04/10/1996 - Packet PUBLIC BOOK
MERGOVERNNMNTAL WATER BOARD MEEM. G .
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
AGENDA
Wednesday, April 10 1996'
5:30 pm.
L Call to Order
2. Roll Call and Introductions
3. Visitor Comments
4. Approve March 13,''1996 Meeting Minutes
5. Water Rate Study - CH2M Hill
6. a. Facility Use Bill Monahan
b. Sprint Mono.Pole
7. Director's Report
a.; Willamette River Water Update - Ed Wegner
b. Regional Water Update
8. Non Agenda Items
9. Adjournment
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS '192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 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 infonnation discussed during this
session.
kathyliwb14-10.agn
INT$RfJVEFlAL [eTATER BDA2D MEETING
MAR
C$ 13, 1995
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Scheiderich, Peggy Manning, Paul
Hunt, Beverly Froud and John Budihas
STAFF PRESENT: Bill Monahan, Ed Wegner, Mike Miller,
Randy Volk, and Wayne Lowry
VISITORS PRESENT: John Haunsperger, Norman Penner, and Jack
Polans
1 . Call to Order
The March 13 , 1996 meeting of the Intergovernmental Water
Board was called to order.
2 . Roll Call and Introductions
Roll call was taken and all Board members were present - M-c ,
Wegner introduced representatives from CH2M Hili that were in
attendance to make a presentation on the status of the rate
study_ He also introduced Phil Smith and Chris Uber from
Murray Smith and Associates . Other visitors were Norm Penner,
Chairperson of the Tigard Water District Board, John
Haunsperger, Tigard Water District and Jack Polans .
3 . Visitor Comments
Mr. Polans stated he had spoke at the Tigard City Council
Meeting last evening where he had presented them with 3 items
1) lawyers letter that was copied to the Department of Motor
Vehicles , 2) complaint of CH2M Hill report, 3) sale of Tigard
Water Building which did not include ground money evaluation
and assessment . Mr. Polans stated - he was required to leave
due to Executive Session and hopes that Mr. Monahan can
clarify what the results of that Executive Meeting in regards
to the sale, lease or sharing of that building were . Mr.
Polans continued by discussing a newsletter from the Regional
Water Supply Plan which stated that a request was made to hold
additional public workshops prior to making a decision. Mr.
Polans stated he had requested from Maintenance Services a
copy of the report from CH2M Hill on the rate study so as to
prepare for tonight' s meeting and since that was unavailable
he would be unable to give his input on the report . Mr.
Polans stated he had made a decision on what to do concerning
the drinking water situation.
4. Approve February 14 Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Hunt to approve the minutes
of the February 14 meeting as written which was seconded by
Commissioner Budihas and passed unanimously.
5. a. Rate Study - CH2M Hill
Eric Rothstein, Senior Economist with CH2M Hill introduced Bob
Tomilinson also a Economist with CH2M Hill who has completed
most of the legwork with this project . Mr. Rothstein stated
the this was a progress status report since and there is .no
report document for viewing at this time. Most of the
information being presented should be treated as draft
information until input from the Board is complete. Mr.
Rothstein stated that he will be advising the Board on the
status of the technical work and the issues that are coming
up. The operations and maintenance budget includes the
current budget with an escalation of 4% a year, over a 4-5
year forecast period . The rate design will recover the cost
that each type of customer group imposes on the system.
Mr. Rothstein continued by saying that they have completed a
draft of the calculations of the System Development Charges
and the rate design a
work is all that is remaining to be
comple ed.
Chairperson Scheiderich question why they have dropped out SDC
revenue for the fifth year? Mr. Rothstein stated that is the
ries SDC revenues and not the total revenues to be reflected of
SDC. That is the SDC revenues to be applied against capital
projects that provide for general system benefits, a portion
of which will be serving the customers, as opposed to specific
projects that are meeting new customer growth.
Mr. Rothstein stated that any delays that have occurred to
date. are due to data collection and CH2M Hill is ready to
complete the work. The issues the Board will probably be
concerned with will be adjustments desired to the System
Development Charges . The rates that will be calculated by
CH2M Fill are rates that will cover the cost of service and
cost of service based SDC' s . The other concerns may be policy
issues with imposing fees and/or rates . Mr. Rothstein
continued by stating that the SDC' s that are calculations of
which are the results which are shown on the back page
(information distributed) indicate a significant increase of
charges to " developers for new connections . In some
communities there is a desire to encourage development by not
charging the full or allowed SDC while in other communities
these charges are passed along to the developer. Even the
increase in SDC reflected in this information would still
place Tigard very competitively with. neighboring communities .
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3 - 13 -96 Page 2
Adjustments to revenue requirements would be another policy
that may require attention. There is some argument to suggest
the desire to imbed in the revenue requirements some savings
for future capital increases (development of water supplies,
funds available for rate stabilization, etc. ) .
Form of the rates implemented would be another policy issue to
be considered. Would we continue with the current rate
structure or eliminate the quantity allowance, impose some
type of conservation rate, etc?
Chairperson Schedeirich questioned whether Mr. Lowry was
satisfied with the progress that is being made on the study?
Chairperson Scheiderich questioned whether CH2M Hill has
considered computation of the SDC, a few issues that have not
been considered in earlier versions he has seen such as, 1) a
charge to be imposed for fire line connections (sprinkler
connections) considering the size of the service lines? CH2M
Hill stated that they had not included that in their analysis .
Mr. Scheiderich continued by questioning whether 2) what
charges would be for upgrades? CH2M Hill stated that you
would basically charge for the differential not the entirety
of the service . Mr. Scheiderich stated that he would like to
see those charges in the report . Mr. Scheiderich also
ice, questioned the instance of a downgrade of system use? CH2M
Hill stated that these would be more of a policy issue versus
a computation issue . Mr. Scheiderich questioned on the
adjustments to the SDC charges, most would agree that the
numbers support a charge greater than charges actually
enacted. He would prefer that the numbers support the numbers
that are appropriate without adjusting a change . An alternate
capital improvement plan could be suggested which would
support a different charge to be enacted.
Mr. Rothstein continued to state that once this document is
presented to the Board, they will still be policy issues that
will need to be made.
Chair Scheiderich questioned Mr. Monahan on whether the Board
would recommend some work items to the study? Mr. Monahan
stated that these could be added and the costs factored into
the study.
Commissioner Hunt questioned the completion date of the study?
Mr. Rothstein stated that they are hoping to come back next
month.
Mr. Polans stated that he had a. question and was informed by
Chairperson Scheiderich that he could address that question to
CH2M Hill at a later time . Mr. Polans questioned how the
public would give input if they are stopped from speaking?
Chair Scheiderich stated that the Board members have been
Intergovernmental, Water Board Meeting 3 -13-96 Page 3
appointed by their respective cities to represent the public' s
interest and if Mr. Polans feels that Mr. Budihas is not
representing the interests of the citizens of King City then
Mr. Polans should speak with Mr. Budihas or the King City
Council .
Chair Scheiderich questioned whether the Board would like to
recommend that this study include the demand placed by fire
line connections and the appropriate charges? A motion was
made by Commissioner Budihas to have the study by CH2M Hill to
include a charge, if any, for fire line connections. This
motion was seconded by seconded by Commissioner Froude. Prior
to voting on this motion, it was decided that a motion was not
necessary, but just a consensus by the Board.
5. b. Menlor Reservoir Site - Chris Uber/Ed Wegner
Chair Scheiderich stated that the Board had been provided with
a Menlor Reservoir Site analysis provided by Murray Smith and
Associates and questioned whether the Board would like to
review this document or have Chris Uber discuss briefly since
he was in attendance at the meeting? The Board decided that
they would like a summary of the analysis distributed. Mr.
Wegner stated that this issue has been discussed for the last
two years and a decision was finally made to proceed. With
�y all the growth on the far side of Bull Mountain (Bull Mountain
Meadows) the following presentation will show that we are
moving ahead with this plan and will present the final plan to
this Board prior to presenting to the Tigard City Council . Ed
Wegner introduced the firm of Murray, Smith and Associates,
the engineering firm that the City has contracted with for the
past two years . Phil Smith is the Senior Partner since Hal
Murray' s retirement and Chris Uber has moved from Project
Engineer to Principal member of the firm. Mr. Smith stated
that although Hal Murray has retired he is willing to work on
a consultant basis for City of Tigard, if needed. Mr. Smith
continued by stating that some changes have occurred recently
with the firm, some of which include Chris Uber moving from
Associate to Vice President of the firm, Mr. Smith assumed the
role of President and Dave Leibrandt is the Senior Vice
President .
Mr. Smith continued by stating that the District has had 10
acres since 1989 on the west side of Bull Mountain. In recent
months the City has begun looking at the site due to the
considerable amount of growth in that area. Murray Smith and
Associates cklE!re commissioned from the City of Tigard to do
study on that site as well as addressing some master plan
issues associated with that reservoir as well as answer some
questions on whether the site is adequate, is it the right
elevation, at what volume should the reservoir be, costs,
procedures to proceed with to keep the project moving, and
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3 -13 -96 Page 4
access issues. The results of this study were distributed to
the Board. Mr. Uber stated that he will begin by answering
questions that were noted above.
Mr. Uber discussed the information that was distributed and
pointed out areas on the map. The Menlor site sits just South
of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The 1986 master plan report
recommended that two reservoirs be constructed and also
recommended that some other reservoirs be constructed, which
were added to this study. The 1986 plan recommended two
reservoirs at Menlor one at 410 feet, one at 470 feet and on
the South side of Bull Mountain a reservoir was recommended at
410 feet and one at 550 feet . Mr. Uber continued and
discussed the hydraulics and reservoir elevations as
presented.
