of active storage. The actual useable storage will depend on desired operating criteria, withdrawal amounts and schedules, and the probability of firm water delivery. For a general plan of this option see Figure 3. Dam. The embankment would be raised by adding fill to the downstream side of the dam. The upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment were kept the same as the present slopes. The Geotechnical evaluation provides more information on dam issues. Spillway. The operation for flood control and the design floods were assumed to be the same for the existing and raised dams. Therefore, the spillway gates, chute width, and stilling basin were assumed to be the same for the raised dam. The spillway would be Preliminary Feasibility Study page 3 Hagg Lake Dam Raise w ACCESS ROAD DRAINAGE TRIBUTARY - r OUTLET STRUCTURE > ' W _.:.: ✓ ` ^ SCA�Eor zoo• 100ioo zao MUNICIPAL BRANCH :. OUTLET CHANNEL (CAPPED) SCOGGINS CREEK v BRANCH TUNNEL ACCESS STRUCTURE— { STILLING BASF N TUNNELPRIVATE HAUL ROAD FISH TRAP FACILITIES { RADIAL GATES -`\� / - SPILLWAY CHUTE J, SCOGGINS DAM y 1 GATE CHAMBER `1OUTLET { RK ^ \ `y" `\ @ INTAKE STRUCTURE j HENRY HAGG LAKE Figure 1 �\ I an f Hera Existing Dam © MONTGOMERY WATSON Spillway Outlet Radial Gates orks 5 Stilling Basin Figure 2 Scoggins Creek Dam from its Crest ACCESS ROAD DRAINAGE TRIBUTARY ys!; OUTLET STRUCTURE f wo o wo zoo SCALE,r=zoo• MUNICIPAL BRANCH RELOCATED (CAPPED) -- '/ OUTLET CHANNEL _ SCOGGINS CREEK BRANCH I'hl ii TUNNEL ACCESS v 'i '� f / PRIVATE HAUL ROAD STRUCTURE -- - TO BE RELOCATED N —= STILLING BASIN f � i TUNNEL hi RELOCATED RADIAL GATES ��\ , h' y /� % FISH :TRAP FACILITIES t \ `t NEW SPILLWAY CHUTE SCOGGINS ' DAM ' ft s i moi__...._..__—.�„_—..._._. _ GATE CHAMBER t` t \� V1, OUTLET \ <; WORKSf ABANDONED ROAD , INTAKE STRUCTURE ` HENRY HAGG LAKE Figure 3 ` 3 General Plan 20 Foot Dam Raise © MONTGOMERY WATSON APPROACH CHANNEL SPILLWAY -STILLING BASIN RADIAL 360 GATE BRIDGE 360 EXISTING ROAD ... ......... ..................... .......... 340 ...... ........ 340 EL 324.0 .............. ................... ..................... ...... ............................ .............. .......... .............. EXISTING GROUND 320 .................... ............ ............. ....... .............. ........... 320 ...........- ............... ............. .......... ............................. 300 ----.._. .......3. 2LO91.3.....U...LMLEM .. . ............ ___.. 300 I ......... ... ....... ........ SOLID RO'K ............. ........... .............. ........... ...... ............ 280 ................ ......................... 280 ........... ............. ................. ................ ............ ............. ........... ............ .................... .......................... 260 260 EXISTING SPILLWAY ............ .......... ................... ........... ........................ ............ WALL 240 .......... ......................... -------------- 240 ................. .................. ...... ........ ........ .......... ............ .......... .......... ......... .......... ...........-7 ..........N.- ...... ..........._._...-- 220220 ....................... ............... .................... ......... ............... ...... .............. 200 ­--------...... 200 ................ .......................... ........... ................ .................. .......... ..................... ......... ....... ....... ... ...................... 180 ---- .............. ............ ................. ............... ....... . ..... ---------- - --- 180 1 .---. -1 %LLL 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 Figure 4 SCALE: 1"=100'HORIZ Spillway Profile 1"=40'VERT 20 Foot Dam Raise MONTGOMERY WATSON located on the left abutment. The radial gates would be located 250 feet northeast of the present gate location. The chute would be angled to the existing chute so that the new stilling basin would be positioned at about the same location as the existing stilling basin. This spillway arrangement would preclude raising the dam further at a later date. To leave open the ability to raise the dam above the 20-foot raise the spillway could be rotated about 60 degrees counterclockwise and the spillway inlet would be located about 300 feet to the east-northeast. The spillway would discharge to the tributary channel located in the upper left corner of Figure 3. A new stilling basin would have to be built and the drainage tributary widened. In order to raise the dam later the spillway walls would have to be raised and new higher radial gates would be installed. During initial construction the walls would be made strong enough to accommodate the later dam raise especially at the upstream end of the spillway. Although slightly more expensive this option would allow future raising of the dam. In addition, the dam raise would have to be angled to the north in the vicinity of the left abutment. Further work is required to see if this is feasible. The costs presented in this report for the 20-foot raise do not include this spillway option. Outlet Works. Since the spillway was positioned to avoid any of the outlet structures and piping, the outlet works would not be affected. Review of the plans and a site visit indicate that with a dam raise of twenty feet the existing pipes, gates, and valves are of sufficient strength to withstand the additional head. However, this conclusion should be verified in subsequent phases of analysis. Fish Passage. For upstream fish passage it was assumed that the existing fish trapping facilities could be used with little or no modification. Downstream fish passage requirements are unknown at this time. If fish protection is the only requirement, then cylindrical wedgewire screens could be replace the existing intake. If downstream migrating salmon or steelhead are introduced, they would have to be passed downstream. This could be done by capturing them at a point where the tributary stream enters the reservoir and trucking them downstream of the dam. If screening and passage were required at the intake, a more elaborate structure would be required. It would probably entail a tower with complicated screening and mechanical systems built in. To our knowledge there are no successful examples of screening and passage in a reservoir that varies widely in water surface elevation. Since downstream fish passage requirements are unknown at this time they were not included in the cost estimate. Fish passage requirements and costs should be revisited in subsequent phases of analysis. Sometimes temperature control requirements for releases from dams are required. If temperature control were required then a tower intake would have to be constructed at the intake. This would increase the cost and complexity of the intake especially if screening is also required. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 4 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Relocations. About 2.7 miles of county road surrounding Henry Hagg Lake would have to be relocated. The bridge over Scoggins Creek just upstream of the lake will have to be raised, and a bridge or embankment would have to be constructed at three other tributaries. There are six park developments on the lake at the shoreline. Washington County has made several improvements at the parks since the dam was built. It was assumed that all park facilities would have to be relocated or rebuilt. The boat launch facilities would have to be extended. More information on recreational impacts of the 20-foot dam raise is presented in the Environmental feasibility section. Property Acquisition. Property impacts of the 20-foot dam raise appear to be minimal, based on an area review of the USGS topographic map. Figure 5 illustrates the inundation line for the 20-foot raise, and the Hagg Lake property boundary. The property boundary is approximate and has been taken from the Scoggins Valley Park- Hagg Lake Opportunities Study and Master Plan (Meyer, 1989). A small area of inundation outside the current property boundary would occur at Sain Creek, and probably at Scoggins Creek. In most cases, it appears the perimeter road can be relocated inside the existing federally owned boundary. Road relocation and property acquisition should be studied in more detail if the dam raise alternative is pursued. Property immediately outside the existing park boundary is zoned by Washington County as Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC). This zoning is intended to provide for forest uses, recreation and environmental goals. Property in this zoning area would have comparable land values to agricultural properties in the area. A cost of property acquisition of$150,000 has been assumed for the 20-foot dam raise. This is a rough estimate and should be verified by survey in subsequent phases of analysis. 3.2. Forty Foot Dam Raise All elevations in the existing dam would be raised forty feet. The crest of the dam was increased from about 313.0 to 353.0. The top of Joint Use Capacity would increase from 303.5 to 343.5 and top of Surcharge Capacity would increase from 305.8 to 345.8. Since the intake level would remain the same, the available storage would increase from the existing 53,600 acre-feet to 104,200 acre-feet. This provides an additional 50,600 acre- feet of active storage. Again, the resulting useable storage will depend on operating and withdrawal criteria. Dam. The embankment would be raised by adding fill material to the downstream side of the dam. The upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment were kept the same as the present slopes. There is a tributary (unnamed) entering from the left just downstream of the dam. If the dam were raised 40 feet the downstream fill on the left side of the dam would extend into the small valley of this tributary. Drainage provisions for this tributary would have to be provided, increasing the cost of this option, compared to the 20-foot raise. The geotechnical section provides more information on this issue. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 5 Hagg Lake Dam Raise u a I mw At OMM PRO LIMP WWI mv �'i Spillway. The operation for flood control and the design floods were assumed to be the same for the existing and raised dams. Therefore, the spillway gates, chute width, and stilling basin were assumed to be the same for the raised dam. The spillway would be located on the left abutment. It was assumed that the radial gates would be located about 400 feet northeast of the present gate location. Much of the left abutment would have to be reshaped to accommodate the approach to the spillway. The chute would roughly parallel the existing chute about 400 feet to the east. It would be about 40% longer than the existing spillway and would run down the ridge east of the outlet structure. The new stilling basin would be located about 500 feet southeast of the existing stilling basin. Outlet Works. The fill on the upstream side of the left abutment area would extend as far into the reservoir as the twenty-foot dam raise. Therefore, the existing inlet structure can be used under this scenario. See Figure 3. It was also assumed that the existing pipes and valves could accommodate the 40 feet of increased head, however this conclusion should be verified in subsequent phases of analysis. Since the embankment covers the existing outlet structure, outlet works would be relocated to the tributary valley east of the existing structure. A new outlet channel would have to be excavated to join the existing outlet channel about 1,200 feet downstream of the existing outlet structure. It is assumed that the new outlet structure would be the same as the existing one and that the same tunnel and piping would be extended. Fish Passage. For this alternative it was assumed that the existing fish trapping facilities would be rebuilt with little or no modification. For downstream passage the considerations are the same as for the twenty-foot dam raise alternative. Relocations. About 4.3 miles of county road surrounding Henry Hagg Lake would have to be relocated. The bridge over Scoggins Creek just upstream of the lake will have to be raised, and a bridge or embankment would have to be constructed at six other tributaries. There are six park developments on the lake at the shoreline. Washington County has made several improvements at the parks since the dam was built. It was assumed that all park facilities would have to be relocated or rebuilt. The boat launch facilities would have to be extended. More information on park facilities is included in the Environmental analysis. In addition, private homes in the Tanner Creek area would be affected by the forty-foot dam raise. Property Acquisition. Property impacts of the 40-foot dam raise are more significant than for the 20-foot option. Figure 6 illustrates the extension of the inundation line into privately owned areas in six locations. These areas are all tributaries or draws. Significant areas include Tanner, Scoggins and Sain Creeks. The amount of inundated acreage is not large, and may be on the order of 50 acres, based on rough calculations from the USGS topographic maps of the area. Road relocation may be a more significant cost issue, as the majority of new road may need to be relocated outside existing park Preliminary Feasibility Study page 6 Hagg Lake Dam Raise I , • _. lk MONA OW pos ��r '• ,fes _ = =— _ -_� � F Vs�i��s�//��1� MEMO I'; New Inundation Line 0 fill AA 011 � � '� ;� flu' �''�•—, r ��' '� ��1''' �`: L -- � � �� �� "\�J / �• (int �, � r. boundaries. A more detailed evaluation of road relocation is needed to develop a sound cost estimate for this scenario. The total area of the existing reservoir and adjacent lands owned by the BuRec is approximately 2,250 acres. An expansion of the property boundary by 10 percent has been assumed to satisfy increased storage and road relocation requirements resulting from the 40-foot dam raise. This percentage is somewhat arbitrary and has been selected based on visual observation of the park boundary and anticipated inundation line. Using this assumed value, an additional 225 acres would need to be acquired, primarily for road relocation. Property immediately outside the existing park boundary is zoned by Washington County as Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC). This zoning is intended to provide for forest uses, recreation and environmental goals. Property in this zoning area is assumed to have comparable land values to agricultural properties in the area. A reasonable range for agricultural land value in the area is assumed to by$3,000-$5,000(Joe Rutledge, personal communication). Using the upper end of the land value, a total of approximately$1.2 million would be required for property acquisition. Land values of individual parcels may be higher, if existing buildable land can be sold above `market value' to wealthy tenants. Also, some compensation for displacement of existing homes and access roads in the Tanner Creek area will be required. For planning purposes, a total of$3 million has been assumed for property acquisition. This figure,must be refined based on actual road relocation requirements. 3.3. Cost Estimates The cost estimates presented in this report have been developed to a planning-level of accuracy. In general,these estimates should be considered accurate within a margin of— 30% and +40%, which is typical for a preliminary investigation. Raising the dam embankment is the largest single item in the costs. In the twenty-foot raise alternative the dam fill requires 1,000,000 cubic yards of material, and this amount more than doubles for the 40-foot raise. The second largest cost item is the spillway. For the twenty-foot dam raise the dam foot print was sketched on an existing topographic sheet, and typical cross sections were sketched. From this information dam fill quantities were measured. The area of clearing, amount of excavation, and length of roadway were measured from the same drawings. The concrete quantities for the existing spillway were measured. The spillway was sketched on a topographic map and its length measured. The amount of concrete was then increased by the length ratio. The existing grade and competent rock surface was plotted and the depth of excavation was measured. The recreation facilities were estimated as a lump sum based on observations made in the field and information from Washington County. The length of road to be relocated was measured on a USGS quadrangle sheet. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 7 Hagg Lake Dam Raise The cost of the twenty-foot dam raise including a 20% contingency, administration, engineering and permits was $62 million. The cost of the forty-foot dam raise was $112 million. 4.0 Operations Study And Dam Sizing Introduction. An operations study was performed to study the affects on reservoir operations with the raised dam and additional water withdrawals. This was a feasibility level study. Operations Model. The model was constructed in an EXCEL workbook. It utilized daily inflows and calculated required releases for water demands, minimum instream flows, or flood flow releases depending on the reservoir contents. The following algorithm was used to analyze each daily flow: 1) Convert the flow at the Scoggins Creek near Gaston flow to an inflow to Henry Hagg Lake using the ratio of drainage areas. See subsection below. 2) Calculate the demands of downstream water users. See subsection below. 3) Compare the demands to the minimum instream flows. Whichever is greater is the minimum release. 4) Calculate the flood flow releases as explained in subsection below. 5) Calculate the release by selecting the larger of the minimum release or the flood flow. During the winter when there were no demands and contents in the reservoir were below the rule curve, the minimum flow was released. This release was convert to acre-feet per day. 6) Subtract the release and add the inflow to the reservoir storage contents at the end of the previous day. 7) Repeat steps 1 through 6 for each daily flow in the 34-year record. The model contains a summary spreadsheet in which the minimum, maximum, and end of year storage and elevations are recorded. The total inflow, change in storage, and the maximum outflow are calculated for each year. The maximum and minimum storage values are averaged over the 34-year period of record. Additional model runs were made by increasing the demand flows by 20%. Nine model runs were made using present demands and 20, 40, 60, 80, 100,120, 140, and 160 percent increases in demands. A plot of the average minimum and maximum storage levels were plotted versus demands. This gives an overall idea of the effects of increased demands on drawdown. The above procedure was repeated for the existing dam height and for dam raises of 20, 30, and 40 feet. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 8 Hagg Lake Dam Raise (TVID), Lake Oswego, and the municipal demand (Joint Water Commission). In addition, minimum instream flows were provided by TVID. These were 10 cfs throughout the year except for October and November when they were assumed to be 20 cfs. Flood Control Operations. For flood control operations, the stream gage on the Tualatin River near Dilley is used as the downstream control point. The Corps of Engineers' publication, "Water Control Manual for Scoggins Dam—Henry Hagg Lake", December 1988 provides the flood control operating criteria. In actual operations this manual is used as a guide, and operators confer with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps' Reservoir Regulation Section in Portland to set the reservoir releases. The decision as to the amount of release is not only based on the flows at Dilley and the Water Control Manual but on weather forecasts and the operation of other projects in the Willamette River Basin. Weather forecasts and operations at other facilities cannot be simulated in the model. Therefore, the criteria in the Water Control Manual and some simplifying assumptions were used in the model to calculate flood releases. The following algorithm was used in the model. 1) Calculate the flow at Dilley—The gage on the Tualatin River at Dilley is used by the reservoir regulation section at the Corps as a flow control point. The object of the flow control strategy at Scoggins Dam is to keep the water level at Dilley below 16.5 feet on the gage. The flow for water levels at this elevation can vary. A flow of 1,250 cfs was given in the Water Control Manual and used in the model. Prior to construction of Scoggins Dam there was no regulation or impoundment above Dilley of any consequence during high flows. A plot of the flows at Dilley versus the flows in Scoggins Creek near Gaston showed good correlation. A curve was fit to this plot and used in the model to compute the flows at Dilley from the flows at Gaston. 2) If the present reservoir storage is below rule curve release the minimum release (the greater of minimum instream flow or demands) and go to Step 5; otherwise continue. 3) If the capacity at Dilley(1,250 cfs) minus the minimum release is not exceeded, release up to the capacity at Dilley and go to Step 5; otherwise continue. 4) If the reservoir storage is less than the "Emergency Operations Setting", then release the minimum release otherwise release a flow equal to the reservoir inflow times 0.7. This is to prevent grossly exceeding the maximum operating storage. The "Emergency Operations Setting"used in the model was the maximum storage minus 5,000 acre-feet. This value was derived by making runs with the dam at its existing height, and watching the excursions above the maximum storage. 5) End flood release calculations for the day. 4.3 Dam Sizing Results Model Output. The model was run for four different dam heights—existing height, 20- foot raise, 30-foot raise, and 40-foot raise. For each dam height,runs were made using several different water demands. These included present demands and increases in Preliminary Feasibility Study page 10 Hagg Lake Dam Raise demand of 20%, 40% ,60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140%. At higher demand levels and lower dam elevations negative storage occurred. Therefore, runs at demand increases of more than 140% were not made. Each model run produced maximum and minimum storage levels for each year of the 34 years of record. As an indication of added usable capacity, the averages of these maximum and minimum storage values were computed and plotted on a graph. As the demands increased, the maximum storage values decreased slightly, and the average minimum values decreased significantly. Figure 8 shows such a plot for the existing dam. As the average minimum storage values decrease, the probability increases that the intake could draw air. At about 10,000 acre-feet of storage, the lowest storage value for the 34 years of record is at about 3,000 acre-feet which corresponds to a water surface about four feet above the top of the intake. At this level the intake is probably taking in air. The second lowest level reached in the 34 years is about 12 feet above the intake, and air entrainment is probably not going to occur. For the period of record, the lowest reservoir elevation is about 7,000 acre-feet below the average minimum storage. To insure that a safe water surface exists over the intake, the average storage contents shown on Figure 8 should be above about 15,000 acre-feet. This corresponds to a reservoir elevation of about 260 and provides some storage for emergencies. This will provide better than a 95% confidence that releases to satisfy demands will not have to be curtailed due to low levels in the reservoir. Therefore, to meet this standard about 15,000 acre-feet more demand could be released per year at the present dam height. Model runs as described above were also made with the dam raised 20 feet, 30 feet, and 40 feet. The results of these runs are shown on Figures 9, 10, and 11, respectively. Employing the 15,000 acre-foot storage standard, significantly more increased demand can be met. See the table below. If the standard is reduced to an average minimum storage of 10,000 acre-feet, even more water is available to meet demands. 