Loading...
04/12/2000 - Packet BOOK COPY Intergovernmental mazer ovarW WWWL11111 Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, April 12, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introductions 3. Approval of Minutes— February 28, 2000 March 8,2000 4. Credit Allowance Request—Tom Imdieke,Accounting Manage Kirkpatrick— 16226 SW Snapdragon Lane Shelton— 11955 SW 116`h Avenue S. Water Master Plan—Murray, Smith &Associates 6. Ballot Petition Initiative 47- Craig Prosser 7. Director's Report a. Water Supply update 8. Utility Manager's Report a. Budget 00/01 9. Public Comments 10. Non Agenda Items 11. Adjournment Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d), (e), (f) &(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 Annual Meeting Minutes February 28 2000 Members Present: Paul Hunt, Gretchen Buehner,Jan Drangsholt, Patrick Carroll, and Bill Scheiderich Norman Penner(TWD), Beverly Froude (TWD), David Strauss (TWD), Rhine (TWD) Joyce Patton (COT), Brian Moore (COT), Ken Scheckla (COT) Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller,Bill Monahan, Kathy Kaatz, and Jim Coleman Visitors Present: Jack Polans, Henrietta Cochrun and Jim Hanson 1. Call to Order The Annual Meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order on February 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken with all members of the Intergovernmental Water Board present as well as all members of the Tigard Water District Board and City of Tigard Counselors, Joyce'Patton,Brian Moore and Ken Scheckla. 3. Long Term Water Supply Options—Ed Wegner. Mr. Wegner began the presentation on long-term water supply options by stating that we have come a Iong way since we began pursuing these options 4 years ago. He continued to state that the Master Plan outlined four sources of water to be looked at which included the Clackamas with Lake Oswego,Portland,Willamette (collectively) and the Willamette (alone). There were eighteen,months of negotiations with Lake Oswego and due to the fact that there water treatment plant, located in West Linn,could not be expanded,negotiations were terminated at that point. The City of Portland stated at that time they were not interested in serving the Tigard water service area long term since we were not purchasing a substantial portion of water from them. We then began looking at the Willamette and completed a lot of work investigating and relaying that information to the IWB Annual Meeting Minutes February 28,2000 Page 1 a public. After about one year the City of Tigard teamed up with a group called the Willamette Water Supply Agency (WWSA), which was made up of members from Tigard,Tualatin, Sherwood, Clackamas River Water,Canby Utility Board,Tualatin Valley Water Board and Gladstone. This was directly related to the Regional Water Supply Plan, which called for pooling water rights on the Willamette, and began looking at the Willamette as a permanent source of water. At this same time, Portland began pursing the expansion of the Bull Run system and they offered to those looking at the Willamette to join them in the expansion of the Bull Run system. In September of this year there was an election in Tigard and the citizens of Tigard voted to amend the City Charter to require a vote of the citizens before utilizing the Willamette as a drinking water source. At that time the City of Tigard decided not to pursue an election and instead went to the Intergovernmental Water Board asking to delay any capital improvements on that project and they would begin investigating other options for long- term source. Mr. Wegner presented information regarding the Joint Water Commission,which is made up of the Cities of Hillsboro,Beaverton,Forest Grove and the Tualatin Valley Water District. Their water comes from the Barney and Scoggins reservoirs, which go to the treatment plant. Mayor Nicoli,Bill Monahan and Ed Wegner visited with the members of the JWC from September to November of 1999 during which time the needs of Tigard were discussed and some of the issues with the JWC. Some of the issues discussed were whether they would have Iong term water supply to meet our 2050 demand needs and some issues of ownership and joint custody of transmission system. The JWC is currently going through a cost allocation process. The JWC currently has a contract with the engineering firm of Economic and Engineering Services (EES) and Tigard has joined with them to study the feasibility of partnering with them. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that the first few years the relationship would be a wholesale water contract and would not be.a partnership. A partnership relationship would be offered when the source . (Barney or Scoggins) is raised which would allow more raw water into the treatment facility. No Water would be obtained from the Joint Water Commission until the year 2002 at which time we would be able to get up to 5 mgd by early summer if the following improvements have been completed: • Phase I &II of the 72"line constructed and placed(Phase I is currently underway) into service • Pump station installed to get water to Tigard Water would be pumped through Beaverton to Sexton Mountain(Murray Blvd) and into Tigard's 410 zone. The preliminary estimate expects the plant to be expanded in 2002. By the year 2005,Tigard could be receiving up to 8'mgd and by 2005-2010 would get 8- 15 mgd. Mr. Wegner distributed Table I—Summary of Facilities Requirements for Water Services from the JWC (attached). The JWC current analysis will include scenarios that will include Tigard as well as scenarios without our water service area. The difference IWB Annual Meeting Minutes February 28,2000 Page 2 { between these scenarios is 51 million dollars (to get water to Copper Mountain reservoir). Tigard would then have to get the water from the Copper Mountain or Sexton Mountain reservoirs to the water service area. Mr.Wegner outlined the major issues that were important to meet Tigard's needs, which include equity ownership, quality of water and cost. A meeting has been set for the later part of March to discuss their own capital improvement program but whether an offer will be made to Tigard. Mr. Wegner began discussing the possibility of obtaining water from the Clackamas River with the Southfork Water Board. The Southfork water board is made up of members from the cities of West Linn and Oregon City. They are looking at the prospect of obtaining potential long-term members to join them. Southfork looks at this . opportunity as a sub-regional plan that would benefit rates for,all users. They are also discussing this plan with the North Clackamas County Water Commission which members include Oak Lodge Water District, Mount Scott Water District,Damascus Water District and the City of Gladstone. Paul Hunt(COT), Patrick Carroll (IWB) and Ed Wegner(COT)began meeting with this organization in December. The four entities entered into a conceptual plan to pull together all the master plans and determine all the water needs and the amount of available water, This program shows there is substantial water available if all the entities within the Clackamas basin work together. During this same time period,Lake Oswego is currently updating their master plan and how they will meet the demands necessary for 2050 which is expected to be done by the end of May. They will have to decide whether to attempt to expand their existing facility, which will include a large river intake and better fish screening, or will they look at the option of joining in on the Southfork proposal. Another advantage for Tigard is that a portion of the infrastructure is already in place, running water from Southfork through Lake Oswego to Tigard through the Bonita pump station for up to 11 mgd. The Southfork Water Board met last Thursday evening and passed a motion (4-1 vote)to take the study and adopt a policy with the intent to expand the Southfork Water Board in offering membership to other communities. A recommendation will be presented to both the cities of West Linn and Oregon City to proceed along those lines. Mr. Wegner stated that the difference now from four years ago include: • JWC just recently began looking at their 2050 Plan and raising the dam, • USA also looking at raising the dam @ Scoggins to meet in-stream needs • Southfork looking at future as well as having new leadership within 4 years—look at developing partnership of neighboring communities • Southfork looking at the rate impact W. Wegner stated there is no cost projection at this time for the Southfork scenario and one of the next steps,will be to do a cost analysis. Another advantage of this system is that the intake is already in place, sized at full capacity on the river, so no additional permitting would be required. One obstacle will be another river crossing with the current one being on the bridge. IWB Annual Meeting Minutes . February 28,2000 Page 3 Z Mr. Wegner began discussing the Portland option by stating that Portland has selected EES to do some consulting work and the wholesale group is looking at hiring of a consultant to work with them. The members of the IWB received a white paper, draft 3, and informed that the last meeting of the wholesale group was held in December. The white paper will offer information on ownership and methods of funding arrangements. On January 14`h another component of their wholesale contracting included water conservation and a workshop was held. The motive for conservation and the wholesale contract will be to save water and defer the cost for the new source, maximize the current supply and could have some.bearing on how water is bought. Instead of peaking there may be a discount factor for amount of mater not bought. Portland did mention the option of adopting an increasing block rate. A letter was received from Mike Rosenberger, which stated that in the year 2000 their plan is to increase the momentum on work related to contracts. Mr. Wegner discussed the Willamette water option by stating.that members of the WWSA are continuing to meet with Wilsonville for discussion and the WWSA has assumed the role of the lead agency working with Wilsonville. The intake pipe and wet well were sized for 120 mgd however; the permitted structure will only be for 70 mgd. It was their assumption that the permitted for 70 mgd will go through easier even though it will be designed for full capacity. The capacity of 120 or 70 mgd will still allow the opportunity for Tigard's water service areas 20 mgd. Wilsonville at this time remains uninterested in joining WWSA. There has been discussion on an entity wanting to join in and partake in the plan, would they have the ability to buy existing capacity first or would they have to build new capacity? This matter continues to be discussed between Wilsonville and the WWSA. Wilsonville has awarded the design contract to Montgomery Watson and Tigard has withdrawn its Proposal to construct and TVWD has placed a Proposal to Construct that is very close to the original one outlined in the Preliminary Engineering and Supply Plan on the table, which was approved two months ago. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that the Tigard City Council has opted not to have an election at this time but to pursue other options, which is why there is talk commencing with JWC, Southfork,Portland, and the Willamette. Tualatin and Sherwood petitioners have successfully to place the revenue bond issue on spring election ballots in both cities. He continued by stating that an article in the Wilsonville paper noted that the Citizens for Safe Water were preparing to file an injunction to stop construction on the treatment plant which is currently set to begin in May of 2000. Mr. Wegner stated that these four options that Staff feel are still open for discussion with the JWC and the Southfork having very good potential since Portland is demonstrating the inability to continue with contract negotiations. IWB'Annual Meeting Minutes February 28,2000 Page 4 e s 4. Questions and Answers—Agenda Item #3 Chair Scheiderich requested questions from the Tigard Water District,which follows: David Strauss • Questioned the ownership issue with Southfork. Mr. Wegner stated that the Southfork Water Board have indicated agreement and are discussing equity ownership for North Clackamas, Gladstone,Tigard or Lake Oswego, although they will need approval from West Linn and Oregon City. Beverly Froude • Questioned going full circle with the same river(Clackamas.with Lake Oswego). Mr. Wegner discussed the advantage of having Lake Oswego in the scenario to cost share to cross river. Chair Scheiderich then asked for questions from Tigard City Council members as follows: Joyce Patton • Questioned with the Southfork options, who are the potential participants? Mr. Wegner stated that the Southfork Water Board includes the Cities of West Linn and Oregon City and the North Clackamas Water Commission includes Oak Lodge Water District,Mount Scott Water District,Damascus Water District and the City of Gladstone. •. One of the advantages of the Southfork proposal is that the treatment plants are already sized and they have taken care of the Endangered Species Act issues. Mr. Wegner stated that the intakes are taken care of but there will need to be a plant expansion even though the intake has already been taken care of to handle the expansion. Ms. Patton continued by questioning how the Endangered Species Act will be affected when there will be a requirement to have more water available for fish and the potential interaction with water rights? Mr. Wegner stated that the summary that MSA completed included the in-stream rights for fish,taking into consideration of Senior/Junior rights, there is still enough water. There is also an agreement that the Clackamas River Water District, which is not interested in the proposal at this time, have made with PGE (Timothy Lake)to release water into the Clackamas for additional in-stream flow that will supplement water taken for Tigard. • On the JWC proposal the issue of equity ownership would take place at a future point in time, how will this be affected? Mr. Wegner stated that the JWC presently does not have enough supply to grant membership,but after the capital improvements are completed we would become a partner. Ms.Patton questioned whether the JWC has gone to the extent of testing the premise of their ability to raise the reservoir levels in light of the Endangered Species Act? Mr. Wegner stated that the JWC completed a study utilizing Montgomery Watson two years ago for a proposal to raise the dam to two different levels (26 and 40 feet). One IWB Annual Meeting Minutes February 28,2000 Page 5 f of the significant issues is that Henry Hag lake is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and operated by the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District and they also need more water and will be able to get this accomplished. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that the Unified Sewerage Agency is also interested in pursuing the dam raising for in-stream flows for fish.and water quality for their treatment plants along the Tualatin River. • Ms. Patton questioned that since there have been no meetings since December with Portland, and a meeting was held in January on conservation, was one of the premises for the conservation focus with respect to capital improvement and long range plans? Mr. Wegner stated that Portland has always been interested in conservation within the region with the assumption that if conservation methods are in place today can put off supply issue. further: • Ms. Patton questioned whether Portland would be issuing any papers as they did on governance on some of the other issues? Mr. Wegner stated that they are attempting to tie ownership, governance and the capital all together and will issue A white paper on all four issues. Jan Drangsholt • Ms. Drangsholt stated she had read a paper from League of Oregon Cities on Long Term Supply Planning, which was very informative and stated that she felt all members should obtain copies. She read the following quote from the article: "It is absolutely essential for municipalities to secure long term water supply needs". S. Update on Water Rate Study—Mike Miller Mike Miller began his presentation on the water rate study that was presented to the Intergovernmental Water Board at their February meeting. He stated that Tigard has a contract with C112M Hill to produce and update the water rate study which will included the system development charges. What they have produced to date is a projection of what the rates will look like. These figures do not include the cost of service element nor the SDC's,but strictly a cost of water. The forecast includes a baseline that includes no water supply project,but what rate increases will be necessary to continue to maintain the current level of service. When discussing a water supply project in the rate analysis, some revenues will need to be set aside more than likely in the form of revenue bonds. Mr. Miller discussed the draft of the project water rate scenarios, which was provided by C112M Hill dated February 9, 2000(attached). IWB Annual Meeting Minutes February 28,2000 Page�6 .. i 1 6. Questions and Answers—Agenda Item#S Chair Scheiderich asked for questions from the various board members. Gretchen Buehner • Ms. Buehner questioned the difference between growth and how long 3% growth would last? Mr. Miller stated that 3% growth rate is projected to take us out to 2010-2015 when the growth rate will begin to level out. • Ms. Buehner stated that the scenarios with water supply project up to the 44 million costs would take up the costs just as being a wholesale customer. How much money is being lost this year due to the 1.2 million increase in water costs? Mr. Miller stated this is information that will have to be obtained from the Finance Department and we were able to place a couple of capital projects on hold to offset this increase. • Ms. Buehner questioned if we experience hot weather, will there be the potential to increase our costs from Portland? Mr. Wegner stated that operationally, yes there would be a potential for increase. Jan Drangsholt Does Scenario 1, include continuing to purchase from Portland and Lake Oswego and if so, what about the peaking charge?If the peaking charge is to continue then this chart meaningless. Mr. Miller stated that is why the Board and staff have considered a rate stabilization fund. Ken Scheckla How Iong are we under contract with Portland?Mike Miller stated that the contract with Portland was a twenty-five year contract that included the peaking factor and the contract is in effect until 2007. Mr. Miller stated we are currently paying Portland$1.23 until June 30 of 2000. July 1 of 2000 the new rate with Portland the new rate will drop down to .88/unit. Bill Scheiderich • Will the Southfork separate the proposals to member cities? Mr. Wegner stated he would find out this information prior to the next meeting. He did state that he believes that Southfork sets the rates for water and they charge it to the two cities and then the cities take the cost of water plus the distribution costs and passes that along to the users. • Mr. Scheiderich asked to clarify the proposal from Southfork. Mr. Wegner stated that Southfork is asking both the Cities of West Linn and Oregon City for permission to begin development of contract talks regarding equity ownership. IWB Annual Meeting Minutes February 28,2000 Page 7 f 7. Elected Official's Comments Commissioner Hunt stated he would like to emphasize the prospects of having immediate water rights with Southfork with a guarantee of water. Bill Scheiderich • Questioned what the infrastructure of Southfork and Tigard consisted of? Mr. Wegner stated the only infrastructure is between Lake Oswego and Tigard. There is no connection at this point between Lake Oswego and Southfork. • Questioned whether the connection between Lake Oswego and Tigard was a transmission main? Mr. Wegner stated that was correct from the Waluga Reservoir to 72nd and Bonita. Mr. Wegner stated there is an emergency tie between Lake Oswego and West Linn but it is not large enough intertie to get a constant flow of water. • Questioned whether the conduit under the Willamette presently serves West Linn and Lake Oswego? Mr. Wegner stated that serves just West Linn with the emergency supply for Lake Oswego. Jim Hanson,representative for Tigard Citizens for Safe Water questioned in Scenario 1, would the first ten years be to build reserves for a certain level or is there a target to build to? Mr. Miller stated that Scenario 1 would just cover the cost to purchase water, expected operation and maintenance and current capital project needs within Tigard. Jack Polars, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City. After listening to the water Master Plan, he questioned whether Mr. Wegner could guarantee that any of the Master Plans that the Citizens of the City of Tigard will vote for? Mr. Polans stated that the Charter will allow the citizens of Tigard the right to vote on what water they use. The Board clarified that this applied only to the Willamette River. It was noted that the next meeting of the IWB will be Wednesday, March 8,2000. Commissioner Drangsholt questioned whether CH2M Hill would be present to discuss the rate study. Mr. Wegner stated that they would be attending. Commissioner Buehner stated that she found this meeting to be very helpful and noted the importance of the various Boards and Council to be in attendance. . 