Mr. Uber continued by stating that their recommendation was to
not build the 470 feet reservoir at this time . The 410 feet
reservoir serving the area of the red zone is the reservoir
that is discussed in the document .
Once this determination was made, they began looking at the
site and how the reservoir would fit on the site. The site
was then surveyed and tied into a known benchmark and they
developed a site plan. The survey found that both reservoirs
could be built on the site, although they are recommending
that just one is built at this time.
Commissioner Manning questioned why the recommendation for
building just one reservoir at this time? Mr. Uber stated
that the recommendation is to pursue the 550 feet reservoir
site on the North side. Since the 470 feet reservoir would
only serve 70 feet of elevation and ideally you would want to
serve approximately 150 feet .
Mr. Uber continued by discussing the survey of the Menlor
site, which showed a need for a 410 feet reservoir with a
capacity of 3 . 5 million gallons .
Existing reservoir #3 (2 . 5 mg) is concrete reservoir that has
had a layer added to it and it currently has leaking problems .
This reservoir will eventually be abandoned due to maintenance
problems . The question is whether to replace the capacity of
this reservoir at the Menlor site. Chairperson Scheiderich
questioned the linear progression per 100 , 000 gallons at a
cost of $1004000 of construction costs and are there set sizes
of concrete 'tanks? Mr. Uber stated that the tanks could be
built to any size capacity. Mr. Uber stated that he will
later discuss the difference between a reinforced concrete
tank as opposed to a steel reservoir.
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3 - 13 -96 Page 5
Commissioner Budihas questioned if reservoir #3 is abandoned
what happens to the site. Mr. Volk stated that there is
another reservoir on the same site (2 . 5 mg) as well as a well .
Mr. Uber stated that placement of the reservoir is based upon
ground elevation. Mr. Uber continued to discuss access to the
reservoir site. There were three options of access available
1) track G access (advantage since the City has existing water
pipes there waiting to connect the new reservoir and allow for
efficient use of the property without having to clear the
entire property. The disadvantage of track G access is having
to send trucks through the neighborhood since this is at the
end of a residential street . The second option 2) Sunrise
Lane access which is at the SE corner (disadvantage was
traveling over the unused portion of the property and not
knowing at the time what the future use of this portion of the
property would be) and the County initially expressed some
concern about using one of their roads for carrying heavy
construction equipment . Mr. Wegner pointed out this area on
the vicinity map that was furnished to the members . The third
access 3) Roundtree Estate access with an advantage similar to
the track G access allowed access without a disturbance to the
remainder of the property. This access is also close to the
existing water main and the closest direct access to Old
Scholls Ferry Road although there is an undeveloped piece of
property just to the North of it which Mike Miller is
attempting to get easements through, so there would be a
potential to develop a reservoir access with this property.
The Roundtree Estate access was the recommended access by MSA.
Development of this site would involve conditional use .
Mr. Uber continued by discussing that their recommendation
includes a pre-stressed concrete reservoir since a portion of
the reservoir will be buried. Commissioner Manning questioned
what type of anchor would be used? Mr. Uber stated that the
anchor typed would be a part of the design project . Mr. Uber
stated that a geo-technical engineer would determine what type
of anchors will be needed to stabilize this foundation.
Commissioner Manning questioned whether this geo-technician
will also look at the seismic stability in this area? Mr.
Uber stated that the geo-technician is involved to a certain
extent, although the seismic requirements of this reservoir
are handled by the structural engineer. Commissioner Manning
questioned the cost of this particular site to meet all
required conditions, and would we be considering alternate
sites? Mr. 1Uber. stated that a site can be made to work geo
technically. Chairperson Scheiderich questioned whether MSA
would be doing the design work or would that be handled
through the RFP process? Mr. Wegner stated that this will be
discussed later.
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3-13 -96 Page 6
Mr. Uber continued by discussing how the existing transmission
system would work with this new site. They looked at some
peak water days and that effect on the other reservoir sites .
This new site would sit a far point away from the supply (from
Lake Oswego, Portland and TVWD connections) and with existing
conditions, there would be a problem filling this reservoir.
A review of the current transmission system would need to be
completed to determine what type of improvements would need to
be made in order to fill this reservoir site. The current
system does have some links that could be added to improve the
hydraulic capacity. Mr. Uber stated that one of the
recommendations by MSA is to analyze the water system under
peak demand conditions and determined what improvements need
to be made to the transmission system.
Commissioner Hunt questioned where the reservoir site of the
550 feet fit into this plan overall? Mr. Uber stated that MSA
is also recommending that the City immediately begin looking
for an additional site that will accommodate a 550 feet site.
Mr. Hunt questioned how many years would this current site
carry us until the need exists for the 550 feet site? Mr.
Uber stated that is difficult to answer although he felt that
it would be sooner than later with the pace of the demand and
the development in the area. Commissioner Manning questioned
the amount of property required for an additional site? Mr.
Uber stated that depends upon the condition of the site.
Commissioner Hunt questioned pumping from the 410 feet
elevation? Mr. Uber stated that we are currently supplying
down from High Tor. Mr. Uber stated that the City currently
has on the South side property, space for a 410 feet reservoir
and there is not a site for the proposed 550 feet site.
Chairperson Scheiderich questioned the highest elevation of
the supply mains on the East side of town? Mr. Miller stated
that the highest is at 670 feet.
Mr. Uber stated that they have included a cost estimate in the
packet provided to the Board. Mr. Wegner stated that we still
have to complete the land use process with Washington County.
Mr. Uber and Mr. Wegner have already met with them at a
pre-application meeting and have some things to finish up.
Mr. Wegner stated that once things are completed in house and
get on the agenda with Washington County, the hearings
presentation would probably be July or August and design and
construction next year (probable completion 18 months out)
Commissioner Hunt questioned how this project is being funded?
Mr. Wegner stated that this is funded through SDC' s . Mr.
Lowry stated that the current projection now for the reserve
fund and water SDC' s in the 1996/97 fiscal year, we would be
appropriating approximately 3 . 5 million dollars of worth for
water projects out of thede two funds, which have been
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3-13 -96 Page 7
earmarked for this project . Mr. Lowry continued by saying
that if the three million dollar project estimate is
appropriate, there would be an additional half a million
dollars for possible purchase of property for a future site
and the future SDC' s funds will also be available.
Commissioner Hunt questioned the cost of the existing site?
Mr. Miller stated that this property cost $125, 000, although
land values have escalated in the last few years.
Mr. Uber stated that the next steps are to meet with
Washington County on the conditional use permit process and to
proceed with an analysis of the transmission system, begin
looking for additional property for the 550 feet site, and
continue talking with property owners around Three Mountain
Estates since a traffic impact state will be needed to access
the property. Mr Uber stated that there are risks involved
with the beginning design work prior to having the land use
application completed. He stated that they have spoke with
the County on what would be needed to get this process
through.
Mr. Wegner stated that the IWB need to recommend that this
project proceed to the Tigard City Council . The City' s
consulting engineering contract with Murray, Smith and
Associates stipulates that large, single projects are not
necessarily included in their scope of services, however, this
would not preclude the City from requesting an RFP from
Murray, Smith and Associates to complete work on this project,
or solicit proposals from other firms . The type of firm that
is needed is a full service firm that can take us from
beginning to end of this project with a geo-technical people,
and possibly an attorney to make presentations . This firm
should also be the firm that will do the design work.
E'= Commissioner Hunt questioned whether we can legally contract
with MSA? Mr. Monahan stated that we do not need to go out
€. for bid for professional services . Mr. Wegner stated we would
however, need a separate RFP if we go with MSA. Mr.
Scheiderich questioned who would write the RFP for this
project? Mr. Wegner stated that Jim Hendryx and himself would
write the RFP. Mr. Monahan stated that the legal aspect would
' not need to be written into this RFP since we could use the
City attorneys . Mr. Wegner clarified that once MSA presents
' the preliminary design for the Menlor site to Tigard City
Council, they have completed the scope of services under their
current general services contract . The Board discussed the
issue of granting this contract to another firm which would
include some review of the work already completed by Murray,
;
Smith and Associates .
-
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3 -13 -96 Page 8
��1YYIY''
A motion was made by Commissioner Hunt to recommend to the
Tigard City Council, to proceed with the Land Use Application
and a geo-technical study that has been identified by Murray,
Smith and Associates on the Menlor Reservoir site. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Budihas and Commissioner
Hunt questioned whether we should include the necessity to
look for additional land for future site? Commissioner Hunt' s
language was added to the motion and was passed unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Budihas to recommend to
Tigard City Council to issue a change order to the existing
contract of Murray, Smith and Associates to seek preliminary
engineering and design of this reservoir site. Chair
Scheiderich clarified the motion by adding that this motion
would be a recommendation of negotiation towards a change
order. Mr. Wegner stated that it was his recommendation that
an a request for a formal proposal from Murray, Smith and
Associates, with the right to reject if the proposal was
unacceptable . This motion was seconded by Commissioner Hunt
and was passed unanimously.
5 . Facility Use - Bill Monahan
Mr. Monahan stated that there has been further conversations
with City of Durham and the Tigard Water District concerning
the potential use by the City of Tigard. To date comments
have been received from City of Durham expressing an interest
in using their portion of the building in exchange for
maintenance services. The Tigard Water District has a mixed
opinion. King City has not responded to date. Commissioner
Budihas stated that they will meet again next week and will
make a decision after additional consideration.