10,000 acre feet of storage corresponds to a water surface elevation of 254, and there is little cushion for increased demand before air entrainment problems are encountered. This is shown in the third column of the table below. The increased available demand for each dam height is shown in the table below. Dam Height Increased Demand Increased Demand 15,000 acre-foot Standard 10,000 acre-foot Standard Existing Dam 15,000 acre-feet 18,000 acre-feet 20-foot Dam Raise 37,000 acre-feet 41,000 acre-feet 30-foot Dam Raise 46,000 acre-feet 49,000 acre-feet 40-foot Dam Raise 50,000 acre-feet 52,000 acre-feet Preliminary Feasibility Study page 11 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Figure 8 Existing Dam Increased Demand vs Storage 60000 50000 40000 d 30000 m --*-Average Max Storage d —*—Average Min Storage rn c 20000 10000 - 0 - 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 3 0 35 00 -10000 Increase in Demand(acre-feet) Figure 9 20-Foot Raise 90000 Increased Demand vs Storage 80000 70000 60000 y 50000 '0—Average Annual Min Storage d eta 40000 0 N —*—Average Annual Max 30000 Storage 20000 10000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Increase in Demand (acre-feet) Storage vs Demand Summary 12/5/98 i f Figure 10 30-Foot Raise 100000 Increased Demand vs Storage 90000 80000 70000 m 60000 m w d� L 50000 —*—Average Annual Max Storage ea L 40000 y —dP—Average Annual Min Storage 30000 20000 10000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Increase in Demand (acre-feet) Storage vs Demand Summary 12/5/98 Figure 11 40-Foot Raise 120000 Increased Demand vs Storage 100000 - 80000 d d� :° 60000 —N—Average Annual Max Storage L 0 N --*—Average Annual Min Storage 40000 20000 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Increase in Demand(acre-feet) Storage vs Demand Summary 12/5/98 r As can be seen in the table 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet more water can be obtained if the standard is set at 10,000 acre-feet of average minimum reservoir contents remaining. However, there would be an increase in the number of years that water deliveries would have to be curtailed in dry years due to low water in the reservoir. In general, this would probably happen in September or October. The above analysis is based on an average of the minimum yearly storage in the reservoir. During dry years the minimum storage would be less. An analysis was performed on minimum storage computed in the operations model. A histogram of the minimum storage values for the 34 years evaluated in the model was developed. Figure 12 shows the number of years that the minimum storage for each year fell within storage brackets. Storage of zero corresponds to a water surface about two feet below the top of the intake structure. Figure 12 shows that for twenty-foot dam raise and 37,000 acre feet of additional demand, water withdrawals would have to be curtailed for at least 3 years or about 10% of the years. These three years occurred in 1944, 1945, and 1946. The results in Figure 12 were obtained using the 15,000 acre-foot storage standard. If the 10,000 acre-foot standard were applied, the withdrawals would have to be curtailed in seven years or about 20% of the years. As the dam height is increased there is not a proportional increase in available water. For example, raising the dam 20 feet above the existing height increases the available water by 22,000 acre-feet, when existing operating criteria and withdrawals are used. Increasing the dam height further from 20 to 40 feet increases the available water by only 13,000 acre-feet. Effects on Recreation. Another issue of concern is low water in the reservoir during the recreation season. Increasing the height of the dam does not increase the risk of low water during the recreation season,which is assumed to be the months of June, July and August. However, increasing releases does. An analysis of model results showed that for all 34 years of record the reservoir reached its lowest level between September 28 and November 29. In most of the years the minimum level occurred in the last week of October and first week of November. Figure 13 shows a histogram of water levels for each month from July through October for the existing dam and present demands. The graph would be similar for higher demand levels. The plot shows water levels and their percentage of occurrence in each of the four months as simulated over the 34 years of record. During the height of the recreation season in July and August the water levels are most likely to be 301 in July and from about 290 to 296 in August. Over the 34 years simulated,the minimum values in July and August are 296 and 285,respectively. In September the minimum and most likely water levels are 278 and 285. Another possible effect on recreation in Henry Hagg Lake is the rate at which drawdown occurs in the summer time. When the drawdown starts depends on the flows in early summer, and the rate at which drawdown occurs depends on the water demands. To illustrate this the daily operation of the reservoir was investigated for water year 1946, which had a slightly above average inflow to the reservoir. The model was run for two Preliminary Feasibility Study page 12 Hagg Lake Dam Raise s y Figure 12 Minimum Storage Histogram 20-Foot Dam Raise & 37,000 Acre-feet of Additional Demand 10 9 8 7 N 6 a� w 0 5 m a E = 4 z 3 2 1 0 <0 0-2000 2000- 4000- 6000- 8000- 10000- 12000- 14000- 16000- 18000- 20000- 22000- 24000- 26000- 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 Storage Categories (acre-feet) R Figure 13 Histogram of Low Pool Elevations by Month 25.0% 20.0% A 1 ayi � R 15.0% July — — —August c ; -- - - September October 10.0% _ CL 5.0% 1 0.0% Water Surface Elevation cases: 1) the existing dam and demands; and 2) for the 20-foot dam raise with an increase in demands of 37,000 acre-feet. The results of these runs are shown in the table below. Case Start of Drawdown Rate of Drawdown Rate of Drawdown (acre-feet/da ) (feet/day) Existing Dam, July 1 255 0.50 Existing Demands 20-Foot Dam Raise July 1 508 0.26 The rate of drawdown is about double for the 20-foot dam raise, however the drawdown begins at about the same time of year. For both cases the reservoir level at the end of August was about the same, 290 feet above sea level. It appears that the dam raise will have only a slight affect on recreation. Effects on Flooding. The possible effects of the dam raise on flooding downstream are also a concern. The peak of releases from the dam will be about 450 cfs with the dam raise of 20 feet and 600 cfs with a raise of 40 feet. The present peak releases are about 200 cfs. These releases could affect flooding downstream only if a storm causes flows above about 600 cfs in the Tualatin River above Gaston. During the flood season the releases from the dam would remain the same or slightly decrease if the flood control operating criteria remain the same. It should be noted that increased releases to satisfy higher demands could result in localized flooding due to channel restrictions in the Tualatin River downstream of Scoggins Creek. Localized flooding is presently experienced at flows greater than about 280 cfs. This problem would be exacerbated under increased release scenarios. Multiple solutions to the channel restriction concern are possible, including purchase of affected land and out-of-channel piping of released water. Costs to mitigate channel flooding should be evaluated in subsequent phases of the analysis. 5.0 Feasibility Results. This preliminary evaluation has not identified any fatal flaws or major obstacles which would prevent the project, based on engineering and operating considerations. The costs of two dam raise alternatives were computed. These were for 20 and 40-foot dam raises. Existing upstream fish passage facilities were assumed to be sufficient for the 20-foot dam raise. Facilities similar to the existing ones would be built for the 40- foot raise. For both dam raise options no costs were included for downstream fish passage facilities. The increase in water available for use was computed using a computer operations model. Approximately, 15,000 acre-feet could be obtained by purchase of storage presently owned by others. Congress would have to approve such a transfer. For a 20 foot dam raise the cost per acre-foot of increased stored water is Preliminary Feasibility Study page 13 Hagg Lake Dam Raise $1,698 per acre-foot (total project cost). For a 40-foot dam raise the cost is $2,187 per acre-foot (total project cost). Major components of project cost for the 20-foot and 40- foot raises are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. These costs can be compared to the recent experience at the Barney reservoir, as this storage has been increased from 4,000 AF to 20,000 AF by a dam raise. Estimated unit costs for Barney Reservoir water total about$1,720 per acre-foot, based on a total project cost of$27.5 million. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 1.0 Tectonic and Geologic Setting Scoggins Dam is located on the eastern side of the Oregon Coast Range. The regional tectonic setting of the project site is within a zone of active convergence between the Juan de Fuca and North American tectonic plates. Tectonic provinces that have developed by this convergence include the Coast Range, the Willamette Valley and the Cascadia Accretionary province off the Oregon coast. Regional geology of the Coast Range consists of interbedded marine basalts and sedimentary rocks that are pervasively intruded by volcanic dikes, sills and plugs. At the dam site, the geology consists primarily of weak,poorly indurated marine sedimentary rocks with some minor interbedded volcanics. The foundation bedrock consists of Eocene-age sandstone of the Spencer Formation. This rock is poorly to moderately cemented, fine-grained, and is interbedded with layers of siltstone. The sandstone bedrock is covered by relatively thin layers of residual soils on both the left and right abutments and by Scoggins Creek stream alluvium on the valley floor. The abutment residual soils were formed by the in-place weathering of the underlying marine sedimentary rocks. These soils consist mostly of silt and clay layers. The Scoggins Creek alluvial deposits include clay, silt, sand and gravel layers that are interbedded and generally continuous across the valley. 2.0 Seismicity Subduction Zone Earthquakes. Earthquakes in western Oregon can be generated from two main sources--the Cascadia Subduction Zone and shallow crustal faults. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a region where the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate is being forced underneath the lighter North American plate. The zone of friction between the two sliding plates is referred to as the subduction "interface"zone. Based on historical geologic Preliminary Feasibility Study page 14 Hagg Lake Dam Raise adjustments (based on our experience and judgement) were made for the quantity estimates. The unit prices assumed for lump sum items in the 20-foot option were adjusted to reflect assumed increases for a 40-foot raise. No attempt was made to adjust the unit prices for quantity items (i.e. non-lump sum items) as a result of contractor savings for handling larger volumes. All estimates of quantities and unit prices in Table 3 should be assumed as preliminary in nature and subject to change. 7.0 Summary Major Geotechnical Issues. Our review of available information on the Hagg Lake project identified three significant geotechnical issues. These are: (i)considerations for an increased level of earthquake hazard that are a result of updated studies on regional and local seismicity; (ii)additional studies and probable treatment measures for the existing seepage area located on the downstream, left abutment side of the dam; and(iii) recognizing and making allowances for additional landslides around the reservoir perimeter as a result of the increased water level and partial realignment of the perimeter road. Each of these issues should be included in the final design tasks for an embankment raise. `Fatal Flaw' Issues. Our evaluations did not identify any `fatal flaw' issues that would prohibit the construction of a dam raise at the existing Hagg Lake project. A question was raised about a fault that passes beneath the existing reservoir and dam. A fault has been identified as passing through this location; however, all indications are that it is inactive with a very low probability of causing an earthquake. Estimate of Construction Costs. A 20-foot embankment raise on the downstream side of the existing dam was assumed for the study. The quantities that were estimated for this option are shown on Table 1 at the end of the text. The estimated unit prices are based on contractor bid prices (adjusted for inflation) from two recent dam projects located in the general vicinity of the Scoggins Dam site. Quantities and unit prices for a 40-foot raise option are also presented in Table 1. The numbers that were used for the 40-foot option are based on proportional adjustments to the quantities and, in some cases, the unit prices that were assumed for the 20-foot raise. In the 40-foot raise the dam embankment quantities would be slightly more than double since the dam crest would be wider and the downstream slope would be longer. Embankment quantities were estimated to be about 120% more than the 20-foot raise. Therefore,the confidence level is somewhat less for the values used for the 40-foot option. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 20 Hagg Lake Dam Raise Preliminary Environmental Analysis 1.0 Introduction The following analysis provides a preliminary evaluation of the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with raising Scoggins Dam and increasing the pool level of Henry Hagg Lake. This evaluation is very cursory in nature and is also time sensitive. That is, the evaluation is based on regulatory conditions as of October 1998. These conditions are likely to change over time and thus alter some of the evaluation and conclusions that have been made. This evaluation is intended to provide decision-makers with adequate information regarding environmental issues to determine if the next step of more detailed project analysis is warranted. The basis for the information contained herein includes literature search, field reconnaissance and experience and Montgomery Watson's experience with similar projects. 2.0 Assumptions The major assumption used to conduct the evaluation was that the dam and reservoir would be raised 20—feet in height. A 20-foot dam raise would cause land impacts to approximately elevation 320-325. Based on this assumption, a USGS topography map was used to determine where the potential on-land impacts would be. It should be noted that actual on-land impacts cannot be determined accurately without an actual survey being conducted. 3.0 Environmental Issues A wide range of environmental issues will need to be addressed to evaluate the potential environmental impact from the project and the appropriate mitigation necessary to address these impacts. These issues will include land use, fish, wildlife and habitat, vegetation, transportation, threatened, endangered and sensitive species, recreation, water quality, wetlands, air quality, economics, public services, noise, cultural resources and visual resources. For purposes of this preliminary evaluation, a critical list of issues were addressed. This smaller list is based on the need to assess issues that may either be difficult to resolve during the project and/or which may be costly to address. These issues include land use, fish, wildlife and habitat, threatened,endangered and sensitive species, recreation, transportation, water quality and wetlands. Each of these critical environmental issues are discussed below: Land Use. This land use evaluation is based on the assumption that the project area would not be federally owned. The project area is within the Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) zoning district of Washington County. This zone provides for reservoirs and water impoundments through an administrative Type II procedure. It should be noted that the Washington County Code also sets forth a specific provision for Preliminary Feasibility Study page 21 Hagg Lake Dam Raise review of the Barney Reservoir expansion project. The expansion of the Barney Reservoir required a Type III procedure. It appears that this code provision was set forth to address all activities associated with the Barney expansion project within one land use application. These additional and related activities include things such as road construction, soil and rock extraction, water diversion and transmission facilities, etc. It may be beneficial for the Hagg Lake expansion project to request a land use code change to allow review of all project related activities within one land use application through a Type III process. Further, a recent court case (Wilbur Residents v. Douglas County), essentially concludes that if the Planning Director makes an administrative decision (similar to the Type H procedure), and if notice is not sent to everyone likely to be adversely affected by the decision, then the decision can be overturned long after the decision and appeal period is over. If view of this case, it may be desirable to proceed with a Type III procedure for review of the land use application for expansion of Hagg Lake. A decision was recently made by the applicant for the McGuire Dam raise (Yamhill County) to waive an administrative decision and request that the Planning Director forward the application for that project to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. This strategic decision was made in view of the court case. Scoggins Valley Road and West Shore Drive (roads that traverse the perimeter of the lake) are designated as scenic resources by the Washington County Land Use Plan. The Plan, (Policy 13, Scenic Resources) states that it is the policy of Washington County to protect and enhance its outstanding scenic views,routes and features. This essentially will require replacement of road sections around the perimeter of the reservoir that are inundated. Based on review of the inundation area as placed on the USGS topographic map, it does not appear that any homes or private out buildings will be inundated by a 20-foot raise. However, it appears that some private access roads will be partially inundated. This information should be used cautiously. In order to determine the exact land impact area a site survey needs to be conducted. Some private structures within the Tanner Creek area may be inundated if the reservoir is raised by 40-feet. Information relating to the flooding hazard due to catastrophic failure of the existing dam was not available at the time of this review. It can be assumed, however, that flooding risk is proportionately higher under a dam raise scenario. The effects of downstream flooding due to catastrophic failure of the dam should be evaluated in subsequent phases of analysis. Fish. The original Scoggins Dam blocked anadromous fish from utilizing about 15 miles of upstream spawning areas (Bureau of Reclamation, 1972). Further, it blocked passage for resident cutthroat trout as well as other resident fish species that utilized Scoggins Creek. The original project included several planned and constructed projects which were authorized by Congress to mitigate for these impacts to fish and their habitat. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 22 Hagg Lake Dam Raise One of these fish mitigation measures included construction of fish trapping and holding facilities immediately below Scoggins Dam. Much has changed since the fish mitigation program for the existing facility was authorized. The State of Oregon is pursuing aggressive efforts to restore native runs of both anadromous as well as resident fish populations. Some of these efforts are set forth within the Oregon Plan as well as prior legislation (HB 2607, fish passage) that historically have not been as widely administered as the law allows. These efforts, coupled with existing and upcoming Federal actions to list most sea-run salmonids under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), will likely have a significant effect on the existing fish mitigation projects at Scoggins Dam. These actions will trigger the need for additional fish mitigation measures to be put in place to allow raising the dam. Based on current agency direction (National Marine Fisheries Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) on other similar projects within the permitting process, it appears that effective fish passage at this dam will be required. This may require modification of the existing trapping and holding facility for upward movement of fish, and will require construction of a passage facility for downstream movement of fish. In the state of Oregon, an option to required fish passage is to develop mitigation measures which in effect result in a net benefit to the fish. These mitigation measures must be approved by the ODFW Commission through development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Commission has not yet approved this type of MOU for a dam project. In view of this situation, legislative efforts are currently under way in an attempt to resolve and/or clarify the extent of requirements that will be necessary to obtain approvals for project impacts to fish resources. At the Federal level, the NMFS is expected to list the late-run winter steelhead within the upper Willamette Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the near future. This ESU includes the area of the Scoggins Dam project. A listing will trigger the need for consultation with the NMFS and subsequent development of a biological opinion about potential impacts to steelhead that could result from the dam raise project. The biological opinion issued by the NMFS will likely set forth additional or concurring project-specific mitigation requirements. Wildlife and Habitat. Wildlife and habitat in and around the existing reservoir is diverse and abundant. A wide-range of species are relatively abundant due to the ready availability of cover, water, large varieties of deciduous trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses. The reservoir project has created several large wetland complexes associated with major lake drainages—particularly at the confluence with Tanner Creek, Scoggins Creek and Sain Creek. These wetland areas contain a diversity of habitat including wetland grasses, sedges,willows and mature cottonwoods. This complex habitat supports multiple species including the red-legged frog (state sensitive species), lizards, the western pond turtle, multiple salamanders and snakes. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 23 Hagg Lake Dam Raise The habitat immediately above the reservoir and outside of the wetland areas is developed with water-related amenities and is used extensively for recreation. Multiple picnic areas, boat launch sites, trails and parking lots are located around the reservoir. These high-use recreation areas tend to cause natural habitat conditions to be compromised. Further, human use of these areas cause most wildlife to avoid them, especially during high recreation use times. The habitat conditions above the reservoir and above the perimeter road and park amenities is primarily characterized by a rolling topography which includes a mix of open grassy meadows and Douglas fir dominated forests. This diverse habitat provides cover, foraging, resting and feeding opportunities for several species from game birds and raptors to squirrels, skunks, coyotes, cougars, elk, deer and bear. Based on a cursory evaluation of wildlife and habitat in the area, it appears that significant impacts to wetland habitat(i.e. inundation) will occur with the raise of the dam and reservoir. This will require mitigation for lost wetland values and function including those directly related to wildlife habitat. The inundation of the recreation areas is not expected to have a significant impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat because wildlife tend to avoid these high human use areas already. Impacts may result from moving the recreation amenities and uses to more upland areas where wildlife is currently abundant. However, it is doubtful that this will result in actual loss of wildlife because affected species will most likely simply move further away from the reservoir onto adjacent upland meadow or forested areas. Transportation. A 20-foot dam and reservoir raise would result in some transportation access areas being inundated. These areas include multiple private access roads around the reservoir,boat ramp access sites,West Shore Drive at the southwest corner of the reservoir,West Shore Drive at Sain Creek, the Scoggins Creek Bridge and the Scoggins Valley Road at Tanner Creek. These roadways and access areas would need to be relocated above the inundation levels of the new reservoir. Preliminary field review indicates that the transportation infrastructure that will be inundated can be relocated. The topography is conducive to re-creating roads and access in adjacent upland areas. Probably the most costly transportation project will be the relocation of the Scoggins Creek Bridge. A 40-foot dam/reservoir raise would increase transportation impacts significantly by further increasing the inundation of these facilities. It is anticipated that inundated roads and parking lots would need to be removed. Sensitive,Threatened and Endangered Species (S,T,E). According to available literature, there are multiple species in and around Scoggins Dam and Henry Hagg Lake that are classified as Federal and/or State S, T or E species. The Natural Heritage Program reviewed their database in September of 1998 for species around the project area and confirmed the presence of several species noted in the literature. In brief, some of these species include winter steelhead (Federally proposed as threatened under the ESA),bald eagle (threatened), peregrine falcon (endangered), red-legged frog Preliminary Feasibility Study page 24 Hagg Lake Dam Raise (state sensitive), painted turtle (state sensitive), northwestern pond turtle (state sensitive) and the Canada goose (threatened). The presence of these species will trigger the need to either consult with the NMFS (anadromous fish), the USFWS (terrestrial species) and the Oregon Department of Fish &Wildlife (ODFW), (resident species) for addressing potential impacts and appropriate mitigation necessary to insure the safety of these species and their habitat during project construction and long-term operation. It should be noted that the USFWS has recently proposed that the bald eagle, peregrine falcon and Canada goose be taken off the Federal ESA list. Recreation. Hagg Lake is the only large public access slack-water recreation site in the Portland Metropolitan area. There were approximately 700,000 visitors at the park in 1997. It is projected that up to 1 million visitors may visit the park annually by the year 2000. Most of the park use occurs during the summer months of June, July and August. Recreation facilities at the park were originally designed by the National Park Service and then later developed over time by the Bureau of Recreation and Washington County. These amenities include high quality picnic areas with multiple table and grill sites, paved parking lots, covered group picnic areas including a large pavilion area, boat launch sites, restrooms and multiple trail systems. The park facilities are very well maintained and attractive. A 20-foot dam and reservoir raise would inundate the majority of the existing recreation facilities at Hagg Lake. Specific areas that would be inundated include multiple developed trails around the lake; the picnic area immediately at the southwest end of the dam(originally designed as a handicapped picnic area); the Sain Creek pavilion and picnic area; the lower portions of Recreation Area"C"which includes the lower parking lot, boat ramp, rest rooms and the handicap boat ramp that is currently under construction; the Scoggins Creek picnic area; the lower portion of Recreation Area"A" West including the boat ramp; and the lower portion of Recreation Area"A" East including the boat ramp, and multiple septic tanks and waste holding tanks. The topography upland of the existing recreation facilities is gently sloping in most areas. This provides the opportunity to relocate the recreation facilities immediately upland of their current location. However, the cost for replacement and/or relocation of these recreation amenities will be significant due to their high quality design and materials. Water Quality. Water quality impacts from the construction and long term operation of the dam and reservoir will need to be closely evaluated and managed to gain regulatory support for the project. Water quality increasingly is becoming a focal point of consideration in statewide efforts to restore historic fish resources. For this project to be successful there will likely need to be a quantifiable net benefit to water quality. Currently Scoggins Creek upstream of the dam is identified on the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) "303(d)" list as being water quality limited based on multiple factors. These factors include bacteria, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients—particularly phosphorus, pH, summer temperature, and ammonia. DEQ's Preliminary Feasibility Study page 25 Hagg Lake Dam Raise "303(d)" list results from their implementation of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act which requires each state to develop a list of waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards to protect aquatic resources. These identified water quality limited factors in Scoggins Creek may need to be addressed and mitigated in order for the project to be successful. It is important to note that one of the primary purposes of the dam raise project would be to improve water quality throughout the Tualatin River,by increasing the availability of high quality stored water for release during the summer low flow period. Wetlands. There are currently multiple wetlands and wetland complexes in and around Hagg Lake. The several drainages and year-round tributaries that feed into the lake coupled with the gentle,rolling topography result in very desirable conditions for wetlands. The existing wetlands contain a diversity of plant species and animals which confirm that they are well functioning and healthy wetlands. Probably the most significant wetlands occur at the confluences of Tanner, Sain and Scoggins Creeks and Hagg Lake. These areas contain large wetlands which transition from underwater to vegetated shallows to scrub-shrub and then to forest. It appears that the Tanner Creek wetland complex also contains some meadow wetland conditions. An on-site wetland delineation will need to be completed to determine the exact boundaries and characteristics of these wetlands. Based on the preliminary site reconnaissance it appears that there may be in excess of fifty (50) acres of wetlands that could be inundated with a 20-foot dam and reservoir raise. This amount of wetland inundation would require a significant effort to effectively mitigate for these losses. On-site and off-site wetland options are potentially available and should be considered. Currently, there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty surrounding the issue of wetland creation due to past wetland mitigation projects that have not demonstrated desired success. This history makes it difficult to gain agreement from agency representatives on what kinds of projects are appropriate as mitigation for those acres that are impacted. 4.0 Permits Multiple environmental permits will be required to raise the dam and reservoir. Further, multiple agencies will be involved in discussing and negotiating the identification of potential impacts associated with project actions and required mitigation for the potential impacts identified. Many agencies that are directly involved in negotiating issues related to project permits do not actually issue their own permits. For example, requirements of the National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish &Wildlife Service and the Oregon Department of Fish &Wildlife Service are addressed through the COE Section 404 permit. This process typically takes the form of a series of field investigations followed by months of agency meetings to get agreement on project impacts and appropriate mitigation. This is a very subjective process. The permits listed below are the culmination of this process: Preliminary Feasibility Study page 26 Hagg Lake Dam Raise A PERMIT LEAD AGENCY 404 Permit Corp of Engineers (COE) 401 Permit Dept. of Env. Qual. (DEQ) Fill/Removal Permit Division of State Lands (DSL) Water Rights Dept. of Water Resources (OWRD) NPDES DEQ and/or USA Land Use Washington County 5.0 Permitting Feasibility This preliminary environmental analysis has not identified any `fatal flaws' that would prohibit the project from being realized. This project probably can be permitted,but it will require a process for negotiating appropriate mitigation to satisfy multiple agency issues and concerns. It is very likely that the project will require the development of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). The primary factors which would trigger the need for an EIS include significant impacts to wetlands, potential impacts to S,T or E species and potential impacts to water quality. Wetland issues alone make the possibility of a lower-level Environmental Assessment (EA) process unlikely for this site. The lead agency for the EIS would need to be determined. Typically, Bureau of Reclamation projects result in the Bureau being the lead agency for conducting the EIS process. However, if project ownership is transferred from the Bureau, it is likely that the US Army Corp of Engineers would become the lead agency. Summary and Conclusions A preliminary feasibility study for increasing storage at Hagg Lake by raising the existing dam has been conducted. The purpose of this evaluation was to: • identify any potential fatal flaws which could cause the project to be technically or legally infeasible; • to refine cost estimates; and Preliminary Feasibility Study page 27 Hagg Lake Dam Raise • to identify major issues associated with a dam raise project. The feasibility study addressed engineering, geotechnical and environmental aspects of this potential project. An engineering analysis of two potential dam raise heights—a 20-foot raise and a 40-foot raise did not reveal any major technical obstacles to completion of the project. A 20-foot dam raise would provide an additional 26,600 AF of active storage, for a total project cost of approximately$62 million. A 40-foot dam raise would increase active storage by an additional 50,600 AF, at a cost of$112 million. An examination of expected yields from the existing reservoir suggests that an additional 15,000 AF could be safely used at this time, strictly on a hydrological basis. This conclusion does not take into account any water rights or authorization issues which may complicate the ability to use this additional stored water. This additional demand would maintain an average minimum storage level in the existing reservoir of 15,000 AF, and would result in an average minimum reservoir level of 260'. This minimum would provide for some emergency storage and would provide a safe water level over the existing intake. Historical records indicate that maintenance of the reservoir at this lower level would permit an additional 15,000 AF of demand to be met more than 95 percent of the time. Drawdown of the reservoir is an issue with respect to recreational demands on the Lake. The reservoir typically reaches its lowest level in late September through late November, while the peak for recreation occurs much earlier in the year,beginning in June. Increased demands on the reservoir will accelerate drawdown,but the difference in peak need timing may be such that increased drawdown is manageable. This may especially be true if additional water is being used for instream flow augmentation,which exerts its highest demand in late summer and early fall. The preliminary geotechnical evaluation did not reveal any serious obstacles to project completion. Major geotechnical issues include seismic activity,correction of the existing seepage area on the left abutment of the existing dam, and known landslide vulnerability around the perimeter of the reservoir. Each of these issues can be dealt with, and must be evaluated in more detail if the project is pursued. Multiple environmental permits will be required for the successful completion of this project. A preliminary analysis suggests that the project can be permitted,but the process will be significant. The need for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is likely. Environmental regulations and judgements are changing quickly. Much of the permitting process is subjective and is the result of negotiation with multiple agencies. As a result,the environmental component is more of an unknown than any of the other technical aspects of the project. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 28 Hagg Lake Dam Raise In summary,increasing storage at Hagg Lake by raising the existing dam appears to be feasible. The costs and benefits of this water supply option must be weighed against other options in order to meet anticipated future instream,municipal and agricultural needs in the Tualatin Basin. Preliminary Feasibility Study page 29 Hagg Lake Dam Raise MEMORANDUM TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Water Information DATE: July 12, 2000 Enclosed is various water-related information for your review. • City of Sherwood Resolution 2000-875 — creation of an agreement with TVWD for long-term water supply • Oregonian article (6-22-00) Priorities affect quest for water • Letter from Portland Water Bureau on summer 2000 augmentation and contingency plan • Oregonian article (6-29-00) on summer water usage outlining the use of the Columbia South Shore Well fields. • Memo from Ed Wegner regarding Willamette Water Treatment Plant and Wilsonville/TVWD Agreement • Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting Minutes • Memo from Bill Monahan regarding Bob Santee Letter Kathy\iwb\Info memo 7-12 Kathy\iwb\info memo 5-20-99 Jun-26-00 02: 11P P.03 Sh City of e aad Oregm City of Sherwood, Oregon Resolution No. 2000-875 A RESOLU'T'ION DIRECTING STAFF TO CREATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (TVWD) FOR LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY AND ASSISTANCE IN WATER SYSTEM OPERATION WHEREAS, the TVWD will provide the City of Sherwood with water, as needed, during the next few years under an existing agreement; and WHEREAS, TVWD has the capability to provide water to meet Sherwood's needs on a long term basis; and WHEREAS, TVWD has extensive expertise in water system operation and maintenance; and WHEREAS, the increasing complexity of Sherwood's water system requires expertise and knowledge the city may not possess. NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Engineer is authorized to work with TVWD to draft an agreement providing Sherwood a long-term water source from TVWD and assistance from TVWD in operation of the city's water system. Duly passed by the City Council this 23rd day of May 2000. C tle, Co c i ent ATTEST: C.L. Wiley, Re der Runkition No.21NNi-N75 May 2.1,2000 Page 1 of 1 think again.Property taxes are on Although not =._a_'_4_5--.is- e all of aa 45 -is currently working on plans to approval of «to some tK tri. ry+Y to 1 is an issued the increase to support needs included in the petitiondt does . expand the,city water.supply.by The only commitrntnt the city in the conn is plan forr the he 4b6©0 city ry, y p by develo n additional, city has made is that the acres under study. within the eurrent ci bounds include man smell ' arcels pi g- ty y must make L The expansion concept plan calls landowners not signing the wells." As far as I know the city a recommendation (on our Politicians who-have a say in C for yet another school and yes. 'pet ition but who are-swept into' is..still -exploring options .for behalf) for or against some form its continuation . or demise taxes will need to be increased to the petition area because the law future water supply. of expansion to the Metro include Governor Kitzhaber, 71 build and support it and a host of says the majority rules(although I have never heard the Mayor govcrnrncnt is Portland by State Representative Krummel, i Other government services. A Metro can make exceptions). or any other of our elected October of this year. Metro Presiding Officer Bragdon 0 dubious plus is the fact that some In this case..52.6_percent c - representatives 'or. the 'city initially, there was ani effort .and our mayor, Walr Hitchcock 0 ?f you have some interest in 1;4I0 new homes could the o►mors in a,portrti on'of area manager say they have made to get a concept plan•out 0 eventually help pay for it. 45 signed the petition. committed Sherwood to for public review last De:rmber. voicing your opinion I suggest N Leading the charge for Fortunately the petition has yet to eventually annex the area into The process seems to have you contact the foregoing elected expansion is a realtor from rake be acted on by the Metro council. the city limits. Especially Since it . slowed to a slug-like pace. My representatives. Oswego who has convinced a Lingering are'sewmi 'questions is the citizens of Sherwood who experience suggests this could be Tom R«/enthie is a Sherwvod � gtnup of citizens from the that are yet to bei addressed. If will eventually . make that a!deliberate move to shtrten or . resident Mayor"sColumn watersup.piy occup ies Sherwo :council'-s time and effort By Walt Hitchcock (TVWD)and are now putting the with Newberg on ...a joint became very important. The end functions would be contracted Fer the' Gate'ne finishing ,.louebes on ` an development,but again, the costs' result was the formation of the out . immediately, and some Our water supply continues to agreement relative to needed are in the S20-million-plds.range. Unified 'Sewerage Agency would be phased in over time. occupy the city's tirrte and effort''quantities and price. - . _ We continue to talk.with;Tigard.; (USA),. the .organizatior,. that . The purpose is to more to the As a quick reminder;our contract The Tualatin Va11ty Water as ''they pursue '`"pr:iential= currently .:handlas`.`"elle".of •midst' oconomicat water system .•, District is_:.the Aatgest_user•,..of arrangements. with;the' Sou Washi on '' witlt� -'Tualatin i3 potentially : 8 * ngt county's,• needs`',,possible;_to access the technical .. .... li;nited` this. .'summer by �� Portland s Bull Run;vrrater:and Fork . .Water :Distn F {�fi, except local oolIection.::' ' Y capabitily.'.''.to- conduct" the.. owns all but a'short brtion of 'CIackamas River and°tile-Jtii k: enhaiitxd amount of water Tualatin p )~ Ii's-cIea M':us that sometiiirig purchases from Portland. the pipelines necessary to deliver Water Commission (the.Coast similar is needed i-nth water.The,' experimetit and to. gain the, this water to Sherwood.Thcy ane Range). " ""' only 'available"<4a'ter' 'sbitie gteatest•leveTaga'titi�A 'nuttig i' t h,.weta ntin a - also, iBob 44a I aacilian W—�Bothalk&s cric long= . • onga . . ,eacpr1110p e. ngn s e uncrra� t�tn_os . l tlt that provide an adequate quantity supply agreement with Portland extremely expensive without the' 131111,11 0water in the winter and If the two organizations..aro of quality water at an acceptable and have surplus water from Bull guarantee of long-term water. injecting into wells for compatible, we 'may even price. We've rejected going to Run for at least the next five It's become clear that water withdrawal in the summer. This recommend we merge our water the Willamette because the $20- years. supply is beyond the ability of is referred to as enhanced aquifer system with Tualatin Valley and million-plus price tag would In addition, TVWD owns a any one city, even a city much recovery: This type of begin to rationalize the delivery result in a likely tripling of ourportion of the water supply larger than Sherwood is. experiment is beyond our urrentofw star in Washington county. water rates, as we've seen in system that comes from the That happened 20 to 25 years technical abilities to design and .This is a big step and must Wilsonville, in spite of that city Coast Range. This means that ago with sewage treatment. The monitor. Yes we could develop progress at a measured pace, but receiving $10 million from the TVWD is in a position to provide cost of building and operating the capability, but does iA make it's clear that something like a state and having essentially no our short-term (five to seven the sewage treatment plants economic sense? merger must take place if we are pipelines to build. yrers)water needs while we find necessary to meet the federal The end result is that wr have to have the water security that is The outlook for the short term a long-term arrangement. water quality standards exceeded directed city staff'to negotiate an appropriate at a price that is in is excellent. We've activated our Unfortunately, our search for the ability of most cities, operating agreement %vith line with current rates. water supply contract with the a bug-term water source goes Additionally, the location of the Tualatin Valley Water District. Wait Hitchcock is mayor of Tualatin Valley Water District poorly.We've looked at working plants, on rivers, not- streams, Some of our water system Sherwood Views ergs Continues!from Page 2 S�Ltloa> � Priorities affect quest for water sx j i 4 L °''. f► n_7­��i t mental problem ofgrowth. Willamette sentiment with arguments F n Wilsonville remains committed The answer appealed to communi- the water was unsafe. to tapping the"rillamette,but ties such as Tigard,Tualatin,Sherwood, Only Wilsonville remains in the quest Wilsonville,King City and Durham as to drink from the Willamette. neighboring cities look elsewhere well as the Tualatin Valley Water Wilsonville plans to begin consuucuon I� District and pans of unincorporated on a scaled-down, $40 million treat By EMILY TSAO Washington County. Although this ment plant this summer.The others Tlf E osECONIAN state-of-the-art treatment plant could cities have returned to the drawing , � make the Willamette drinkable,it could board,again looking for places to buy 4 It was to be the$92.3 million answer. not erase the river's polluted past. water. A water treatment plant that could Despite years of meetings and plans "As a staff we are back to 1994,"said •" _ _ __ _ �"'"; -r"- purify Willamette River water and pro- by city and water boards,no Portland- Ed Wegner,Tigard's director of public vide millions ofgallons ofwater to meet area city has yet tapped the Willamette works."We are out there trying to find An artist's rendition shows the administration building at Wilsonville's proposed the growing thirst of several booming for drinking water. Citizen groups in other places...It is frustrating. water treatment plant,which is to be the first In the Portland area to make Southwest suburban cities. Tigard,Tualatin and Sherwood put the Willamette River water potable.The plant Is to be built near the banks of the It was a simple answer to a funda- issue before voters and tapped anti- Please see QUEST,Page 4 Willamette,one mile west of Interstate S In Wilsonville. - 4 0 0 3M SWT NEIGHBORS THE OREGONIAN ♦ THURSDAY,JUNE 22,200 Quest: Tualatin best situated to wait out Willamette debate :.mum;usl Jrorn Pq�c I Board, of which West hnn and said that if its own residents need to rely mainly on the Willamette. federai standaros for drinking ------ WATER WORLD'S Oregon City are members.In both water,it could not guarantee Sher- Tualatin's contract with Pon- water and a lack of resident panic WHO'S WHO cases, ownership of water has wood water during peak periods, land expires in 2004,and the city ipation in the decision-malting TIGARD been a discussed,but not prom- Sherwood will need more water is looking to have another con- process. Citizens for Safe WVatrr — --_-- ----- Here's a look at who the water g P ised,option. soon. tract in lace that would - The 12th-largest city in Oregon groups serve: P Provide successfully led to the downfall�t g g Intergovernmental Yater_ The city along with other juris- "We will have trouble at peak at least the same amount of water die Willamette plan. and growing, Tigard has never 1 The also continues contract periods in about three years,"City the city receives now,City Manag- owned its own water supply,save Boar*Tigard,King City,Dur- talks with Portland to buy Bull Manager John Morgan said. er Steve Wheeler said. The Willamette plan seems to for a few wells.And Tigard needed ham,parts of unincorporated Run water. be dormant in most communities only to look at its neighbor,Wil- Washington County But building more pipes Or As each community finds its sonville,a city plagued in the pas[ South Fork WaterBoar4 "The goal for the council is to plant is a huge undertaking, too own way in the water maze,olfi- today,but it doesn't mean the op- couple of years with building mor- West Linn,Oregon City pursue some son of o,anership," costly for the small city to take on, clots reiterate the benefits of tap- don has gone away.Some olficiz!c said Mike Miller, Tigard utilities Hitchcocksaid. in the Willamette.Officials say still think the W411amette is the tap- 80 and water usage restnc- Joint�Y,�Commission manager. "Portland has not of- ping y tions,to see the devastating effects Hillsboro,forest Grove.Beaver- g Sherwood has begun conversa- adding a new water source to the most logical answer to the areas fered anything different than what a lack of water could have on a ton.Tualatin'Valley WaterDis- was originally proposed.They do eons with the Tualatin Valley regional water system could serve water problem. city's growth. -trictWater District to receive water and as an invaluable backup in case "Over time,the river will onh use the word'ownership'in pipe- have that agency operate the city�s disaster ever strikes any other get cleaner,and the need for water In recent years,Tigard has re Tualatin Valley Wader Dir, fines,but not in the source." water system.An agreement is ex- source. Suburban leaders also lied heavily on Portland's system, dict:Setts water to cities and With so man movie sand is only going to get greater,"said which provides water from the water districts y moving petted to be reached later this cannot ignore the fact that the Bull Run watershed and the the so many players in this game,offi- month.The city also is looking to Willamette is so close to their back Dave Kanner, a Wilsonville lumbia South Shore well fields. clots arespokesman."Twenty to 30 years e reluctant to predict what transfer