8. Adjournment Motion.was made by Commissioner Dransgholt to adjourn the Annual meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board at 8:30 p.m._, with motion being seconded by Commissioner Hunt and voted upon and passed unanimously. IWB Annual Meeting Minutes. February 28,2000 Page 8 t Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2000 Members Present: Paul Hunt, Gretchen Buehner, Jan Drangsholt, Patrick Carroll, and Bill Scheiderich Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz, and Tom Imdieke Visitors Present: Angela Shultis, Dan Bradley, John Williams, Chris Uber, Phil Smith,Art Griffith, Henrietta Cochrun and Roel Lundquist 1. Call to order The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Roll call and introductions Roll call was taken with all members present with the exception of Gretchen Buehner who arrived at 5:35 p.m. 3. Approval of minutes—February 9, 2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Drangsholt to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hunt and voted upon and passed unanimously. 4. Credit allowance request— Tom Imdieke Tom Imdieke introduced himself as the Financial and Budget Operations Manager for the City of Tigard. Mr. Imdieke stated that he received a letter from Ms. Shultis requesting assistance from the City on her water account. He continued by stating that the Board had received copies of the letters written by the renter of the property regarding a leak. He stated that a leak was discovered on the property on January 7th, which was taken care of by January 15th. Mr. Imdieke stated he had prepared a handout to show the consumption history since they have resided at the property. Ms. Shultis stated that she received her first bill in October/November in the amount of$75 and in January she received a bill for over$400. Ms. Shultis stated after speaking with the Utility Billing Department and being provided with the maximum $165 credit she was told she could appear before the Board and request further assistance. Commissioner Hunt questioned whether Mr. Imdieke had compared what has been done in the past for consistency? Mr. Imdieke stated that credits in the past have been based IWB Meeting Minutes March 8,2000 Page 1 upon district average and to include the nine cents markup. He continued by stating that the average on this account has been 29 cf. Mr. Wegner stated that the Finance staff is allowed to give credit in the amount of$165 and the policy from that point is to appear before the Board. There was some discussion of the Board of the type of pipe that the home has, location of the leak, age of the home and the amount of the repairs (over $1,000). The Board did discuss that the repair bills indicated that the main line to the house needed to be replaced and according to Ms. Shultis, the property owner did not have those recommended repairs done due to the cost. Commissioner Hunt stated he would like Mr. Imdieke to check on the last request in order to be consistent. Commissioner Drangsholt made a motion to forgive the water bill above normal consumption, which was seconded by Commissioner Buehner and voted and approved unanimously. Commissioner Buehner recommended that Ms. Shultis inform her landlord that since she failed to do the repair recommended by the plumbing company, the Board may make a different decision in the future. Mr. Wegner introduced two visitors from the South Fork Water Board. He introduced Mayor John Williams from Oregon City who sits on the South Fork Water Board and Dan Bradley, General Manager of the South Fork Water Board. All the IWB Board members introduced themselves. 5. Water rate study— CH2M Hill Art Griffith from CH2M Hill presented the Water Rate Scenario update. The presentation outline included: • Changes since February IWB meeting: Have proposed water system budget available Revised projected capital expenses Better water use data available— Separate average use totals for Durham, King City, Unincorporated area, Mountain Gate, Tigard, and Hillshire Have not modified Scenario 1 Mr. Griffith displayed the projected residential volume charge on Scenario 1 beginning with the current $1.32 with five significant increases before leveling out. The rate increases required paying projected expenses as follows: • Increased CIP compared to past years • Increased water purchase costs compared to years prior to 1999 • Even with these rate increases, reserves balance decreases as per handout Mr. Griffith's presentation would include the following: • Review of Scenario I • Revised Scenario I rate projections • Add reserve account contributions to Scenario 1 rate projections • Bi-monthly water bill comparisons IWB Meeting Minutes March 8,2000 Page 2 Mr. Griffith stated that it would take between 8% and 12% increases for the next five years to meet reduced reserve funds. Mr. Griffith then displayed the water purchase cost comparison that was provided. In 1998/99 purchase water costs were a little over$2 million and in 1999/00 over$3 million dollars with a slight decrease for 2000/01 to just over$2.5 million. In 1999/00 it was understood that reserves would need to be dipped into to cover this increase. Mr. Griffith discussed collection of funds beyond what Scenario I projects for reserves. To collect an additional $500,000 per year for reserve which could be used for water supply project, revenue stabilization, to mitigate large unanticipated swings in the purchase price of water or for other capital improvements. Each $100,000 per year in capital reserve is an increase to the volume charge of 3.6 cents per ccf. He displayed the graph, which outlined volume charge per year for Scenario I and for the collection of the additional $500,000 per year. The effect is volume charges increases steeply over the next five years. He also displayed the same for an additional reserve contribution of$1 million and$1.5 million. The packet of information provided also showed the projected water system reserve balance and the impact of reserve account contributions. Mr. Griffith then showed the average residential water use based upon ccf per billing period for each of the following areas: King City, Durham, Unincorporated area, Mountain Gate, Tigard, and Hillshire. He then displayed a projected residential bi- monthly water bill based upon the average usage of 11 ccf(King City), 22 ccf(Tigard) and 36 ccf(Hillshire) for each additional reserve amount (base —>additional $500k/year--> $1M/year--->$1.5M/year). Mr. Wegner stated that another issue that will need to be considered is the Sizemore Initiative#47, which may be on the ballot in November. This Initiative will affect any fee increases for the past two years and would need to be referred to the voters for approval. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that Craig Prosser, Finance Director for the City will be at the next meeting to discuss this initiative. The Board discussed the amount of reserves that should be targeted with the following consensus: Commissioner Buehner stated that the only prudent option was to look at 1M reserve options, Commissioner Hunt stated the amount needs to be raised enough to stabilize reserves but was reluctant to increase to the 1.5 M reserves. King City average (11 cc Years Current Costs Projected$1M option Projected $1.5 M option 2001 17.65 23.38 25.36 2002 25.70 27.68 2003 28.31 30.29 2004 30.26 32.34 2005 32.37 34.35 IWB Meeting Minutes March 8,2000 Page 3 Tigard average (22 cc Years Current Costs Projected$1M option Projected$1.5 M option 2001 32.17 43.31 47.27 2002 47.55 51.51 2003 52.31 56.27 2004 55.86 59.82 2005 59.70 63.66 Commissioner Hunt stated that also to be kept in mind, although there is no relationship whatsoever, the consumer would also have an increased bill from USA for sewer. Mr. Wegner stated that Tigard does bill for water and sanitary together, however, the customers outside the City limits receive a separate bill from USA. Roel Lundquist, City Manager for Durham stated that the Boones Ferry Messenger had a comparative on water SDC charges as follows: Tigard$1,311, Wilsonville $2,681 with a projection of$3,505, and Tualatin $1,040. Commissioner Scheiderich stated that there are still two components to consider, SDC charges recommendation and rate structure. Mr. Griffith stated they are working on the rate structure although it is difficult without a water supply project costs. Mr. Wegner stated that after speaking with representatives from MSA, we could use the figure of$55 million for a WSP, which at this time has no name. Commissioner Scheiderich asked the Board to come up with a figure for the total reserves to create. It was the consensus of the Board members that they pursue $1.5M for reserves. Commissioner Scheiderich requested that CH2M Hill include in the rate study a proposed Lifeline element to assists those who will be unable to pay the increased fees. Mr. Griffith stated that this would be a policy decision. Phil Smith from Murray, Smith and Associates stated that the $55 million is a very rough estimate for implementing South Fork now to the total capacity of 20 mgd without participation of Lake Oswego with phasing being a very critical element. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned the figure for the Trask proposal. Mr. Wegner stated that the baseline was $51 million plus the cost to bring the water to Tigard. 6. Distribution System Hydraulic Study—Murray, Smith and Associates Mr. Wegner stated that Tigard has a contract with Murray, Smith and Associates to complete a hydraulic analysis of the system, which is similar to a master plan that will also include capital projects. He continued by stating that Chris Uber was present to bring the Board up to date on the status of the project. Chris Uber stated that he is scheduled to be at next months meeting to make a formal presentation of the draft and he continued by stating that he would briefly review the project and status report. He presented an overview of the project which includes the system that delivers the water throughout the system and provides water service and fire protection. There are a number of elements involved with this analysis which include: IWB Meeting Minutes March 8,2000 Page 4 • Gathering of info regarding existing facilities—this info is used to develop inventory • Review and update water demand • Establish analysis criteria (fire flow requirements for different areas) • Develop a hydraulic model Mr. Uber continued by stating that they have finished the model and are now beginning the preliminary analysis element of the study. Mr. Uber stated that overall the system is in very good shape, well constructed and well planned. There are some improvements that are necessary and some reservoirs that need to be added. There are currently no reservoirs in the 550 zone. There are needed improvements to be included with the capital improvement plan within the next 1-5 years on the western slope. Mr. Uber stated he would be back next month to make a formal presentation. 7. Director's Report Mr. Wegner began his presentation by discussing the information that was previously distributed, which included: • Various newspaper articles on the Willamette project in Wilsonville • Tigard Times Editorial—March 2, 2000 • Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy—copy of the executive summary presented to the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board • Copy of the Capital Improvement Plan adopted last year • Copy of comments by the Regional Water Providers Consortium on proposed 4(d) rules • Portland Preliminary Rate Information for fiscal year 2000-01 • Proposed budget draft—fiscal year 2000-01 Mr. Wegner discussed water supply by stating that not much has occurred since the last meeting of this group. He did stated that he will be meeting with Mr. Bradley tomorrow to determine the next steps to take in the evaluation process. The Portland wholesale customers group made up of members of Tualatin Valley Water District, Tigard, Tualatin, Gresham, Rockwood and West Slope have hired Integrated Utilities Group, a professional utility economist group based in Portland and Denver to negotiate on behalf of the wholesale group on the Portland contract. Mr. Wegner stated that they would be recommending to City Council next week to enter into a consulting contract for a little over$23,000 for the next 18 months to 2 years to work on seven different tasks that have been outlined. The next meeting has been set for March 17th with Bob Rieck. This contract is necessary if Tigard is to remain at the negotiation table with Portland. The total of the contract will be $150,000. Mr. Wegner stated that he has met with representatives from the consultant (EES) hired by the Joint Water Commission and they will make a presentation to the JWC in March and will make the same presentation to Tigard in June. IWB Meeting Minutes March 8,2000 Page 5 Mr. Wegner stated that at the last meeting of the Board, South Fork passed a motion stating, "the South Fork Water Board decided that they would adopt a policy to look into expanding the South Fork Water Board to other partners including Gladstone and the Tigard service area". This can only be recommended to the two cities, West Linn and Oregon City. They will be seeking approval on this motion from both cities in March. Mr. Wegner stated that he is hopeful that we will have a consultant on board, a final plan, costs and a consensus of the participating agencies by the end of the summer. Mr. Wegner stated that the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy information that was included in the packet is a part of the regional consortium will discuss the Clackamas River with a southerly route through West Linn, Lake Oswego or South. He continued by stating that this should not be confused with the discussions we are currently having with the South Fork. 8. Utility Manager Report Mike Miller stated that in the packet, Board members were provided a memo from Mike on the wholesale rates. This memo discussed the issue of what if the entire wholesale users peak at the same rate, which is exactly what, happened. The rates were higher than what was originally proposed back in June. His memo outlined what the increase would entail as far as contract language and the rate of return. Mr. Miller discussed the following project status: • Bonita Road casing work is complete and the 24" line in back in operation. During this project the telemetry line was damaged and we will be doing a directional bore under I-5 and replace the line. • Beef Bend Road project complete except for punch list items. • Clute property—progressing with partitioning within next 60 days. 9. Public Comments There were no public comments. 10. Non Agenda items Commissioner Hunt initiated a discussion on public relations when making our long term water supply options. It was the consensus of the Board that public relations are critical and discussed the need for preparing for this process. Il. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Hunt to adjourn the regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water meeting with a second from Commissioner Drangsholt. Motion was voted upon and passed unanimously. IWB Meeting Minutes March 8,2000 Page 6 CITY OF TIG March 13, 2000 OREGON Mr. & Mrs. Kirkpatrick 16226 SW Snapdragon Lane Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Account #003186-000 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kirkpatrick: I am writing in response to your letter dated November.11, 1999 regarding your utility bill. The process when requesting an additional credit on your utility bill is to place the item on the agenda for the Intergovernmental Water Board for review. The next meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board is Wednesday, Apri/ 12th at 5:30 p.m. This meeting is held at the Water Facility located at 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard. If you would like me to place this item on the agenda, please contact me at 639-4171, extension 339. If you have any questions, please contact meat the above listed number. Sincerely, Kathy aatz Program Assistant "13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223(503)639,4171 'TDD(503).684-2772: November 11 th, 1999 Craig Prosser City of Tigard- Director of Finance 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Prosser, On June 14th, a person representing the City of Tigard Utility Department read our meter and left a note on our front door explaining that we had a possible water leak. When we arrived home from work we found the note indicating that our water had been turned off. We called the telephone number that was listed and were told that we would be contacted by the person on call for after-hour problems. Several minutes later we received a call from this person who was on a cell phone calling from our nearby Albertson's store. He asked if we could see any visible signs of a water leak and my husband Dean checked it and told him"no". We asked if we could turn the water back on and he said"yes"and explained how to do it. After he explained how to turn the water back on,he said that he would send someone out the next day to check the meter again and would call and let us know if the leak was on our side of the meter or if it was on the city's side. There was no contact from the Utility department after that phone call and we assumed that the Utility Department had taken care of the problem. When we received our bill in August we were shocked at the dollar amount of$336.79 and called the City of Tigard Utility Department immediately. Dean spoke with the customer service representative and explained that we were told that we would be contacted if the leak was on our side. We were never contacted. We were told it was our problem at that point and after Dean asked what to do, she suggested that we call a plumber, find the leak and have it repaired. She also said that she would send the paperwork to fill out to dispute the bill and a possible credit would be issued. Dean said that we had other questions regarding the leak and she had someone on call contact us. In the mean time, Dean called a leak detection company and left a message on their answering machine. They called back within 30 minutes and we also received a call from the utility department. Both men suggested that we turn off our sprinkler system and see if the arrow on the water meter stopped spinning... If it did, they explained that the leak was more than likely in the sprinkler system. Dean did this and it stopped spinning immediately. The water to the sprinkler system was turned off at that time and the leak was located and repaired on August 28th. The point we would like to make is that if we had been contacted in June like we were told,we would have repaired the leak at that time. Because there was no contact, there was no reason for us to assume that the leak was on our side. We believe that we are therefore not responsible for the charges that were incurred by the lack of follow-through at the Tigard Water Department. Our water bills for the months of April through August `98 totaled$79.58 and we believe that the$100.00 we have already paid for the same time period is more than fair. We have already been credited$153.14 and would like a credit for the remaining $193.44. Sincerely, J� Dean and Jackie Kirkpatrick OF 'rlrp4 '0 CITY OF TIGARD 8777 SW BURNHAM ST. 0 PO BOX 230000 unuff UTILITY BILLING BILUNG f (503)639-4171 or TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 ""1 (503)639-1554 KEEP THIS PORTION DEAN&JACQUELINE KEWATRICK SERVICE LOCATION: 16226W SNAPDRAGON IN 16"6 SW SNAPDRAGON IN c CUSTOMER No. 003186-000 TIGARD,OR 97223 RES TYPE 7. A A, Mud 9-Z FROM 4/12/99 TO 6/14/99 0 - 696 AR CUSTOMER CHARGE 3.56 265 515 250 1.32 WATER CONSUMPTION 330.00 BOOSTER 3.23 FIRE 0.00 SUB-TOTAL,WATER BILLING=,. 336.79 SEWER BASE CHARGE 0.00 10.00 0.00 SEWER USAGE 0.00 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 0.00 SUB-TOTAL,SEWER BILLING= A t)() u336.79 280 240 0.00 260 3 0.00 160 0.00 120 8D336.79 E 40 0 JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE Is SUBJECT TO TURN OFF More information on reverse side ----------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---- ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- G OF TTQ,RO CITY OF TIGARD 8777 SW BURNHAM ST. UT,UTT UTILITY BILLING PO BOX 230000 BUNG1 (503) 639-4171 or TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 � © (503)639-1554 KEEP THIS PORTION SERVICE LOCATION: 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN DEAN&JACQUELINE KIRKPATRICK 16226 SW SNAP-D—RAG Nl rLwr _ CUSTomF-t N 903?>?6-090 TIGARD,OR 97223 v " TYPE RES FROM 6/14/99 TO 8/17/99 515 593 78 1.32 CUSTOMER CHARGE 3.56 WATER CONSUMPTION 102.96 BOOSTER 3.28 SUB-TOTAL WATER BILLING= 109.80 SEWER BASE CHARGE 0.00 10.00 0.0 SEWER USAGE 0.00 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 0.00 SUB-TOTAL SEWER BILLING 280 Ing Rj) 240 $ p 200 & 336.79 160 -153.14 120 7 50.00 80 r 243.45 40 0 JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV • ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF More information on reverse side NAME JAC13UELINE COWAN ACCOUNTNO. 1202570 SERVICE LOCATION 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN TYPE OF c SERVICE FROM 04/13/1998 TO 0 6°1 5/1 998 SERVICE RE.. METER,READING: SEWER?,;:;.: WATER. BILLING, ' PREVIOUS, PRESENT 100 :F CUT CODE.• CODE' AMOUNTS: 157 173 16 BOOST 3 . 23 CCF 21 . 12 CSTCG 3 . 56 SOON YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE PAYMENT FOR YOUR UTILITY BILL TAKEN OUT OF YOUR CHECKING 09 SAVINGS ACCOUNT AUTOM TICALLY . WE ARE CURRENTLY ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR THIS PR CESS. PLEASE CALL THE UTIL.L.TY BILLING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171 TO REQUEST THE .NECESSARY:' FORMS . THANK YOU . CURRENT.BILLING 27 . 91 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION 1 S PREVIOUS BALANCE, 18 . 21 SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS'PAYMENTS 18 , 26 RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF [TOTAL AMOUNT-DUE 27 . 