An issue that is of concern is the valuation of the building
and why the City has proposed a figure that does not include
the land. Mr. Monahan stated that in a letter dated February
1 which outlined the interests of the City and included an
approximate figure of the property valuation and the portion
of the shares for each entity. The value was determined to be
a $1, 370 , 644 for the building with a calculated depreciation
that brought the value of the building to $1, 079 , 382 , these
figures do not include the underlying land. Mr. Monahan
continued to say that there are two ways of determining value
based upon proportionate interest and the proportion of assets
which are found in the EES study. The range based on these
figures were for Tigard Water District $241, 000 to $299 , 000 .
The proposal asked that the owners of the interest either
consider leasing, selling or allowing use by the City of
Tigard.
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3 - 13 -96 Page 9
" The physical location report that was received from Mr. Lowry
stated that a replacement value for the building itself of
$645, 190 and the land underneath valued at $525, 000 . The
value of the entire site would be $1, 170, 000 which is $90, 000
more than what was estimated in the February 1 letter. This
land encompasses more than just the building site.
At this time the Tigard staff is working on space needs for
the next twenty years and the scenarios that are developed
will be taken to Tigard City Council on Tuesday. Mr. Monahan
stated that they are also looking at the Amber Foods building
across the street as an option.
Chair Scheiderich questioned when discussing the possibility
of rent or lease and payments in services in kind distributed
according to each entity shares, what term of a lease is being
considered? Mr. Monahan stated that they would like to have
this agreement be long term, if possible. The expectations of
utilizing the Water building could necessitate some
improvements to the building itself and possibly an addition
to the structure. These additional value from these
improvements would be a 1000 of the City of Tigard.
Commissioner Manning questioned what the valuation portion for
the City of Durham and King City for purchase? Mr. Monahan
stated that Durham' s valuation was a little over 8% and King
City 6%
Commissioner Budihas stated he would like to hear what all
three options are and be able to take this back to the King
City City Council for consideration.
Mr. Monahan stated also that the issue of where the money goes
if each entities interest is bought out . The Tigard Water
District stated that their portion would be valued at $281, 000
and where would this money go. Their only option would be to
put these funds back into water services . Mr. Monahan
questioned when the interests are bought out should these
funds not go back into the water system and help reduce rates
to the rate payers since it was those rate payers who paid for
the building? Chairperson Scheiderich questioned whether
this building met the seismic code? Mr. Volk stated that it
met those standards when it was built .
The Water District' s concern is that this building was built
to enable the water patrons and staff a better facility and if
they are displaced they are compromising the issue of the
buildings use .
John Haunsperger from the Tigard Water District stated that
this building should be continued to be used for the purpose
of which it was built to accommodate and serve the water
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3- 13-96 Page 10
patrons and staff. Mr. Haunsperger stated that the building
was built with Capital Improvements funds . Mr. Wegner stated
that the Tigard Water District does not have any staff, the
staff is City of Tigard staff and some have other office
space.
Mr. Monahan stated that he felt the best scenario would be for
the City to have the ability to use without paying the lease
or paying to purchase and keep it available and not reduce the
space for the people who are doing water functions. Since
some of the people outside the water building (Monahan,
Wegner, Volk) are also doing water functions, other facilities
are being used to do water functions and these would offset
the use of the water building for other than water functions .
Mr. Monahan stated that the auditorium could be used for court
purposes to alleviate traffic issues and crowding at City
Hall .
Commissioner Hunt stated that one of the goals of Tigard City
Council is to attempt to look at staff needs in the future.
When looking at long term needs , the need to look at this
building and its use and incorporate it into the needs of the
organization. Mr. Hunt stated that a concern when the City
began supervising the distribution of the water system was
whether we could save the amount of money as projected. Mr.
Hunt continued by saying that we have saved at least as much
as was projected, if not more.
Chair Scheiderich stated that he would like to get a consensus
from the Tigard Water District at their next meeting prior to
proceeding on this topic.
5 . Fiscal Year 1996/97 Budget - Randy Volk/Ed Wegner
Chairperson Schedierich stated that in regards to the budget
he would suggest that the Board look at the summary that was
provided and ask specific comments of staff at the next
meeting. Mr. Wegner stated that the Board could contact staff
prior to the next meeting with any necessary questions, since
that next meeting will be well into the budget process. Mr.
Lowry stated that budget meetings begin April 13 and City
Council adoption of the budget is scheduled for mid June.
6 . Director' s Report - Ed Wegner
Mr. Wegner ' stated that he had distributed the monthly
summaries to the Board members for their review which included
monthly supply purchase, and a news release which will go out
in billings about landscaping seminars and water conservation.
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3- 13-96 Page 11
7 . Non Agenda Items
None noted
8 . Adjournment
With no further business or discussion a motion for
adjournment was made by Commissioner Budihas and seconded by
Commissioner Hunt and passed unanimously.
kathy\iwb\3-13iwb.mtg
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting 3- 13-96 Page 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Cities and water districts in the Portland metropolitan area, along with Metro, have developed a
Preliminary Regional Water Supply Plan to meet water needs until the year 2050. Under the
preferred resource development scenario in the Preliminary Plan, the Willamette River is proposed
to be the first water supply source for development when new sources are needed in the region.
While the regional study has not found an immediate need to develop new regional sources, the
study recognizes that there are specific areas and subregions which are in need of new water
supplies now. One area with potential need for new water supplies now is the south end of the
metropolitan area. For the entities in this subregion, the Willamette River may be a desirable water
source in the immediate future, even though the source may not be used on a regional basis for 20
or 30 years.
Several water suppliers also have water rights permits, or applications for permits, for use of the
Willamette River as a drinking water source. In order to ensure the long-term viability of these
water rights and applications, development of the Willamette River as a water supply may be
desirable.
The quality of the untreated, raw Willamette River has been studied in at least three different
reports. These reports indicate that the Willamette River is a good quality source of water.
Turbidity in the river is low to moderate, levels of organic material in the water are low,the mineral
quality is very similar to the Clackamas River which is currently used as a drinking water source,
and levels of the microbial contaminants Giardia and Cryptosporidium are low. The river does
produce tastes and odors which most people would notice if left untreated. The river is also
susceptible to discharges from industrial, municipal, and nonpoint pollution sources which can
impair the water quality.
A pilot water treatment study to identify the appropriate water treatment process for Willamette
River water concluded that a multiple barrier approach can successfully treat Willamette River
water to meet stringent water quality and operational goals. The recommended treatment process
for the Willamette River includes ozone for disinfection of microbial contaminants, taste and odor
removal, control of some organic compounds, and to enhance filtration. The process also includes
filtration with granular activated carbon (GAC) filter media to protect against trace organic
compounds and tastes and odors.
Based on the information regarding potential water needs, water rights, raw water quality, and
water treatability, a group of six entities, led by the Canby Utility Board, initiated a Willamette
River Water Treatment Plant Study. The participating entities in addition to the Canby Utility
Board are Clackamas River Water, the City of Sherwood, the City of Tigard, the Tualatin Valley
Water District and the City of Wilsonville. The goals of this study were to:
• Evaluate potential service areas and water demands which might be served from a Willamette
River water treatment plant in the near term.
• Evaluate alternative water treatment plant and intake sites.
• Evaluate pipeline routings to serve potential users of the plant.
• Prepare preliminary cost estimates.
Willamette River 117P Studv
ES-1 Final Report
• Prepare a preliminary implementation strategy.
• Identify other issues in proceeding with a plant.
In conjunction with information these entities have on other water source options which may be
available to them, these entities can use the information from this study to determine if they wish to
proceed in some manner with development of the Willamette River as a drinking water source.
ALTERNATIVE SITES
A comparative analysis of potential water treatment plant sites was conducted to assess the
feasibility for construction of a treatment plant and to allow cost estimates for potential project
development scenarios to be developed. The sites chosen for analysis were determined through
discussion with the participants in this study. The sites as shown in Figure ES-1 are:
• The Territorial Road site in Clackamas County adjacent to the city of Canby;
• The Molalla Forest Road site in the City of Canby's industrial park;
• The Boeckman Road site located in Wilsonville's north industrial park.
In addition, information for the Wilsonville Tract site located west of Wilsonville within Clackamas
County, which has previously been studied for the Tualatin Valley Water District as a potential
Willamette River treatment plant site, was included for comparison purposes. A summary
comparison of the issues associated with development of each of the sites is contained in Table ES-
l. More detailed discussion of the sites is provided in Section 2 of this report.
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
There are numerous options for developing a water treatment plant project using the Willamette
River in the Portland area. These options vary depending on which entities would use the water
and when they would used it. Each of the entities involved in this project was surveyed to
determine its potential water demand needs over the next ten to fifteen years. The location where
water from a Willamette River water treatment plant might enter each entity's water distribution
system was also identified. Based on this information, a number of potential scenarios for how a
supply system on the Willamette River could be sized were defined. These scenarios are described
in Section 3 of this report.
The potential development scenarios in this study were not meant to be definitive options. They
were meant to illustrate both a range of reasonable, potential options and the costs of proceeding
with a Willamette supply. These scenarios formed the basis for cost estimates which can be used
by the participating entities to focus more narrowly on a specific project, if they so desire. If a
more specific commitment is eventually made to a project, the details of a scenario can be better
established so that the scope of the project matches the needs of the entities involved.