its water operations to the yards. Tigard will choose. But with Ti- from now, who knows what o Water costs were at times subject ard's need for water win and agency. to the whim of the weather,and People you cant wash their cars g g "To them, they are getting a WATER FUTURE going to happen then and box or wash their clothes on odd num- the anti-Wdlamette sentiment — people will view the river as a Tigard paid dearly for it.With the steadfast, one official predicted jewel," Hitchcock said. "To us, p P Willamette, the city dreamed of bered days,it starts to make an that the city probably would not we're getting rid ofa turkey." Whatever the theories and rea- water source." owning an abundant water sup- impact...We were ahead of our return to the Willamette as a main sons, many residents who cast ply. time."Tigard,which led the pack water source. TUALATIN their ballots in elections that But that dream faded when res- of communities not only in its size spanned from September through You can reach Emily Tsai at idents in September voted to but also perhaps in its officials' One city that might have the May rejected plans to draw water 503-294-5968 or by e-mail at change the city's chth charter so that enusiasm for the Willamette, SHER WOOD luxury to wait out the Willamette from the Willamette.By citing lax emitytsao@neuws.oregoniancom. they could have a say if the city had to back away from the river. Sherwood, a city of about debate is Tualatin. ever did choose to drink from the As Tigard looks to the future, it 10,000 residents, has long given In May,residents said no to as - Willamette.Tigard residents have continues to emphasize a need to not gotten thechance to vote on own its water supply. la any hopes of tapping the Wil- much that tw million in revenue g lamette.Officials say the$20 mil- bonds that would allow the city to Willamette whether the city should drink Tigard has started looking lion cost of tapping the take part in the Willamette treat- from the Willamette,but city offi- northwest to the Trask River and is prohibitive.Mayor Walt Hitch- ment plant. cials said they could sense defeat the Joint Water Commission, cock said the city also does not But its water situation is not as if the issue were put before voters which is made up of Hillsboro, have the same strong desires of dire as its neighbors,and Tualatin now. Forest Grove,Beaverton and the ownership as Tigard does. from the beginning has said it "Our timing was wrong,"Wegn- Tualatin Valley Water-District Ti- Sherwood has relied mostly on would continue to rely mainly on er said. "The best time to sell gard also has explored opportuni- ground water and more recently Portland water and use the Wil- water problems is when there is a ties southeast to the Clackamas on an intertie with Tualatin for lamette as a secondary source.Ti- water problem.The day you tell River and the South Fork Water Portland water.But Tualatin has gard and Sherwood had planned X40¢`1 '^'a Erik Sten, Commissioner F ��o CITY OF Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator x 1120 S.W. 5th Avenue PORTLAND, OREGON Portland, Oregon 97204 Information(503)823-7404 Fax(503)823-6133 BUREAU OF WATER WORKS TDD(503) 823-6868 1861 For More Information,Contact: Ross Walker,823-7500 June 28,2000 WATER SUPPLY IN SUMMER MODE This week the City of Portland Water Bureau started its annual summer reliance on stored water reserves. Portland's water system serves about 840,000 Oregonians in the tri-county area. City Council today authorized the Water Bureau's 2000 plan to meet summer water demand. Water stored in the Bull Run watershed is the City's primary resource. City wells in the Columbia South Shore are a secondary, supplemental, source. Additional sources include offloads and interties to the Clackamas River system, and withdrawals from Bull Run Lake. "A summer plan is prudent because our water system relies on rain to produce the water we store in the Bull Run reservoirs,"noted City Commissioner Erik Sten,"and we won't see a lot of rain for a while. Our water use can double in the summer, and coincides with our lowest water production. During each of the last three days, demand on the system has been twice typical winter use. It never makes sense to waste water, but wise water use is of particular benefit in the summer. We don't have enough water to waste." "The City's baseline water supplies include the Bull Run, conservation and some of the Columbia South Shore wellfield,"said Michael Rosenberger, Water Bureau Administrator. "We expect to be able to meet demands with this mix of resources, but we have a contingency plan in place if we need to take additional action." Push-button devices on the City's Benson Bubblers have been an element of the Summer Supply Plan since 1993. Limiting the free-flowing drinking fountains has mixed support. "Some people applaud the devices and others deplore them,"according to Rosenberger, "there hasn't been a middle-ground. This year we hope to offer a solution that meets the broadest community needs. Instead of push-buttons, we'll install timers. As long as we are in a normal supply situation, we'll run the fountains during daylight hours, leaving a few on 24 hours to meet safe water needs for street people. If we have concerns with the supply situation,we'll turn timed fountains off." ### An Equal Opportunity Employer PORTLAND City puts well water use ahead of conservation efforts The City Council .endorsed going to backup wells to supple- ment Bull Run water if the sum- mer runs long and hot instead of asking residents to curtail out- door water use. Council members also re- newed the bureau's authority to tap the wells without prior coun- cil approval. But ,they asked Water Bureau Director Mike, Rosenberger- to move two wells with very low,lev- els of industrial solvent contami- nation to the last tier on the bu- reau's priority list. ;,3 That change means nine wells with no detected contamination will be the first choice to supple- ment the Bull Run water. Tapping another six wells will remain higher on the priority list than asking for enhanced conser- vation. That includes-four wells that have had solvent contamina- tion identified nearby. The bureau says the contami- nation is years away from the wells. If the summer is normal, the city will use only water from Bull Run, including two reservoirs about five miles west of Mount Hood. But if midsummer,fore- casts indicate a long,hot summer, the bureau will blend 20 percent well water with the Bull Run sup- ply. The bureau could also tap the wells if a string of hot days de- pletes storage. The city last tapped the wells to supplement summer supplies in 1996. But supplies are getting tighter, thanks to population growth and saving water for fish. MEMORANDUM TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Willamette Water Treatment Plant Wilsonville/TVWD Agreement DATE: July 5, 2000 During a recent WWSA Managers meeting, the General Manager of TVWD discussed with us the proposed contract between Wilsonville and TVWD and how the contract effected WWSA members for future use. I will outline some of the highlights. ➢ Pg. 3, Sec. 2, 2.1.3 Deals with now TVWD may convey ownership interest in the land. ➢ Pg. 8, Sec. 3.3.1 Wilsonville will act as Project Manager during construction ➢ Pg. 10, Sec. 5 Future agreements ➢ Pg. 10, Sec. 6 Wilsonville — Managing owner until Wilsonville's plant capacity becomes less than 50% This contract is still under negotiations, but could be signed by July 10tH Cc: Mike Miller Bill Monahan Norm Penner Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 AGREEMENT REGARDING WATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION,AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP This Agreement Regarding Water Treatment Plant Design, Construction, Operation, and Property Ownership("Agreement") is made as of the day of , 2000 (the "Effective Date"), between the City of Wilsonville, a municipal corporation ("Wilsonville") and the TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a water supply district formed under ORS Chapter 264 ("TVWD"). RECITALS A. Wilsonville holds Permit No. 46319, which was issued on March 27, 1974, and authorizes Wilsonville to appropriate water from the Willamette River for municipal purposes at the rate of 30 cubic feet per second (19,389,450 gallons per day). B. TVWD presently holds Permit No. 49240, which was issued on June 19, 1973, and authorizes TVWD to appropriate water from the Willamette River for municipal purposes at the rate of 202 cubic feet per second (130,555,630 gallons per day). TVWD may assign this permit to Willamette Water Supply Agency("WWSA"). C. Wilsonville has purchased certain real property described in the copy of the Warranty Deed, marked Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein (the "Property"). The Property is located near the points of diversion authorized by Permit Nos. 46319 and 49240. The location of the Property is also consistent with the Regional Water Supply Plan's recommendation for the location of a treatment plant. The Property is of a size and configuration which will accommodate a water treatment plant and intake facility for waters of the Willamette River to be appropriated, treated and used for domestic and municipal purposes in accordance with the above recited permits. On June 1,2000, the City Council of the City of Wilsonville adopted Resolution No. 1646, approving a conditional use permit and site and design plans for a water treatment plant on the Property. D. Wilsonville and TVWD have commenced to permit, design, and build upon approval by the applicable regulatory government agencies (i) an intake facility capable of ultimately drawing 120 million gallons per day(mgd); (ii) an intake line from the diversion point to the intake structure and (iii) a permanent, multi-barrier treatment plant with an initial capacity of 15 mgd and planned capacity of 70 mgd to treat the Willamette River water so that it meets federal and state drinking water standards; and (iv) transmission lines to Kinsman Road (v) access road, bikeway and pedestrian pathway (collectively, the "Supply Facilities"). Page 1—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 E. Wilsonville and TVWD wish to enter into an Agreement pursuant to which they will allocate the costs of purchasing the Property and the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Supply Facilities. F. Wilsonville and TVWD wish to provide the opportunity for other local governments in the region (as may participate through TVWD and as may otherwise be provided for in this Agreement) to participate in the ownership of the Property and the ownership, development, operation and maintenance of the Supply Facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: CONTENTS Page RECITALS 1 1. DEFINITIONS 2 2. THE PROPERTY; CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP 3 INTEREST; MAINTENANCE AND COST ALLOCATION 3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPLY FACILITIES 6 4. ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR SUPPLY FACILITIES 8 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS 5. FUTURE AGREEMENTS 10 6. OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SUPPLY 11 FACILITIES; FUTURE AGREEMENT 7. INVOLUNTARY LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES 13 8. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 14 9. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 14 .10. TERM 15 11. GENERAL 15 1. DEFINITIONS "Agreement" means this Agreement, as it may be amended from time to time, together with all exhibits to it. "Diversion Point" means the diversion point as mutually agreed by Wilsonville and TVWD and authorized by the Oregon Water Resources Department for appropriation of the waters of the Willamette River. "Effective Date" has the meaning given to that term in the preamble to Agreement. "Governing bodies" means the City Council of the City of Wilsonville and the Board of Commissioners of TVWD. Page 2—AGREEMENT JAMy DocumentsMilamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 "Managing Owner" initially means City of Wilsonville. A change in Managing Owner shall only occur as provided for in this Agreement. "Owners" means Wilsonville and TVWD. A change in Owners shall only occur as provided for in this Agreement. "Ownership Interest"means the percent of interest of an owner in the real property as determined under Section 2.2.1. "Participating Interest" means the percentage interest of an Owner in the Supply Facilities as determined under Section 4 of this Agreement. "Party or Parties" means Wilsonville and the TVWD and, such other local governments and water districts as may participate in this Agreement in the future as provided for in this Agreement. "Project Cost"means construction costs to be shared between the owners based on a proportional share of capacity, including the cost of all Development Review Board (DRB) requirements. "Property" has the meaning given to that term in Recital C. "Supply Facilities" has the meaning given to that term in Recital D. "Technical Committee " means engineering representatives from the City of Wilsonville and TVWD. "WWSA" means the Willamette Water Supply Agency, which has been created by intergovernmental cooperative agreement among TVWD, Clackamas River Water, Canby Utility Board,City of Sherwood, City of Gladstone, City of Tigard, and City of Tualatin. 2. THE PROPERTY; CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INTEREST;MAINTENANCE AND COST ALLOCATION 2.1 Creation of Property Ownership Interest 2.1.1 In the form of the warranty deed ("Deed") set forth in Exhibit 1, recited and incorporated by reference above, Wilsonville shall convey to TVWD an undivided 49% interest as tenant in common in the Property and Wilsonville shall retain a 51%interest as tenant in common in the property. TVWD shall pay Wilsonville$1263,218 toget eF xA,ith interest- $1,291,350,which includes interest accrued at the rate of 6%per annum from the City's original purchase date through June 30, 2000, which is agreed to be 49% of Wilsonville's original purchase price and of its Page 3—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 reasonable expenses incurred in acquiring the site. Closing costs for the Wilsonville transfer to TVWD shall be shared equally. 2.1.2 Title to the Property shall be held in the name of each of the Owners in its respective undivided interest. The Owners intend that their relationship, with respect to the Property, be a tenancy in common. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement and conveyance. 2.1.3 TVWD's 49% ownership interest may be conveyed in whole or in part by TVWD, with prior approval by Wilsonville to WWSA for a period of one year(365 days) from the effective date of this Agreement, and thereafter without prior approval by Wilsonville; provided,however,WWSA's membership remains one of local governments and water districts.Neither Wilsonville nor TVWD shall convey to any person or entity which is not a local government or water district without the prior consent of the other. Each party's consent shall be based in its sole discretion on whether an allocation or conveyance to an entity other than a local government or water district is in the best interest of, in the case of Wilsonville, its citizens and, in the case of TVWD, its l atepayers customers. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to prevent TVWD from conveying to Wilsonville or Wilsonville from conveying to TVWD its respective interest as the parties may agree in the future. 2.1.4 Partition. During the term of this Agreement,no Owner shall seek or obtain through any legal proceedings an administrative or judicial partition of the Property or sale of the Property in lieu of partition, without the prior written consent of the other Owner. Section 2.1.3 is not intended or meant to create a partition of the Property and this paragraph on partition is not intended or meant to prevent an allocation and conveyance of TVWD's interest as set forth in 2.1.3. 2.2 Purpose The Owners declare that the Property is and shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, occupied and improved subject to the limitations, restrictions, covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, all of which are declared to be in furtherance of constructing and operating the Supply Facilities for the treating and using waters of the Willamette River for domestic and municipal water supply purposes. The Owners agree that except as provided herein, the Property is dedicated for domestic and municipal water supply purposes. The areas discussed in subsections 2.2.1 —2.2.7 are as set forth on Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Page 4—AGREEMENT J:\My Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 2.2.1 Area 1 is the Northern portion of the site as set forth on Exhibit 2 and shall include an access road and bicycle and pedestrian access to Areas 2 and 3. Area 1 may be used for park and recreational purposes at the sole risk and cost of Wilsonville, but upon one year notice by either party to the other, park and recreation usage shall terminate to accommodate use for future domestic and municipal water supply facility capacity in excess of the 70 mgd facilities in Area 2, subject to required land use approvals and such other governmental approvals as may be required. Nothing in the foregoing sentence is intended to limit or restrict the parties from agreeing to use the property in any manner in support of the Supply Facilities and/or such governmental regulations as may be imposed on the parties for the operation of up to a 70 mdg capacity plant. This right to terminate on one-year's notice as conditioned above shall be a covenant running with the land set forth on the Deed from Wilsonville to TVWD. 2.2.2 Area 1 Costs. So long as no improvements are built on Area 1 in addition to those built as part of the initial supply facility project, the Owners will share the costs of maintaining and insuring the development Area. The Owners will also share the costs of maintaining, insuring and improving or restoring, as needed, the natural areas directly impacted by the bridge built across Arrowhead Creek and the stormwater discharge at the southwest corner of Area 3. The costs of maintenance and insurance shall be allocated based on the property Owners ownership interests, as established in section 2.1.1. 2.2.3 Area 2 is that portion on the site which includes the multi-barrier treatment plant with expansion up to 70 mgd (the wall and area behind the wall) as set forth in Exhibit 2. 2.2.4 Area 2 Costs. The cost of maintenance shall be proportioned to each owner based on capacity used as set forth in Section 4. 2.2.5 Area 3 is the "Meadow Area" and Water Feature as set forth on Exhibit 2 and is to be developed for passive recreational use and will have bicycle and pedestrian use and access. This public bicycle and pedestrian access ,�Jll also extend to the Plant. 2.2.6 Area 3 Costs. The costs of Maintenance of Area 3 including the park improvements and the water features shall be solely the responsibility of and at the cost to the City of Wilsonville. 2.2.7 Area 4 is the 60' access easement, together with such other property and/or easements necessary for the alignment of the access roadway from the property to Wilsonville Road and the water transmission line from the Treatment Plant to Wilsonville Road as set forth in Exhibit 2. Thereafter, the transmission line will be in Wilsonville Road right-of-way, which Page 5—AGREEMENT 1:\My Documents\Willamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 right-of-way is not intended to be conveyed to TVWD as part of this agreement, until it joins the City's transmission system at or about Station 67+00+i-, Kinsman Road. 2.2.8 The cost of the maintenance shall be proportioned to each owner on the basis of capacity used as set forth in Section 4. 2.2.9 Bicycle and pedestrian access way costs. The costs of the maintenance and insurance of the bicycle and pedestrian access as described in Section 2.2.1 or as may be required by the City's Development Review Board shall be allocated based on the property owner's ownership interest as established in Section 2.1.1. 2.2.10 Billing and Accounting: The City of Wilsonville shall be responsible for Annually submitting a report of actual expenses in connection with the property, including insurance,together with anticipated costs for the next fiscal year. TVWD shall be billed quarterly for its share of the costs as defined in this Section 2.2. 3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPLY FACILITIES 3.1 Preliminary Planning and Design TVWD and Wilsonville,by this Agreement, commit to design and construct the Supply Facilities, which shall include initially a 15 mgd Multi-barrier Regional Water Treatment Plant according to the design build contract between Wilsonville and Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc., Montgomery Watson Construction, Inc., and Montgomery Watson, Inc. ("Montgomery Watson"), dated December 22, 1999, and to such end, have or will immediately commence: 3.1.1 Joint Planning Participation. Participation in necessaryjoint planning sessions for the Supply Facilities. - 3.1.2 Contribution of their proportionate share of costs of preliminary design, preliminary engineering,permitting, and other fees as necessary set forth on Exhibit 3, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The Supply Facilities, including the multi-barrier plant, shall accommodate expansion up to 70 mgd on Area 2 with Area 1 reserved for an additional expansion of 50 mgd. The general configuration map of Area 2 on the above referenced Exhibit 2 will allow the Owners to expand the treatment plant in the future as they may further agree. Wilsonville has retained the project team of Montgomery Watson only for permitting, design, and construction of the initial increment of the Supply Facilities described in 3.1. Page 6—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 3.1.3 Wilsonville is and will be the Project Manager for the design-build of the Supply Facilities and the permitting responsibilities of Wilsonville and TVWD are set forth in Section 3.2 below. 3.1.4 The Technical Committee consists of engineering representatives from Wilsonville and TVWD. The Technical Committee has reviewed all requests for proposals and recommended a design-build team of Montgomery Watson. Wilsonville has entered into a design-build contract with Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc., Montgomery Watson Constructors, Inc. and Montgomery Watson, Inc., referenced in paragraph 3.1 above. 3.2 Permit Applications Wilsonville as Project Manager shall be the lead agency in negotiating required permits for construction of the Supply Facilities. 3.2.1 Point of Diversion TVWD Permit Responsibility. TVWD shall be responsible to obtain, at its sole cost and expense, the transfer of the point of diversion under its water rights permit No. 49240 to the subject property and any extension to develop its permit or relating to the application of the water to beneficial use. 3.2.2 Wilsonville Permit Responsibility. Except as provided in 3.2.1, Wilsonville shall be responsible to obtain all other required permits and approvals currently needed to construct the Supply Facilities, such as: 3.2.2.1 Section 404 Permits under the Clean Water Act through the Division of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers; 3.2.2.2 Any approval necessary from the Oregon Division of State Lands for use of submerged or submersible lands for the intake, if that is in addition to the 404 Permit; 3.2.2.3 Any permit from the Water Resources Department for Wilsonville's point of diversion,time extension, or application of water to beneficial use; 3.2.2.4 Any permit necessary from the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife,the United States Fish& Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service through consultation; and 3.2.2.5 Any other permit or approval required for the project. 3.2.3 Wilsonville Permit Process. Wilsonville's Development Review Boards and the City Council have approved a conditional use land development permit in the name of the Project. Wilsonville further agrees to, in good Page 7—AGREEMENT ):\My Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 faith, assist and support TVWD in the issuance of all permits or approvals for pumping and transmission facilities from Station 67+00+i-, Kinsman Road north through the City limits and any area outside the Wilsonville city limits where it has a planning area agreement with Clackamas County, Washington County, or Metro, to enable TVWD to provide water from the Supply Facilities to users outside the City. Wilsonville agrees to expedite where and when practicable Wilsonville's approval to any permits, plans, specifications, or detailed drawings which may be required for the construction of TVWD only water facilities beyond those described as Supply Facilities. 