9i KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT NAME DEAN & JACQUELINE KIRKPA4pgTWff NO. 1202570 SERVICE LOCATION 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN TYPE OF RES SERVICE FROM 06/15/1998 TO 08/17/1998 SERVICE .. ,:USAGE.IN, ,, SEWER, WATER BILLINGPREVIOUS : ` PRESENT:`:`z 100 CU..FT GOOF: CODE AMOUNTS 173 207 34 BOOST 3 . 2.3 CCF 44 . 88 CSTCG 3 . S6 CURRENT BILLING S1 . 67 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION 38 PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS `7 1 RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT To: Amanda B From: Jackie Kirkpatrick Fax number: 639-1471 Date: September 3, 1999 Subject: Water Leak This is to confirm what I said in our conversation on 9-2-1999. After our phone call to the City of Tigard Utilities on 8-12 regarding our water bill, we contacted several local plumbers and a leak detection company. Our phone call was returned by the water department and also by a leak detection company and both suggested that we turn off the sprink er system and see if the little blue spinner stopped turning. If it did, we were told that the leak was more than likely in the sprinkler system. The water to our sprinkler was turned off on that day and was kept off until it was repaired. On August 28th,my husband dug up the area and found that a screw had worked its way off the top of the valve and that was the cause of the leak. A 50 cent screw took care of it. It was repaired on August 28th. You confirmed that our meter had been read on 9-2 and in fact was not leaking at that time. Please issue a leak credit and forward the name of the person that I can write to regarding a full credit. Had we been called after we were told that we would back in June, we would have corrected the problem immediately as we did now. Sincerely, Jackie Kirkpatrick f CITY OF TIGARD OREGON October 4, 1999 Dean & Jacqueline Kirkpatrick 16226 SW Snapdragon Ln Dean & Jacqueline: Your account has been adjusted in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 12.10.070. If you wish to apply for an additional credit, a request needs to be sent in writing to the Intergovernmental Water Board. Please send the letter to the city's Finance Director's attention. I have enclosed his business card for your reference. If you have any further question please give me a call at 503-639-4171 x 325. Thank you, Amanda L. Bewersdorff Senior Accounting Assistant 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 City of Tig. Utih. ng Printed: , .99 11:09 User: sue Account History List Account Number: 003186 000 r Account Status:Active Customer Name: KIRKPATRICK, DEAN &JACQUELI Owner Name: KIRKPATRICK, DEAN &JACQUELINE Connect Date: 11/22/1'996 Customer Address:16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Service Address: 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Final Date: ? TIGARD OR972237 **************Account Balance************* Balance Due: 193.4'5 Water Sewer SWM Penalty Misc SurChrp Sery 7 Sery 8 193.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **************Account Date Type Amount Water Sewer SWM Penalty Misc SurChra Sery 7 Sery 8 11/02/1999 Payment 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/27/1999 Adjustment -153.14 -153.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Credit Leak 09/08/1999 Payment 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/25/1999 Balance 243.45 243.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/25/1.999 Billing 109.80 109.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 06/23/1999 Balance 336.79 336.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 06/23/1999 Billing 336.79 336.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 06/08/1999 Payment 16.89 16.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/10/1999 Payment 20.10 20.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04/21/1999 Balance 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04/21/1999 Billing 16.89 16.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0:00 0.00 0.00 02/24/1999 Balance 20.1,0 20.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/24/1.999 Billing 20.10 20.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/11/1999 Payment 22.27 22.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/23/1998 Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/23/1998 Billing: 22.27 22.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/06/1998 Payment 43.75 43.75, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 10/28/1998 Billing 43.75 43.75 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 09/08/11998 Payment 51.67 51.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 08/26/1998 Billing 51:67 51.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 07/09/1998 Payment 27.91 27,91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 06/24/1998 Billing 27:91 27.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL Page 1 - City of Tig� Utili" .ng Printed: 1 ,99 11:09 User: sue Account History List Account Number: 003186 000 Account Status: Active Customer Name: KIRKPATRICK, DEAN &JACQUELI Owner Name: KIRKPATRICK, DEAN &JACQUELINE Connect Date: 11/22/1.996 Customer Address:16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Service Address: 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Final Date: ? TIGARD OR97223- Account Balance Balance Due: 193.45 Water Sewer SWM Penalty Misc SurChro Sery 7 Sery 8 193.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Account History Date Tvoe Amount Water Sewer SWM Penaltv Misc SurChrcjr Sery 7 Sery 8 05/12/1,998 Payment 1.8.26 18.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 04/22/1998 Billing 18.26 1.8.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 03/09/1998 Payment 21.31 21.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 02/25/1998 Billing 21.31 21.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 01/05/1998 Payment 21.26 21.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 12/24/1997 Billing 21.26 21.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 10/31/1997 Payment 34.26 34.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 10/22/1997 Billing 34.26 34.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 09/03/1997 Payment 56.95 56.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 08/27/1997 Billing 56.95 56.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 07/03/1997 Payment 45.07 45.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 06/25/1997 Billing 45.07 45.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 05/06/1997 Payment 30.14 30.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 04/23/1997 Billing 30.14 30.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL Page 2 City of Tig, UtiliL, ,ng . Printed: *99 11:09 User: sue Account History List Account Number: 003186 000 Account Status: Active Customer Name: KIRKPATRICK, DEAN &JACQUELI Owner Name: KIRKPATRICK, DEAN &JACQUELINE Connect Date: 11/22/1996 Customer Address:16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Service Address: 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Final Date: ? TIGARD OR97223- **************Account Balance************* Balance Due: 193.45 Water Sewer SWM Penalty Misc SurChra Sery 7 Sery 8 193.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **************Account History************** Date Type Amount Water Sewer SWM Penally Misc SurChra Sery 7 Sery 8 03/10/1997 Payment 20.79 20.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 02/26/1997 Billing 20.79 20.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL ************** Meter Information ************** Route Number: 0012 Sequence Number: 1830 Serial Number: 13377 Meter History 10/18/99 000000821 000000228 08/17/99 000000593 000000078 06/14/99 000000515 000000250 04/12/99 000000265 000000008 02/17/99 000000257 000000010 12/14/98 000000247 000000012 10/19/98 000000235 000000000 11/22/96 000000006 000000000 11/22/96 000000010 000000004 11/22/96 000000020 000000010 11/22/96 000000038 000000018 11./22/96 000000067 000000029 Page 3 City of Tigard Utility Billing Printed: 12/07/1999 11:39 -'eer:amanda Service Request Form Request Number: 000050-12-1999 Last Updated By: amanda Customer Number: 003186-000 On: 12/07/1999 Account Status: Active Name: DEAN&JACQUELI KIRKPATRICK Home phone: (503) 524-5116 Billing Address: 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Business phone: ( ) - TIGARD, OR. 97223- Sry Address: 16226 SW SNAPDRAGON LN Request Date: 12/07/1999 Request Description:Please verify meter reading Service Date: 12/07/1999 ' Service: HIGH USAGE Rte&Seq Srl# Register ID MXU ID Mfg Mtr Size Pr Rdng Rdng Dt Cons Existing Meter 0012-1830 13377 96414230 B 3/4 821 10/18/1999 228 Location:RPC New Meter 33 Comments: `\ Follow up needed?yes no Serviced By: (� „ Date: Billable: no October 4, 1999 Dean & Jacqueline Kirkpatrick 16226 SW Snapdragon Ln Tigard, OR 97223 Dean & Jacqueline: Your account has been adjusted in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 12.10.070. If you wish to apply for an additional credit, a request needs to be sent in writing to the Intergovernmental Water Board. Please send the letter to the city's Finance Director's attention. I have enclosed his business card for your reference. If you have any further question please give me a call at 503-639-4171 x 325. Thank you, Amanda L. Bewersdorff Senior Accounting Assistant To: Ama v nd�i B From; Jackie Kirkpatrick Fax number: 639-1471 v Date: September 3, 1999 Subject: Water Leak \ This is to confirm what I said in our conversation on 9-2-1999. After our phone call to the City of Tigard Utilities on 8-12 regarding our water 1,we contacted several Local plumbers and a leak detection company. Our phone call was r ed by the water department and also by a leak detection company and both suggested that a turn off the sprinkler system and see if the little blue spinner stopped turning. If it ' we were told that the leak was more than likely in the sprinkler system. The water to our s er was turned off on that day and was kept off until it was repaired. On August 28th, my husband dug up the area and found tha i screw had worked its way off the top of the valve and that was the cause of the leak. A 50 t screw took care of it. It was .repaired on August 28th. You confir�zted that our meter had been read on 9 and in fact was not leaking at that time. Please issue a leak credit and!asdid of the person that I can write to regarding a full credit. Had we been called athat we would back in June, we would have corrected the problem immedow. Sincerely, a, Jackie Jackie Kirkpatrick TO/TO'd ILL# b£:01 £0-60`6661 S6SS L6L £0S W3d/oW 2i3A3W aMH: WM:W Call Out Report Person on call Cale / -- ' Time Of call out iHle spent Location Problem __0 S11,n Was main-tenance crew called? Yes /Ifo ,.J Time out _ Time in — Names of crew called out 1 2 3 4 Corrective action taken. VU -- Follow-up required Call Out Report Person on call iN _ Date Time of call out Time spent . Location Problem —_ ZC ��y4 L �,� :,� 1.L-- Was maintenance crew called? Yes Time out —_ Time in CNarnes of crew called out - 3 ------------ Corrective action taken Follow-up required -- ----------- --- — - -------- aatz- IWB Addition Credit for leaks From: AmandaBavwaraUoMT To: K8iba yWi|kar Date: 3/3/002:06PM _ Subject: IWB Addition Credit for leaks Just checking omthe status of Dean &Jacqueline Kirkpatrick 1822GSVVSnapdragon Ln They requested additional credit from the board some time ago and I sent their letterto you. Let meknow, AmandaBewenudmrff ommanda@ci.bgand.or.um cc? KathvKaatz i I ; J CITY OF TIGARD March 13, 2000 OREGON Mr. & Mrs. J. Shelton 11955 SW 110 Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 RE: Account #002177-000 . bear Mr. & Mrs. Shelton: I am writing in response to your letter dated February 18, 2000 regarding your utility bill. The process when requesting an additional credit on your utility bill is to place the item on the agenda for the Intergovernmental Water Board for review. The next meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board is Wednesday, April .12th at 5:30 p.m. This meeting is held at the Water Facility located at 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard. If you would like me to place this item on the agenda, please contact me at 639-4171, extension 339. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above listed number. Sincerely, Kathy Kaatz Program Assistant 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-,4171:"TDD:(503)684-2772: 9 February 18,2000 Customer#002177-000 City of Tigard Water Bureau 8777 Burnham St. PO Box 230000 Tigard, OR 97281-1999 To Whom It May Concern: In October 1999 we were out of town. Upon our return we discovered our water bill had jumped drastically. We soon discovered one of our toilets was not functioning properly. We found it had been leaking continuously, not sure for how long. As soon as we discovered the problem, we fixed it immediately. We called the water bureau and asked if there was any way we could get our"out of site"water bill reduced. They sent us a form to fill out. We did that immediately and sent it in. On January-5, 2000 we were awarded a credit of$26.55. Our water bill jumped from an average of$90.00 to $400.00 plus. We feel the $26.55 credit was not near enough. The leak was fixed in good faith as soon asI we discovered it & feel that a credit due us was at least.$200.00, half of the bill. Please respond immediately. We have always paid our bill promptly and feel that the Water Bureau could work with us on this problem. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim& u Shelton 11955 SW 116 'Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 February 18,2000 Customer#002177-000 City of Tigard Water Bureau 8777 Burnham St. PO Box 230000 Tigard, OR 97281-1999 To Whom It May Concern: In October 1999 we were out of town. Upon our return we discovered our water bill had jumped drastically. We soon discovered one of our toilets was not functioning properly. We found it had been leaking continuously, not sure for how long. As soon as we discovered the problem, we fixed it immediately. We called the water bureau and asked if there was any way we could get our"out of site"water bill reduced. They sent us a form to fill out. We did that immediately and sent it in. On January 5, 2000 we were awarded a credit of$26.55. Our water bill jumped from an average of$90.00 to $400.00 plus. We feel the $26.55 credit was not near enough. The leak was fixed in good faith as soon as we discovered it & feel that a credit due us was at least $200.00, half of the bill. Please respond immediately. We have always paid our bill promptly and feel that the Water Bureau could work with us on this problem. Thank you. Sincerely, "A Ai��.�.�. Jim& udy Shelton 11955 SW 116th Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 MEMORANDUM TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Water Items DATE: March 31, 2000 Regional Transmission and Storage An OREGONIAN article is attached on this subject. There will be a public meeting to discuss the plan on April 5th, 7:00 p.m. at TVWD office. Citizen's for Safe Water An OREGONIAN article in the "My Turn" section is attached describing their work. Next IWB Meeting The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 12th, at 5:30 p.m. I have restructured the agenda for the meeting. Art Griffith from CH2M Hill will not be present to discuss SDC's. Instead we are going to have a presentation from Craig Prosser, Finance Director, on the Taxpayers Protection Initiative. This measure could have far reaching effects on any proposed water rate change we are considering. After the presentation, we should discuss our timetable and effective dates. Voters Reject Water Leyy The OREGONIAN article is attached reporting on Sherwood's vote to defeat the measure to issue revenue bonds for construction of a water treatment plant. Cc: Mike Miller Kathy Kaatz Bill Monahan P P u!L f;F!0 I !t .TAXPAYER PROTECTINITIATIVE— INATIVE JES�C %:y 01: j_ Be it enacted by e lseople of theState of oi, gore: The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new, Section 32a in Article I, which section shall read: Section 32a. People's right to approve all taxes.The purpose of this 2000 Amendment is to ensure that new taxes and tax increases,which further deprive citizens of income and property, are hereafter directly approved by the people. Therefore, except as provided in Section 6 of Article IX,any new tax,fee,or charge,or increase in an existing tax,fee,or charge,shall require approval by the people,as follows: (1)(a) No new tax,fee,or charge shall be imposed,assessed or levied,and no existing tax,fee or charge shall be increased by the state or any local government or taxing district,unless the new tax,fee,or charge,or increase thereof is first approved in an election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November of an even numbered year,or any other election held on a date which the state legislative assembly has designated as an annual election date on which measures may be placed on the statewide ballot by initiative petition;and the new tax,,fee,or charge,or increase thereof;is approved by not less than the percentage of participatii:g voters who voted"Yes"on this 2000 Amendment For purposes of this section and subject to subsection(5)of this section,the.following shall require only approval by a majority of those voting in the election: (i)a measure to renew an expiring tax levy,which levy solely funds police,fire,or 911 emergency services,the rate or amount of which levy is not greater than the rate or amount of the expiring levy,and(ii)a measure to increase the state motor vehicle fuel tax. (b)The ballot title and official voters pamphlet a#=tory statement for a measure to adopt a new tax,fee,or dmarm to approve a bond measure;or to incrcase.an existing tax,fee,or charge,shall begin with the words: A"Yes"vote on this measure is a vote to inemase taxes. The question submitted to voters also shall clearly describe the proposed new tax,fee,or charge,or increase thereof,if the measure is a bond measure,a projection of the total cost of the bond,including interest thereon;and revenue the measure would produce annually. . (c)Nothing in this section shall affect taxes levied for the repayment of bonded indebtedness approved by voters in an election held prior to Nov.7,2000,or the issuance of refunding bonds to pay such bonded indebtedness. This section does not require voter approval for the issuance of,or the levy of taxes to pay,bonds issued to repay bonds issued priar to the effective date of this section or issued in conformance with this section. (2)For purposes of this section,any elimination,limitation,or reduction of a tax exemption,credit,deduction,exclusion,or cost- of-living indexing shall be considered a.tax increase. (3)The following revenues shall not be considered new or increased taxes,fees,or charges for the purposes of this section: user fees charged by Peoples'.Utility Districts or port districts,mass transit fares;college or university tuition and fees;incurred charges and assessments for local improvements as defined by Article XI Section I lb of this Constitution;increases in charges for government products and services solely to pass through increased costs of wholesale inputs that are not government employee labor costs,or otherwise under the charging government's control;fines or forfeitures for violation of law;lottery revenue,fees paid to official business and trade as=iations.by those engaged in that business or oaarpation;earnings from interest, investments, donations,or asset sales and fees or charges for products or services which may be legally obtained from a reasonably available source other than government,provided that the new or increased fee or charge for the product or service is not greater than the average private sector charge for the dame product or service in the same market (4)(a)If in the two years previous to the effective date of this section,an existing tax,fee,or charge was ink more than three percent(3%),or a new tax,fee,or charge was adopted or first imposed,the increase in the existing tax,fee, or charge,to the extent it exceeded a three percent increase,and any new tax,fee,or charge,shall be either repealed or submitted to the voters for approval at the next election,if the new or increased tax,fee or charge was not approved by at least the percentage of voters required in paragraph(a)of subsection(1)of this section. If a new.tax fee or charge was imposed,or an existing tax,fee,or charge increased in the two years previous to the effective date of this section,and the new tax,fee,or charge or increase in an existing tax,fee, or charge,was not approved in conformance with this section,and not approved by voters at the next election,the amount of the new tax,fee,or charge or excessive increase collected shall be refunded to the payer. Taxes to pay voter approved bonded indebtedness,and taxes,fees,and charges listed in subsection(3)of this section are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph(a)of this subsection(4). (b)Provided that the amount of a fee or charge docs not exceed the actual cost of providing the product or service,the following. fees and charges may be increased at a rate not greater than the rate of inflation since the effective date of this section,without a public vote: (i)charges and fees in effect on or before December 6, 1998;(hi)charges and fees first adopted or first effective after December 6, 1998,if adopted in accordance with this section. (5)Nothing in this section shall be construed as nullifying the requirement-in Section 11 of Article XI of this Constitution that elections for property tax measures,which are voted on in an election held on a date other than the general election,achieve not