SIZING CRITERIA AND COSTS
Section 4 of this report presents detailed sizing and operational criteria and assumptions for:
• River intakes and raw water pumping stations,
• Raw water transmission pipelines,
• Water treatment plants including on-site clearwell storage and land purchase,
1%WW • Finished water pumping stations at the water treatment plant, and
• Finished water pipeline(s) to the various points-of-delivery of the water.
Willamette River WTP Studhy
ES-2 Final Report
.. t ' - r y.•, 1 ' LEGEND
01
TVWD
ULD PM -
+B� PO r' t
Beaverton �a
f I Mliwaukle ` -- P.O.D.
I ` __ I ` POINT OF DELIVERY
It : - -
t
e t i _'° _�_r } _Happy Valley
P
F j
s
Lake O
wego
fJ, 5, tf
i _
1 -
1 3
t � .,� -- a �_ ; _;.- !1 •. �.f
W P.
T TREATMENT PLANT SITE
_... P
I ie
TIGARD # sL
POD
---77Z
sonous Dur In
- - -
,, 3Johnson
pity
t
SHERWOOD g
_ . P
ro 0P-
Tualatin g �
r � River rove
1Gladstone raa,,Dc aD L� � RAW WATER PIPELINE
c
_ — - "°
tt
-West Lina '
t Sherwood j Fps '. , x
L ,bBOE 1 P'
I Oregon City
\ROAD SIT r °-
WILSONVILLE `:¢ t -
^.i - E NORTH
W.T.P POD
e L_. A-' t
. {{
Newberg =. t , �.,.�,C W onville WILSONVILLE -
- rte" 'f r SOUTH - \
N
_r
T ---? POD
WILSONVIL
CRW '
' TRACT SITEOPOD
ROAD TERRITORIAL t SCALE. 1"=2 MILES
;r r
i SITE .P 1
ANBY
NORTH '
naS Co. (� ;`' ,c ro -, POD
n.�
tuaw Co.
7 MOLALLA
I WILLAMETTE RIVER STUDY
F !�aliseeSocE „1 FOREST ! E
Canby W.7.P ROAD i
ALTERNATIVE SITE
TREATMENT PLANT SITES
{
Barlow J I PIPELINE
ALIGNMENTS AND
r
r WATER DELIVERY POINTS
r� (_ CANBY j
SOUTH
POD ' Figure ES-1
l I
F
i
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Portland,Oregon
TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
Territorial Road AYolalla Forest Road Boeckman Road Site Wilsonville
CRITERIA Canbv Canbv Wilsonville Tract
WATER SUPPLY
Proximity to Willamette River Adjacent 2 mi.approx. 2 mi.approx. 0.5 mi.approx.
Gravity or Pumped Pumped Pumped Pumped Pumped
Water Quality Issues Pudding River Pudding River Moderate Moderate
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Acres 97 40 43-63 40
Contiguous Unincumbered
Buildable Land Area(acres) 14-18 40 14-19 40
Topography Moderate relief Relatively flat Moderate relief Relatively flat
Access Good-off Territorial Good-off SE 4th or S.Walnut Poor,Create off Boeckman Fair-off Wilsonville
Road Road Road.
Constructability Fair, Interferences Good Limited, Interferences Good
Expansion Options Limited Good Limited Good
Security Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate
Ownership Public-State Parks Private Private Division of State Lands
Compatibility with
Surrounding Area Good Good Good Fair
Public Acceptability Good Fair Good Poor
Jurisdiction Clackamas County Clackamas County/Canby Wilsonville Clackamas County
Land Use Zoning RRFF-5 Industrial After Annexation PDI EFU
(Rural Residential (Planned Dev.Industrial) (Exclusive Farm Use)
Farm/Forest)
Metro Greenspace Target Portion of Site Targeted None Portion of Site Targeted Site Targeted
Areas
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Wetlands Significant Quality None Significant Quality and None
Quantity
Approx. Wetlands Acreage 2 0 6-8 0
Wildlife and Habitat Moderate Low High Low
Threatened/Endangered
Species None Identified-Site None Identified None Identified-Site None Identified
Potential forT&E Potential forT&E
Water Quality Impacts
to Streams Moderate No Impact Moderate Moderate
Open Space,Scenic
and Aesthetic Qualities Moderate Low High High
Steep Slopes None None None None
Flood Plain Significance Site in Floodplain None None None
Archeological Low Low Low Low
Recreation Moderate-Fishing Low Low Low
Opportunity to Enhance
GEOTECHNICAL
Foundation Conditions Fair Good Some Limitations Good
Seismic Risk Moderate Low Moderate Low
PERMITS
Land Use Conditional Use,Open Use Allowed Outright Master Plan Conditional Use
Space and Wetlands
Review
Floodplain Floodplain Development None None None
Permit
DSL 404-Wetlands None 404-Wetlands None
Corp 404-Wetlands None 404-Wetlands None
DEQ NPDES NPDES-Construction Only NPDES NPDES-Construction
Other UGB Amendment Annex to City Only
Possibly
Construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated in Section 5 for each
scenario presented in Section 3 using the sizing and operational criteria. A wide variation in costs
was found corresponding to the wide variations in the scenarios which were developed. Capital
costs were estimated t,, vary from $20 million to $55 million depending on the number of
participants and the length of finished water transmission pipeline(s). Estimated annual O&M
costs also varied widely depending on the number of participants and ranged from $700,000 per
year to $1,400,000 per year.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information contained in this report, the following conclusions can be drawn about a
possible water treatment plant project using the Willamette River to serve some or all of the
subregion including Wilsonville, Tigard, Sherwood, Tualatin Valley Water District, Clackamas
River Water, and Canby.
• The initial demand for water from a subregional water treatment plant on the Willamette River
would most likely come from some combination of the Cities of Wilsonville, Tigard, and
Sherwood.
• The transmission system pipeline costs for a subreaional project are a significant component of
overall project cost. For WTP sites in Canby, the transmission piping capital cost is 40 to 50
percent of the total project cost. For WTP sites in Wilsonville, the transmission piping is 25 to
40 percent of the total project capital cost.
• The costs of transmission are the major component of variability between alternative sites for a
water treatment project. Further definition of a regional water transmission system and the
relationship of the subregional transmission network for this water treatment plant to that
regional network would be useful in equitably allocating costs of the project.
• Given the proximity of the initial demands to the site, a project with the treatment plant located
in Wilsonville is less costly than one with the plant located in Canby. If the demand locations
were to change, the optimum location of the plant might also change.
• For the same reasons as above, a project with the plant located at the Boeckman Road site is
less expensive than one with the plant located at the Wilsonville Tract site. However, the
overall project cost difference between a Boeckman Road and a Wilsonville Tract site are not
large relative to the accuracy of the cost estimate at this stage. More detailed site studies could
change the relative economic attractiveness of these sites.
• The Boeckman Road site has significant site issues which make development of a plant sized
for regional needs on the site problematic. Review of additional siting options in the
Wilsonville area is desirable for a plant site to meet future regional needs.
• Similar to the situation with the Wilsonville sites,the Territorial Road site is the more economic
site for a plant located in the Canby area. However, the floodplain issues at that site and the
ultimate requirements to resolve those issues could alter the relative economic attractiveness of
the site.
• At lower plant capacities, the unit cost of both capital and operating costs for the project is
relatively high. Economies of scale are achieved at higher plant capacities and if more of the
available capacity of the plant is used. If the plant could be used more as a "baseload" facility
instead of a "peaking" facility, the unit costs of produced water could be significantly reduced.
Willamette River WTP Study
ES-3 Final Repon
RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions from this study suggest several potential implementation strategies for use of the
Willamette River as a water source. These strategies include those in which:
• A treatment plant can eventually be integrated into a regional transmission and operational
system, should such system ever evolve;
• A treatment plant is integrated into a regional transmission system in the near term, and
• There is no consideration for future regional use of the Willamette River.
A new water treatment plant on the Willamette River presents a number of staffing, management
and financing issues to resolve. A wide range of approaches is available to these issues. If one or
more of the participants decides to proceed with a Willamette River supply project, there are a
number of issues which must be resolved during the neat phase including:
• Final selection of a site for the water treatment plant.
• Resolution of the relationship of the transmission network for the project to the regional
transmission network.
• Definition of users and initial/ultimate plant and pipeline capacities;
• Project development strategy including intergovernmental agreements, management agreements
and procurement approaches;
• More detailed environmental, geotechnical and other site studies;
• Conceptual planning and permitting for the intake, pipelines and water treatment plant; and
• More detailed investigation of water rights issues to assure long-term availability of the source.
Willamette Rimer WTP Study
ES-4 Final Report
• r
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner 6�_
DATE: April 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Update on the Regional Water Supply Plan
As you may recall, in November/December we reviewed the Regional Water Supply
Plan and made comments and recommendations to the Regional Water Supply Plan
Project Team. After collecting data from the twenty-seven participating agencies, the
Project Team is currently modifying and re-working the Plan. Attached is the
summary sheets outlining the current revisions to the Plan.
I have read the revised text in full and believe it covers the comments the staff, IWB
Board Members and City of Tigard City Council provided. I have highlighted some of
the specific revisions and have attached a copy.
I would like to hear from you by April 25, if you have any questions or concerns about
the revisions.
Thank you.
Attachments
Background Public review of the preliminary plan
After more than two years of has spurred some changes to the policy
cooperative effort,twenty-seven water objectives and the addition of new
provider agencies in the Portland implementation actions as follows:
metropolitan area and Metro completed
the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP) Peak Event Shortage Risk Levels.