3.2.4 Expedited Design and Construction; Cooperation. TVWD also understands and acknowledges that Wilsonville must have the design and construction of the Supply Facilities expedited in order to meet Wilsonville's emergency of lack of municipal water supply and to meet Wilsonville's obligations under Senate Bill 686 and its contract with the Department of Corrections ("DOC") to supply water to DOC's new prison site. TVWD agrees to cooperate in an expeditious manner to assist in design and construction of the Supply Facilities. 3.3 Construction 3.3.1 Project Management. During construction, Wilsonville will, as Project Manager, convene the Technical Committee at least weekly to review project schedules and performing progress payment requests, change orders and punch list items 3.3.2 Progress Payments. Progress payments, during design and construction, will be billed by Wilsonville according to the allocation of assigned capacity of individual components of the system as set forth on Exhibit 3 and the schedule for payments set forth in the above referenced design- build contract and the exhibits thereto. The total payment of a party will not exceed the allocated cost of Exhibit 3 unless the governing body of that party has approved. TVWD shall establish an interest bearing account, with interest to TVWD, from which the Finance Director of the City of Wilsonville will be authorized to withdraw TVWD's share for design/build progress payments on such estimated payment schedule as the Owners agree. Money shall be deposited monthly on the basis of the estimated draw required for the next month's payment. At no time prior to substantial completion shall there be less than $1 million in the account. 3.3:3 Dispute resolution; maintaining construction. Any disputed amount shall be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Procedures of Section 11.15 below. However, notwithstanding the foregoing resolution procedures, during construction, no participant dispute will cause cessation or delay of work by the contractor. If the contractor threatens to Page 8—AGREEMENT 1:Wy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 suspend or terminate work because of a dispute over nonpayment, the parties hereto agree to make such payments to Wilsonville to resolve contractor issues and will expressly reserve all rights regarding the ultimate allocation of costs or obligations paid to the contractor which will be resolved by dispute resolution. 3.3.4 Post Construction. Following construction, the Technical Committee or the Owners' representatives, as the case maybe, shall meet as needed to review and recommend to the Owners on matters related to warranty or other contract performance issues. 4. ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR SUPPLY FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS 4.1 Initial Participating Interests Except as otherwise provided herein, Owners shall have an equal right and obligation to use and operate the Supply Facilities. The initial Supply Facilities project will be designed so that Wilsonville and TVWD, as the initial Parties to this Agreement, shall have the following Participating Interests: Wilsonville TVWD Total in mgd in mgd in mgd First phase plant capacity 10 5 15 River intake screens 20 50 70 Intake line and structures 20 100 120 Intake initial pump capacity 10 5 15 Raw waterline and plant piping 20 50 70 Finished water transmission 20 50 70 main to Wilsonville Road Access Road,Bikeway and 20 50 -70 Pedestrian Paths The interests of the owners in each of the project elements are further identified in Exhibit 3 attached to this Agreement. 4.1.1 Adjustment for Regulations Capital Improvements. The plant has been designed to meet all existing and anticipated Environmental Protection Agency and State Health Division Requirements for operation of water treatment plants. Nevertheless, it is possible that changing requirements will require additional construction to meet new regulatory requirements. The Managing Owner will coordinate the financing design and construction of the required improvements. The cost of these improvements will be distributed based on ownership of capacity in the facility requiring mandatory improvements. If a new facility is required, Page 9—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TV WD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 then costs will be prorated based on an overall distribution of cost based on their ownership in the entire treatment plant. 4.1.2 Adjustments for Capacity. It is recognized that the capacity of the Actiflow system and the mixed media filters are based on conservative historical comparisons. Any subsequent adjustment in capacity of the Actiflow system or the mixed media filters will be distributed based on a pro rata share of the then existing capacity ownership. 4.2 Adjustments for Development Review Board Improvements. The parties agree that improvements imposed by the City's Development Review Board will be a Project cost. Additional amenities not required by the Development Review Board will be paid for at the sole expense of the party requesting such amenities. 4.3 Construction Costs and Ownership Capacity; TVWD Total Costs. Exhibit 3, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, identifies the proportionate share of the construction costs based on ownership capacity for each of project elements of the initial Supply Facilities, the finished transmission and accessory facilities extending to Station 67+00+1-, Kinsman Road, and the associated public roadway, bicycle and pedestrian access'. The total cost to TVWD of the supply facilities shall not exceed $17,000,000. 5. FUTURE AGREEMENTS In addition to the negotiation in good faith of a future Operational and Management agreement reference in Section 6.2.3, Wilsonville and TVWD agree to negotiate in good faith to reach an accord within one year(365 days) from the effective date of this Agreement with regard to the following subject matters: Leasing of Supply 5-01 Capacity, Future Expansion, Transfer of Ownership Interests in Supply Facilities, Right of First Offer, Future Voting Rights, Cooperation in Financing for Future Expenses, and Defaults Regarding the Subject Matters of this Section 5 on Future Agreements. 6. OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SUPPLY FACILITIES; FUTURE AGREEMENT 6.1 Managing Owner Wilsonville shall have the initial responsibility as Managing Owner to manage, operate, repair and replace the Supply Facilities. In the event that Wilsonville's water treatment plant capacity usage becomes less than 50% of annual plant production usage, TVWD may assume the Managing Owner function by delivering to Wilsonville notice of its election. The election shall become effective on July 1 following delivery of the election no less than one year in advance. Failure by TVWD to exercise this election in any year does not constitute a waiver of its right to exercise the election in a following Page 10—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 year, provided that Wilsonville's water treatment plant usage remains below 50% of annual plant production usage. 6.2 Duties of the Managing Owner The Managing Owner shall manage the operation and maintenance of the Property and of the Supply Facilities, and shall have the responsibility and authority to perform the following functions and may make decisions with respect to such matters, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement: 6.2.1 Operation, Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement. To contract or perform work with its own forces for operation, maintenance, repair and cleaning of Area 2 and Area 4, and those shared portions of Areas 1 and 3 described in Section 2.2 pursuant to an approved budget, or other approval of the Owners. 6.2.2 Managing Owners use of own work forces. The Managing Owner may perform work with its own forces and charge the other Owner therefor or by contract with another party. However, TVWD and Wilsonville are in the process of moving forward to select a third parry for operation and maintenance of the supply facilities. To the extent that any Owner uses its own employees in the performance of its duties under this Agreement, that entity shall be responsible for complying with all applicable state and federal laws and for all employment related benefits and deductions, workers' compensation premiums and pension contributions. 6.2.3 Future Agreement. It is contemplated that a more detailed agreement between Wilsonville and TVWD for managing and governing the operation will be entered into and the provisions of this section will either be incorporated or replaced in whole or in part in such agreement. 6.2.4 Coordination of Water Treatment Plant Operations with Owners' requirements. As necessary, the Managing Owner for the water treatment plant will coordinate meetings between the Supply Facilities operators and the owners to coordinate ongoing water demands, water quality concerns and any other ongoing operational considerations. 6.2.5 Insurance. To obtain or renew a policy of property insurance insuring the Supply Facilities against loss or damage by fire and other hazards covered by a standard policy of fire insurance with extended coverage endorsements written for the full replacement value of the Supply Facilities. TVWD and Wilsonville will also obtain or renew a policy of public liability and property damage insurance with a single limit of not less than $1,000,000. The policies will name Wilsonville and TVWD as insureds and such other Owners as may from time to time become a party to this Agreement. Page 11—AGREEMENT ]AMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Wgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 6.2.6 Charges. To collect and deposit the charges due from Owners into an account established for the Property; to mail written notice to any Owner who is more than 30 days delinquent in payment of any charges; and to mail written notice to the Owners for additional charges whenever it appears that the funds on hand will be insufficient to cover future expenses. 6.2.7 Payment of expenses. To pay when due the expenses of the Property, and all other expenses or payments duly authorized by the Owners. 6.2.8 Records. To maintain complete and accurate records of all receipts and expenditures for the Owners. 6.2.9 Improvements or Fixtures. No improvements or fixtures shall be made or attached to the Property which could cause interference with the operation of the Supply Facilities or be an obligation of a fiscal nature for the Owners without the prior written consent of the Owners. 6.2.10 Meter Calibration. The Managing Owner will ensure that for operation of the Willamette River water treatment plant all flow meters are calibrated annually. 6.3 Annual Budget,Expenses, and Reporting 6.3.1 Books, Reports and Accounting. Quarterly, and at other times as may be requested in writing by the Owners, statements shall be prepared by the Managing Owner, which shall show all income, receipts, expenses and costs in connection with the Property and Supply Facilities. The quarterly statement shall be delivered to each Owner within thirty(30) days of the end of each quarter. All such books of account or other records may be examined and copies of books and records may be made by any Owner at reasonable times upon reasonable notice. Additionally,by January 31 of each year, the Managing Owner shall provide to the Owners a budget for anticipated expense for the next fiscal year for approval of each owner's governing body. 6.4 Damage Claims It is recognized there may be claims for damages arising out of the operation of these jointly used facilities or that there may be litigation or other unforeseen costs or expenses incurred in connection with these Supply Facilities that is not covered by the previously mentioned insurance. Accordingly, it is agreed that all such damages, costs and expenses not specifically provided for elsewhere herein shall be shared by the Owners in pro-ration to their participating interests. Page 12—AGREEMENT )AMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 6.5 Separate Accounts The Managing Owner shall maintain one or more separate funds/accounts for the Property and Supply Facilities on which the Managing Owner is the authorized signatory. Reserves for the Property and Supply Facilities shall be invested in legally authorized investment vehicles. 7. INVOLUNTARY LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES 7.1 Any involuntary lien or encumbrance on an Owner's undivided interest including, but not limited to, any judicial attachment, any judgment lien, any lien arising out of the order or judgment of any court, and any lien arising under federal or state bankruptcy or insolvency laws, shall be discharged by the Owner, and the undivided interest released, within thirty(30) days after such lien or encumbrance attaches to the Owner's undivided interest. The failure to discharge the lien and obtain the release of the undivided interest as required above, or to post security in lieu thereof,within the stated time shall constitute a default of this Agreement. With respect to such default and the lien or encumbrance causing the same, the Non-Defaulting Owner shall have the rights granted Non-Defaulting Owner under the laws then and there existing. 7.2 The Owner against whose interest an involuntary lien or encumbrance attaches may, within thirty(30) days after attachment, deposit cash, a corporate surety bond or other security satisfactory to the other Owner; the deposit shall be in an amount sufficient to discharge the lien or encumbrance, costs, attorney fees and other charges which could accrue as a result of a foreclosure sale under the lien or encumbrance. Upon making the deposit, the Owner shall not be considered in default and shall be entitled to contest the lien in a legal proceeding, and any appeal thereof. Any deposit made by Owner herein shall go into an escrow account with a third party mutually agreed on by Owners with instructions that said deposit shall be released to the depositing Owner upon discharge of the lien or encumbrance requiring the deposit, or, if said lien or encumbrance is not discharged within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one (1) year, the deposit shall be applied to the payment of the lien or encumbrances. Provided, however, the one year period shall be extended to the date of final judgment in the case of any contested lien, including of appeal. 8. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Each Party represents and warrants to the other Parties as follows: 8.1 That it is a legal entity duly organized under the laws of the State of Oregon; 8.2 That it has the capacity and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and all transactions contemplated in this Agreement pursuant to the laws of the state of Oregon and its charter; Page 13—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re _ Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 8.3 That all actions required to authorize it to enter into and perform this Agreement have been properly taken; 8.4 That it will not breach any other Agreement or arrangement by entering into or performing this Agreement and that this Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by it and is valid and binding upon it in accordance with its terms; 8.5 That Wilsonville has determined upon reasonable inquiry the Property does not have violations of any environmental law which cannot be reasonably mitigated during construction and that all contingencies prior to Property purchase have been satisfied; and 8.6 That TVWD has received a copy of the preliminary title report No. from Title Insurance Company, and acknowledges and accepts the exceptions and encumbrances thereon. 9. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 9.1 In addition to insurance which is obtained under Section 4.6, each Owner may maintain liability insurance insuring their respective operations on the Property or Supply Facilities. 9.2 Each Owner shall, within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260-30.300, save, defend and hold harmless the other Owner or Owners from any claim for damages or injury arising from or alleged to have arisen from the sole negligence or willful act of the Owner in the performance of this Agreement. Each Owner shall be solely liable for any fine or penalties attributable to its performance of its duties under this Agreement and that are caused by its willful conduct or gross negligence. 10. TERM The terra of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall be perpetual, unless the Owners otherwise agree in writing. 11. GENERAL 11.1 Notices All notices, payments and other communications to the Parties under this Agreement must be in writing, and shall be addressed respectively as follows: Page 14—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Wgee WTP Wilsonville-TWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 Wilsonville: City of Wilsonville Attention: Arlene Loble, City Manager 30000 SW Town Center Loop E. Wilsonville, OR 97070 Telecopy No. 503-682-1015 TVWD: Tualatin Valley Water District Attention: Greg DiLoreto, General Manager PO Box 745 Beaverton, OR 97075 Telecopy No. 503-649-2733 All notices shall be given by(i)personal delivery to the Owner, (ii) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or(iii) electronic communication followed immediately by registered or certified mail return receipt requested. All notices shall be effective and shall be deemed delivered(a)if by personal delivery, on the date of delivery, (b) if by certified or registered mail on the date delivered to the United States Postal Service as shown on the receipts; and (c) if by electronic communication, on the date the confirmation is delivered to the United States Postal Service as shown on the actual receipt. Upon a change in ownership, a new Owner shall, upon entering into this Agreement, notify the other Owner or Owners of their contact person, address and telecopy number. An Owner may change its address from time to time by notice to the other Owners. 11.2 Waiver The failure of an Owner to insist on the strict performance of any provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right, power or remedy upon a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or limit the Owner's right thereafter to enforce any provision or exercise any right. 11.3 Modification No Modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and duly executed by the Owners. As the context may require,reference to the singular shall mean the plural and the plural shall mean the singular. 11.4 Force Majure The obligations of an Owner, other than the payment of money, shall be suspended to the extent and for the period that performance is prevented by any cause, whether foreseen, foreseeable or unforeseeable,beyond the Owner's reasonable control if the Owner is making a good faith effort to resolve or avoid the cause, including without limitation labor disputes(however arising and whether or not employee demands are reasonable or within the power of the Owner to grant); acts of God, laws, regulations, orders, proclamations, instructions or requests of any government or governmental entity; judgments or orders of any court; inability to obtain on reasonably acceptable terms any public or private license, permit or other authorization; curtailment or suspension of activities to remedy or avoid an actual or alleged, present or prospective violation of Page 15—AGREEMENT JAMy DocumentsMilamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 federal, state, or local environmental standards; acts of war or condition arising out of or attributable to war, whether declared or undeclared; riot, civil strife, insurrection or rebellion, fire, explosion, earthquake, storm, flood, sinkholes, drought or other adverse weather conditions out of the ordinary; material delay or failure by suppliers or transporters of materials, parts, supplies, services or equipment or by contractors'or subcontractors' shortage of, or material inability to obtain, labor, transportation, materials, machinery equipment, supplies,utilities or services; accidents,breakdown of equipment, machinery or facilities, or any other cause whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing, provided that the affected Owner shall give notice to the other Owner within 30 days of the suspension of performance or as soon as reasonably possible, stating in such notice the nature of the suspension, the reasons for the suspension and the expected duration of the suspension. The affected Owner shall resume performance as soon as reasonably possible. 11.5 Implied Covenants The Owners agree that in construing this Agreement no covenants shall be implied between the Owners except the covenants of good faith and fair dealing. 11.6 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 11.7 Interpretation of Law This Agreement will be interpreted by the laws of the State of Oregon and any interpretation and any court action will be initiated through the County court in which the water treatment plant is located, i.e., Clackamas County Circuit Court. 11.8 Remedies Not Exclusive Each and every power and remedy specifically given to the Non-Defaulting Owner shall be in addition to every other power and remedy now or hereafter available at law or in equity(including the right to specific performance), and each and every power and remedy may be exercised from time to time and as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient. All such powers and remedies shall be cumulative, and the exercise of one shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to exercise any other or others. No delay or .omission in the exercise of any such power or remedy and no renewal or extension of any payments due under this Agreement shall impair any such power or remedy or shall be construed to be a waiver of any default. 11.9 Survival of Terms and Conditions The provisions of this Agreement shall survive its termination to the full extent necessary for their enforcement and the protection of the Party in whose favor they run. 11.10 Successors and Assigns This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Owners and their successors and assigns. Page 16—AGREEMENT 1:\My Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc ' Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 11.11 Time is of the Essence A material consideration of the Owners for entering into this Agreement is that each Owner will make all payments as and when due and will perform all other obligations under this Agreement in a timely manner. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement. 11.12 Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute a single Agreement. 11.13 Limitations This Agreement shall not be construed to create a partnership between the Owners or to authorize any Owner to act as agent for any other Party or Parties except as expressly provided in this Agreement. 11.14 Attorneys' Fees If any suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing Owner shall be entitled to recover from the other Owner such sums as a court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial,on appeal, or on any petition for review, and in any proceedings in bankruptcy or arbitration, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 11.15 Dispute Resolution If a dispute arises between the parties regarding this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute through the following steps: Step One—Negotiation: The Managers or such other persons designated by each of the disputing Owners will negotiate on behalf of the entity they represent. If the dispute is resolved at this step, there shall be a written determination of such resolution, signed by each Manager or designated person and ratified by their respective governing body, which shall be binding upon the Owners. Step Two—Mediation. If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days of commencing Step One, the parties shall submit the matter to non-binding mediation before the United States Arbitration and Mediation Service of Portland, Oregon. The Owners shall attempt to agree on a mediator. If they cannot agree, then the Owners shall request a panel according to the USA&M Rules. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally between the Owners. Each Owner shall be responsible for its own costs and fees therefor. The Owners agree to mediate in good faith. If the issues are resolved at this Step, a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by each Manager and ratified by their respective Board or Council. Step Three—Arbitration. If the Owners are unsuccessful at Steps One and Two, then the dispute shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules, then obtaining, of the United States Arbitration and Mediation Service of Portland, Oregon, and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in any court having jurisdiction Page 17—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TV WD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc Confidential from Attorney re Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00 thereof. The decision of the arbitration board shall be final and binding upon all Owners hereto, and there shall be no appeal to any court therefrom. Expenses of arbitration shall be borne by the losing Owner. Each Owner shall pay its own attorney fees in such arbitration unless the arbitration board orders otherwise. The Owners stipulate that the remedies at law in the event of any default or threatened default by either Owner hereto are not and will not be adequate, that such terms may be specifically enforced by a decree for the specific performance thereof or by an injunction against a violation thereof or otherwise, and that the remedies of specific performance and injunction will not impose undue hardship upon either Owner. The Owners agree that any arbitrator shall have the authority to order specific performance or to issue an injunction as provided for herein. 11.16 Entire Agreement This Agreement, including all attached exhibits, contains the entire and final understanding of the Owners and supersedes all prior Agreements and understandings between the Owners related to the subject matter of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owners have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CITY OF WILSONVILLE By: By: GREGORY E. DiLORETO ARLENE LOBLE City Manager Attest: Sandra C. King, CMC City Recorder Approved as to form: Approved as to form: r.ttomey Michael E. Kohlhoff, City Attorney for City of Wilsonville EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1 Warranty Deed Exhibit 2 General Configuration of Supply Facilities and Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 Exhibit 3 Allocation of Construction Costs Between Owners Page 18—AGREEMENT JAMy Documents\Willamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc w REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING Minutes of June 7, 2000 Dominique Bessee, committee clerk, called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers/Annex. Elected representatives from seventeen Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting (which is a quorum), including City of Beaverton, Clackamas River Water, Damascus Water District, City of Forest Grove, City of Gladstone, City of Hillsboro/Joint Water Commission, City of Lake Oswego, Metro, Oak Lodge Water District, Powell Valley Road Water District, Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy, South Fork Water Board, City of Tigard, City of Tualatin, West Slope Water District, and City of Wilsonville. Consortium member agencies not represented by elected officials at this meeting included the City of Fairview, City of Gresham, City of Milwaukie, Mt. Scott Water District, City of Portland, Raleigh Water District, City of Sherwood, Tualatin Valley Water District, and City of Wood Village. Ms. Bessee explained that Robert's Rules of Order indicates that the clerk of the committee shall call the meeting to order in the event the Chair and Vice-Chair are unable to attend a meeting, and the committee will elect a Chairman Pro Tem immediately. Rob Kappa, former Consortium Board Chair, resigned his position on the Milwaukie City Council and the Board Vice-Chair was unable to attend this meeting. Ms. Bessee invited suggestions for Chairman Pro Tem. Election of Chairman Pro Tem: Councilor Kent Seida suggested that Commissioner Les Larson serve as Chairman Pro Tem. The Consortium Board approved his appointment. Introduction: The Chairman Pro Tem called for introductions. Those in attendance included Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District; Mike Rosenberger and Carla Ralston from the Portland Water Bureau; Councilor Dave Frechette and Rob Foster from the City of Forest Grove; Councilor Susan McLain and Mark Turpel from Metro; Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto and Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District; Commissioners Bruce Fontaine and Paul Rogers, and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; District Board President John Huffman and David Gilbey from Powell Valley Road Water District; Commissioner Les Larson and Katherine Willis from Oak Lodge Water District; West Linn Mayor Jill Thorn and Dan Bradley from South Fork Water Board; Councilor Ellie McPeak and Joel Komarek from the City of Lake Oswego; Councilor Katharine Forrest and Mike McKillip from the City of Tualatin; Councilor Paul Hunt and Ed Wegner from the City of Tigard; District Board President Bill Crandall and Tacy Steele from the City of Hillsboro/Joint Water Commission; John Thomas from North Clackamas County Water Commission/Mt. Scott Water District; Councilor.Kent Seida and Denny Klingbile from Damascus Water District; Councilor Forrest Soth from the City of Beaverton; Councilor Carl Gardner from the City of Gladstone; Councilor Don Allen from the City of Sandy; District Board President Pat Stallings and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD; David Rouse and Keely Thompson from the City of Gresham; Mayor Charlotte Lehan, District Board Council President John Helser, and Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville; • Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 2 Lisa Obermeyer from Montgomery Watson, Inc.; Tim McNichol from Trudy Cooper& Associates; Steve Willey from Greenleaf Nursery; Jim Hansen from Tigard Citizens for Safe Water; and Lorna Stickel, Rebecca Geisen, and Dominique Bessee from the City of Portland/Consortium staff. Election of Officers: The Chairman Pro Tem called for nominations for Consortium Board Chair. Commissioner Les Larson and Commissioner Bruce Fontaine were nominated for Consortium Board Chair. A motion was made, and seconded, to close the nominations. Lorna Stickel suggested that the Consortium Board conduct a roll call vote. Mayor Charlotte Lehan suggested that the nominees provide a brief statement of their interest. Commissioner Larson said he was surprised by the nomination for Board Chair but would be pleased to serve in this capacity. He noted that he has regularly attended Consortium Board meetings since the Consortium was formed, and is well acquainted with Consortium activities. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine said he is interested in being Consortium Board Chair, and has been actively involved in Consortium activities since 1997. He said he would like to see the Consortium attain the vision set out in the Consortium Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) and Bylaws, and become a nationally recognized group of water provider agencies that achieves the goals in the draft Five-year Strategic Plan. A roll call vote was conducted. The Consortium Board voted (9:7:0) in favor of Les Larson becoming the Consortium Board Chair. (The elected representative from-Forest Grove arrived after the voting.) District Board President Pat Stallings and Harvey Barnes requested a recount. Consortium staff confirmed the initial vote tally by voice, and Commissioner Les Larson became the Consortium Board Chair. Chair Larson called for nominations for Consortium Board Vice-Chair. District Board President Pat Stallings nominated Commissioner Bruce Fontaine for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Fontaine nominated District Board President Stallings for Vice-Chair. Ms. Stallings deferred the nomination to Commissioner Fontaine citing his wealth of experience. Lorna Stickel pointed out that the Consortium Bylaws do not allow participants from the same County to be concurrent Board Chair and Vice-Chair. She pointed out that Commissioner Fontaine is unable to serve as Board Vice-Chair since both he and Chair Larson represent agencies in Clackamas County. Ms. Stallings accepted the nomination. A motion was made,and seconded, to close nominations. The Consortium Board voted unanimously to approve Pat Stallings as Consortium Board Vice-Chair. (17:0:0) Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 3 Approval of Minutes: A motion was made and seconded for the Consortium Board meeting minutes of March 1, 2000 to be approved. The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes as written. Comments by Ex-Consortium Board Chair: Rob Kappa, former Consortium Board Chair, commented that he had made some good personal decisions over the last several months that have not proven to be as good for political reasons. Mr. Kappa referred to the recent withdrawal of Canby Utility Board from the Consortium, and discussions currently underway regarding Metro's continued membership. He said he hopes that the Consortium will remain intact, and resolve any real or perceived issues that could separate the water provider agencies or cause conflict. Mr. Kappa noted that the Consortium represents over 1 M people in the Portland metropolitan area, and the collective agency has a powerful voice that could be used to help shape regional and state-wide water issues and how the area will develop. He suggested that the Consortium look to the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) and the draft Five-year Strategic Plan for guidance. Mr. Kappa commented that the Consortium has a great deal of available resources and expertise, and some very good staff. He said he has enjoyed his time with the Consortium and will miss his involvement in water issues as an elected official although he planned to continue his participation as a citizen. The Consortium Board responded to Mr. Kappa's remarks with a round of applause. Public Comment: Steve Willey, Greenleaf Nursery, expressed his appreciation to Metro Councilor Susan McLain who invited his comments at this meeting. He said his historic family- owned farm is located between Wilsonville and Tualatin, and the farm draws its sole water supply from wells that pull water from the same aquifer as the City of Wilsonville. Mr. Willey commented that although his water certificates predate those held by Wilsonville, the Oregon Water Resources Department(WRD)has indicated that his access to the water supply could be limited, and perhaps prohibited, at some future date. He reported that static water levels in his area have dropped approximately ten feet over the last season, and WRD could assign a critical designation to the limited groundwater area. Mr. Willey indicated that his pumps would be turned off in that event and his business would be severely affected. He expressed concern for his water supply even if the critical designation does not occur. Mr. Willey reported that the new prison being constructed in Wilsonville will pull water from the same aquifer. He noted that other new construction continues in this area. He expressed doubts that the Willamette Water Treatment Plant will be able to meet demand needs in the near-term. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Willey said he believes that Wilsonville is depleting the natural resource through poor planning. He mentioned that agricultural and forestry zoned users are unable to connect to the municipal system, and asked for the Consortium's assistance in remedying the problematic zoning situation. He said he believes this situation could have been avoided if there had been better coordination and information sharing between local, state, and federal land use planning agencies and the general public. Mr. Willey asked Consortium member entities to share their resources with those who have had resources depleted by urban needs, and to work to ensure that all affected parties are considered in future decision-making. Mr. Willey urged the Consortium to work collectively and share information, and encourage public participation in decision-making. He asked that the Consortium entities to use their influence to help resolve this situation if possible. Mr. Willey thanked the Consortium Board for the opportunity to comment on this issue, and for its continued efforts to benefit the citizens of the Portland metropolitan region. Jim Hansen, Tigard Citizens for Safe Water, noted that the Tualatin, Tigard, Sherwood, and Wilsonville chapters of Citizens for Safe Water(CFSW) submitted comments on the draft Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy for Consortium Board consideration in advance of the meeting. Mr. Hansen said CFSW is opposed to the Willamette River being tapped as a water supply source because there are a number of other ample water supply options available to the region. He said citizens should have a voice in determining what water supply is selected to meet demand needs, and citizens should have the ability to voice support for an alternative that would allow them to pay for a particular water source. Wilsonville: Steps to Address Near-term Shortage: Mayor Charlotte Lehan said she was invited to make a presentation on water conservation and other actions being taken to address near-term shortages in Wilsonville. She said she is unable to respond to all of the complex issues raised by the public comments although groundwater levels have been declining in Wilsonville, and the city has been working to get off groundwater for years. Mayor Lehan reported that the Wilsonville City Council approved a Public Facilities Strategy (PFS)that will "ration"the issuance of building permits until the new Willamette Water Treatment Plant is completed in the Spring of 2002. The objective of the PFS is to allow new development to proceed at a rate that will not outstrip the City's limited ability to supply water. The PFS creates three categories of new development. Category 1 development includes projects that do not create any new peak season demand for water in 2000 or 2001. These developments will be allowed to proceed under the PFS. Category 2 development are projects that create new peak season demand in 2000 or 2001, and their owners are willing to sign a certificate acknowledging that they will not receive an Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 5 occupancy permit until after October 15, 2001. In that way, such developments would not be creating any new peak season demand until after the water treatment plant is on line in 2002. Category 2 developments will be allowed to proceed under the PFS. Category 3 development are projects that would create new peak season demand in 2000 or 2001, and their owners are unwilling to delay occupancy until after October 15, 2001. Category 3 projects would move through the development review process but not receive a building permit until the Community Development Director can certify that enough water is available to serve the project's peak day demand. Category 3 developments will be required to prepare a Wise Water Conservation Plan to demonstrate how peak day demand would be reduced by 20% or more. Mayor Lehan reported that Wilsonville has been very aggressive on conservation without devoting significant funding resources towards these efforts. She reported that Wilsonville has experienced a steady decline in summer peak day use since 1994 despite increased development. She attributed the decline to mandatory curtailments/water restrictions, monthly billing, and inverted block rates. Mayor Lehan talked about the door hanger program that is used to notify residents of over watering or watering that occurs at the wrong time of day/day of the week. She talked about other processes used to disseminate conservation information. She reported on the Save Water and Energy Education Program (SWEEP) demonstration program and the upcoming Conservation Fair that will have interactive exhibits that provide information about the latest in water- and energy-saving technology. Mayor Lehan said Wilsonville's goal is to make water conservation a permanent component of their supply picture. Councilor Forrest Soth commented that his purchase of a premium-efficiency clothes washer has made a noticeable difference in both his water and energy consumption. He said the high efficiency washers are well worth the much higher cost, and the purchase is eligible for an Oregon State energy tax credit. Mayor Lehan mentioned that there are a number of programs available that reduce the cost of the clothes washers, including discounts, rebates, and credits. Mayor Lehan reported that peak day demand in Wilsonville has declined from 5.2 MGD in 1994 to 4.5 MGD in 1999 with significant amount of growth in both commercial/industrial and dwelling units. Draft Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Report: Lisa Obermeyer, Montgomery Watson, Inc., noted that the Consortium Board received a presentation on the draft Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy (RT/SS) Report in March 2000. At that time, the Consortium Board directed the Project Consultant Team to issue the draft RUSS Report for review by Consortium member agencies and interested stakeholder groups. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 6 Ms. Obermeyer reported that the draft RT/SS Report review process is now complete. Input was provided at a public workshop on April 3, 2000, and nine Consortium member agencies and Citizens for Safe Water(CFSW)provided written comments. Ms. Obermeyer said the content of the RUSS has not changed much from the initial draft to the version now being presented for adoption. The basic principals of the recommended regional transmission and storage strategy continue to be to 1) Strengthen and develop interconnections between providers to improve emergency supply and reliability throughout the region, and 2) Develop further interconnections between and among water providers over the long-term while recognizing work to develop local water supply to meet more immediate needs. Ms. Obermeyer reported that written comments received from the member agencies support the priorities of the policy values in the draft RT/SS Report, as well as the near- and long-term strategies. Some member entities requested that the RUSS Report include a stronger discussion of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), and indicate that ASR is being developed at several sites in the region as a means to improve supply reliability. One agency requested that the RUSS emphasize that participation by the water provider agencies in the individual transmission projects is voluntary. Ms. Obermeyer indicated that there were a number of detailed comments that suggested technical clarification to the report, and these comments have been integrated. Ms. Obermeyer indicated that citizen comments supported the near-term strategy of improving water reliability through emergency interconnections. The CFSW and others pointed out the need for stronger discussion of ASR in the recommended strategy. The CFSW requested that the Interconnected Subregional Approach be revised to remove the Willamette River as a major supply source. Ms. Obermeyer reported that Wilsonville provided equally strong comments that the Willamette River should not be removed from the scenario because development of this source is currently underway. She said the important thing to remember is that the Interconnected Subregional Approach is the pathline of the conduits and the size of the scenario does not change whether or not the Willamette River is included. Ms. Obermeyer pointed out that all comments received about the draft RUSS Report are documented in the report section"Summary of Public Information and Involvement and Consortium Board and Member Input." Chair Larson asked how many members of the public intend to comment on the draft RUSS Report. There were no requests to make public comment on this agenda item other than that provided by Jim Hansen earlier. Councilor Forrest Soth pointed out an error in the proposed revisions to the draft RT/SS Report. He said the Joint Water Commission(JWC) Water Treatment Plant was recently expanded to increase treatment capacity to 60 MGD firm capacity and 70 MGD nominal capacity. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 7 Councilor Soth reported that the Beaverton ASR system is working very well and Beaverton anticipates being able to cut its need to draw excessive amounts from its share of the JWC to meet summer peak demand. There was a motion to adopt the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy with the proposed changes. The motion was seconded. Councilor Susan McLain commented that the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy does not address water rights or competing uses, including rural versus urban needs. She said she will support whatever decision is made, and hopes the Consortium Board will adopt a regional strategy that connects the majority of users in a positive way and includes support for mutual assistance with information and emergency back-up supplies. Councilor McLain said the recommended strategy does not include all necessary elements of a complete plan, and she hopes the next steps will address some of the unresolved issues. The Consortium Board voted unanimously to adopt the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy as amended by the proposed changes (17:0:0). Five-year Strategic Plan: Commissioner Bruce Fontaine reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) has met three times since the March Consortium Board meeting to refine the draft Five-year Strategic Plan. Commissioner Fontaine noted that the draft Plan identifies the following three key strategic challenges: 1) How do we facilitate the provision of adequate water supplies as a region; 2) How do we deal with emergencies on a regional basis?; and 3) How do we build the Consortium into a valued organization that helps water providers meet water needs and water emergencies. The key strategic challenges were derived based on responses to the Stakeholder Survey distributed last year to Consortium members and external stakeholder groups. The SPC also conducted a SWOT analysis over several meeting to assesses the Consortium's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Commissioner Fontaine reported that the SPC focussed on issues specific to the collective agency, and developed the strategic direction based on the stated purpose of the collective body. Other options were also evaluated to arrive at strategic goals for the key challenges. The draft Five-year Strategic Plan includes information about the strategic goals, evaluation criteria, resource implications, potential approaches, and consequences of not addressing an issue. The strategic goals are oriented around date specific actions for Board consideration. Commissioner Fontaine pointed out that the strategic goals are summarized at the end of the draft Plan to facilitate Board discussion in tonight's breakout sessions. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Fontaine indicated that the SPC will revise the draft Five-year Strategic Plan to reflect comments made at this meeting. The revised Plan will then be revised with input from the Consortium Technical Subcommittee and Consortium Technical Committee, and finalized for Consortium Board consideration for adoption in September. Lorna Stickel reviewed the basic ground rules for the strategic planning breakout sessions, which are organized by the three metropolitan counties. She introduced Tim McNichol from Trudy Cooper& Associates, Carla Ralston from the Portland Water Bureau, and Keely Thompson from the City of Gresham,who will facilitate the breakout sessions. Each group will begin discussion with a different key strategic area. Members of the public are welcome to attend either session, however no public participation will be allowed. Public comment will be taken after the Consortium Board reconvenes. Comments in the breakout sessions will be recorded on chart-pak pages. Participants in the breakout sessions will respond to the following questions: 1) What questions do you need to have answered to increase your commitment?; and 2) What key recommendations do you have for the Board to refine the proposed strategic goals? The elected representatives will then assign a priority ranking to the issues identified. Ms. Stickel said Board members could decide to extend the amount of time in the breakout sessions if there is consensus to do so. She noted that the Consortium Board meeting will need to conclude no later than 9:30 p.m. Consortium Board members departed for the breakout sessions. Comments voiced in those sessions were captured on chart-pak pages and are reflected in the summaries attached to these meeting minutes. The Consortium Board reconvened at approximately 9:20 p.m. Lorna Stickel invited a spokesperson from each group to report back. District Board President Pat Stallings reported that participants in the Multnomah County breakout session agreed that the draft Five-year Strategic Plan provides a good foundation for the Consortium. Participants in this group voiced no strong objections to language in the draft Plan, but noted that additional work will be needed to expand on some items, including a revisit of the Regional Public Information and Involvement Plan. Group participants said the Consortium should take a more proactive approach in the legislative arena on issues that can be agreed upon by the collective body. Participants in the Multnomah County breakout session talked about the need to maintain focus on the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy, and to establish an Executive Committee to improve communications between agencies and elected officials. Councilor Forrest Soth reported that participants in the Washington County breakout session echoed some of the same comments as those expressed in the Multnomah County session. He Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 9 said the Washington County participants noted the importance of Consortium Board members becoming better acquainted so that Consortium work can move forward. Participants in this group indicated that the Consortium should pay more attention to legislative issues, and arrange for elected representatives to testify before the Oregon State Legislature when important issues arise. Councilor Soth reported that the Washington County group supported the formation of an Executive Committee to attend to issues between the quarterly Board meetings. Members suggested that Executive Committee members could take an active role in communicating the Consortium perspective on legislative issues. He said the group indicated that staff should be included on the Executive Committee to provide technical expertise. Participants in the Washington County breakout session voiced favorable comments about the breakout session, and indicated that this meeting format allows for increased conversation and ability to meet objectives. Participants indicated that Consortium Board meetings should be restructured to focus on a few points in a concentrated manner rather than covering a wide range of topics. The group also identified the need for coordination between water provider agencies in order to respond to emergencies. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine reported that participants in the Clackamas County breakout session talked about the need to revisit public involvement strategies, and provide appropriate citizen involvement opportunities for citizens that have expressed interest in water issues. Participants in this group discussed ways to be more proactive with the Oregon Legislature, and how to determine goals and benchmarks for that interaction. He reported that participants identified a number of potential ways to measure success, including the number of Consortium- sponsored initiatives adopted by the Oregon Legislature and the Legislature perceiving the Consortium to be an information resource. Clackamas County participants also talked about the dynamics and communication problems associated with the frequency of Consortium Board meetings. In regards to the strategic issue area of Emergency Preparedness, the Clackamas County breakout group decided that the Regional Emergency Management Technical Committee (REMTEC), Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Department of Emergency Services should be included in the emergency preparedness strategy. He said the question to be addressed is how to determine who will lead this effort. Commissioner Fontaine reported there was discussion about whether the Consortium would form another entity to address emergency preparedness or work in a coordinated fashion with other agencies to share expertise in our respective areas. He said the SPC proposed an emergency workshop to be held later this year, and the Clackamas group questioned whether this timeline is realistic. The group indicated that the only way to test an emergency preparedness strategy is to test it. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 10 Commissioner Fontaine reported that the Clackamas County participants discussed the composition of an Executive Committee, and if it would be logical for the SPC to evolve into the Executive Committee. The group discussed the goals of such a committee. Commissioner Fontaine commented about the increased level of exchange between participants in the breakout session. He said the Consortium might have uncovered a new format for future Consortium meetings. Ms. Stickel indicated that there will be a three month period of time for the SPC to review the comments expressed at this meeting. The SPC will propose revisions to the draft Five-year Strategic Plan, and the Consortium Board will be asked to adopt the Plan at the next Board meeting in September. Board member are invited to review the draft Five-year Strategic Plan with their respective decision-making bodies over the next month or so before the SPC reconvenes in July. She indicated that the same offer will be made to those agencies not represented at this meeting. District Board President Stallings spoke on behalf of the other members on the SPC and thanked Consortium staff for their participation in the preparation of the draft Five-year Strategic Plan. Other Business: Lorna Stickel reported that Consortium staff prepared draft correspondence on the Metro membership dues issue. The draft correspondence encourages the Metro Council to reconsider its decision to eliminate funding for the Consortium in the FY 2000-01 Metro Budget. The correspondence was distributed for Board review earlier in the evening. A motion was made and seconded for the Consortium Board to approve the Metro correspondence. The Consortium Board voted unanimously to send the communication. Mayor Jill Thorn encouraged each member entity to prepare similar correspondence to the Metro Council. Councilor Susan McLain reported that the Metro Council voted 4:3 in favor of the budget reduction. She said the Metro Council grappled with the issue of why Metro should be involved in the regional water supply planning. She suggested that certain Consortium member entities might want to be more active in the letter-writing campaign and target their Metro district representative who voted in favor of the budget. Councilor McLain expressed her gratitude for the Consortium Board vote to send the correspondence, and encouraged the individual member agencies to send correspondence as well. Councilor McLain said she will present a budget amendment to carry the Consortium dues amount forward when Metro votes to approve its final budget on June •15, 2000. (Staff Note: The Metro Council voted 7:0 in favor of paying the Consortium dues on June 15, 2000.) Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2000 Page 11 There was a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded. The Consortium Board meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. The next meeting will be on September 6, 2000. Prepared by Dominique Bessee Clackamas County Breakout Session 6/7/00 The group reviewed the strategic goals on the Strategic Plan "Short Form." Listed below are the group's key recommendations and questions for the draft goals. Board members placed check marks by the recommendations and questions they felt were the most important. The total number of check marks any given recommendation or question received is indicated in parentheses. The bulleted goals on the "short form"were assigned sequenced numbers within each strategic area to facilitate identification of goals during the discussion. Meeting Water Needs Goal #3 - Review and Revise the Regional Water Supply Plan The 3rd sentence should read: ldeRtify Include appropriate citizen involvement opportunities for this process." (5 checks) Would this be forming a citizen committee? What other options are there for effective citizen involvement? What would be their involvement at board meetings? Goal #4 - Be more pro-Active with the Legislature (6 checks) What does being "more pro-active"with the legislature mean? How would we measure our success? Would it be: • The legislature knows we exist? Respects our role or the value we add? • The amount of feedback we get from the legislature about our role or input? • Issues we sponsor or oppose as a consortium pass or fail respectively. Is the ultimate measure the percentage of times the legislature comes to the consortium for information and advice on water related issues? Goal #6 - Review and revise the Public Involvement Strategy (1 check) The goal should read: "The public involvement strategy should be reviewed for effectiveness on an on-going basis." How will we measure the effectiveness of our public involvement efforts? Emergency Preparedness Goal #1 - Develop a Regional Emergency Preparedness Plan Should clearly state that this goal deals with integrating and coordinating water system emergency response with other public safety emergency response needs. It does not mean creating a separate emergency group or plan. Should clarify what role REMTEC, the Consortium and other emergency responders (FEMA, Dept of Emergency Services, City and County staff, etc.) would play. (5 checks) The target date for this goal might read "in coordination with the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy over the next 5 years. (i.e. goal #5 within this section)." That would connect the goal to other work that needs to occur. Goal #3 - Hold a regional Emergency Preparedness Workshop Target date for the workshop seems unrealistic. Could we put together an effective workshop by fall of 2000 given we are already in the summer of 2000? Goal #5 - Implement Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy (2 checks) Is the sequencing of this goal correct? Should local be occurring prior to agreement on a regional plan? Is it enough if local implementation is done with a regional focus? Overall Emergency Preparedness Goal When all is said and done, how do we measure our success in being prepared for emergencies? How does testing our effectiveness in responding to simulated emergencies fit into this goal? What would we be targeting or measuring to determine how successful we are meeting this strategic challenge?" (3 checks) Regional Partnerships Goals # 1-3 Improve Meeting formats, topics, communication methods. (2 checks) These three goals are methods ("how to's")for achieving the ultimate goal of improving member satisfaction and involvement which is alluded to in goal #5. Goal#2 - Improve meeting format and target agenda themes in advance Identifying issues in advance (especially legislative issues) was identified as an important method for increasing member involvement and participation. (6 checks) Participants stated they appreciated the amount and quality of dialogue today's break- out sessions produced. Goal#5 - Survey the Board and staff on Consortium effectiveness (2 checks) What is the goal we are trying to achieve through this activity? Is it: • Member satisfaction rating target? Percentage increase in member satisfaction? • Percentage attendance at meetings? • At least a quorum at every meeting? • Overall survival of the consortium? Goal #4 - Establish Executive Committee to replace the SPC (4 checks) What is the intended result of this approach? What problem is it solving? Is it to help the board deal with issues related to the infrequency of board meetings? How will an executive committee help deal with issues related to making decisions in a large and diverse board? Is an executive committee the best"solution" to improve board effectiveness?What other options might there be? (Break-out work sessions like today was mentioned as one approach.) If the executive committee is a good approach, what would be the most effective make- up, role, structure and authority of the executive committee? How would we measure if the executive committee approach was being successful or . not? Clackamas County Breakout Session Consortium Board Meeting June 7,2000 Participants in the Clackamas County breakout session included Commissioners Bruce Fontaine and Paul Rogers, and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; Councilor Les Larson from Oak Lodge Water District; Councilor Kent Seida and Denny Klingbile from Damascus Water District; Councilor Ellie McPeak and Joel Komarek from the City of Lake Oswego; Mayor Jill Thorn from the City of West Linn and Dan Bradley from South Fork Water Board; and Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville. Several citizens attended this session. Tim McNichol from Trudy Cooper& Associates facilitated the discussion. Participants discussed the goals identified in the key strategic area "Meeting Water Needs. " The group discussed how and when the public should be involved in the review and revision of the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP). The group decided to change language in the draft Five-year Strategic Plan to indicate that this strategy should "Include appropriate citizen involvement opportunities for this process" and public involvement opportunities should be tied to the same dates as the action steps in the strategy. Les Larson suggested that the Consortium could consider forming a citizen involvement committee. The group talked about how communication could occur between the Consortium Board and the citizens committee, and how the success of this public involvement activity could be measured. Participants talked about ways to be more proactive with the Oregon State Legislature, and how to measure the success of that interaction. The group identified a number of potential ways to measure success, including the number of Consortium-sponsored initiatives adopted by the Oregon State Legislature. Another indicator of success would be that legislators would come to view the Consortium as an information resource on water issues. The group suggested language to revise the strategic goal "Revisit the public involvement strategy for review and revision in 2003"to "The public involvement strategy should be reviewed for effectiveness on an ongoing basis." The Clackamas County group discussed the goals identified in the key strategic area "Emergency Preparedness. " Ellie McPeak referred to the strategic objective that would develop a regional emergency preparedness plan in coordination with the Regional Emergency Management Technical Committee (REMTEC) by the end of 2003. She questioned the need for the Consortium to work independent of REMTEC, and noted that this coordination would be critical during emergency events. Paul Rogers said REMTEC does not have a high level of detailed information about the water systems in the region, and it would be prudent for the water providers themselves to develop a plan to deal with Consortium Board Meeting Clackamas County Breakout Session Page 2 water supply related emergencies. Jill Thorn and Don Allen noted that many entities in the region have staff specifically dedicated to emergency preparedness and management. Don Allen explained that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) intended for this strategy to address emergency management of water systems on a regional basis, and in a way that would allow the water provider agencies to work in a coordinated manner to meet needs during times of emergencies. Some participants commented that the draft language suggests that a separate group will be created to address emergency preparedness. Bruce Fontaine said that was not the intent of the SPC. Ellie McPeak suggested that the Consortium focus initially on existing emergency plans and strategies in the region. Bruce Fontaine agreed that it would be worthwhile to invite a representative from REMTEC and/or the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give a presentation at a Board meeting. Jill Thorn asked if the timelines identified for this work are reasonable. She noted that most agencies devoted considerable time and resources to preparing for Y2K. After some further discussion about this strategic area,participants in the Clackamas County breakout session agreed that the draft language needs to be clarified to indicate that this strategic area concerns the coordination of water system emergency responses with other public safety emergency response needs. The group suggested that additional language could be added to include more information about the roles of the various agencies to be involved. Tim McNichol asked the group to consider how the Consortium would know if the emergency preparedness strategy is successful. Bruce Fontaine suggested that the next step could involve testing the emergency preparedness plan. The group discussed how the strategy could be tested with a simulated event, and how the success of that testing would be measured. Joel Komarek questioned the sequencing of the two strategic objectives that would 1) implement the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy (RT/SS) on a local level before 2) the Consortium evaluates an Intergovernmental Agreement to facilitate interagency coordination and response. The group discussed whether an implementation date is needed for the regional strategy. Some participants suggested that some activities could occur prior to the suggested timeline. Participants in the Clackamas County group discussed the goals identified in the key strategic area "Building a Better Regional Relationship. " Kent Seida asked about the purpose of the strategic objective that would establish an Executive Committee of the Board as a replacement for the Strategic Planning Committee. Bruce Fontaine said the formation of an Executive Committee would provide a venue for elected officials to Consortium Board Meeting Clackamas County Breakout Session ,k Page 3 communicate more frequently on relevant issues. The group discussed how frequently Board members would want to meet either as part of an Executive Committee or in smaller topic-specific subcommittees. The group talked about ways to measure the success of this activity. Jill Thorn asked if the SPC discussed other alternatives to an Executive Committee. She asked if the SPC considered the option of forming subcommittees comprised of elected representatives to address specific topic areas. Some group participants questioned if Board members would be able to attend an increased number of meetings. The group talked about the composition and authority of an Executive Committee if formed. Tim McNichol referred to the strategic objective that would conduct an annual survey of the Consortium Board and agency staff to determine the overall effectiveness of the Consortium. He asked about the purpose of this strategic goal. Kent Seida said he believed the immediate goal would be the overall survival of the Consortium group and keeping the agency vital. Bruce Fontaine and Paul Rogers said another goal could be to increase attendance and ensure quorums at Consortium meetings. The group brainstormed about potential incentives to improve attendance. Jill Thorn referred to the strategic goal that would implement meeting formats that allow for increased dialogue among Board members. She agreed there needs to be more verbal exchange between the elected officials, and said an improved meeting format might motivate Board members to attend meetings on a more frequent basis. The group talked about the overall success of the breakout session. There were a number of very favorable comments about the breakout session, and the open exchange that occurred in the smaller discussion group. Some participants suggested that an Executive Committee or smaller topic-specific subcommittee would be unnecessary if there is more discussion among Board members. Participants talked about the awkwardness of the configuration used for Board meetings, which was described as stifling to conversation. Some persons pointed out that the strategic goals that relate to improved meeting formats and communication methods are also ways to improve Consortium member satisfaction and involvement. Joel Komarek voiced support for the strategic goal that would establish primary agenda themes for meetings a year in advance. He said this activity would do much to enable the Consortium Board to be more proactive in the legislative arena, and help to identify areas of mutual advantage. The elected officials in the Clackamas County breakout group indicated their agreement with the issues captured on chart-pak pages by placing a checkmark next to them. The results of this "voting" activity are attached. Prepared by Dominique Bessee r Regional Water Providers Consortium Board r Meeting of Wednesday,June 7,2000 at Metro 5-Year Strategic Plan Draft Strategic Goals Breakout Sessions Multnomah County Facilitator: Keely Thompson,City of Gresham } Meeting Water Needs 3 • Merging the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition with the Consortium is a significant step forward. 3 • Develop a procedure on how to combine all voices into one voice regarding legislative issues. (It will be important to determine how to speak with one voice regarding legislative issues.) 3 • The timing of meetings can make it difficult for a board member to make agency decisions. 3 • Adoption of a regional transmission and storage strategy is important. 3 • Updating the Regional Water Supply Plan is important. 3 • Citizen involvement is important and valued by agencies.(Citizens need to know we are listening to them.) Emergency Preparedness 3 • Build on REMTEC's successes and experience. 3 • Develop inventory definitions. When assessing inventory, it is important to know that we are comparing"apples to apples". 3 • All five goals fit together well. 3 • Emergencies require many types of communication that need to be integrated. The plan for communication needs to be broadened. 3 • Some counties have different levels of plans already in place. 3 • It is important to create IGAs that identify who is responsible for what. 2 • Agencies not involved with the plan should be covered in some manner. Members of the group commented the Strategic Plan is a comprehensive report that required significant efforts. They believed the length of time the Consortium has stayed together is important to note. It was also noted the plan is intended to be a starting point. Building a Better Regional Partnership 3 • It is important to integrate other regional issues and look for overlap. Example: land use. 3 • It is important to build relationships within the Consortium body. Meeting only four times each year makes this difficult. 3 • An Executive Committee will be required for continued success. 3 • Strategic planning drives the work of staff and is the most important goal. 2 • Increase Board participation via specific,voluntary assignments. 