less than fifty percent(50%)voter participation to be valid. (6)(a)This section shall not require a vote of the people when incases in government revenue occur solely due to a change in federal tax law,'increases in income,or other changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing an increase in the tax on a property tax in an amount greater than allowed under Article M of this Constitution. (b) If, after the effective date of this section,a government temporarily suspends or voluntarily lowers a tax,fee,or charge; the tax, fee or charge may be increased later,without a public vote,to the rate or amount it would have been under this section had the suspension or reduction not occurred. (T)(a) Subject to Section la of Article 1X,the Legislative Assembly and Governor may override this section and call for a special election date other than the date(s)set forth in subsection(1)of this section,or may enact by law particular taxes,or authorize particular local taxes,fees,or charges without a vote of the People if such taxes are approved by a three-fourths vote in each house and signed into law by the Governor. Any tax authorized or enacted by such action shall be designated for a specific purpose and shall be in effect no longer than twelve months.Any tax,fee,or-charge imposed under this subsection shall be subject to referendum (b).Subject to Section la of Article IX of this Constitution,if a local Emergency is declared by the Governor,the affected city, county,or local taxing district may override this section for a period not awee ing twelve months,if: (i)the override is approved by not less than a three-fourths vote of the members of the local"governing body,and(ii)the continuation of the tax for any remainder of the twelve months is approved by voters voting in an election held within ninety(90)days of the date the emergency is declared,and otherwise adopted in conformance with this section_ (8) 'Ile public shall be given reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed ballot title for any measure to create a new tax, fee,or-charge or increase an existing tax,fee,or charge. The ballot title maybechallenged in court,and shall be rejected if it is biased,inaccurate,not easily understood,or does not comply with paragraph(b)of subsection(1)of this section. (9)A government that levies taxes,fees,or charges in violation of this Section 32a shall refund the amount of any tax,.fee,or charge collected in violation of this section,plus interest,to taxpayers in the twelve months following the determination of violation. Interest paid shall be computed as the cost of living change plus six percent per year,compounded for the period from collection of the tax,fee,or charge to payment of the refunds. If the cost of issuing the refund is more than twenty percent(20%) of the amount of the refund,a credit may be issued to the appropriate taxpayers. (10) Because governments have at times been creative at redefining terms,or otherwise creating new funding mechanisms in order to circumvent limitations placed upon them by the people,the legislature,in implementing this section,and the courts in interpreting it,shall apply the strictest scrutiny to any new or renamed government funding mechanism,and shall require in every reasonable circumstance voter approval as required in this section for new or increased taxes,fees,or charges,regardless of the creativity used by the government in desigaing or naming the finding mechanism. Under this section,certificates of participation and all such funding mechanisms shall be subject to the same limitations and requirements as a bond measure. (11) Any Oregon taxpayer affected by a new or increased tax,fee,or charge or bond issue subject to this Section 32a has standing to challenge it,and/or the election authorizing its imposition,by court action commenced in any county-in which the taxing entity is located. If the election is held,a tax,fee,or charge is imposed,or a bond is approved,in material violation of this section or any implementing legislation,the court shall declare the tax,fee,charge or bond void Such an action shall be commenced within ninety(90)days after the earlier of(i)the date on which the election approving the tax,fee,charge or bond is held;or(ii)the date on which the tax,fee,or charge is first imposed or the bond is approved for issue. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing taxpayer,or if the action is found to be frivolous,to a prevailing government party. (12) If any phrase,clause,or part of this Amendment is invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction,the remaining phrases, clauses,and parts shall remain in full force and effect. If any provision of this Amendment is found to violate or infringe upon a right of any person or group under the U.S.Constitution,the provision shall remain in full force and effect for all other persons or groups for which no infringement has been found. 2 Y -01c'fl�LtJ3S CN.III S!33N IIHd 1 . Wd 01 M 66, ,I;THE OREGONIM 7 THURSDAY,MARCH 9,`290 M � F 1 4,T Citizensfor Water work ternatives 4 ere is an update about the activi- sure 34-11.We urge you to join us in voting Tualatin saying that 4 to 6 million ties of Tualatin Citizens for Safe "NO"on Measure 34 11 on May 16. x _ g gallons of y TURNi water per day were available to capacity Water.As you may know,we are We do not want to drink Willamette River holders of the Washington County Supply a group working to oppose the water. tddition of Willamette River water to our We have serious concerns about the poor Do you have an issue y �'s � nglyr, Line. The line holds 60 million gallons per lrinkin water tem. P abbot?,An experienCeyoi1�11hI�?; day.As a capacity holder,Tualatin's share is g quality of 1Nillamette River water in our area. Ivly Turn is dti ppdrturf 18 percent or 10.8 mgd; Raleigh Water Dis- While we support the City of Tualatin in The Willamette River Basin Water Quality ty yourself SubmIs siortii Sfi olt r trio's share is 1.5 percent;Portland's unused my reasonable effort to improve or expand Study (1997) describes the water where a 800 words or three rip � d 3ubfe share is 10 percent and Tualatin Valley Wa sur drinking water supply, we oppose the planned Willamette treatment{dant would spaced pages My Turn mated old be :it}�s plan of adding Willamette River water draw from the river: "Segment 2 extends 35 w itten exciusntely for Thte i n nd f ter District holds the remainder. :o our drinkingwater. The Portland Water Bureau asked the city miles from Willamette Falls to above New- is subject to edii ing UnSd11'1 ,d fia erla tY We especially feel it is important for the berg in the Newberg Pool. The number of submitted for ptibhcatlC , e e5 the - , in July if it was interested in part or all of the 'itizens of Tualatin to be able.to vote on this fish showing skeletal deformities was high propertyof fihe©regonl tt aX bei Portland share, and other possible water ssue—and to reject the city's — est in this reach,and pollution s e #eriai _: availability, proposal. from surface runoff, mainly Ad may be redzlstrt150 me "'a",= In September, we citizens asked the city We were happy to tum in from agriculture,was also the ''Wnte to Sout�iwest cul a � goti� to respond to this letter, and the city finally the necessary number of sig- most pronounced. Federal ielt;1549 S.W:Sequoia PaCtCWa�r, ortland did so in October.It has taken so long to ad- natures calling for an election, guidelines for toxics in water Ore.97224,or send a faz o 96$6ta61 dress this point that it will now be included before the February deadline. and sediments were often ex- Please include a telephone number where in Tualatin's springtime discussions with lbout 540 signatures were re r seeded." we can reach you dunng`the days Portland about renew.-: of our 25 ar cooquired;910 were submitted. We are also concerned Y- We had wonderful help MY TURN about the high cost of the new tract. from 30 volunteers who spent water from the Willamette In coming weeks, Tualatin Citizens for hours collecting registered Kathleen Newcomb treatment plant.According to Much misinformation has been circulated Safe Water will try to provide the public fur- voters' signatures. The voters an article in the Feb.21 Metro by the proponents of the Willamette River ther information about problems relating to often wished us good luck and Southwest page of The Ore- treatment plant. Willamette River water, and to correct mis- thanked us for our work. gonian,�Afilsonville's monthly water bills are For instance,"There is not enough water.." information about the Bull Run system. And we were also pleased when the Cir- expected to rise to an average of$30.80 in Have you heard that one?Did you know that To contact the Tualatin Citizens for Safe suit Court, responding to our petition, re- the winter and$73.96 in the summer to pay several offers of water have been put forth to Water, call 692-5227,or e-mail at rryan@gn- wrote the ballot title submitted by the city. for the treatment plant — not just for the Tualatin and the other southwest Portland sys.com or write to P.O. Box 1284, Tualatin For instance, the city's ballot "question" short term, but for years. Compare this to suburbs? But little action, indeed, has been OR 97062. stated merely, "Shall the City of Tualatin is- taken on these offers. Here are two exam- sue not more than$5,500,000 in water reve- Tualatin's current average monthly cost of ples: And on May 16th, when you are asked if nue bonds under the Uniform Revenue $16.90 in the winter and$28.15 in the sum- you want distribution systems bringing you Bond Act?" mer. On December 15, 1998, the city of Pmi- water from a Willamette River source,please land offered Tualatin and the other south- vote NO—on Measure 34-11. The Court rewrote the question to ask, Overall,we wonder:when we have practi- west suburbs a plan for future expanded wa- "Shall the City issue $5,500,000 in revenue sally the best water in the United States from ter supplies. How much discussion, if any, bonds for water system supply and distribu- the Bull Run system,why should we choose have you heard of this offer? Kathleen Newcomb of Tualatin is a retired tion with'Nllamcuc River source?" to drink river water con..taining e�gluent frorr, On July 29, 1999, Portland Watar Bureau c:7,r itd public acccurtcnt was instrumen- This "question" has now become Mea- an estimated 85 sewage treatment plants?? AdIfi7t Michael Rosenberger wrote tal in putting Measure 34-11 on the ballot. Water providers look at backup system s rather than costly, regional supp1Y There still remains a BACKINB Portland area water sgppl(ers,known collectively as tlie'i2egloriaCWate�Providers Consort(um are con sldering`a network question hanging over of pipelines to make certal �very water district has abackup-suppiyfor emergenc(es In addition to Its regular source. Recommended t (die°art lthe ro osed Ian.Possible I eines are other options whether to use the yne I p p p p p p Willamette River as a source � k �s By R.GREGORY NOKES FateSt r- P`�P Columbia wells bla p yer THE OREGONIAN FIiI 5hOr0 "� �� ti n Portland-area water suppliers pp � Gresham ��,� ' have rejected the idea Of one big Port nd z regionwide water system and are leaning toward providing everyone r : s Bull Run with a backup supply for emergen � erton t r ',4 water,= cyshortages. Lake Milwaukle shed: River �, Oswego ; , The goal is for each water district •" ' to have, in addition to its existing o a a f�r� Tigard •• water source, at least one backup � MILES a x �. . TUala Sherwood � Yest supply capable of providing , tln m Ar Linn Oregon enough water to meet average ? , f 9 Water treatment plants III�t consumption. ' City Currently planned pipelines .�.... The biggest reason for rejecting ' F ;Wtiseyllle� Recommended pipelines .. a regionwide system is cost:an es � �' 'r Possible pipelines ••• ' r, timated $344 million, con? ared v , '< �� `fi _ s Existing pipelines p Source Mon omer w with an estimated $103 million for a backup system. WERNER BITTNER/THE OREGONIAN There also would be the chal- lenge of winning agreement for a If we knew for sure we could say zonal, we would to either a Willamette River or stem frm 26 water districts,,ranide ging fromo othe Portland have said zonal. But with Wilsonville possibly the only possibly a Clackamas River source. Water Bureau, which has 160,000 entity pursuing the Willamette in the near term, it's *Washington County: backups direct customers,to the tiny Dam hard to sal,there is any long-term future for that." from Bull Run and os hssibl the ascus Water District, which has 2,300 customers. Willamette to the Trask/Tualatin Backup connections involving a LORNA STICKEL, main source; Bull Run also is a few water providers can be A PORTLAND WATER BUREAU OFFICIAL AND THE CONSORTIUM'S PROJECT DIRECTOR main source in some areas of the achieved through intergovemmen- county. tal agreements among the water Stickel said the size of proposed districts that would be directly af- haven't ruled out the longer-term The backup plan includes a Wil- pipelines might be determined fected. possibility of dividing the region lamette source, although water of- with an eye to using them to sup- The purpose of the plan is to between two large water systems. ficials are discussing options if one ply water for nonemergency pur- make certain every water district Under the so-called zonal strate- isn't developed beyond Wilson- poses as well.For example,Clack- has a backup system in case the gyp communities west of the West ville. amas River providers might find it primary source is interrupted. For Hills would rely mostly on the Without a significant Willamette more efficient to shut down one or example, Portland's system has existing Trask and Tualatin river source, Stickel said southwest more of the Clackamas plants dur- been interrupted several times in sources,with some Bull Run water, communities could receive water ing the water-surplus winter recent years, including last winter, plus a proposed new source from from the four Clackamas treatment months and rely on Bull Run wa- by mudslides and heavy rains. the Willamette River. Eastside erve much of ter instead. However, nothing will be decid- communities would rely primarily Clackamas Countylants that now ,including West The projects in the backup plan ed until after an April 3 public on the Bull Run watershed and the Linn Oregon City and Lake Oswe- include a 60-inch reline from workshop in Beaverton. The 26- Clackamas River. go. The absence of a big Wiliam Portland's Bull Run system pipeline to the member Regional Water Providers But voter opposition in Tigard, Consortium scheduled to make a Sherwood and possibly other ette source could also reopen the Clackamas River system at an esti- decision in lune. southwest communities has put a possibility of extending Bull Run mated cost of$42.5 million; a 60- significant Willamette source in water to southwest communities inch pipeline from the Trask/ If approved, the plan would be question, at least for:now. Only from a new east-west pipeline Tualatin system, operated by the submitted to individual members Wilsonville voters have given a go- through Clackamas County. Joint Water Commission, to Port- for agreement and possible imple- ahead, and even that vote is being If the backup plan is adopted, land's existing Washington Coun- inentadon, including decisions to challenged in court as invalid. these sources could develop: ty Supply Line, an estimated $32 build the backup connections and "If we knew for sure we could million;and 60-and 54-inch pipe- how to pay for them.Costs to con say zonal, we would have said zo Clackamas region: a Bull Run lines from the Trask/Tualatin ps sumers aren't yet known. backup to the Clackamas River Y aal,"said Lorna Stickel,a Portland tern to a proposed Willamette sys- The plan was developed under a Water Bureau official and the con- source. tem,an estimated$28 million. $85,000 contract between the con- sortium's project director. "But Portland and Multnomah sortium and water consultant with Wilsonville possibly the only County: a Clackamas River back- Montgomery Watson. entity pursuing the Willamette in up to the Bull Run source. You can reach R. Gregory Nokes at Although they're focusing on the the near term,it's hard to say there ♦Southwest region: a Trask/ 503-221-8409 or by e-mail at greg- backup plan, water providers is any long-term future for that." Tualatin river or Bull Run backup nokes@news.oregonian.com. Sherwood voters re)ect wat r levy e Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville Wilsonville is the only city and other communities had hoped to tap the Willamette River committed to tapping the because it not only would give Willamette so far; Tualatin them owrersiLip of a water source holds a vote in May but also would introduce a new y source into the Portland area. By EMILY TSAO So far, only Wilsonville has THE OREGONIAN committed to.and started plan SHERWOOD—Voters have de ning for the Willamette plant con- feated a measure that would have struction. Tualatin residents will allowed the city to issue$18 mil- vote on a similar bond measure in hon in revenue bonds for con- May. struction of a Willamette River Tigard, which was the largest water treatment plant and other and perhaps strongest supporter water transmission and distribu- of the plan,backed away after res- don needs. idents changed the city charter to An overwhelming 81 percent require a vote of the people if the voted against the measure in city chose to drink from the river. Tuesday's special election, Tigard's potential withdrawal according to final unofficial re- from the project made other cit- sults from Washington County.Of ies, including Sherwood, rethink the 6,138 registered voters, about their participation.Sherwood otfi- 40 percent turned in ballots. The cials had said the.Willamette proj- tally was 1,986 against the mea- ect,without Tigard could become sure to 460 in favor, too expensive for Sherwood. As water contracts expire and In a separate measure, 54 Aer- as the area continues to grow, cent of those voting gave their ap- Sherwood and surrounding cities proval for the annexation of a 14- have been searching for a water acre parcel into the city limits. supply to meet the area's long- The vote was 1,124 in favor of the term needs for drinking water. annexation to 971 against it. t P 9 FRE E NTATI O T *$ N ER G ` ERNMEN1Ni T15'R ' - BOARD e City of Tigard • Tigard Water District • City of King City • City of Durham r� 4. :i $spyTIGARD WATER SERVICE AREA £n DRAFT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM HYDRAULIC STUDY tr 3+ f 1 April 12, 2000 Presented by: ------- - -- Chris Uber, P.E. = = == Vice President -- Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. _ ---- ----- Introductio' n/project Scope Previous Studies • Bull Mountain Service Area • Water Supply Plan • Willamette River Water Supply System , Preliminary Engineering Report • Various Distribution System Analyses ♦ Comprehensive Distribution System Analysis • System Inventory • Population Demand Estimates • Establish Planning and Analysis Criteria • Develop Hydraulic Model • System Analysis • Determine Existing Deficiencies • Improvement Needs for System Expansion • Recommended System Improvements • Develop Capital Improvement Plan I Existih" ' ' ,"Syste" M :' ♦ Service/Pressure Zones • 410-Foot • 550-Foot • 713-Foot ♦ Reservoirs 1 Service Zone Reservoirs Storage Capacity (mg) 410-Foot 9 12. 1 470-Foot 1 10.0 (10-mg Reservoir) 713-Foot 3 2.3 Total 13 24.4 i ♦ Pump Stations Service Zone 410-Foot 2 Stations/4 Pumps 470-Foot (10-mg Reservoir) 1 Station/1 Pump 713-Foot 3 Stations/4 Pumps 713-Foot High Pressure 2 Stations/5 Pumps Canterbury Hill 1 Station/2 Pumps ExistN ng stem : Y ♦ Pressure Reducing Stations ♦ Distribution System Piping Pipe Diameter Estimated Length (Miles) 4-inch or Less 4 6-inch 62 i 8-inch 65 10-inch 2 12-inch - 49 16-inch 9 24-inch 7 36-inch 1 Total 199 miles Populat,io,n,�,and,,-,,-,W,ate�r,�� Demd's,' ♦ Population Summary Year Population 2000 46, 144 2010 51,972 2020 54,533 2030 56,726 2040 57,877 2050 58,699 2060 59,551 Saturation 79,876 Urban Reserves'' 5,271 Total 85, 147 l Population , and Nater C ands, Water Demand Summary - Existing Service Zone Population Average Day Max Day' Demand Demand m' d m d 410-Foot Zone 25,996 3.38 7.80 550-Foot Gravity Zone 8,940 1. 16 2.68 713-Foot Gravity Zone 7,945 1.03 2.38 713-Foot HP Zone 3,263 0.42 0.98 Total 46,144 6.00 13.84 Water Demand Summary - Saturation Service Zone Population Average Day Max Day Demand Demand m d m d 410-Foot Zone 48,985 6.37 16. 17 550-Foot Gravity Zone 22,541 2.93 7.44 713-Foot Gravity Zone 9,630 1.25 3. 