Loading...
05/13/1996 - Packet - File Copy • BOa Rb::OF;COMA SSYO I� • tlrtg121}#aCQlitTlll'Et� REG LAR MEETING AGENDA AMENDED Monday, May 13 1996 '00:pm. 1. Gall to Order -- 2. Visitor Comments- 3. Approval.O:f-March-25,:1996 Minutes - - - 4. Intergovernmental Water Board-Update - Beverly Froude 5. Operation-Manger's-Report - Mike -Miller 6. - Non-Agenda Items 7. Commissioner's Comments - 8. Set Next Meeting Agenda 9. Adjournment Reminder: IWB-Meeting 5-15-96 @-5:30 • - TWb.Meeting 6-24=96 @ 7:00 - - Executive Session: The_Tigard Water District may._go into--Executive Session under the:provisions of ORS:1:92:660 (1)-(d), (e), & (h).to discuss labor-relations, - real propertytransactions, 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 information discussed during this-- session. kathy{twdl5-1-3.agn TIGARD WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MARCH 25, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Beverly Froude, John Volpe,Norman Penner, Lou Anne Mortensen,John Haunsperger STAFF PRESENT: Mike Miller,City Administrator,Bill Monahan, Kathy Kaatz,Diane Kuhn 1. Call to order/Roll Call The meeting of the Tigard Water District was called to order at 7:03pm on March 25, 1996 by Commissioner Penner. All members present. 2. Visitors Comments: No visitors were present at the meeting 3. Approval of February 26,1996 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Volpe moved to accept the minutes of the February 26, 1996 meeting as corrected. John Haunsperger seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. 4. Facility Use Update Norm Penner stated that they invited Bill Monahan to meet with the Board again to discuss the best way to deal with the City's request. John Haunsperger stated that he would like to know what possibilities there are for the building being used solely for maintenance services. He feels that not having the crews working out of this building,they are quite removed from the daily activities. With the crew working out of the building,he feels the flow of work would be better, and would maintain the original intent of the building as originally constructed. Bill Monahan stated that the City has limited facilities for office space, and operations. By moving Operations into the building,they would need to find a home for the Finance Department. Operations has about 35 employees, and he doesn't feel there would be adequate space for managers, crew, vehicles and materials. Bill Monahan feels both the Ash Street ,site and Canterbury site need to be kept. City Council, is concerned that as the downtown properties become more valuable, Maintenance Services may be moved elsewhere, because the properties will be too valuable for that type of operation. Tigard Water District Board Meeting-March 25,1996 The city has been approached by Sprint,they are interested in the downtown area for their cell sites. Sprint is interested either in our Maintenance Services yard or Water Building site and is willing to lease. Bill Monahan stated that the City is looking at purchasing Amber Foods,which would include the building,bus facility,and 10 acres of land for the purpose of a new library. Bill Monahan stated that in purchasing Amber Foods,there would be less need for the Water Building. Beverly Froude questioned that time frame. The City is looking at a 3 to 5 year time frame. City Council does not want to go out for bond, for the construction money. Current facility issues that need to be addressed(1)library and police are over crowded,(2)City Hall roof leaks. With the roof leaking at City Hall,one option is to build up,and the other is to spend about$60,000 to fix the roof. Police Department plans to expand their facility at the cost of about$360,000. The library expansion could be funded by Washington County serial library levy. Three weeks ago Washington County approved a operating levy for three years. The cooperative library group has been looking at a capital campaign and are focusing on making a decision on whether to go out for a five year serial levy in 1997 for 30 million dollars. If the Washington County Cooperative Library System does that, our share of funds would be about 3.8 million dollars. We would be the only city who would receive enough funds to build out to our capacity, and to meet the long term 20 year Oregon State Library standards for the size of facility needed for this area. With the size of our present site,and the potential of building out toward Hall Blvd.,we can only spend 2.6 million of the 3.8 million dollars on the library. With this in mind,we have become more interested in moving off site,and spending the full 3.8 million dollars,using the other 1.2 million for property acquisition. Amber Foods is being offered for around 1.4 million dollars. The building could possibly be renovated for$100 dollars per square foot and achieve all of our space needs. If the levy is put on the ballot in March 1997,and if it passes,our share of funds wouldn't be available for two years. Our choices would be to either wait for the funds, or to borrow. The City Councils direction is to purchase the Amber Foods property. The city needs to address short term problems,like the police,parking availability at the library,court, and crowding problems at City Hall. That's why the city is still looking at the Water Building even though Amber Foods may be the solution. Wayne Lowry did an analysis of the use of the Water Building as well as the percentage ownership's. The 1994 EES study found that the district owns 17.59%of the building,City Of Tigard 73.38%,King City 6.72%,and Durham 2.31%. Wayne has updated those percentages, based on the activities that has occurred. The Water District's percentage has increased to 20.1%, City Of Tigard is down to 71.03%,King City is down to 6.05%,and Durham is up to 2.82%. In the letter to Commissioner Penner on February 1,the evaluation from the Tigard financial statement is $1,370,000 and after depreciation, $1,079,382. The estimated value of the Water Building office area is$591,920, out of$930,355,with the remainder being operations. Out of 6,700 sq. ft. of the Water Building,2,733 sq. ft. is being used for water purposes. Figures show that 40%of the Water Building is being used for water purposes,29%is being used by non-water purposes. One option that we have is for the district,and the other partners,to consider whether or not to let the City Of Tigard utilize more of the building. Tigard Water District Board Meeting-March 25, 1996 Commissioner Haunsperger asked out of the 35 people involved in Maintenance Services,how many are office, and how many are field? There are eight office staff and twenty seven field employees. Commissioner Haunsperger stated that maybe a portable structure would be sufficient,as the field crew doesn't need housing all day long. Or