Preliminary Report in August 1995. The Defer choosing specific future peak
preliminary plan was circulated event shortage risk levels. Direct the
throughout the region for comment. near-term initiation of a region-wide
Numerous meetings and briefings were discussion of the choices and tradeoffs
held, along with more than 30 public associated with different peak event
hearings. shortage risk levels.
By January 1996,nearly all of the Water Quality.
provider agencies submitted official Further emphasize the value of source
written responses to the preliminary plan. protection/watershed health.-Guide
The agencies responses cited key policy water providers in pursuing and
values and areas of agreement and supporting source protection.
disagreement with the preliminary plan
recommendations. Economic Cost and Cost Equity.
Increase emphasis on cost equity and
Key areas of interest and concern pursuit of cooperative partnerships to
included: 1)the level of future water co-sponsor plan implementation.
system reliability;2)the level of
commitment to water conservation and Environmental Stewardship.
non-potable source options;and 3)certain Increase emphasis on environmental
water source choices(particularly the stewardship through source protection
Willamette River). The provider agencies and enhancement, and the objective to
expressed overall support for the avoid,reduce and/or mitigate potential
formation of a regional water provider impacts of future source development.
consortium to implement the plan.
However, some questions and concerns Growth and Land Use Planning.
were raised about the potential role and Highlight the need to facilitate RWSP
authority of such a consortium. (Agency implementation through local and
response summary available on request.) regional land use planning and growth
management programs.
The project participants are now,
during April 1996, circulating proposed Flexibility. Expand the goal to meet near-
revisions to the preliminary RWSP. The term as well as long-term demand.
revisions are meant to address key
concerns, and lead to a final plan that the Resource Strateev
region will support and implement. Development and Evaluation (Ch.XI)
Chapter XI describes the "integration
Proposed Revision Highlights phase"of the Regional Water Supply Plan
Policy Objectives(Chapter IV) project. It explains how nine different
Chapter IV of the RWSP presents resource alternatives were designed and
policy objectives and criteria used to evaluated against the range of policy-
design and evaluate water resource based criteria.
options and combinations of options.
The preliminary plan analysis Presents the proposed final resource NOW
illustrated the tradeoffs associated with strategy and implementation actions.
emphasizing different policy objectives The revisions reflect public and
relating to system reliability, water participant input by recognizing:
quality,environmental protection,cost ,
water use efficiency, and reducing risk - Strong citizen interest in both raw
water system disruption due to and treated water quality;
catastrophic events. - Concern for environmental
protection.
Public input indicated that Chapter XI - Strong,broad-based support for
of the preliminary report did not clearly water conservation;
portray the integrated resources planning - Public interest in exploring non-
approach. Chapter XI has been re-crafted, potable options;
with new text and graphics designed to: - Participant agreement to keep all
water resource options"on the
• Emphasize that resource strategies table"and a commitment to
are dynamic,flexible frameworks for maintain and enhance source
decision-making,not static blueprints viability over time;
for future resource development. The - The need to reduce risk of water
plan revisions stress that the system disruption due to
implementation process will involve catastrophic events;
continual updates and revisiting - Diverse opinions on which level(s)
planning assumptions at multiple of peak event shortage risk are
decision points over time. (This appropriate, and agreement that
involved eliminating reference to future flexibility is paramount.
resource sequences and focusing on
simplified and detailed decision-tree New graphics illustrate the flexible nature
models.) of the plan. A new chart highlights that
future resource increments would be
• Display how the region's reliability brought on line during a projected span
choices will, along with other key rather than a point, in time,depending on
uncertainties(e.g.,population and the outcome of key uncertainties and
water demand increases,regulatory reliability choices.
constraints,costs,changing values)
influence the ultimate timing, sizing, The proposed final resource strategy and
costs and impacts of resource implementation actions include:
development.
• Already programmed sources and
Final Recommended Strategy savings. These near-team committed.
and Implementation Actions(Ch.XII) resources remain as presented in the
Chapter XII presents the proposed preliminary plan. They include,
resource strategy and implementation naturally-occurring conservation,
actions. This chapter has been completely expansion of Barney Reservoir,phased
re-written during the plan revision remediation of the Columbia South
process. The revised Chapter XII: Shore Wellfield, and a modest
expansion of Clackamas River supply.
• Summarizes the preliminary plan
review process including public
involvement opportunities and key
issues raised.
*40
• Presents the revised policy objectives
as the framework that will guide
future plan implementation.
New programs. The revisions add to the list of
Conservation -As in the preliminary implementation actions set forth to
plan,the region would begin maintain and enhance the future
implementing conservation in the viability of all the source options.
near-term, with a focus on peak
season/day savings through outdoor These revisions respond to public
programs. Plan revisions make concerns about raw water quality(and
explicit the inclusion of conservation suitability of the Willamette as a
education and a commitment to potable source),while making clear
continue evaluating potentially cost- that all of the sources are valuable
effective indoor approaches(e.g.,non- resources and need to remain"on the
residential,high-volume users). Peak table"as potential future source
season conservation targets have been options.
added to help guide implementation.
• Meeting near-term localized
Refined implementation actions: needs. The plan revisions add
- Developing a workplan for emphasis on the need to meet near
bringing programs on-line. term-needs. New text stresses that
- Establishing budgetary resources. imminent local needs could he met by
- Developing a process for conservation,connecting to existing
monitoring program outcomes. systems and/or first phase new source
- Explore opportunities for viable development(e.g., ASR,Clackamas,
indoor conservation programs. Willamette)in ways that contribute to
long-term plan implementation.
• Water Reuse, Recycling,Non-potable
Options-Establish commitment to • Regional Water Provider
explore these alternative source Consortium, Plan revisions include
options in the near-term as follows: the following bases for the consortium:
- Evaluate current non-potable uses. - Coordination to ensure future plan
- Assess markets and costs. consistency
- Analyze opportunities for non- - Encouragement and facilitation of
residential alternative source use. partnerships for responsible
- Explore graywater potential. supply- and demand-side actions
- Assess potential transfers under - Anticipation of the need for timely
existing water rights. planning decisions
- Assess public education needs. - Ensuring the costs of water supply
projects/programs are allocated
• Potential New Sources. equitably to beneficiaries
Aquifer storage and recovery(ASR)up
to 40 mgd sometime after 2020,and Consortium functions would involve:
expansion of the Clackamas River - Establishing by-laws,work
supply up to 50 mgd sometime after program and budget
2030,remain in the recommended - Plan implementation/monitoring
strategy. An additional source - Intergovernmental coordination
increment projected to be needed - Source protection strategy
sometime after 2035 remains in the - Conservation/non-potable
revised strategy. However,previous exploration
reference to the Willamette River(up - Shortage management discussion
to 100 mgd)has been replaced by a - Catastrophic event coordination
non-specific"source increment" - Provider representation/coord.
designation. The revised strategy - Public education
states that this last increment,if - Finance Coordination
needed, could involve the Willamette,
Columbia, and/or Bull Run options.
r_,d
Regional Water Supply Plan Project Team
c/o Portland Water Bureau
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 601
Portland,OR 97204
ADDRESS LABEL
Address Correction Requested
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Meeting Announcement }k
Please join the region's water providers in discussing the proposed
Regional Water Supply Plan Proposed Revisions and project. An
open public meeting will be held, in the evening, in late April.
Date, time, and location to be announced.
• Please call 823-7528 if:
- you would like to receive a set of proposed plan revisions
(approximately 115 pages).
- you would like to discuss the plan revisions or arrange for a briefing for
a community organization.
• Please bring your comments on the Regional Water Supply Plan revisions
to the public meeting, or send them to the project team address above by
the end of April 1996.
Figure XII-3
Recommended Resource Strategy
s.1. ..-
.
S.I.- .......l1 50 mgd
Key H 50 mgd M I-------------_----
Clackamas-
H High Demand H 50 mgd
-
M Medium Demand M --------- - - H 100 mgd
M,L --------------------------
L Low Demand ASR-
40 mgd Clack-50 mgd S.1, 100 mgd
Construction Period H S.I.-50 mgd H Clackamas-*50 mgr
• On-Line Date M ------------------ -------- Clackamas-40m�d -_
- ------
- L -
M M M Clack-40 mgd
S. I. Source Increment, -------- "
either Bull Run, H L M Clackamas-
Columbia, or ----------- L a0mgd
Willamette ASR-40m S.1.- ------------
H Clads-50 mgd 50 mgd Clads-50 mA
H $.I.-100 mgd S 1.:.100 mgd
Outdoor M ASR-40 mgd Cl40 mgd H -10 mgd
............ Clackamas- Clads...,
Conservation M M M.L
Clack-40 mgd
M
L ----------------- ~_L E
L ASR-40 mgd
L M Clack-40 mgcT -
- - -- - --...........
Clack-40 mgd
L .................. rASR-40mgd
.,.
M 40 mgd
L ................
Reliability Lovell
1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Reliability Level 2
1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Reliability Level 3
1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
W,920293.Rec
REVISIONS TO THE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
APRIL, 1996
1. STRATEGY - BASICALLY THE SAME
System reliability level, high, medium, low will also become option.
• Source increment - will be used instead of stating Bull Run, Columbia or
Willamette specifically.
2. CONSERVATION
• Conservation education
• Outdoor water audits
• Incentives to install water efficient irrigation and landscapes
• Conservation pricing structures
Initiating the Region - wide outdoor conservation effort immediately upon
RWSP completion.
3. WATER REUSE, RECYCLING
• Key issues are addressed in revised RWSP
• Final plan involves prompt initiation of studies and pilot projects that will
shed light on the potential usefulness of non-potable options.