18 713-Foot HP Zone 3,991 0.52 1.32 Total 85,147 11.07 28.11 Analysis , andfindings ♦ Storage Needs • 40-Foot Service.Zone • 550-Foot Service Zone _ • 713-Foot Service Zone ♦ Pumping Needs • 550-Foot Service Zone • 713-Foot Service Zone • 10 MG Reservoir ♦ Distribution System • Hydraulic Capacity • Fire Flow Needs • System Expansion Recomme, ndation's'. ♦ Storage Service Zone Recommended Volume/ Number of Reservoirs 550-Foot 5.0 mg - 2'Reservoirs 713-Foot 0.8 mg - 1 Reservoir 410-Foot 1.0 mg - 1 Reservoir ♦ Pumping Service Zone 550-Foot 2'New Stations 713-Foot 1 Consolidated Station 470-Foot Expanded Station Capacity ♦ Distribution System Improvements 410-Foot Service Zone 550-Foot Service Zone 713-Foot Service Zone ♦ Other • Property Acquisition • Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) • Infrastructure Project Coordination R0rnmended, Pro'ect ' e , uendin J � g ♦ Prioritized Recommendations • Yearly Projects • Sequencing • Estimated Annual Capital Outlays ♦ Recommended FY 2000/2001 Projects Item Project Cost Property Acquisition $350,000 SW Walnut Street Main $513,000 550-Foot Reservoir Supply Main $1521000 SW 79th Avenue Main $285,000 SW Burnham Street Main $335,000 ASR Study with Beaverton $25,000 Distribution System Main $75,000 Oversizing Total $1,735,000 ecom'mertd d ' roj,ect a u,encin ♦ Recommended FY 2001 /2002 Projects Item Project Cost Menlor Pump Station $650,000 550-Foot Reservoir Piping $190,000 SW 150th Avenue Piping $171,000 SW Gaarde Street PRV $150,000 ASR Study with Beaverton $25,000 Telemetry System Evaluation $50,,000 Distribution System Main $75, 000 Oversizing Total $1,,311,.000 ♦ 2 Year Total - $370467000 ♦ 20 Year Project Summary ` I Sum' mary, , ,. ", ♦ Comprehensive Plan ♦ Long Term Vision of Distribution System ♦ Provides for Expanding Service Needs ♦ Ready to Integrate with Long-Term Water Supply ♦ Identifies Capital Needs Vision ♦ Dynamic Document City of Tigard 0 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study Draft Capital Improvement Program Summary Table Capital Improvement Schedule and Project Cost Summary by Fiscal Year Estimated Category Proms Project Location Description 1909IM 20OW2001 200 rd= 20022= 200312004 2004/2005 20052006 20DOPIM 2007,12AM 200&2009 20ONMO 2010/2011 201112012 20722013 201312014 201.12015 2016=6 201812077 2017/2018 20152019 20191 20208021 2021+ Project Cost West Bull Mountain Prtpeny Puucfase 550-Foot Reservoir No.1 (550-Foot Zone) $ 150,000 f 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 _ $ ..2,850,000 East Bull Mountain Progeny Purchase SSPFoot Reservar No.2 Storage 550-Foot Zone $ 200,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,200,000 g New Reservoirs -_(550-Foot ) ...... _-- -. ----._-West -- _-- _... _._. -_ Facilities --- - - - -_ --._.- _-- Reservoir No. (410-Foot Zone) f 2250,000 $ 2,250,000 High Tor High Tor Reservd 713-Foot Zone $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Sub-Total$ - $ 350,000 f - $ - f 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 $ - f - $ 2.000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - S - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - f 4250,000 $ 11,300,000 Mentor Reservoir Site Mentor Pump station (550-Foot Zone) S 650,000 -.. _. _ -. _ _..-. _ _ $ 650,000 New Pump Stations Transfer Pump Station - - - - - Transfer Pump statim--- -- ---- _- - --- - - (550!713-Foot Zone)__ t 11000,000 $ 1,000,000 $- _ 2,000,000 Pumping High Tor Reservoir Site _ N'�Tor P _ Facilities (713-Foot Zone) a 650,000 $- 650,000 Pump Station Pump Station No.2 Pump station No.2 Upgrades (Reservoir Site No.2) _ f 375,000 __-- _ _ -_ 375,000_. Pump Station 132nd Street Pump Station - - - 13244 street PS Abandonment 713-Foot Zone $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Sub-Tota $ - f - $ 650.000 $ - t - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 1.000,000 $ - It - $ - $ 425,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - It - S - S - $ - $ 650,00) $ 3,725,000 Lklmin St 24'Walnut Sheet 24'walnut Street Supply Main 16•Barrows Site No.1 Piping Improve lo.4 Piping trnprovements 410-Foot Zone $ 60,000 E513,000 $ .... 456,000 $ -...456.000 $,-.-. 456.000 f 304.000 L$ 200.000 $ 300.000 _ - -- $ 2,745,000 4'Beef Berl-- _ -- - _ 24'Pacific HwylBeel Bents Supply 17121st Ave $ 750,000 $ 418,000 $ 418,000 It 418,000 $ 513,000 $ 2,517,000 Transmission _- -_ _ - --16'/20'550 Reservar West Supply _.... - __-- -. - - - -__ - - -. 18'Caaerbury Supply 16'NWTransmissbn _-_-- - _--..-16'Wesl Trenandasion Improvements 550-Foot Zone $ 152,000 $ 190,000 $ 513,000 S 513,000 S 334400 E 380.000 $ 418,000 $ 418,000 $ 2,918,400 -___ _----- - ".. __.-- _-.._._ - --- _.__ -_ -_ -_ --._ 20'/24'550 Reservar East Supply --- 18'/16 NE T ansmission - 18'!16'Souti1 T-missicn S 380,000 $ 228.000 $ 256,500 S 380.0DU $ 598,500 $ 456.000 $ 2,299,000 713-Foot Zone 171501h Ave 17 CentraWOest Transm.sion S 171,000 S 171,000 f 285,01Do $ 456.000 $ 1,083,000 410-Foot Zone 16'E.Upgrade 17 Bam-s 8'King Richard 17 93rd/92rM 17 Fairhaven e'KaraN125ih f 1.109.000 $ 228,000 $ 68,0DD $ 3991000 $ 421,800 $ 127,500 _ $ -..-2,353,300 Distribution _ 550-Foot Zone -. -... _-.-. --. --_ -- -__-.... -. -.... _..-- -.-.- 16'132nd/135th 12'Walnut 12'Canterburry e'Craekshire System Fire Flow f 304,000 $ 342000 $ 684.000 $ 85,000 $ _- 1,415,000 Improvements 8'South a'Starview B'Norilleast ('Southwest 8'3ou0ieast8•Northwest e'NOM Piping 713-Foot Zone S 212,500 S 42.500 $ 382.500 $ 85,000 $ 255.000 $ 238.000 S 85,000 $ 1,300,500 713-HP Zone 17144th A e /7 Berwhwew 17&41 ML 8•Northwest 8'15081 E 142,500 f 114,000 $_ 285,000 S 191,250 $ 85,000 $ 817,750 U - Resery _..__.-- _- _.... than 410-Foot Zone System Expansionf 2,965,500 $ 2,985,500 Improvements 550-Foot Zone - - Urban Resew - - _- 8 760.00) $ 760,000 Pressure Reducing PRV Vault 36trwh Gearde PRV 121st PRV Facilities S 40,000 S 150,000 E 280.200 $ 470,200 nr sw rea e•sw 7940 Street Water Main S 90,000 $ 285.000 $ 375 000 Replacements 16•5vJ Burrvlarn Avenue f 3SS,0001 $ 75,000 f 75,0001$ 75,000 $ 75,000 S 75,0001$ 75,000 $ 75,0001$ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,0001$ 75,000 $ 75,0001$ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,0001$ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 1,760,000 Sub-Total $ 9401000 $ 1185,000 $ 511,000 $ 246,000 f 531,000 $ 531,000 $ 911,000 $ 607,000 $ 75,000 S 75,000 $ 493.000 $ 973,200 $ 1,306,000 $ 1,357,50D $ 1,074,400 $ 1,123,500 $ 2.129,000 $ 1,626,000 f 1,444,000 $ 1,517,000 $ 926.050 S 372,500 S 3,745,500 $ 23,799,650 Ground Water _ASR stuay ASR swdy- - - -- - - -- $ 25,000 s 2$,000 Wells Sub-Total$ - $ 25,000 $ ...is - f - $ - $ - t $ $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Waal Bub Mountain Area Water Matt OversizM Various C-1-V .P,-ft-Lacaaons Dependent on Future 13-loprnant Patterns Improvement Distribution System S 40.000 $ 75,000 S 75,000 $ 751000 $ 75,000 1$ 75,000 $ 75,0001$ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 f 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 S 75,000 $ 75,000 f 75,000 f 75,000 S 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 E 75,000 $ 1,615,000 Other Oversizing Program Telemetry Td--" Td--y Improvements $ 50,000 It 125,00(1 f 125,050 $ 300,000 Sob-Tota f 40,011) S 76M S 12b,W0 S 200.000 f 76AW S 75,000 f .75,000 f 75.000 $ 75,00) S 75,000 S 75,050 f 75,000 $ 200.000 S 75,000 f 75,000 S 75.000 $ 75,000 f 75,000 i 75,000 f 75,000 f 76,00) S 75,000 i - $ 1.915.000 T-4 S 400.400 f 11,786.040 f 11,311.000 f 446Am $ 11A54.0m f lAsk m f 11111111111,04111) f SAe2.o04 f 2,150,000 f ;1160,000 f 511111.11f 1ATII,m f 1A"Am t 11,{32,$,00 S 1,10,440 S 1,1m,6m s U"Am f 11,701,040 III111510Am f 1AWM f tA01A4,0 $ 4aA" f SMSJM $ 40,739A50 $ 3,046,000 $ 7,404,000 $ 11,072,000 $15,940,00 $ 22,699,600 $ 31,164,150 2 Year Taal 5 Year Total 7 Year Taal 10 Year Total 15 Year Total 21 Year Total $ 1,523,0001 1$ 1,480,8001 1$ 1,S81.7141 1$ 1,484,007 Annual Ave. Annual Ave. Annual Ave. Annual Ave. Annual 1 Annual Ave. -PIA f\Aojecvs 9904;i0.101i6prCsnnoiP Task 412-0D.xk 4112/2000 tion to s Taxpayer Protection Initiative 1 u § ¢ S • The following information is based on our current understanding. Interpretations may change with further legal review. • The Measure is poorly drafted • Blends the terms "taxes" and "fees" • Other terms are unclear or undefined , (wv � qv Zcy • Based on incorrect assumptions about elcisting laws and requirements • Overlaid on existing law (Measure 50, Measure 5, etc.) • Will require legislative action or court interpretation to clarify 2 • Filed by Bill Sizemore March 10, 1999 as Initiative #47 • Certified Ballot Title reads Amends Constitution . Requires voter approval of most new and increased taxes, fees." • Similar to Measures 5 (1994), 20 (1996),-and 1-695 recently approved in Washington. • Main differences from previous measures: — retroactive to December 6, 1998 — inappropriate tax or fee increases subject to refund — raising percentage required for voter approval of measures. 3 lH a €" e • People's right to approve all taxes — "The purpose of this 2000 Amendment is to ensure that new taxes and tax increases, which further deprive citizens of income and property (emphasis added), are hereafter directly approved by the people. . ." • No fee increases without vote — No new tax or fee, or increase in any tax or fee (with certain exceptions) unless approved: • at an election in November of an even slumbered year • or at any other election date which the legislature designates for approval of initiative measures. • Increased voter approval percentage — Tax or fee increases must be approved by not less than the percentage of participating voters who voted "Yes" on this 2000 Amendment. 4 r r �, • Public Safety and Gas Tax Exempted from Super Majority — The following shall require only approval by a majority of those voting in the election: • a measure to renew an expiring tax levy, which levy solely funds police, fire, or 911 emergency services, the rate or amount of which levy is not greater than the rate or amount of the expiring levy. • a measure to increase the state motor vehicle fuel tax. • Removal of tax credits or exemptions considered an increase — Elimination of existing tax exemption, credit, deduction, exclusion, or cost-of-living indexing shall be considered a tax increase and shall be subject to this measure. • Double majority still applies If the legislature designates additional election dates (i.e. allows additional election dates for initiative measures), double majority provisions of Measure 50 will apply. 5 C 'ho € + E dHI f } • Issues/Comments: • Subjects all obvious taxes, fees and charges to voter approval with new percentage requirement, including local option taxes, utility rates and charges and permit and planning fees. • Unclear whether increased property tax revenues due to increases in value are subject to measure. • Unclear whether increases in taxes paid by property owners for levy- based taxes due to differential growth rates; in valuation are covered by this measure. • Currently, measure allows votes only at general elections. Legislature would need to establish an annual date for approving statewide initiatives for more frequent election opportunities to exist. Continued 6 r N • _iK`t TEN Issues/Comments (continued) • Public Safety is viewed as the primary mission of government, hence the exemption from the super-majority provision for renewal at the same rate or amount. Public Safety measures are still subject to the super majority if they are new or if they increase the rate or amount. , • Exemption for gas tax is inconsistent with the re=st of the measure. Why is it here? • If new elections granted, Measure 50 double majority provisions would still apply to new property taxes. 7 S ! Q C f ',M • Ballot Title and Ballot Question Contents — The ballot title for a measure to adopt a new tax, fee, or charge; to approve a bond measure; or to increase an existing tax, fee, or charge, shall begin with the words: • "A `Yes' vote on this measure is a vote to increase taxes" If the measure is a bond measure, the ballot question must contain a projection of the total cost of the bond, inclining interest thereon. 8 E R. Fay\. .. " �.J + ..• i "' a rs uwegg sa * • Issues/Comments • Language required specifies increasing "taxes," even in cases where measures addresses fees and charges. Governments will be required to tell voters something that is not true. • Projection of bond "cost" may be wildly inaccurate, especially if bonds are not to be sold for an extended period-of time or are to be sold in series. • Will the size of the bond measure be lir6ited by the total cost projection? (i.e. If interest rates increase dramatically, the total cost of the bond measure will increase. Will the size of the bond have to be lowered to keep within the total cost projection?) 9 a ,.... nm. - ....., .,........ ,.Ere.. .xZr. ,..... ,"; r. ., —z,Pi i O .r m • Existing General Obligation Bonded Indebtedness Exempt "Nothing in this section shall affect taxes levied for the repayment of bonded indebtedness approved by voters in an election held prior to Nov. 7, 2000, or the issuance of refunding bonds to pay such bonded indebtedness." tq 0 h}k 10 rt qp • Issues/Comments • The measure clearly exempts general obligation bonds approved prior to November 7, 2000, but. . . • It raises questions about validity of bondsdapproved at November 7, 2000 election by less than required percentage or without the proper ballot title wording. • Exemption only applies to "taxes levied for... bonded indebtedness". May not apply to revenue bonds, even if they have been previously approved by the voters. 11 Nu • The following revenues shall not be considered new or increased taxes, fees, or charges. . . — user fees charged by Peoples' Utility Districts or port districts; — mass transit fares; — college or university tuition and fees; — incurred charges and assessments for local improvements (Measure 5); ' — pass through costs of wholesale inputs that are not .government employee labor costs, or otherwise under the charging government's control; — fines or forfeitures for violation of law; — lottery revenue; t — fees paid to official business and trade associations by those engaged in that business or occupation; — earnings from interest, investments, donations, or asset sales; and — competitively priced fees or charges for products or services which may be legally obtained from a reasonably available source other than government. 12 • Issues/Comments • Incurred charges exemption may be helpful for some fees (development-related, possibly utilities). • Fines/Forfeitures exemption may give incentive to modify charges into fines. • Pass-through of increased wholesale costs -- may allow increases without a vote for costs "passed through" from one government to another (i.e. Portland water). i . • Exemption for "legally obtained from a source other than government" should apply to some park and recreation services (e.g., swimming pools). 13 Wg • Retroactive Provision — Measure retroactive to December 6, 1998 — Any taxes or fees imposed or increased more than 3% during that time must be repealed or referred to a vote of the people "at the next election" — Past elections would now be subject to the new super-majority requirement. — Past elections may be subject to the new Ballot Title and Ballot Question wording requirements. ry t+ • Refund Provision li ; — If a tax or fee was imposed or increased more than 3% and not subsequently approved by the voters in conformance with this measure, the amount collected must be refunded "to the payer" 14 f u" • Issues/Comments • Local option levies approved after December 6, 1998 and that increased taxes by more than 3% must be refunded unless originally approved by new percentage or subsequently re-approved. • Unclear if previous approval had to use new ballot title language. • Election to validate previous increase may be at any election, not just general election. Not clear whether double majority provisions apply to re-approval. continued 15 E ms • Issues/Comments (continued) • How will governments refund money to "the payer" when that information is not currently maintained (i.e. water billings, parking meters, etc)? • If revenue bonds are outstanding, increases in rates required by bond covenants to meet coverage ratios may be protected by contracts clause. However, funds collected over what is necessary to meet coverage may be subject to refund provisions. s 16 • Inflationary Increases Increases since December 6, 1998 okay if they did not exceed 3% — Future increases are allowed "at a rate not greater than the rate of inflation" without a vote of the people. 17 • Issues/Comments: • With 3% provision, essentially allows for increase of approximately 1 .5% per year during period between December 7, 1998 and December 7, 2000. • Fees may be increased after December 7, 200 by the, rate of inflation without a vote of the people. • "Rate of Inflation" is not defined. Depending on index used, this may be more or less useful. 18 � M�ti � r • Increased Taxes as a Result of Changes in Federal Law Increased Income Not Affected — This section shall not require a vote of the people when increases in government revenue occur solely due to: • a change in federal tax law, • increases in income, • or other changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers • Existing Property Tax Limitations Still Apply — Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing an increase in the tax on a property tax in an amount greater than allowed under Article XI of this Constitution. • Government may temporarily suspend or lower a tax or fee, and then later increase it to the level allowed by this measure without a vote. 19 { 3 x Y f � • Issues/Comments • Exemption for increases in revenue due to increases in income should allow State to collect income tax based on current system. • Not clear whether increases in local government property taxes due to growth in value is exempt under this section. They may not be "change in the circumstances of an individual taxpayer." • Measure does not address change in taxes attributable to annexations. 20 xfn x t, a s y/ • State Authority to Override — The :Legislature and Governor may: Y • Override this section and call for a special election date other than the date(s) set forth in this section, or • Enact by law particular taxes, or authorize particular local taxes, fees, or charges without a vote of the People. — IF • Such taxes are approved by a three-fourths vote in each house and signed into law by the Governor. • The tax authorized is designated for a specific purpose. • The tax shall be in effect no longer than twelve months. • The tax will be subject to referendum. 21 i • Issues/Comments: • Ability to achieve 3/4 majority plus Gubernatorial approval seems remote. • Best case is one year tax. • Impractical timing: No provision for dealing with, years when Legislature not in session. Section 1 a of Article IX requires waiting 90 days after sine die for a tax measure to be effective. Therefore, delays in collection of additional revenue may be substantial. • Local tax may be approved, but not clear on collection mechanism and how it is coordinated with other constitutional provisions. Measure 50 limitations still in effect for property taxes. • If the measure is subsequently referred to voter and not approved, the tax or fee will be subject to refund provisions. 22 • Local Authority to Override — A city county, or local taxing district may override this section for a period not exceeding twelve months, — IF — A local emergency is declared by the Governor — The override is approved by not less than a three-fourths vote of the members of the local governing body, — The continuation of the tax for any remainder of the twelve months is approved by voters voting in an election held within` ninety_ (90) days of the date the emergency is declared, — The tax or fee is otherwise adopted in conformance with this section. 23 '• i^yvx 3' �yi c" kE (, • Issues/Comments • Election problems - may not be able to hold an election within 90 days under current law or in an emergency situation. • ' Voter approval subject to adoption "in conformance with this section," which probably means both the higher percentage and possibly requiring voting at a general election, which would render the local override provision mostly meaningless. • If measure is subsequently not approved by voters, the tax or fee will be subject to refund provisions. r 24 t x • Penalties - 6% Interest, Plus Cost of Living — Amounts collected in violation of this measure shall be refunded, along with • Interest, computed as the cost of living change plus six percent per year, compounded • In some cases, credits may be substituted for refunds — If the cost of issuing the refund is more than 201/6 of the amount of the refund, a credit may be issued to the appropriate taxpayers. 25 gmn F x E,... • Issues/Comments • "Cost of living change" undefined. • Would penalty be assessed for refund of fees, taxes collected during retroactive period when when the collection was allowed? • Issuing credits to taxpayers may not be an option. — If the inappropriate fee is one-time or periodic rather than on- going, how would a credit be issued'? t — What happens if the payer has moved out of the jurisdiction and will, therefore, have no future charges to credit against? • The money for paying the costs of the refunds or paying the penalties cannot be netted out of the refund. This creates an additional burden on other revenues. 26 v d 3 • "Other Financing Mechanisms" that do not increases taxes or fees may be subject to a vote — "Because governments have at times been creative at redefining terms, or otherwise creating new funding, mechanisms in order to circumvent limitations (emphasis added)... the legislature...and the courts. ..shall apply the strictest scrutiny to any new or renamed government funding mechanism . . ." — "Certificates of participation and all such funding mechanisms shall be subject to the same limitations and requirements as a bond measure" In d 27 k l ..'C "t'E , � �.. �k 3 • Issues/Comments • Certificates of Participation and "other financing mechanisms" are used by governments to finance major equipment and capital facilities at advantageous interest rates over time without increasing taxes. • Does "other financing mechanisms" include revenue bonds? • Suggests that even if certificates of participation, or other "funding mechanisms," have no impact on increasing taxes, fees or charges, still subject to voter approval. 28 ,K a a • Standing to bring suit — Any Oregon taxpayer affected by a new or increased tax, fee, or charge has standing to challenge it or the election authorizing it. - Such an action must be started within ninety (90) days after the earlier of • (i) the date on which the election approving the tax, fee, charge or bond is held; or • (ii) the date on which the tax, fee, or charge is first imposed or the bond is approved for issue. • Award of attorney's fees — The court shall award attorney fees.to the prevailing taxpayer, or — If the action is found to be frivolous, to a prevailing government party.. 