3 • The Board and Chairs should visit other agencies that have difficulty participating. Members of the group believed it important for the organization to look outside itself for examples and assistance.No need to reinvent the wheel. We can learn from others. w Multnomah County Breakout Session Consortium Board Meeting June 7,2000 Participants in the Multnomah County breakout session included District Board President Pat Stallings and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD, Councilor Susan McLain from Metro, District Board President John Huffman and David Gilbey from Powell Valley Water District, Mike Rosenberger from the Portland Water Bureau, and David Rouse from the City of Gresham. A citizen also attended the session. Keely Thompson from the City of Gresham facilitated the discussion. The group focused initially on the key strategic area "Emergency Preparedness. " Pat Stallings reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) gave great thought to the purpose of the draft Five-year Strategic Plan, and believes that each of the three strategic areas are of equal importance and should be undertaken as a unit. Mike Rosenberger said the five objectives identified for the Emergency Preparedness strategic area are comprehensive and hold together well. Susan McLain pointed out the need to further clarify the strategic goal "Propose a menu of actions to improve communication among water providers and other key stakeholders during and after emergencies." She said communication during times of emergency will need to occur via a variety of tools and in an integrated manner. Other group participants agreed with these comments. Mike Rosenberger suggested that some emergency prepared issues could be addressed by an Intergovernmental Agreement among the water provider agencies. David Rouse asked if the SPC considered non-Consortium member water provider agencies in the Portland metropolitan area. Such agencies would include Canby Utility Board, Lorna Water Company, Interlachen Water District, Lorna Water District, and Troutdale. Mike Rosenberger pointed out that the draft Strategic Plan identifies the key affected stakeholders as being the water provider entities that comprise the Consortium. He acknowledged that there are other stakeholder agencies that could be involved in Consortium emergency preparedness activities, including other water provider agencies, and police and fire departments. He said the Consortium will consider how to integrate those stakeholder groups when the Consortium begins to flesh out the details of the Plan. The Multnomah County breakout group focused next on the key strategic area,Building a Better Regional Partnership. Keely Thompson invited the group to think about key questions and/or recommendations that their agencies would have if this strategic area is to be supported. Mike Rosenberger said it is important for the Consortium to research and learn from activities underway in other parts of the United States. He said the Consortium should determine if there are shared/overlapping responsibilities with other types of agencies in the tri-county area. Susan Multnomah County Breakout Session 6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting Page 2 McLain said the Consortium would benefit from looking at how additional issues can be integrated into the strategy (i.e. land use and full community concerns), and work to identify overlapping areas. She commented that this activity would help to build better relationships with external agencies. John Huffman talked about the need to first build better relationships between the Consortium member agencies themselves before focusing on external relationship issues. Pat Stallings agreed with these comments. She said the Consortium should look for ways to improve communication and information sharing between the elected officials on the Consortium Board. Pat Stallings talked about the difficulty that the elected representatives encounter when they gather for decision-making on a quarterly basis with a limited base of information. Pat Stallings referred to the strategic objective to establish an Executive Committee. She commented that the draft Five-year Strategic Plan would not exist if not for the efforts of the SPC. She pointed out that it would have been nearly impossible for the Consortium Board to prepare a draft document like the draft Plan given the Board's size and meeting schedule. Pat said an Executive Committee is needed to provide leadership and prepare similar types of documents/educational materials. She said she feels strongly that the continued success of the Consortium will be based on monthly meetings of an Executive Committee. Mike Rosenberger asked about the composition of an Executive Committee. Pat Stallings said the Consortium Board would determine the composition of the committee if the concept is approved. Mike Rosenberger said he believes that the most important goal within this particular strategic area is for the Consortium Board to conduct strategic planning sessions each year prior to the budget process. He said these activities will drive the work of the Consortium, and serve as a springboard for policy-driving the organization. John Huffman said he believes that an Executive Committee will help to focus the Consortium work. Pat Stallings commented that Board members need to participate more actively in Consortium activities and provide consistent leadership. She said she believes that an Executive Committee will achieve both of those goals. David Rouse said he believes the draft Five-year Strategic Plan identifies an equally important. strategic objective that would have Consortium officers attend meetings of Consortium member entities unable to attend Consortium meetings on a regular basis. He talked about the importance of the Consortium entities remaining united, and the need to tout the benefits of the regional partnership. Other participants agreed with these comments and talked about the importance of maintaining open lines of communication. Multnomah County Breakout Session 6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting Page 3 The group decided that participation among Board members will be increased through an Executive Committee and/or voluntary ad hoc subcommittees that are focused on specific issues. Participants in the Multnomah County breakout session talked about the key strategic area, "Meeting Water Needs. " Mike Rosenberger said he believes that the objective of implementing the regional conservation program by effecting the merger of the Consortium and Columbia- Willamette Water Conservation Coalition was a major step. Susan McLain and others agreed with this comment. Susan McLain referred to the strategic objective for the Consortium to be more proactive in the legislative arena by interacting more as a body to determine areas of mutual advantage. Mike Rosenberger said that while there is probably significant support for this objective, the issue will concern how to implement this strategy while recognizing the difficulties associated with the diverse group. Pat Stallings said this strategic objective means the Consortium will need to improve the procedure that takes the collective voice of the Consortium entities to the State Legislature. John Huffman talked about how difficult it is for Consortium Board members to speak impromptu for their respective decision-making bodies at Board meetings. Pat Stallings said the system would work best if the elected officials received prior approval from their agencies to make decisions at Consortium Board meetings. David Rouse referred to the strategic objective to adopt the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy. He commented that the Consortium has taken an important step at this meeting with the adoption of this strategy. Pat Stallings asked participants in the Multnomah County breakout session to indicate if there is objectionable language in the draft Five-year Strategic Plan. Lorna mentioned that Consortium member entities will have a three month period of time to review and discuss the draft Five-year Strategic Plan with their decision-making bodies. Susan McLain commented that the strategic objective to review and revise the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP) is important. She said the RWSP should be updated to reflect new circumstances and resources. Mike Rosenberger agreed that updating the RWSP is important, particularly in regards to the language which indicates that regional decisions will be made concerning reliability, and these decisions will be cornerstones for the regional strategy. Susan McLain commented that the Consortium values citizen involvement. She said there are ways to improve the Consortium Public Information/Involvement Plan so that citizens believe their input is important and valued. John Huffman and others agreed with these comments. Multnomah County Breakout Session 6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting Page 4 The elected officials in the Multnomah County breakout session indicated their agreement with the issues captured on chart-pak pages by placing a checkmark next to them. The results of that "voting" activity are attached. Prepared by Dominique Bessee m Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Draft Five-year Strategic Plan Breakout session June 7,2000 Washington County Facilitator: Carla Ralston,Portland Water Bureau Votes Strategy..,, Building a Better Regional Partnership: 4 Acquaintanceship with other members has worked to work through potentially divisive issues. 1 1) Hard to disagree. Hold proceeding budget concerns -- December/January. Possibly two meetings. Facilitate budget process. Focus staff and Board. 7 2) This would help get dialogue going - it's difficult with current format. Small group is producing more discussion tonight. • Look at different formats for different types of issues throughout the year. 3) Commitment to link with other entities - not at meeting. 2 • Bring new members up-to-date when Board members change. 6 • At each meeting focus on a few providers to present issues from their entity, rotating throughout the year. To keep us updated on what's going on with others. • Staff members do meet frequently outside Consortium. Some providers meet outside. 6 4) Establish an Executive Committee of the Board -- Who will make-up this committee? When? What is the role/authority as far as the Consortium is concerned? Agenda? This could move things along between formal meetings. Legislative voice requires more frequent actions than quarterly. 1 • Consortium is new and we need some history to gain trust in handing over authority. 7 • Include staff in Executive Board for support and technical proficiency. 1 5) We did that this year. Some of us turned them in. Led to this process. We want to continue. 2 6) Starting to build relationships with Emergency Management groups - Continue this. 2 • Bring Emergency Preparedness to Council levels. Some agencies are more prepared than others. What other issues that we aren't focusing on now are identified? 1 �i 6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting Washington County Breakout Session Page 2 Votes Strategy Building a Better Regional Relationship: (cont.) 1 7) Review staffing per IGA. Meeting Water Needs 4 1) Develop implementation schedule. 2) Full-cost staffing - Yes or No? 3 3) Regional Plan Revision. (Review required every five years by IGA.) Scope of work in this budget. Update trends and stats/staff and consultants. I • Caution: That it becomes overwhelming in time and $, Cost by % as dues are. That we get too wrapped up in revision at cost (time and $) to other projects. 4 4) How would we get more involved legislatively? Lobby? Executive Committee? We represent over 1 M users. There are staff people at agencies. We need to be able to quickly respond to legislative issues. • Legislature responds more to elected'officials than to staff. 4 • Executive Board could fill this role. 1 • Source Water Protection Strategy -- Continue. 4 • Public Involvement Strategy - Gotta have it. Washington County Break Out Session Consortium Board Meeting June 7, 2000 Board members and staff present included: West Slope: A.P. DiBendetto Jerry Arnold Tualatin: Katharine Forrest Mike McKillip Tigard: Paul Hunt Ed Wegner Hillsboro: Bill Crandall Tacy Steele Beaverton: Forrest Soth Forrest Grove:David Frechette Rob Foster TVWD: Greg DiLoreto Wilsonville: Charlotte Lehan John Helser Jeff Bauman Strategy - Regional Partnerships.- The artnerships:The facilitator asked the Board members for their comments on the strategic goals for the strategy: Building a Better Regional Partnership. Some general comments were made. Forrest Soth from Beaverton noted that it was important that Board members become acquainted with each other, learn each others background, to build relationships. Dave Frechette from Forrest Grove asked about the composition of the executive committee, and authority and role they would have. The group decided to address each bullet item in order(referred to as SG# 1-8). Washington County Breakout Session 6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting Page 2 SG #1: Spend at least one Board meeting focusing on strategic planning issues prior to the budget process. Forrest Soth suggested that we hold issues meeting in December or January to precede budget discussions. He added that this strategic goal would help focus the efforts of staff and the Board. A participant agreed this would help facilitate the budget process. SG#2: Meeting formats Dave Frechette thought it was a good goal and agreed that the Board needs to be more engaged and have more dialog. Forrest Soth asked if the concept is to have topics at each meeting? Greg DiLoreto responded that the point of this goal is to focus on meeting formats to engage Board members and to also explore meeting topics and themes. There was general agreement that this was important and we needed to work on this. Forrest Soth noted that the meeting format would depend on what was being discussed. SG#3: Communication methods People thought this was like the previous goal. Greg DiLoreto added that this goal encourages Board members to meet externally. For example, Board members could meet with colleagues that missed a meeting. This goal would ask Board members to make a commitment to link with other members. Dave Frechette said that it is often difficult to inform the rest of the City Council about what is happening at the Consortium. Maybe this would be good opportunity to have staff or Board members give a presentation to respective Boards and Councils. This is reflected in SG#8. Forrest Soth also noted that when membership changes and new Board members get involved there should be a protocol where the old Board member informs the new member about what is going on. Charlotte Lehan noted that the Consortium Board meetings used to have a time where everyone would go around the room and talk about newsworthy items, but it was unsuccessful. Maybe each month a couple of providers could give a brief update on their entity. Everyone knows what Wilsonville is up to since they are in the news, but if you aren't in the news, you often don't know what is going on with each other. Greg DiLoreto mentioned that there are numerous forums for the Water Mangers to keep each other informed, but it doesn't happen at the Board level. Bill Crandall of Hillsboro said that a group of providers meet in his region. SG#4: Executive Committee (EC) Forrest Soth asked if the EC could act on issues between meetings? Ground rules would have to be established. He felt the EC would be a good way to make interim decisions if necessary as we are limited by quarterly meetings. Washington County Breakout Session 6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting t Page 3 A meeting participant reminded everyone that there was concern when this was brought up earlier that no one wanted to be left out of the decision making process, so there was no executive committee. Dave Frechette asked if the SPC is sort of playing this role now? Perhaps the EC could set Board meeting agendas. Forrest Soth recommended that in formulating the roles and responsibilities of the EC that we ensure they are public meetings. They could also be relied upon to offer opinions to the Board, if needed. Mike McKillip said that the intent was also that the EC might be a good way to be more engaged in the legislative process and could be liaisons with legislative issues since there is so much time between Board meetings. We need a way to respond quickly. Greg DiLoreto reminded everyone how difficult it was to recruit members for the SPC. Rob Foster thought that since this group was still in its infancy,they may not be ready to hand over any power to an EC. Maybe after more time has past and the group has more confidence and history with each other. Ed Wegner commented that this break-out session has had more dialog between Board members than in the whole meeting. It ties in with SG#2. Paul Hunt voiced his concern that staff are not as involved as Board members. He cautioned that if staff wasn't involved then he couldn't be as up to date and useful. They are an important technical resource. SG#5 Board Survey: There was general agreement that this was a good idea and served as a good catalyst for the strategic planning process. SG#6 Strategic Issues Focus: Forrest Soth asked what conversations had taken place with emergency managers. Rebecca Geisen gave a brief update on the Emergency Survey Results and coordination with the Regional Emergency Mangers Technical Committee (REMTEC). Charlotte Lehan asked about conservation as a key strategy since it was not listed. The facilitator asked if there were other key issues. Federal requirements such at the ESA may also be a key issue. There was general agreement about this goal. SG#7: Review staffing IGA Everyone was in agreement and it was noted that we have to do this under the IGA. SG#8: Attend provider entity meetings: There was general agreement that this was necessary and a good idea. Strategy: Meeting Water Needs SG#l: Adopt regional transmission strategy Washington County Breakout Session y 6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting Page 4 This task has already been completed at tonight's meeting. Charlotte Lehan noted that we need to develop a schedule for where we go from here. SG#2: Implement regional conservation/staffing Charlotte Lehan asked if we weren't already implementing this strategic goal. It was clarified that this goal goes beyond integrating the Coalition and Consortium, but also includes ramping up to fund staff. The additional cost implications generated discussion. There were comments stating that it would depend on the method of assessment and impacts on individual budgets. Everyone would have to contribute to the cost of staffing. SG#3: Review and revise RWSP There were comments that this was a big and expensive proposition, but required as part of the IGA. Forrest Soth noted that it would require lots of updating of trends, statistics, forecasting and would require staff and consultant time. Charlotte Lehan cautioned that this not get overblown and take time and money from other projects that the Consortium deems important. Staff noted that this year's work program allows for the preparation of a scope of work for revising the plan so the Board will have a better idea of what would be involved and how much it would cost. There was concern over the cost and how it would be paid for. There might be significant impact on smaller providers, especially in conjunction with the ramped up conservation staffing. Forrest Soth agreed that the update should not drive the actions of the Consortium at the expense of other programs. SG#4: Be more proactive in the legislature Dave Frechette asked how do we accomplish this goal?Do we hire a lobbyist?It was clarified that the intent was to get individual Board members and staff involved, testify, if needed, on important bills and comment on legislation affecting the region's water providers. This may be dependent on an executive committee to keep track of. Staff noted that some providers have staff that act as legislative liaisons and this could tie into existing resources. Forrest Soth noted that this is good because often an elected official has more clout in front of the legislature. Dave Frechette asked how we stay informed now? Staff responded that big issues are followed and reports are made to the CTC. SG 45: Continue implementation of Source Water Protection Strategy There was general agreement that this was necessary. SG 46: Retain ability of water providers to manage their supplies There was general agreement that this was a good strategy. It was noted that the public involvement strategy should be revisited in 2003. Elected officials checked issues on the chart-pac that they felt were important. End of session Prepared by Rebecca Geisen MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON P. TO: Ed WegnerVA f. f ! ' C,'IJ U I 2000 b-ROM: Bill Monahan DATE: July 5, 2000 SUBJECT: Bob Santee Letter Attached is a letter which Bob Santee recently sent to Emily Tsao of the Oregonian. I will include a copy of this letter in the next Council Newsletter. I:�ADWBILOSANTEE LETT ER-WEGNER.DOC 29 June 2000 Emily TSAO The Oregonian 1320 SW Broadway Portland, OR 97204 Dear Emily: I read with considerable interest your article about water supply to the Tigard area in The Oregonian on 22 June 2000. The contents of the article were factual and informative and I commend you for your efforts. I was the Administrator/Engineer for Tigard Water District during the period: 1969 to 1989. In 1969 the district was very small , relied upon four deep wells as the primary source of water, had 30% water losses due to leaky, rusty pipelines, and was the bellwether entity whenever a water shortage occurred in the Portland area. The Board of Commissioners , over the years, emphasized a desire to develop an independent source of water either alone or with other partners. It was their belief that the citizens should not endure continued "renting" of water over the long haul . Therefore, before me each day was this major problem of developing an independent source of water. Correcting the infrastructure was a major task in itself and we were able to replace all old and leaky pipes with ductile iron mains, adequately-sized; constructed several reservoirs, including the 10-million gallon tank located on Bull Mountain; installed ciajor (24-inch) mains to both Lake Oswego (for Clackamas River water) and Portland (for Bull Run water). Further, the fire insurance rating for the district was improved from 5 to 2, the best for a rural district. Still , the acquisition of an independent source of water eluded us. We tried to become partners with Lake Oswego but they were not interested. Of course, no one will ever own any part of the Bull Run system except Portland. When Scoggins Dam was constructed in early 1970' s we agreed to participate in obtaining water from that source (Upper Tualatin River) . Initially, Hillsboro Emily TSAO Page 2 was the only entity interested or with sufficient funds (and foresight) to develop this source of water. Reluctantly, Forest Grove came on board. Beaverton desired, at that time, to continue buying water from Portland. Our studies concluded that it would be economically infeasible for Tigard to participate in developing this source of water without Beaverton contributing its share of the cost of the pipeline. About five years later Beaverton opted to buy-in to the consortium with Hillsboro and Forest Grove. Immediately upon learning of this news I wrote to those officials at Hillsboro and asked if Tigard could become a member of the consortium. They claimed that there was not enough water for another entity and our request was denied. Still , we continued to look for another source of water. (although between the period 1972 and 1989 when I retired, the water district at no time incurred ANY water shortages) . The Columbia River was out of the question due to possible contamination of nuclear runoff from Hanford and also the distance involved. The Willamette River appeared to be the best alternative due to the relatively short distance to the river and because other entities to the south, such as : Tualatin, Sherwood, Wilsonville and Newberg would surely need more water in the future. As you are aware, the Willamette River option was resoundly defeated at the polls. On TV I heard some of the comments about this course of action by residents of Tualatin. They claimed that they wanted Bull Run water versus Willamette River water. I would agree with them if that were the real choice. But the choice is between the Willamette River or NO water. Furthermore, only Portland residents have a right to demand Bull Run water. I do not believe there is enough water in the Clackamas River to meet present demand and also serve Tigard and other entities south of the Tualatin River. The Scoggins Dam alternative is just too expensive to consider and I am not sure there is adequate water there. That leaves Portland as the only alternative to the Willamette River. One might think that Portland has an unlimited supply of water. Such is not the case. Furthermore, Portland Emily TSAO Page 3 has not improved the Bull Run system to any great extent since 1952 when the last conduit (4th) was constructed to the Bull Run lakes. (.One conduit has been abandoned) . In early 1970 plans were on the drawing board to construct a 96-inch (diameter) pipeline between the Bull Run lakes and the Powell Butte area. It never materialized: The wells along the Columbia River were con- structed instead to provide flexibility to the system. The Bull Run system continues to be vulnerable because of possible land slides, eruption of Mount Hood, etc. So, the whole Portland area is vulnerable if the Bull Run system should fail . Furthermore, the pipelines between Portland and entities near the Tualatin River are inadequate to supply those entities for too many more years. Re: Willamette River. When it was discovered that deformed fish were found between Newberg and Wilsonville I suggested to the planners/engineers that a site upstream from Newberg might be a better choice for an intake versus Wilsonville. This location would be upstream from the Newberg sewerage plant and the Smurfit Paper mill . I thought this site might be met favorable by the public. After all , Corvallis obtains its water from the Willamette River. The extremely high cost of wholesale water is one of the galling things about purchasing from Portland. For example: we buy water down here 'in -Palm Desert where water is obtained by both wells and the Colorado River (treated) at 59¢/100 cubic feet (retail ) . Tigard must charge between $1 .40 to $1 .44/100 cubic feet (retail ) just to break even. Portland makes a handsome (exorbitant) profit on sales of surplus water to outside users. In fact one could say that purchasers are getting "gored" when consideration is given to the fact that Portland incurs little expense in producing untreated water (except for chlorina=. tion and ammonia) ,and for the most part, water is delivered by gravity flow. Emily TSAO Page 4 So , in conclusion, I envision continued major problems with water supply to the residents of Tigard. (and it will be expensive no matter what course is chosen) . The outlook is grim to say the least. Over the years, the press, including The Oregonian and Tigard Times , has reported erroneous , misleading data and information about the water problems in the Tigard area. It was a welcome change, indeed, to read your accurate assessment of the options available to Tigard. I thank you. Sincerely, Robert E. Santee 73193 Trail Circle Palm Desert, CA 92260 cc : Administrator, City of Tigard PLEASE REGISTER DATE: July 12, 2000 MEETING: Intereovernmental Water Board Meeting NAME - (Please Print) (Do you wish to sneak?) Yes or No e kathy\\visitor