• No specific water savings are projected, but these can be updated during
various phases of the RWSP implementation.
4. IMMINENT WATER SUPPLY NEEDS
• The Regional Water Supply Plan process has focused primarily on
Regionally significant demands and resource options. The process did
not address in detail the fact that certain localities in the Region are
facing more imminent needs than others. Examples of those entities
which are likely to need new resource capacity prior to the year 2000
which includes the cities of Wilsonville, Tigard, Sherwood, Canby and
possibly the Damascus Water District.
REVISIONS TO, THE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN::- CONTINUED
APRIL, 1996
5. FORMATION OF REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
0 Still many unanswered questions, but need for consortium is very strong.
0 Questions to be answered?
• Metro's role
• Structure of consortium
• Plan implementation and monitoring
• Financial considerations
• Main role of consortium will be to coordinate and oversee
implementation of RWSP
0 IGA will developed
6. METRO'S ROLE
• RWSP is designed to meet the urban growth management programs
adopted by Metro
• Regional Water providers requested and Metro adopted specific language
in RUGGO's, that details the requirement of the Metro Charter to
adoption of urban water supply and storage element in it's Regional
framework plan. The language would require Metro to base its water
supply element on the adopted RWSP.
0 Most define mutual roles for Metro and the Water Consortium
h:kathy\RWSPUPD
Florida ,
MPortland water officials
r> aintaining a°dequate
aquifer levels and instream
flows would take riority readying hong-term plan
over, pumping-
� water to bevel
After weather socked the water Conservation will be built around
by opments, farms
,and industries supply in Portland, Ore., with a one- a "shave the peak" approach for
State
under a water management two punch this past winter, the controlling demand, with emphasis
,bill approved"by the House Portland Water Bureau is looking on reducing summertime
consume-Select Committee on Water with even greater interest at the tion. During the hottest days, PWB
talll Cafte lastmonth.-the fain"wouldlong-range regional water plan customers consume as much as 220
r%gwre water management districts to'tabhsia:rninimum water lebeing Bevel- mgd, more than double the normal
uelsap kee
ottCces healthy"before"granting - oiled for the wintertime usage of 95 mgd.
ttS,#oX tising those resources-Winer "- three-county The package would include
1ebrll� permit renewals or,existing metropolitan landscape ordinances regulating
s would�be given .more credence area. the amount and type of turf and
Mian new permits. Portland's Bull Run watershed, non native plants in new develop
which normally produces water so ments, a rate structure that rewards
� hSCoi1S1[t -
clean it is exempt from federal filtra- lower usage, workshops on water-
the,a#ate is fighting EPAin court for, tion requirements, had to be con- saving landscaping and incentive
;ntrrig two Indian nations
rrl Wisconsin the authority to pletely shut down for the first time programs to install water-efficient
6-,:their own regula- in more than 100 years when Feb- irrigation systems.
t0'ptotect tribal waters ruary floods pushed turbidity levels The long-range plan will also calltrd upsfream waters that enter their above safe limits. The unprece- for expanded use of water from the I
reservations• dented event drove PWB officials to Trask-Tulatin and Clackamas rivers I
Wisconsin filed a suit in district court rely for five days on backup ground- and the cleanup of contaminated
March against EPA for-granting the,
6, state status` water supplies from a wellfield adja- groundwater threatening Portland's
udder the.federal Clean Water"Act, thus cent to a Superfund cleanup site. wellfield, which is projected to be
aigwmg`the tribe to set limits on dis-_ The city also turned to the wells able to provide as much as 72 mgd
charges pinto waterways withi t and- when a landslide wiped out two of when contamination is controlled.
err, #lowing through its 65,400 acre reserva three conduits that send Bull Run Two sites are considered fea-
tipnnear,Green Bay the sta#e_attorney water into Portland. sible for underground storage of
�.<en alp «
maims t#ie decision rnfrnges o 'r Portland and its partners work- excess supplies, and the study also
yllisco_§Wt status as a state by damn
ing on the plan to provide water to recognizes the potential to reuse
10140. -its-authority to regulate pulilic
resources" the region for the next 50 years are wastewater for certain outdoor and
Mate officials also filed a suit in Jany' now calling for an integrated system industrial purposes.
' rygaist EPA for giving tte 1111616' that will ensure uninterrupted sup-
t Soleaogon Chippewa nafton"they. plies of safe water. "We had proof FlItration nOt expeCted
Yqh to establishwater-puality standards; this winter that this is the direction The plan is expected to avoid
thatre stricter than the State's in a Tela
ail stretch of river. expensive
to go," said Lorna Stickel; who is in reliance on investing in esive
�vely sn �
charge of the regdonal-plan for PWB. infrastructure proiects such as a fit-
Colorado tration plant for Bull Run supplies.
" .'Several communities in rural Weld' Drafty/an due soon "You have one turbidity event in 20
G.oun#f are providing their residents with Members of the planning group years, you don't want to feel you
bottled water while taking are now looking at final revisions to have to go to filtration," said Stickel.
steps to permanently solve the five-year study, the result of Planners also have rejected con-
the nitrate contamination of` comments over the past year. The sidering the Willamette River as a
their"water supplies. Hudson Ik
and Fort Lupton will share resources final draft, due for release in July, is potential future source because of
,from a new pipeline that will bring water expected to recommend continued its pollution problems. They are
to a new treatment facility from a reser reliance on Bull Run as the preferred expected to leave future sources
voirsouth of Loveland. supply but will also call for more unnamed, banking that future tech-
Lochbuie is negotiating with the � emphasis on conservation and nologicai developments will help
Beebe Draw Water District and the city of
Brighton to provide the small community ; temsPand development, linking of iol bunont.adi ttion sys- hird Bull ntify rRurhreservtoirlor include
with nitrate-free water. Brighton, mean-
while, is drafting plans to rehabilitate its tional sources such as groundwater Columbia River. Even with expected j
system. Gilcrest solved its nitrate storage of excess Nater and dual high population growth, planners do
problem in 1992 when it tapped into the systems carrying potable arnd non- not foresee the need for additional
Central Weld Water District. potable water. supplies until close.to 2020
i
Kenthorpe water treatment plant gets gonah0ad
Neighbors still may appeal have to adhere to up to 14 conditions, according scrubber,which was originally proposed.
to Peter Spir, a West Linn senior planner. The Although the Robinwood Neighborhood As-
By RAY PITZ measure passed 5-1 with Commissioner Dee sociation had officially remained neutral on the
Staff Reporter Burch opposed to the remodeling. remodeling,Funk said most of the testimony was
Remodeling and bringing Lake Oswego's About 17 residents spoke in opposition of the against the proposal.
Water Treatment Plant up to code was approved Project,Spir said. "We don't really have a problem with improv-
by the West Linn Planning Commission March "Everything they (Lake Oswego) asked for, ing the plant,we have a problem with expansion
27, for the structure,was approved,"he said. of the plant," said Funk. "We'll discuss at our
The approval gives a green light for Lake Os- That includes building a 35-foot-tall silo for next neighborhood association meeting whether
wego to build drying and settling ponds, several storing lime, a new lime building, adding two we'll appeal it."
outbuildings and other upgrades for the plant on concrete-lined settling and drying ponds, build- One of the concerns among neighbors invol-
Kenthorpe Way. ing a circular road on the current property, and ves an unimproved road at the end of Kenthorpe
Although the treatment facility belongs to installing a liquid sodium hypochlorite system to Way,a dead-end street.Funk said construction of
Lake Oswego, it is located in West Linn city treat the water. 0e new lagoons would block access to Mapleton
limits. The latter system is expected to be less
As part of the approval, Lake Oswego will dangerous than the installation of a chlorine See WATER, page A2
water/ from page Al
Drive. The route potentially would lots on Mapleton Drive, on which it
be needed in case of a chlorine gas could complete a future expansion.
leak In order to expand, Lake Oswego
Spir said the commission made it would have to receive approval from
clear that the remodeling approval 75 percent of landowners on
didn't guarantee any future requests. Mapleton Drive under current
"They wanted to explain while covenant, code and restriction
they wanted to support the policies — called CCRs. However,
upgrade. . .they didn't want that to that is not expected to happen.
be seen as any type of support for However, Funk said there is con-
future expansion,"said Spir. cern that Lake Oswego could get
Future expansion could include around such policies.
producing 48 million gallons of
water per day, up from current "We don't have a lot of confiden-
production of 16 million gallons. ces we can make CCRs stick if push
Lake Oswego already owns four comes to shove," said Funk.