29 a fU • Issues/Comments • Language of the measure is unclear. This creates a large potential for suits. • The 90 day provision for legal challenges may cause delay in the issuance of bonds, as issuers may want to let period run after obtaining voter approval before the bonds are issued. • Unequal treatment of attorney's fees encourages citizen litigation. Citizen receives attorney's fees if they prevail; governments receive fees only if the citizen suit is "frivolous." 30 tiom 4 i • The retroactive & refund provisions are a major problem area. — Money was collected legally (under rules that currently exist) and has been spent. — Refunds may be payable from any source — e.g., even if the fee or charge came from the Sewer Fund, the General Fund might have to provide the reimbursement if there are insufficient dollars in the Sewer Fund to do it. — Difficulty in identifying "payer." — Local option taxes approved at any election between December 1998 and December 2000 that increased taxes more than 3% will invalidated if they were not approved by at least the percent that the measure was approved by. 31 er M. •If, lbs .. • Typical result: library fines, cafeteria increases, parking meter increases and/or placement of new parking meters; planning fees; permitting fees — are all potentially subject to voter approval. • November 7, 2000 general obligation bond elections may also be invalid — if they are not approved by the same percentage as the measure itself — if measure does not contain the appropriate wording Most bond counsel think that bond measures will be OK if the bonds are sold prior to prior to December 8. However, best case is that municipalities will have to sell all bonds in orae month period of time -- a practical impossibility. t • Exemption for "incurred charges" may exempt some fees and some utility charges. Under Measure 5, a property tax was exempt from the limits if it could be classified as an incurred charge (avoidable, equal to the actual cost of providing the service). Requires a legal interpretation. 32 TAXPAYER PROTECTION INITIATIVEBe it enacted by the People of the State of OregonPage 1 of 2 TAXPAYER PROTECTION INITIATIVE Text of this initiative will be posted when we secure a ballot title. MKP_a yep Protection /nio a tti ve 1) Since 1990, there has been a virtual explosion of tax and fee increases in Oregon. Governments have discovered this way of nickeling -and diming taxpayers to death. ° 2) More than sixty percent of Oregon voters would support a measure requiring voter approval for new or increased taxes. 3) This initiative prohibits most new or increased taxes, fees, or charges without greater-than- _ majority voter approval. 4) Under this initiative, there would be a reduction in the number of tax elections allowed each year. „How do we taxpayer, VE7,! I G o u irse V ainst 1"he weekly deluge of new Aonei-nr ient prcg, ams and attacks on our reedO " Ray D., Ontario No new taxes or fees without a vote Since the passage of Measure 5, government has grown ever more effective at finding new and creative ways to tax Oregonians. Too often elected officials have proven they cannot be trusted to protect, or even consider taxpayers' best interests. This initiative protects taxpayers by requiring voter approval for new taxes and fees, or increases in existing taxes and fees. This limitation will apply to state government and all local governments. No government in Oregon will be able to increase taxes or most fees without the consent of the voters. Since 1990, there has been a virtual explosion of fee increases in Oregon. Governments have made the hundreds of fees they charge a http://www.otu.org/pages/taxpayer_protection_initiativebe.htm 04/12/2000 TAXPAYER PROTECTION INITIATIVEBe it enacted by the People of the State of OregonPage 2 of 2 primary source of revenue. Fees are merely hidden taxes. But in some respects fees are more ominous than taxes in that they are often each small enough that no one can justify the effort necessary to fight them one at a time. Fees have become government's way of "nickel and diming" .taxpayers to death. Back to New Initiatives Home Page • Y hap://www.otu.org/pages/taxpaycr_protection—initiativebe.htm 04/12/2000 of i wn l�, r i ; P H I! K F!IS t_I J!-.1AXPAYER PROTECTION 3NPTIATIVE r" Cir• 1�Y t' 1: ••Tc i� Be it enacted by people oW the -tate of oh gon: , The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new, Section 32a in Article 1,which section shall read. Section 32a. People's right to approve all taxes.The purpose of this 2000 Amendment is to ensure that new taxes and tax increases,which further deprive citizens of income and property,are hereafter directly approved by the people. Therefore,except as provided in Section 6 of Article 1X,any new tax,fee,or charge,or increase in an existing tax,fee;or charge,shall require approval by the people,as follows: (1)(a) No new tax,fee,or charge shall be imposed,assessed or levied,and no existing tax,fee or charge shall be increased by the state or any local government or taxing district,unless the new tax,fee,or diarge,or increase thereof is first approved in an election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November of an even numbered year,or any other election held on a date which the state legislative assembly has designated as an annual election date on which measures may be placed on the statewide ballot by initiative petition,and the new tax,fee,or charge,or increase thereof is approved by not less than the percentage of participating voters who voted"Yes"on this 2000 Amendment For purposes of this section and subject to subsection(S)of this section,the following shall require only approval by a majority of those voting in the election: (i)a measure to renew•an expiring tax levy,which levy solely funds police,fine,or 911 emergency services,the rate or amount of which levy is not greater than the rate or amount of the expiring levy;and(ii)a measure to increase the state motor vehicle fuel tax (b)The ballot title and official voters pamphlet explanatory statement for a measure to adopt a new tax,fee,or charge;to approve a bond measure;or to increase an existing tax,fee,or charge,shall begin with the words: A"Yes"vote on this measure is a vote to increase taxes. The question submitted to voters also shall dearly descrft the proposed new tax,few or charge,or increase thereof,if the measure is a bond measure,a projection of the total cost of the bond,including interest thereon;and revenue the measure would produce annually. (c)Nothing in this section shall affect taxes levied for the repayment of bonded indebtedness approved by voters in an election held prior to Nov.7,2000,or the issuance of refunding•bonds to pay such bonded indebtedness This section does not require voter approval for the issuance of,or the levy of taxes to pay,bonds issued to repay bonds issued prior to the effective date of this section or issued in conformance with this section. (2)For purposes of this section,any elimination,limitation,or reduction of a tax exemption,credit,deduction,exclusion,or cost- of-living indexing shall be considered a tax increase. (3)The following revenues shall not be considered new or increased taxes,fees,or charges for the purposes of this section: user fees charged by Peoples'Utility Districts or port districts;mass transit fares;college or university tuition and fees;incurred charges and.assessments for local improvements as defined by Article XI Section l lb of this Constitution;increases in charges for government products and services solely to pass through increased costs of wholesale inputs that are not government employee labor costs,or otherwise under the charging government's control;fines or forfeitures for violation of law;lottery revenue;fees paid to official business and trade associations by those engaged in that business or oompation;earnings from interest, investments,donations,or asset sales;and flees or charges for products or services which may be legally obtained from a reasonably available source other than government,provided tharthe neat or increased fee or charge for the product or service is not greater than the average private sector charge for the same product or service in the same market (4)(a)If in the two years previous to the effective date of this section,an existing tax,fee,or charge was increased more than three percent(3'/0),or a new tax,fee,or charge was adopted or first imposed,the increase in the existing tax,fee,or charge,to the extent it exceeded a three percent increase,and any new tax,fee,or charge,shall be either repealed or submitted to the voters for approval at the next election,if the new or increased tax,fee or charge was not approved by at least the percentage of voters required in paragraph(a)of subsection(1)of this section. If a new tax fee or charge was imposed,or an existing tax,fee,or charge increased in the two years previous to the effective date of this section,and the new tax,fee,or charge or increase in an existing tax,fee,or charge,was not approved in conformance with this section,and not approved by voters at the next election,the amount of the new tax,fee,or charge or excessive increase collected shall be refunded to the payer. Taxes to pay voter approved bonded indebtedness,and taxes,fees,and,charges listed in subsection(3)of this section are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph(a)of this subsection(4). (b)Provided that the amount of a fee or charge does not exceed the actual cost of providing the product or service,the following fees and charges may be increased at a rate not greater than the rate of inflation since the effective date of this section,without a public vote: (i)charges and fees in effect on or before December 6, 1998;(ii)charges and fees first adopted or first effective after December 6, 1998;if adopted in accordance with this section. (S)Nothing in this section shall be construed as nullifying the requirement-in Section 11 of Article XI of this Constitution that elections for property tax measures,which ane voted on in an election held on a date other than the general election,achieve not less than fifty percent(500/a)voter participation to be valid (6xa)This section shall not require a vote of the people when increases in government revenue occur solely due to a change m federal tax law, increases in-income,or other changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers. Nothing in this section shall be construed as.authorizing an increase in the tax on a property tax in an amount greater than allowed under Article M of this Constitution. (b)IC after the effective date of this section,a government temporarily suspends or voluntarily lowers a tax;fee,or charge;the tax, fee or charge may be increased later,without a public vote,to the rate or amount it would have been under this section had the suspension or reduction not occurred (7)(a) Subject to Section la of Article IX,the Legislative,Assembly and Governor may Override this section and call for a special election date other than the date(s)set forth in subsection(1)of this section,or may enaatby law particular taxes,or authorize particular local taxes,fees,or charges without a vote of the People if such taxes are approved by a three-fourths vote in each house and signed into law by the Governor. Any tax authorized or enacted by such action shall be designated for a specific purpose and shall be in effect no longer than twelve months.Any tax,fee,or charge imposed under-this subsection shall be subject to referendum. (b)Subject to Section la of Article 1X of this Constitution,if a local Emergency is declared by the Governor,the affected city, county,or local taxing district may override this section for a period not exceedm&twelve months,i£ (i)the override is approved by not less than a three-fourths vote of the members ofthe.local governing bodxkand()the continuation of the tax for any remainder of the twelve months is approved by voters voting in an election held within ninety(90)days of the date the emergency is declared,and otherwise adopted in conformance with this section. (8) The public shall be given reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed ballot title for any measure to create a new tax, fee,or charge or increase an existing tax,fee,or charge. The ballortitle may be challenged in court,and shall be rejected if itis biased,inaccurate,not easily understood,or does not comply with paragraph(b)of mon(1)of this section. (9)A government that levies taxes,fees,or charges in violation of this Section 32a shall refund the amount of any tax,fee,or charge collected in violation of this section,phis interest,to taxpayers in the twelve months following the determination of violation. Interest paid shall be computed as the cost of living change plus six percent per year,compounded.for the period from collection of the tax,fee,or charge to payment of the refunds. If the cost of issuing the refund is more than twenty percent(200/a) of the amount of the rudimd,a credit may be issued to the appropriate taxpayers. (10) Because governments have at times been creative at redefining terms,or otherwise creating new funding mechanisms in order to circumvent limitations placed upon them by the people,the legislature,in implementing this section,and the courts in interpreting it,shall apply the strictest scrutiny to any new or r roamed government funding mechanism;and shall requite in every reasonable circumstance voter approval as required in this section for new or increased taxes,fees,or charges,regardless of the creativity used by the government in designing or naming the firndmg mechanism. Under this section;certificates of participation and all such funding mechanisms shall be subject to the same limitations and requirements as a bond measure. (11)Any Oregon taxpayer affected by a new or increased twat,fee,or charge or bond issue subject to this Section 32a has standing to challenge it,and/or the election authorizing its imposition,by court action commenced in any eouatyin which the taxing entity is located. If the election is held,a tax,fee,or charge is imposed,or a bond is approved,in material violation of this section or any implementing legislation,the court shall declare the tax,fee,charge or bond void. Such an action shall be commenced within ninety(90)days after the earlier of(i)the date on which the election approving the tax,fee,charge or bond is held;or(ii)the date ta on which the x,fee,or charge is first imposed or the bond is approved for issue. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing taxpayer,or if the action is found to be frivolous,to a prevailing government party. (12)If any Phrase,clause,or part of this Amendment is invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction,the remaining phrases, clauses,and parts shall remain in full force and effect. If any provision of this Amendment is found to violate or infringe upon a right of any person or group under the U.S. Constitution,the provision shall remain in full force and effect for all other persons or groups for which no infringement has been found 31Y.L 2 301,c713L403S .c.1 1S:3`A 11Hd LS !, Wd 01 HBW 66, n-1 • i7/) 3v Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 1 of 15 A Special Report of the Portland Office of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP on Oregon's Taxpayer Protection Initiative March 17, 2000 A citizen initiative has been filed with the office of the Oregon Secretary of State which has some elements of Washington's Initiative 695. The sponsor of the Oregon initiative, Bill Sizemore, has called the Oregon measure the "Taxpayer Protection Initiative" and has claimed he has collected enough signatures to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Initiative for the November 7, 2000 general election ballot. Like Washington's Initiative 695, the Taxpayer Protection Initiative requires voter approval for future increases in most taxes, fees and charges. Unlike Washington's Initiative 695, the Taxpayer Protection Initiative is designed to disrupt Oregon government services unpredictably by retroactively requiring refunds of past collections and by encouraging unnecessary litigation against Oregon governments. DESIGNED TO DISRUPT SERVICES UNPREDICTABLY The Taxpayer Protection Initiative (the "TPI") is designed to disrupt Oregon government services unpredictably because: . it tells governments that "maybe" they will have to refund most taxes, fees and charges made or increased since December 6, 1998; and, . it encourages unnecessary litigation against governments. The Refund Requirement Will Disrupt Services Bill Sizemore can almost make the refund requirement sound reasonable. He focuses on how nice it would be to get the refund, and how sad it was that the citizens had to pay increased taxes fees and charges. But it is no more reasonable to require governments to refund money retroactively than it is to require citizens to refund money retroactively. Suppose your boss had given you raises each year for the last two years. Suppose your boss didn't really "want" to give you those raises, but felt he had to because he needed you to keep working and if he didn't give you the raises you might quit. Now suppose a law is passed that requires you to pay those raises back to your employer right away, unless your employer tells you it is alright for you to keep those raises. Even if you are a really good employee, and even if you really deserved those raises, how confident would you be that your employer would let you keep your money? Suppose you spent those raises for really good things: medical care for your children, college tuition, things like that. Would that make you confident your employer would let you keep your raises? This is exactly what the TPI does to governments. If the TPI passes on November 7, 2000, then Oregon governments must refund taxes, fees and charges that were imposed or increased after December 6th, 1998, unless the citizens vote in March of 2001 and say that governments may keep http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 2 of 15 that money. What will happen? What always happens. In some places citizens will allow governments to keep the money, and in other places they won't. In both those places life will be very awkward between next November and next March. And after March, in the places where citizens do not allow governments to keep the money, governments will have to refund two years of new and increased taxes immediately, potentially disrupting essential government services dramatically. If you dislike governments, and think they ought to be disrupted, the TPI is good legislation. If you think governments should have less money and more citizen control, but should provide services reliably and efficiently, the TPI is bad legislation. Encourages Litigation The TPI encourages citizens to sue governments in four ways: . it contains many provisions which are vague, difficult to understand or simply poorly written; • it directs courts to find in favor of citizens and against governments; . it gives attorneys fees to citizens if they win their suits, but effectively denies them to governments when governments wind.and, . If a citizen wins, governments must return the money with interest at a very high interest rate.. These four factors combine to encourage citizens and-their lawyers to sue governments under the TPI. If the citizens win, their lawyers get paid, and the citizens get a refund with substantial interest. If citizens lose they pay nothing. Perhaps, as lawyers, we should be delighted. But do the people of Oregon really want their governments to reduce taxes, fees and charges, and then spend more of what they have left on litigation and less on services to citizens? VOTER APPROVAL OF FUTURE TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES Generally The TPI prohibits most new and increased taxes, fees and charges, and most increases in taxes, fees and charges, after December 6th, 2000 unless those new taxes, fees and charges receive a new, special type of voter approval. The TPI requires future taxes, fees and charges to be approved: . only at a general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November of an even numbered year, or once each year at a type of election that does not currently exist, and, . by at least the percentage of voters that approve the TPI. The TPI also allows new taxes, fees and charges to be approved on one election date each year, but only if statewide initiative petitions may also be approved on that date. Oregon law does not currently allow statewide initiative petitions to be approved at any election except a general election in an even numbered year. To allow taxes, fees and charges to be approved annually, the Oregon legislature will need to change the election laws to permit citizen initiatives to be approved annually. The Election Requirements of the TPI and Measure 50 The TPI's election requirements are in addition to the existing election requirements of the Oregon http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 3 of 15 Constitution. Section 11 a of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution(Measure 50) currently requires property taxes to be approved at a general election in an even numbered year, or at another election at which a majority of voters cast ballots. Both Measure 50 and the TPI allow property taxes to be approved at a general election in an even numbered year; the TPI will add the requirement that property taxes approved at that election be approved by at least the same percentage of voters that approve the TPI. However, if the Legislature authorizes