Sheet1
Date Lake O. in Bull Run TVWD in Well#1 in Well#2 in Well#3 in Total MG MG in Demand
MGD in MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD Pur./Prod. Storage in MG
3/1/96 1.62 0.568 0.592 2.78 15.9 4.41
3/2/96 3.52 0.574 0.592 4.686 16.07 4.516
3/3/96 2.73 _ 0.567 0.592 3.889 i 5.52 4.439
3/4/96 3.66 - 0.571 0.541 _ _ 4.772 16.02 4.272
3/5/96 3.99 0.575 0.544 5.109 i 7.01 4.119
3/6/96 3.69 _ 0.577 0.544 4.811 17.68 4.141
3/7/96 3.54 0.57 0.535 _ 4.645 18.16 4.165
3/8/96 3.32 _ 0.572 0.537 4.429 18.43 4.159
3/9/96 2 _ 0.576 0.544 3.12 17.15 4.4
3!10/96 _ 3.65 0.574_ 0.541 4.765 17.55 4.365
3/11/96 rt - 2.93 - --_-- -0.572 0.537 -- -- 4.039 17.17 4.419
- - - - --- -
3/12/96 3.64 0.576 0.5414.757 17.7 4,227
---------- - -------------
3/13196 3.53 0.574 0.537 --
4.641 17.99 4.351
14/96 3.41 0-57-1 0.53 4.511 18.12 4.381
3/15/96 2.55 0.575 0.534 3.659 17.5 4.279
3/16196 3.6 0.578 0.538 4.716 17.81 4,406
-- - - --0.-5-2-8 ---
--- - -- -
3/17/96 3 56 0-57 0.528 }- ---� 4.564.658------17-.-88------4-.5-88---
/9
118818 - 4.34$
3118/96 ---3--.-4-5--
0,574 0 537
- 3/19/96 3 24fi - _
0.573 0 547 - i 4.36 18 4.4_6_
---- -- - _
3/20/96 3.24 - - - 0 576 0 538 -4.354 17.8- - 4,554
- -- - - -
3/21/96 --3--.24 0.576 0.538 1 4.354 - 17.84 4.314
3/22/96 ! 3.45 - -- - - - 0.577 - 0.541 4.568 18.11 --4.298-
3/23/96 3 53 - - -- --
0 577 0.541 4.648 18.13 4.628
3/24/96 3.58 0.576 0.537 t 4.693 18.45 4.373
-----------
3/25/96 3 17 0.576 0.536 ! 4.282 j 18.41 4.322
3/26/96 3.88 -- - 0.576 0 536 - 4.992 --19.07 4,332
-- --- - -
- _
3/27196 � 1.54 _ � r rt_--
_ - 0.576- 0.538 i 2 653 17.51 4.213
- - 0.575 -0.536 - = --
3/28/96 2.97 --- - --- -- --- } - 4.084 17.29 i 4.304
--1 -- t-----
3/29/96 3.57 + 4.681 17.79 4.181
3/30/96 2.47 0.575 0.537 _ __3.582 16.91 4'462-
--- -7.58
3/31/96 3.99 0.573 0.534 -� 5.097 17.58 4.427
Averages ! 3.234194 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 10.574032 0.5432581 4.351484 17.56935' 4.349871
Page 1
City of Tigard
Water Rate Study
System Development Charge
and Rate Design
April 10, 1996
All rd Water Rate Study
❖ System Development Charges
eCost of Service Rates
❖ Seasonal Conservation Rate
.t Rate Design Options
•:� Typical Bills
•:� Backup Information
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
SDC-COMBINED FEES
Item System-Wide 1 410 Zone Bull Mtn S stem
Reimbursement SDC per EDU $671 $671 $663
Net Improvement SDC per EDU $426 $315 $844
Combined SDC per EDU $1,097 $986 $1,507
Current SDC per EDU N.A. $845 $1,000
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE STUDY
WATER SDC COMPARISONS
Agency Water SDC
Milwaukee $504
Current Tigard 410 Zone $845
Proposed Tigard 410 Zone $986
Current Tigard Bull Mountain $1,000
City of Tualatin $1,040
Forest Grove $1,300
Cornelius $1,420
Proposed Tigard Bull Mountain $1,507
Portland $1,614
Lake Oswego $1,688
Beaverton $1,910
Tualatin Valley Water District $2,145
Hillsboro $2,220
C Recommendation
•: Adopt Revised System Development
Charges
>Main 410 System Service Area; and
* Bull Mountain Service Area
e� Continue Fire Service Connection
Charge ($1 ,250)
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
CURRENT RATES
Within Outside
Item Meter Size District District
Bi-Monthly Minimum Charge (Includes 8ccf) $14.30 $14.30
Volume Rate ($/ccf) $1.32 $1.32
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.00 $3.00
Bi-Monthly Meter Charge 5/8" X 3/4" $0.00 $0.00
11. $8.80 $8.80
1-1/2" $22.00 $22.00
2" $59.40 $59.40
3" $121.00 $121.00
4" $213.40 $213.40
6" $303.60 $303.60
8" $427.90 $427.90
Bi-Monthly Outside District Charge 5/8" X 3/4" $5.50
1" $8.80
1-1/2" $13.20
2" $22.00
3" $33.00
4" $41.80
6" $61.60
8" $83.60
Within District
Fire Service Charges: Booster
One-Time Connection Fee $1,250 $1,250 $1,250
Bi-Monthly Fire Charge 1-1/2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
2" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
3" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
4" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
6" $30.00 $35.00 $33.00
8" $40.00 $45.00 $43.00
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
PROPOSED COST OF SERVICE RATES (a)
ITEM CHARGE
Bi-Monthly Base Charge $3.89
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13
Volume Rate ($/ccf):
v Residential $1.35
Multifamily Residential $1.33
x - Commercial ' $1.56
Industrial $1.30
Irrigation $1.67
Average $1.39
Bi-Monthly Base Charge $14.77 Includes Initial 8ccf of Demand
Bi-Monthly Booster Charge $3.13
Volume Rate ($/ccf):
Residential $1.35
Multifamily Residential $1.33
Commercial $1.56
Industrial $1.30
Irrigation $1.67
Average $1.39
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION RATE (JUL-AUG-SEP 94/95)
Number of Accounts Total 3-Month Demand Elasticity Demand
Consumption Blocks Accounts Percent Demand Percent Adjustment Percent
(-.03)
0 to 50ccf 8,861 77.2% 318,540 55.5% 318,540 56.3%
50ccf& More 2,614 22.8% 255,300 44.5%1 247,640 43.7%
Total 11,475 100.0% 573,840 100.0% 566,180 100.0%
Seasonal Conservation
Consumption Blocks Surcharge Revenues
($/ccf) (a)
50ccf & More $0.25 $61,910
$0.50 123,820
$0.75 185,730
$1.00 247,640
$1.25 309,550
$1.50 371,460
$1.75 433,370
$2.00 495,280
(a) Use seasonal surcharge revenues to finance a conservation education program.
Design Options
❖ Continue Current Rate Design; or
❖ Adopt Cost of Service Rates.
❖ For Either of the Above Options:
*Adopt Seasonal Conservation Surcharge.
*Continue Current Fire Service Charges:
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE STUDY
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BILL COMPARISONS
Typical Bi-Monthly
Monthly Base Bi-Monthly Base Volume Residential
Agency Charge Charge Rate ($/ccf) Bill @20 ccf
Lake Oswego $7.65 N.A. $0.50 $25.30
Portland $4.59 N.A. $0.87 $26.58
Forest Grove $2.76 N.A. 1.45/1,000 gal $27.21
Hillsboro $6.79 N.A. 0-1 ccf in Base Charge $28.52
2-9 ccf = $0.83
10+ ccf =$0.92
Tualatin Valley Water District N.A. $9.25 $1.12 $31.65
Milwaukee N.A. $5.96 $1.35 $32.96
Current Tigard Rates N.A. $14.30 + $3.00 $1.32 $33.14
Proposed Tigard Rate- 1 N.A. $3.89 + $3.13 $1.35 $34.02
Proposed Tigard Rate-2 N.A. $14.77 + $3.13 $1.35 $34.10
City of Tualatin $6.90 N.A. $1.15 $36.80
Beaverton $6.10 N.A. $1.44 $41.00
Cornelius $11.89 N.A. 0-6000gal =$1.20/1000 $48.00
6000+ al= $1.90/1000
i
Backup Data
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
FIXED ASSETS - UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE NET OF CONTRIBUTIONS - JUNE 30, 1995
Fixed Assets I Accumulated Net Book
DESCRIPTION as of 06/30/951 Depreciation Value
Land & Improvements $1,180,171 $504,667 $675,504
Buildings 1,409,744 317,669 1,092,075
Water Lines 21,829,973 5,260,023 16,569,950
Water Pump Stations 3,946,121 1,514,461 2,431,660
Equipment & Vehicles 1,177,616. 996,061 181,555
Office Equipment 413.573 219,934 193,639
Subtotal $29,957,199 $8,812,815 $21,144,384
Less Developer Contributions $8.301.406
Total Net of Contributions $12,842,978
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT BM PROJECTED 5-YEAR
Codes:410=410 Zone&BM=Bull Mountain System) % 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 TOTAL
Water Supply:
Unused 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Reservoirs&Storage:
Menlor Land&Improvements 35% $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000
Construct 3.5 MG Mentor Reservoir 35% 0 2,960,000 0 0 0 2,960,000
Construct 1.0 MG Reservoir on North Flank of Bull Mtn 100% 0 0 0 111,000 980,000 1,091,000
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unused 0% 01 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $300,000 $2,960,000 $0 $111,000 $980,000 $4,351,000
Transmission&Distribution
Replace T&D Mains on Tiedeman St @ Fenno Creek 30% $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000
Install 1,450'of 12"Dist Main on SW N.Dakota 30% 87,000 0 0 0 0 87,000
Install 24'of 12"Dist Main onSW 130th Ave 0% 14,400 0 0 0 0 14,400
Install 900'of 8"Dist Main on SW130th Ave 0% 36,000 0 0 0 0 36,000
Install 5,600'of 24"Trans Main on SW Walnut St 35% 0 672,000 0 0 0 672,000
Install 4,000'of 24"Trans Main on SW Greenburg Rd 35% 0 0 680,000 0 0 680,000
Install 1,350'of 12"Dist Main on SW 150th Ave-Phase 1 100% 0 0 81,000 0 0 81,000
Install 1,350'of 12"Dist Main on SW 150th Ave-Phase 2 100% 0 0 0 81,000 0 81,000
Install 4,400'of 16"Trans Main on SW 135th Ave 35% 0 0 0 352,000 0 352,000
Install 3,200'of 16"Trans Main on SW Beef Bend Rd 20% 0 0 0 256,000 0 256,000
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unused 0% 0 0 01 0 0 0
Subtotal $227,400 $672,000 $761,000 $689,000 $0 $2,349,400
Pump Stations:
Construct Pressure Relief Valve Station 100% $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Construct Pressure Reducing Station 100% 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000
Upgrade Pumps at High Tor#1 100% 18,000 0 0 0 0 18,000
Construct Pressure Reducing Station 100% 0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000
Construct Pump Sta for Reservoir on No Flank of Bull Mtn 100% 0 0 0 0 120,000 120,000
Unused 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unused 0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $58,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $120,000 $198,000
TOTAL WATER CIP $585,400 $3,632,000 $781,000 $800,000 $1,100,000 $6,898,400
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
SDC-REIMBURSEMENT FEE
80.3% 19.7
System-Wide=100% 410 Zone Bull Mountain S stem
Water Reservoirs 8 Transmission Water Reservoirs 8 Transmission Water Reservoirs& Transmission
ITEM Su I Stora e 8 Distribution Total Supply Storage &Distribution Total Supply Storage 8 Distribution Total
Current Fixed Asset Value-$ $0 $1,418,711 $11,424,266 $12,842,977 $0 $1,138,799 $9,170,258 $10,309,057 $0 $279,912 $2,254,008 $2,533,920
Less:Current Outstanding Debt Principal(a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plus:Current Cash Reserves(a) 0 298,350 2,401,650 2,700,000 0 239,486 1,927,804 2,167,290 0 58,864 473,846 532,710
Net System Investment $0 $1,717,061 $13,825,916 $15,542,977 $0 $1,378,285 $11,098,062 $12,476,347 $0 $338,776 $2,727,854 $3,066,630
Current System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 20.9 18.0 0.0 16.8 14.4 0.0 4.1 3.6
Net Investment per mgd $0 $82,156 $768,106 $0 $82,041 $770,699 $0 $82,628 $757,737
Net Investment per gpd $0.00 $0.08 $0.77 $0.00 $0.08 $0.77 $0.00 $0.08 $0.76
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(b) 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789
Reimbursement SDC per EDU $0 $63 $608 $671 $0 $63 $608 $671 $0 $63 $600 $663
Notes:
(a) Total is distributed to major unit processes using same proportions as current fixed assets.
(b) Estimated system total maximum day demand divided by total equivalent meters.
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
SDC-IMPROVEMENT FEE
System-Wide 410 Zone Bull Mountain System
Water Reservoirs& I Transmission Water Reservoirs& Transmission Water Reservoirs& Transmission
ITEM Supply Storage &Distribution Total Supply I Storage I &Distribution Total Supply I Storage &Distribution Total
CIP Value Allocated to New Users $0 $671,275 $1,764,104 $2,435,379 $0 $264,446 $1,105,398 $1,369,844 $0 $406,829 $658,706 $1,065,535
Additional System Design Capacity(mgd) 0.0 4.5 4.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 1.0 1.0
Unit Cost of New Capacity per mgd $0 $149,172 $392,023 $0 $75,556 $315,828 $0 $406,829 $658,706
Unit Cost of New Capacity per gpd $0.00 $0.15 $0.39 $0.00 $0.08 $0.32 $0.00 $0.41 $0.66
Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(a) 789 789 789 0 789 789 789 789 789
Improvement SDC per EDU $0 $118 $308 $426 $0 $63 $252 $315 $0 $323 $521 $844
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
NONRATE REVENUES
BUDGETED1 PROJECTED
ITEM 1995/96 1996/97 7F 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01
Interest Income $175,000 $250,000 $138,000 142,100 146,400 150,800
Other Water Sales 6,000 6,200 6,400 6,600 6,800 7,000
Fire Service Standby Charge 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000
Meter Installation Fees 152,260 152,300 158,000 157,300 150,000 162,400
Total Developer Revenues 173,000 150,000 154,500 159,100 163,900 168,800
Misc Revenues 18,490 19,000 19,600 20,200 20,800 21,400
Capital Reserves (Menlor Res) 0 0 2,700,000 0 0 0
Total $551,750 $604,500 $3,203,500 $512,300 $514,900 $537,400
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
NET REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FROM RATES
PROJECTED
ITEM 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Revenue Requirements:
Operation & Maintenance Costs $4,094,300 $4,028,700 $4,170,500 $4,337,300 $4,573,600 $21,204,400
Revenue Financed Capital Costs (a) 340,400 3,096,100 189,400 103,900 1,070,700 4,800,500
Debt Service Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Reserve Fund 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000
Total Revenue Requirements $4,934,700 $7,624,800 $4,859,900 $4,941,200 $6,144,300 $28,504,900
Less:
Nonrate Revenues $604,500 $3,203,500 $512,300 $514,900 $537,400 $5,372,600
Net SDC Revenues (b) 329,300 0 21,000 103,900 167,300 621,500
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800
(a) CIP expenditures allocated to existing users,
(b) SDC revenues less CIP expenditures allocated to future users.
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
ALLOCATION OF TOTAL COSTS TO CUSTOMER CLASSES
CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total Percent
Total Costs of Service:
Residential $2,310,700 $2,544,200 $2,502,600 $2,506,400 $3,124,400 $12,988,300 57.7%
Multifamily Residential 842,200 934,900 908,600 904,700 1,152,900 4,743,300 21.1%
Commercial 681,600 757,200 735,800 732,600 934,100 3,841,300 17.1%
Industrial 44,700 49,700 48,200 47,900 61,200 251,700 1.1%
Irrigation 121,800 135,400 131,500 130,900 167,100 686,700 3.1%
--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Grand Total $4,001,000 $4,421,400 $4,326,700 $4,322,500 $5,439,700 $22,511,300 100.0%
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
PROJECTED COST OF SERVICE RATE REVENUES
CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 F 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Residential $2,422,700 $2,513,200 $2,603,400 $2,693,900 $2,784,800 $13,018,000
Multifamily Residential 882,900 916,300 949,600 982,900 1,016,300 4,748,000
Commercial 709,100 735,800 762,600 789,400 816,200 3,813,100
Industrial 46,800 48,600 50,400 52,100 53,900 251,800
Irrigation 126,500 131,300 136,100 140,900 145,700 680,500
--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Total $4,188,000 $4,345,200 $4,502,100 $4,659,200 $4,816,900 $22,511,400
Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,500 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,700
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Revenue Excess (Shortfall) $187,100 ($76,100) $175,600 $336,800 ($622,700) $700
CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RATE MODEL
CURRENT RATES - TOTAL RATE REVENUES (a)
CUSTOMER CLASS 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 Total
Residential $2,411,500 $2,501,500 $2,591,100 $2,681,100 $2,771,500 $12,956,700
Multifamily Residential 829,300 860,700 892,200 923,700 955,100 4,461,000
Commercial 558,500 579,700 601,000 622,200 643,400 3,004,800
Industrial 46,800 48,600 50,400 52,200 53,900 251,900
Irrigation 94,700 98,300 101,800 105,400 109,000 509,200
--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Subtotal $3,940,800 $4,088,800 $4,236,500 $4,384,600 $4,532,900 $21,183,600
Total Other Charge Revenues (a) $235,300 $242,200 $250,600 $255,400 $262,600 $1,246,100
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Total Rate Revenues $4,176,100 $4,331,000 $4,487,100 $4,640,000 $4,795,500 $22,429,700
Net Revenue Requirements $4,000,900 $4,421,300 $4,326,600 $4,322,400 $5,439,600 $22,510,800
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Revenue Excess (Shortfall) $175,200 ($90,300) $160,500 $317,600 ($644,100) ($81,100)
(a) Does not include fire service charges.
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
April 4, 1996
Honorable Robert E Tydeman
Mayor of City of Durham
P O Box 23483
Durham, Oregon 97281
Dear Mayor Tydeman:
Thank you for your letter of March 25, 1996 appointing Mr. Stever, Feldman, as
Durham's representative to the Intergovernmental Water Board. According to the IGA
signed' by all agencies involved with the IWB, section 3.b.3 states that "Board
members shall be an elected official serving on the respective governing board"...
I regret to inform you that Steven's appointment would not be valid or would not give
the City of Durham official representation on the Board. I would suggest a possible
course of action be to a) appoint an elected official from the City of Durham, or b)
make a formal recommendation to the IWB to amend the original IGA to allow
appointment of your City Administrator to the Board.
I do not wish to cause problems or show any disrespect for Steven, 1 only intend to
enforce the Intergovernmental Agreement.
If I can be of assistance, please contact me at 639-4171 , extension 396.
Sincerely,
Ed Wegner
c: Bill Monahan
Steve Feldman
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
SVG�f
City of Durham am INTERNET: DURHAMCITY ,4OL.COM
P.O. Box 23483 Durham Oregon 97281 (503)639-6851 Fax(503)598-8595
Steven Feldman-City Administrator/Recorder David Lawson-Taylor-Executive Assistant
March 25, 1996
Mr. Ed Wegner
City of Tigard Water District
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Ed,
This is to inform you that Steven Feldman has been officially appointed as the City of
Durham's representative to the Intergovernmental Water Board.
Please show him the respect and admiration that you would bestow upon any elected
official in the same capacity.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Robert E. Tyde
Mayor of Durham
"Setting the Standard for Excellence and Innovation in Local Government"