an annual election date for increases in taxes, fees and charges under the TPI, then property taxes could only be approved on that annual election date if a majority of voters cast ballots at that election, and if the taxes are approved by at least the percentage of voters that approve the TPI. Fees and Charges Must Be Called "Taxes" The TPI requires all election ballots authorizing taxes, fees or charges to begin with the statement "a 'yes' vote on this measure is a vote to increase taxes." The ballot must contain this statement even if it only authorizes fees or charges. Refunds of Future Taxes, Fees and Charges Not Approved By the Voters If a tax, fee or charge is imposed in violation of the TPI, the government must refund it, with interest at six percent plus the cost of inflation. ThjS,rate is substantially higher than a person or government could receive by investing money in a debt instrument, and thi!Migh rate provides an additional incentive for citizens to sue governments. THE RETROACTIVE REFUND REQUIREMENT Generally Unless the voters retroactively approve retaining them, the TPI requires governments to refund: • all non-exempt taxes, fees and charges which were first imposed after December 6, 1998 (this report will call these "New Charges"); and, • all increases of more than three percent in non-exempt taxes, fees and charges which were in effect on December 6, 1998 (this report will call these "New Increases"). If the TPI is approved, New Charges and New Increases must be repealed and refunded, or submitted to the voters on the next available election date. If the legislature does not change the election laws, the "next available election date" will be in March of 2001. Approval by a simple majority of voters casting ballots will be sufficient to allow governments to retain the New Charges and New Increases. Effect of Prior Voter Approval The TPI apparently intends to require governments to refund some New Charges and New Increases which already have been approved by the voters. Unfortunately, Section 4(a) has conflicting statements about what level of prior voter approval is sufficient to exempt New Charges and New Increases from the retroactive refund requirement, and the TPI may subject all New Charges and New Increases (except certain bond taxes) to the refund requirement, regardless of the fact that the voters already approved them. http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 4 of 15 The retroactive refund requirement is in of the TPI. The first sentence of that section says that New Charges and New Increases "shall be either repealed or submitted to the voters for approval at the next election, if the new or increased tax, fee or charge was not approved by at least the percentage of voters required in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section." This sentence exempts New Charges and New Increases from the requirement that they be repealed or submitted to the voters on the next available election date, if those New Charges or New Increases were approved by at least the same percentage of voters that approve the TPI. Since those New Charges and New Increases do not need to be repealed or submitted to the voters for retroactive approval, it would seem logical that governments should not have to refund those New Charges and New Increases. Unfortunately, that is not what the second sentence of says. The second sentence says that New Charges and New Increases must be refunded unless they were "approved in conformance with this section" or retroactively approved by the voters in March of 2001. It is quite clear from the context of the TPI that the words "this section" refer to the entire TPI, and not just to some part of it. The only provisions for approval of taxes, fees and charges in the TPI are the voter approval requirements of Section 1(a). So the second sentence seems to say that all new or increased taxes, fees and charges must be refunded unless they were approved Ala general election in an even numbered year by at least the percentage of voters that approve the TPI. The retroactive refund requirement only applies to taxes, fees and charges imposed or increased between December 7, 1998 and December 6, 2000. There is only one general election date in an even numbered year during that period, and it is the one coming up at the end of that period, on November 7, 2000. So the second sentence of Section 4(a) says, in effect, that prior voter approval of New Charges and New Increases is irrelevant. The first and second sentences of Section 4(a) conflict with each other. A court will have to resolve that conflict. of the TPI directs courts to "require in every reasonable circumstance voter approval as required in this section for new or increased taxes..." Section 10 could be interpreted to direct courts to ignore the apparent exemption in the first sentence of Section 4(a), and conclude that prior voter approval only exempts New Charges and New Increases if the New Charges and New Increases are approved at the November 7, 2000, election. Measuring Increases in Taxes Section 4(a) of the TPI requires a refund "If in the two years previous to the effective date of this section" a tax, fee or charge was increased more than three percent. This seemingly simple language is remarkably hard to apply to property tax levies, because the two year period begins on December 7, 1998, and taxes are levied for fiscal years which end on June 30. On December 6, 1998, all of the property taxes for fiscal year 1998-1999 would have been levied, and most collected. The literal language of Section 4(a) suggests a refund is owed if taxes have increased more than three percent between December 7, 1998 and December 6, 2000. Since the fiscal year 1998-1999 taxes were already levied and mostly collected before December 7, 1998, this language suggests we would ignore the taxes for fiscal year 1998-1999. However, ignoring those taxes may allow governments a larger base year to which the three percent increase may be applied. The ambiguity can make a substantial difference to governments and citizens. Again, it appears that expensive litigation is likely to result over this issue, which could have been avoided by careful drafting. http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 5 of 15 Interest on the Retroactive Refund of the TPI generally requires governments which levy "taxes, fees, or charges in violation of[the TPI]" to refund that money with interest at six percent, plus "the cost of living change." It is not clear whether New Charges or New Increases which are subject to the retroactive refund requirement of Section 4(a) will be required to pay interest on the refund under Section 9. Since New Charges and New Increases did not violate the TPI when they were collected, governments should not be required to pay interest on retroactive refunds. However, since the TPI encourages citizen lawsuits, litigation may well be filed on this issue. THE REFUND LIABILITY IS GENERAL The TPI imposes the refund obligation on each government generally, and not on the financial system of that government that collected the increased taxes, fees and charges. For a special purpose government such as a water district this does not matter much. All the money such a district collects is used for water services. If that district has to pay a refund, the refund will be paid from money that would otherwise be used for water services. The situation is very different for general purpose governments, such as cities and counties. These governments collect taxes, fees and charges for a wide variety of purposes. Suppose a city has increased sewer fees dramatically in the last two years to remedy serious environmental problems caused by its sewer system, and has spent the increases to start fixing the problem. If the TPI passes, the increased sewer fees will be subject to the refund requirement of Section 4(a). Suppose the increases were unpopular, and the voters require the city to refund the money. The sewer system's money has been spent. What other money should the city use to pay the refund? The city could try to sell the sewer system to pay the refund liability, but it is very unlikely that such a complex system could be sold in time to pay the refund, even at an unreasonably low price. So the city probably will have to reduce services in an area that is not related to the fees that produced the refund liability. What services should be reduced? Water services? Police? Fire? EFFECT ON SCHOOL AND OTHER LOCAL OPTION LEVIES The TPI in requires governments to refund all new taxes imposed after December 6, 1998 (except taxes for voter approved bonds). The most significant new property taxes imposed after December 6 1998 are likely to be local option levies. Because the TPI probably does not exempt levies which the voters have previously approved from the refund requirement, the TPI is likely to require school districts and other governments with new local option levies to submit these levies again to their voters, and is likely to require those school districts and other governments to refund those levies, if those levies are not retroactively approved. It is hard to imagine how a school district with a new local option levy will be able to manage its affairs if the TPI passes. The district will not be able to find out from its voters whether it can keep its local option by the money until March of 2001. Should it use money that could be used for teachers to hire lawyers to sue for a determination that the levy is not subject to the refund, because of the inconsistent language in Section 4(a)? Should it immediately fire teachers, to start saving for the refund it may have to pay? Should it keep spending in accordance with its budget, hoping that the voters will reapprove the levy, but knowing that the disruption will be even greater if the voters do not? http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 6 of 15 HOW MUCH CAN GOVERNMENTS CONTINUE TO COLLECT? The TPI "grandfathers" taxes, fees and charges that were in effect on December 6, 1998. Those taxes, fees and charges can increase by a total of three percent during the two year period that begins on December 7, 1998 and ends on December 6, 2000. If taxes, fees were charges increased by more than three percent during that two-year period, the excess is subject to the retroactive refund requirement. After December 6, 2000 taxes which were in effect on December 6, 1998 may continue to the levied at 103 percent of the amount in effect on December 6, 1998. Determining just what this amount is may be difficult; see "Measuring Increases in Taxes," above. Those taxes can not be increased after December 6, 2000 unless the increase is approved at an election that meets the requirements of Section 1(a). After December 6, 2000, fees and charges which were in effect on December 6, 1998 may continue to be imposed at 103% of the amount imposed on December 6, 1998. In addition, fees and charges which do not exceed the actual cost of providing the product or service may be increased after December 6, 2000 at the rate of inflation since the effective date of the TPI. Rate Levies Measure 50 generally converted Oregon's property tax system from a "dollar levy" system to a "rate levy" system. The amount a government receives under a "dollar levy" system in not affected by property values. In a rate levy system the amount a government receives from its rate levy changes as assessed property values change. Generally the assessed value of property inside a local government goes up somewhat more than three percent each year(the value of existing property goes up by no more than three percent; new construction causes the total increase in value to be higher). Unfortunately, the TPI does not clearly indicate whether increases in government revenue that result from increases in property values are subject to the TPI's voter approval requirement. Since Mr. Sizemore gave us the rate levy system of Measure 50, it is particularly distressing that his TPI does not bother to be clear about this very important issue. of the TPI says that increases in government revenue which occurred as a result of"a change in federal tax law, increases in income, or other changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers," are not increases which require a vote under the TPI. This language makes it clear that state income tax revenue increases the result from increases in taxpayer income do not require a vote. However it does not specifically address increases in property tax revenues which result from increases in assessed values. One could argue that changes in property values are a "change in the circumstances of an individual taxpayer" and we believe this is the best interpretation of the TPI. However, it is certainly possible to argue that "changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers" is intended to refer to income, age, medical condition, and other factors more personal to an individual than the value of an individual's property. If changes in property values are not "changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers" then governments will not be able to collect increased tax revenues as property appreciates or is newly constructed. Such an interpretation of the TPI would dramatically and adversely affect the ability of governments to provide future services, and would create a strong disincentive for new development. Because the TPI encourages litigation, and this issue has very important revenue implications for governments and taxpayers, litigation on this issue is very likely. This is unfortunate, because it http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI—Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 7 of 15 would have been very easy to draft the TPI to avoid this problem, and because litigation will consume public funds that could otherwise be used to provide public services. EXEMPTIONS In General The TPI exempts the following taxes fees and charges. . user fees charged by Peoples' Utility Districts or port districts; . mass transit fares; . college or university tuition and fees; . incurred charges and assessments for local improvements as defined by Article XI Section l lb of this Constitution; . increases in charges for government products and services solely to pass through increased costs of wholesale inputs that are not government employee labor costs, or otherwise under the charging government's control; . fines or forfeitures for violation of law; . lottery revenue; . fees paid to official business and trade associations by those engaged in that business or occupation; ; . earnings from interest, investments, donations, or asset sus; and . fees or charges for products or services which may be legally obtained from a reasonably available source other than government, provided that the new or increased fee or charge for the product or service is not greater than the average private sector charge for the same product or service in the same market. It is worth noting that none of these exemptions are available for taxes, fees and charges used to pay costs of fire, police and other emergency services. Incurred Charges For general-purpose governments which provide a wide range of services, the most useful exemption is for "incurred charges." Incurred charges are defined as: "Incurred charges" include and are specifically limited to those charges by government which can be controlled or avoided by the property owner. i. because the charges are based on the quantity of the goods or services used and the owner has direct control over the quantity; or ii. because the goods or services are provided only on the specific request of the property owner; or iii. because the goods or services are provided by the governmental unit only after the individual property owner has failed to meet routine obligations of ownership and such action is deemed necessary to enforce regulations pertaining to health or safety. Incurred charges shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the goods or services. Unfortunately, the incurred charge exemption may only apply to charges on property or property owners. The definition of"incurred charge" came from Measure Five. Measure Five was exclusively concerned with charges which were made on property or on property owners as a direct consequence of property ownership. Under Measure Five it made sense to define incurred charges as a type of charge on property. The TPI however, affects a much broader range of the fees and charges. It would http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 8 of 15 make sense that a government should be able to charge the actual cost of providing a good or service to a citizen who requests that good or service, but the TPI won't allow that unless courts are willing to ignore the words "property owners" in the definition of"incurred charge." The consequences of this lack of clarity are substantial. Without an exemption for voluntary payments, fees for little league, parks, tennis courts and similar services will require voter approval to increase. Which means that governments may have to discontinue providing those services. As in other areas, this lack of clarity is virtually certain to promote litigation. Most governmental utility systems can convert their fees and charges so that they are "incurred charges" and exempt from the TPI's voter approval requirements. Interestingly, this apparently will require those utilities to impose their charges on property or property owners, rather than just on the users of the utility services. Among other things, this means that apartment owners will be forced by the TPI to become liable for the water and sewer charges of their tenants. EMERGENCY, TEMPORARY OVERRIDES The TPI allows the state legislature to impose emergency taxes without meeting the TPI's voter approval requirements. The state emergency-override requiremex�,ts, while burdensome, will work if enough legislators support the override. See of the TPI. The TPI also purports to allow local governments to impose emergency taxes, fees and charges without meeting the TPI's voter approval requirements. See of the TPI. Unfortunately, the local government override does not appear to work at all. It does not work because it requires voter approval of the emergency within 90 days after the emergency is declared, and it apparently requires the voter approval to meet the full TPI voter approval requirements. Section 7(b) says that the emergency tax, fee or charge must be "adopted in conformance with this section." As noted above, "this section" refers to the entire TPI. Since the only requirements for adopting new taxes, fees and charges in the TPI are the TPI's voter approval requirements, this language suggests that the voter's approval of the emergency tax, fee or charge must meet all of the requirements the TPI imposes on voter approval of any new tax, fee or charge. This would mean that local governments have no greater ability to impose new taxes, fees or charges in an emergency than they do ordinarily. Perhaps the authors of the TPI intended to allow local governments a real emergency override. If they did, it is unfortunate that they did not spend enough time drafting it to avoid litigation over it. HOW IT AFFECTS BONDS In General The TPI does not have a general exemption for previously issued bonds. This is an unfortunate omission because the United States contracts clause will protect virtually all bonds issued before the effective date of the TPI which have levy or collection covenants. However, since the TPI encourages litigation and offers attorneys fees to successful litigants, we are likely to have a substantial amount of litigation over taxes, fees and charges that are dedicated to bonds and protected by the United States contracts clause. The TPI does have two sentences that exempt bond levies. http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 9 of 15 "Nothing in this section shall affect taxes levied for the repayment of bonded indebtedness approved by voters in an election held prior to Nov. 7, 2000, or the issuance of refunding bonds to pay such bonded indebtedness. This section does not require voter approval for the issuance of, or the levy of taxes to pay, bonds issued to repay bonds issued prior to the effective date of this section or issued in conformance with this section." Voter Approved Bonds The first sentence of this section only exempts taxes levied to repay bonded indebtedness approved by the voters. Since Measure Five all general obligation bonds have required voter approval. So the TPI does not jeopardize taxes levied to pay general obligation bonds issued after Measure Five passed, and it would not affect previously issued bonds for which taxes were being levied on December 6, 1998, if those taxes do not increase by more than three percent before December 7, 2000, and do not increase after December 6, 2000. Before Measure Five passed many local governments routinely issued general obligation local improvement bonds. These bonds have been legal obligations of Oregon governments for many, many years. The property tax to pay these bonds is only levied if assessment payments from property owners were insufficient. The TPI says that a levy for these bonds will violate the TPI. It is clear that the contacts clause of United States Constitution will protect the right of governments to levy of this tax. Unfortunately, it also appears clear that governments will get sued over this question, because of the strong incentives in the TPI for citizen suits. Refunding Bonds The second sentence of section 1 C. illustrates how hard it will be for governments to know whether they have complied with the TPI. The second sentence of section 1 C. appears to say that taxes levied to pay any refunding bonds, regardless of whether they have been approved by the voters, are exempt from the TPI. Should governments abide by the clear language of the TPI, and spend public funds to the refund tax backed bonds they have issued,just so that they can avoid citizens lawsuits? What reasonable public policy could possibly support an exemption for refunding bonds that does not also exempt the original bonds themselves?. EFFECT ON PARTICULAR BOND ISSUES Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds issued before the effective date of the TPI should be protected by the contracts clause of the United States Constitution. That means that the government issuing the revenue bonds should be allowed to continue to collect the amounts specified in the governments' rate covenant. For example, a water system should be entitled to collect revenues sufficient to pay its operation and maintenance expenses, to pay the debt service on its bonds, and to collect the "coverage amount" specified in its bond resolution. Typically the coverage amount ranges from 25 percent to 50 percent of the bond debt service. The amounts in excess of the coverage requirements would not be protected by the contracts clause. In addition, it does not appear that the contracts clause gives any significant protection against the http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 10 of 15 retroactive refund requirement The refund requirement appears to function like a judgment against the government. For example, suppose a citizen slipped, fell and injured himself terribly at a sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant would remain able to collect revenues sufficient to pay its operation and maintenance expenses, its debt service, and its coverage amount. However, the sewer system would also be required to pay damages to the injured person. The requirement to pay damages could materially and adversely impact the financial condition of the sewer system . If the TPI passes, it is not clear whether governments will be able to enter into traditional rate covenants after its affective date, even if the voters approve rate increases. This is because traditional rate covenants require unknown future rate increases, and itis not clear whether the TPI would allow voters to approve rate increases in unknown future amounts. It therefore appears that governments needing to finance facilities with revenue bonds should seriously consider issuing those revenue bonds before the TPI takes;effect. General Obligation Bonds General obligation bonds approved by the Aoters prior to November 7, 2000, are exempt from the TPI. However, general obligation bonds approved on NovembcF 7, 2000 are not exempt from the TPI. General obligation bonds on the November 7, 2000, ballot must be approved by at least at the same percentage of voters that approve the TPI. General obligation bonds which are approved before November 7, 2000 need not be rushed to market before November 7, 2000. After November 7, 2000, general obligation bonds may only be approved a general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November of an even numbered year, or at an annual election date at which statewide initiative measures may be approved. As noted above, Oregon currently has no annual election date for the approval of statewide initiatives. Local Improvement Financings The TPI exempts assessments for local improvements. Local governments will continue to be able to assess property owners. However, the most poorly drafted sentence in the entire TPI could be interpreted to require voter approval for all government borrowings. (See "Must All Borrowings After the TPI Have Voter Approval?" below.) It may, therefore, be prudent to issue any pending local improvement district bonds before the effective date of the TPI. Even if the TPI allows local improvement bonds without voter approval, the TPI will remove the ability of those governments to levy a tax within the limits of Measure Five to pay local improvement district bonds. This, together with the revenue reduction and retroactive refund provisions of the TPI, may reduce the creditworthiness of local governments, which will increase interest rates property owners must pay on assessments. Certificates of Participation Apparently the proponents of the TPI so strongly disliked certificate of participation financing that they reserved their worst possible grammar for the sentence in the TPI that addresses certificates of participation. The Worst Sentence http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 11 of 15 of the TPI scolds governments for having been creative in the past, and directs courts to determine "in every reasonable circumstance-[that] voter approval [is] required." After it is done scolding, section 10 of the TPI states: "Under [the TPI], certificates of participation and all such funding mechanisms shall be subject to the same limitations and requirements as a bond measure." This sentence literally says that certificates of participation are to be treated like a bond ballot measure. This makes no sense. Perhaps this sentence was intended to require a vote for certificates of participation and "all such funding mechanisms." If the TPI is intended to require a vote on certificates of participation(even though its literal language does not say that) then we must worry about what "all such funding mechanisms" means. Certificates of participation, technically, are a device that converts a lease purchase agreement or a loan agreement into a publicly sold security. The function of a certificate of participation is to allow a government to borrow money in the public capital markets, generally at a lower-cost than would be available from other sources. Under current Oregon law, certificates of participation are a convenient, but hardly essential, financing device. r 1 "Certificates of participation and all such funding mechanisms" do not increase the taxes or charges a government imposes on its citizens. These devices simply allow governments to borrow against the revenues to which they are already entitled. The term "certificates of participation" is relatively clear under Oregon law. "all such funding mechanisms" is completely unclear. Technically, "all such funding mechanisms" should refer to devices that convert loan and lease-purchase borrowings into publicly sold securities. However, devices that perform that function simply reduce government borrowing costs. So the worst sentence in the TPI is very puzzling, and under the TPI, puzzling provisions result in expensive litigation. Must All Borrowings After the TPI Have Voter Approval? Although there appears to be very little technical basis for it, people may argue that this senseless sentence actually is intending to prohibit all borrowings without a vote. If the TPI were interpreted this way, it could have a dramatic and immediate adverse effect on Oregon governments. To begin with, if a government is required to pay a substantial retroactive refund, it would make sense to allow the government to borrow for that refund payment and spread it over a substantial period, so that the government did not have to reduce expenditures to dangerously low levels in the year the TPI passes. Without the ability to borrow, the retroactive refund requirement could shut some governments down, depriving their citizens of essential public services. Secondarily, this provision places governments at risk of defaulting on existing obligations. Governments may have entered into interim financings, which must be refinanced with other debt obligations. Will the TPI prevent that refinancing? Suppose a government has entered into a contract to pay for development costs, and was planning on borrowing to fund that obligation. Will the TPI prevent the borrowing and force the government to default. Defaulting on existing obligations could subject a government to damage claims and seriously impairs it's credit rating, increasing the cost of borrowing (even with voter approval) in the future to provide government services. One very common type of borrowing that governments do routinely without voter approval is the local improvement district borrowing. If local governments can not do these borrowings without voter approval local governments may be forced to require developers to pay for all the costs of http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 12 of 15 public improvements, since governments will not have the ability to fund those public improvements. Finally, governments may be forced to lease,-instead of purchase, facilities, increasing the cost of providing services. And of course, even if the worst sentence in the TPI does not prohibit borrowing, there is likely to be expensive litigation on whether it does. Because the worst sentence in the TPI is clearly trying to do something to certificates of participation, governments planning to use certificates of participation and "all such funding mechanisms" should plan to complete those financings before November 7, 2000. Urban Renewal The effect of the TPI on urban renewal districts created after December 6, 1998, and on divide the taxes levies of urban renewal districts with special levy authority is difficult to determine. There may be no effect; there may be a substantial effect. It is not difficult to determine whether there will be lawsuits on this question: there will be lawsuits. Special levies of urban renewal districts (which are available only for urban renewal districts which were in existence when Measure 47 passed) will not be affected if they were in effect on December 6, 1998, and do not increase by more than three percent between December 6, 1998 and December 7, 2000. If a valid bond covenant requires the district to impose a special levy at a higher level, the contracts clause should allow governments to do that. However, resorting to the contracts clause may produce litigation. For this reason, and because of the chill the worst sentence in the TPI may cast over any borrowings which do not have voter approval (see "Must All Borrowings After the TPI Have Voter Approval?" above), Urban renewal agencies planning to issue bonds should consider issuing those bonds before November 7, 2000. Appendix A: Oregon's Taxpayer Protection Initiative - the full text of the initiative: TAXPAYER PROTECTION INITIATIVE Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new, Section 32a in Article 1, which section shall read: Section 32a. People's right to approve all taxes. The purpose of this 2000 Amendment is to ensure that new taxes and tax increases, which further deprive citizens of income and property, are hereafter directly approved by the people. Therefore, except as provided in Section 6 of Article IX, any new tax, fee, or charge, or increase in an existing tax, fee, or charge, shall require approval by the people, as follows: (1)(a) No new tax, fee, or charge shall be imposed, assessed or levied, and no existing tax, fee or charge shall be increased by the state or any local government or taxing district, unless the new tax, fee, or charge, or increase thereof is first approved in an election held on the first Tuesday after the http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI—Init.htm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 13 of 15 first Monday of November of an even numbered year, or any other election held on a date which the state legislative assembly has designated as an annual election date on which measures may be placed on the statewide ballot by initiative petition, and the new tax, fee, or charge, or increase thereof, is approved by not less than the percentage of participating voters who voted "Yes" on this 2000 Amendment. For purposes of this section and subject to subsection (5) of this section, the following shall require only approval by a majority of those voting in the election: (i) a measure to renew an expiring tax levy, which levy solely funds police, fire, or 911 emergency services, the rate or amount of which levy is not greater than the rate or amount of the expiring levy, and (ii) a measure to increase the state motor vehicle fuel tax. (b) The ballot title and official voters pamphlet explanatory statement for a measure to adopt a new tax, fee, or charge; to approve a bond measure; or to increase an existing tax, fee, or charge, shall begin with the words: A "Yes" vote on this measure is a vote to increase taxes. The question submitted to voters also shall clearly describe the proposed new tax, fee, or charge, or increase thereof, if the measure is a bond measure, a projection of the total cost of the bond, including interest thereon; and revenue the measure would produce annually. (c) Nothing in this section shall affect taxes levied for the repayment of bonded indebtedness approved by voters in an election held prior to Nov. 7, 2000, or the issuance of refunding bonds to pay such bonded indebtedness. This sectio1l does not require voter approval for the issuance of, or the levy of taxes to pay, bonds issued to repay'bonds issued prior to-4he effective date of this section or issued in conformance with this section. (2) For purposes of this section, any elimination, limitation, or reduction of a tax exemption, credit, deduction, exclusion, or cost of-living indexing shall be considered a tax increase. (3) The following revenues shall not be considered new or increased taxes, fees, or charges for the purposes of this section: user fees charged by Peoples' Utility Districts or port districts; mass transit fares; college or university tuition and fees; incurred charges and assessments for local improvements as defined by Article XI Section l lb of this Constitution; increases in charges for government products and services solely to pass through increased costs of wholesale inputs that are not government employee labor costs, or otherwise under the charging government's control; fines or forfeitures for violation of law; lottery revenue; fees paid to official business and trade associations by those engaged in that business or occupation; earnings from interest, investments, donations, or asset sales; and fees or charges for products or services which may be legally obtained from a reasonably available source other than government, provided that the new or increased fee or charge for the product or service is not greater than the average private sector charge for the same product or service in the same market. (4)(a) If in the two years previous to the effective date of this section, an existing tax, fee, or charge was increased more than three percent (3%), or a new tax, fee, or charge was adopted or first imposed, the increase in the existing tax, fee, or charge, to the extent it exceeded a three percent increase, and any new tax, fee, or charge, shall be either repealed or submitted to the voters for approval at the next election, if the new or increased tax, fee or charge was not approved by at least the percentage of voters required in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section. If a new tax fee or charge was imposed, or an existing tax, fee, or charge increased in the two years previous to the effective date of this section, and the new tax, fee, or charge or increase in an existing tax, fee, or charge, was not approved in conformance with this section, and not approved by voters at the next election, the amount of the new tax, fee, or charge or excessive increase collected shall be refunded to the payer. Taxes to pay voter approved bonded indebtedness, and taxes, fees, and charges listed in subsection (3) of this section are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph (a) of this subsection (4). (b) Provided that the amount of a fee or charge does not exceed the actual cost of providing the product or service, the following fees and charges may be increased at a rate not greater than the rate http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI_Init.litm 04/12/2000 Report: Oregon Taxpayer Protection Initiative Page 14 of 15 of inflation since the effective date of this section, without a public vote: (I) charges and fees in effect on or before December 6, 1998; (ii) charges and fees first adopted or first effective after December 6, 1998, if adopted in accordance with this section. (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as nullifying the requirement in Section 11 of Article XI of this Constitution that elections for property tax measures, which are voted on in an election held on a date other than the general election, achieve not less than fifty percent (50%) voter participation to be valid. (6)(a) This section shall not require a vote of the people when increases in government revenue occur solely due to a change in federal tax law, increases in income, or other changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing an increase in the tax on a property tax in an amount greater than allowed under Article XI of this Constitution. (b) If, after the effective date of this section, a government temporarily suspends or voluntarily lowers a tax, fee, or charge; the tax, fee or charge may be increased later, without a public vote, to the rate or amount it would have been under this section had the suspension or reduction not occurred. (7)(a) Subject to Section la of Article IX, the Legislative Assembly and Governor may override this section and call for a special election date ©Zher than the date(s) set forth in subsection (1) of this section, or may enact by law particular taxes, or authorize particular local taxes, fees,or charges without a vote of the People if such taxes are approved by a three-fourths vote in each house and signed into law by the Governor. Any tax authorized or enacted by such action shall be designated for a specific purpose and shall be in effect no longer than twelve months. Any tax, fee, or charge imposed under this subsection shall be subject to referendum. (b)Subject to Section la of Article IX of this Constitution, if a local Emergency is declared by the Governor, the affected city county, or local taxing district may override this section for a period not exceeding twelve months, if. (i) the override is approved by not less than a three-fourths vote of the members of the local governing body, and (ii) the continuation of the tax for any remainder of the twelve months is approved by voters voting in an election held within ninety (90) days of the date the emergency is declared, and otherwise adopted in conformance with this section. (8) The public shall be given reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed ballot title for any measure to create a new tax, fee, or charge or increase an existing tax, fee, or charge. The ballot title may be challenged in court, and shall be rejected if it is biased, inaccurate, not easily understood, or does not comply with paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section. (9)A government that levies taxes, fees, or charges in violation of this Section 32a shall refund the amount of any tax, fee, or charge collected in violation of this section, plus interest, to taxpayers in the twelve months following the determination of violation. Interest paid shall be computed as the cost of living change plus six percent per year, compounded for the period from collection of the tax, fee, or charge to payment of the refunds. If the cost of issuing the refund is more than twenty percent (20%) of the amount of the refund,a credit may be issued to the appropriate taxpayers. (10) Because governments have at times been creative at redefining terms, or otherwise creating new funding mechanisms in order to circumvent limitations placed upon them by the people, the legislature, in implementing this section, and the courts in interpreting it, shall apply the strictest scrutiny to any new or renamed government funding mechanism; and shall require in every reasonable circumstance voter approval as required in this section for new or increased taxes, fees, or charges, regardless of the creativity used by the government in designing or naming the funding mechanism. Under this section, certificates of participation and all such funding mechanisms shall be subject to the same limitations and requirements as a bond measure. (11) Any Oregon taxpayer affected by a new or increased tax, fee, or charge or bond issue subject to http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI—Init.htm 04/12/2000 xepon: uregon i axpayer rrotection initiative rage t of t this Section 32a has standing to challenge it, and/or the election authorizing its imposition, by court action commenced in any county in which the taxing entity is located. If the election is held, a tax, fee, or charge is imposed, or a bond is approved, in material violation of this section or any implementing legislation, the court shall declare the tax, fee, charge or bond void. Such an action shall be commenced within ninety (90) days after the earlier of(i) the date on which the election approving the tax, fee, charge or bond is held; or(ii) the date on which the tax, fee, or charge is first imposed or the bond is approved for issue. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing taxpayer, or if the action is found to be frivolous, to a prevailing government party. (12) If any phrase, clause, or part of this Amendment is invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses, and parts shall remain in full force and effect. If any provision of this amendment is found to violate or infringe upon a right of any person or group under the U.S. Constitution, the provision shall remain in full force and effect for all other persons or groups for which no infringement has been found. http://www.prestongates.com/muni/TPI—Init.htm 04/12/2000 Sign-in Sheet for Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting April 12, 2000 Game (Please Print Would you like to speak to the Board?