having Maintenance Services located in the Water Building. The major concern would be the investment in the Maintenance Services building, and no one to use it. Commissioner Penner stated that if they were to sell or lease the Water Building to the City Of Tigard,TWD doesn't know what they would do with the money. King City could use city services. There doesn't seem to be any services that Tigard could provide TWD. One of the concerns on the part of the other members is that if the city fully utilizes this building,they would take over and force out those people who are providing services to the water district which was the original intent of the building. TWD appreciates the fact that facilities like this should not sit vacant. If the City of Tigard,and Tigard Water District could come to some accommodations,or some assurance that the interest of the customers at large would continue to be served,then that is worth discussing. Beverly Froude asked Mr. Monahan what process was involved to make the Water Building a homeless shelter? Mr. Monahan stated that was when the City Council assigned a homeless task force committee. The homeless shelter won't be here next year. The Water Board feels they should have known about it before hand,because of the facility being used for meetings. When Tigard took on the severe weather shelter,there was a regional need. Tigard's intent was to help on a interim basis. Interfaith Outreach has found that they not only have the capacity to provide shelter services on a daily basis but also a severe weather shelter. John Haunsperger stated that when Finance was moved to the Water Building,that was done without discussing the move with the board. It didn't set real well. Mr. Monahan stated that the reason Wayne Lowry was sent over to the Water Building was,that there was a need for a department head to be in charge of the building. Commissioner Mortensen asked when the City Hall was built? Mr. Monahan stated in 1986. Mr. Monahan again stated that with bringing court to the Water Building,there could also be a reserve officer available for security. The problem with the Water Building,would be the judges quarters and a restroom facility for him. Commissioner Froude asked if King City had made a decision yet,and what they are asking for? Mr. Monahan stated that they are asking for more information. Durham has stated that they would allow Tigard to use their portion of the building for about five hours of maintenance in Durham per month. Presently Tigard already does that. The one option for TWD is to lower that water rates. Commissioner Penner stated,that to him,that would be the only thing that would make any sense. Commissioner Volpe stated that the commission as a whole is not very sympathetic to the idea of Tigard being able to use this building as seeing fit. Volpe stated that it might be better if.the city could bring to them a proposal of how the Water Board would be paid in water rates. Doing so, the commission could say yes,or no. At the last commission meeting,the majority vote was to approach the City Of Tigard,and tell them it was TWD'S desire that this building be used Tigard Water District Board Meeting-March 25,1996 specifically for water. I think we(TWD)would hate to see this building become used only for the City Of Tigard,and not be used for what the building was originally built. Commissioner Volpe stated that if a court were to be made out of the building,the Commissioners ought to be part of the planning. Mr. Monahan stated that he would like to access what the short term needs are, and make sure we let you know our thoughts. I think we are away from the potential of moving all of Finance out of the building. The customers are used to the idea of coming here to pay their water bills,and that was the intent of the building initially. We have more knowledge now of how we may need to go for our long term needs than when we spoke with you about this subject at first. Mr. Monahan stated that the reason for coming to you and asking whether you are willing to do it,before we had some plans, is that Tigard didn't want to repeat what they did with the severe weather shelter,and bringing Finance over here. Commissioner Fronde stated it has opened a new focus, so it is being talked about in a different way,than when it first began, and needs time to talk it through. Commissioner Haunsperger stated that his major concern is that the facility was designed to serve Maintenance Service's functions. Commissioner Penner stated that if Tigard works with TWD in the plans,we certainly don't want to be in the way of progress for the city,but at the same time I think the Boards main desire is that the water service delivered to all constituents,continue to be as high of quality as possible. I feel that the Board would go along with that. Commissioner Penner stated that at this point,they are not interested in selling or leasing,as they don't know what they would do with the money. Accumulated money after two or three years could be refunded to the constituents of the unincorporated area. Commissioner Haunsperger stated that the property could be better utilized. The key thing for us, is,that this building may be a short term solution,if we are able to acquire an off site facility. Eventually we may find that we need to sell the Operations facility on Ash Avenue because downtown renewal may make the property too valuable. Tualatin Valley Mental Health,has stated that they do not need the old police station any longer. Up until two weeks ago, they had been leasing the 1600 sq. ft. building for$1.00 per year. There is also property behind that building that we may be able to purchase,the �r;,a if between that building and Operations. Long term that property could become very valuabler�. Commissioner Mortensen stated that it may even be advantageous to move court to the TITS Building,to take pressure off City Hall. Commissioner Penner stated that a vote could be taken without any difficulty to move court to the Water Building. Commissioner Haunsperger moved that TWD support the use of this meeting room for the court functions,and any modification that need to be made to accommodate security. Commissioner Volpe seconded that motion. Mr. Monahan stated that modification would be to buy some furniture,to make it look more judicial. Motion passed unanimously. Administrator Monahan asked if he could speak about the one hundred thirty foot mono pole? Commissioner Haunsperger stated that it didn't bother him. Commissioner Mortensen asked if the sign code would permit it? Mr.Monahan stated that a mono pole is located on Phaffel Street. Sprint would be willing to pay from$600.00-$1,000.00 per month to rent a portion at the far end of the Water Building lot,behind the Fire Department. We would have to make sure it would not interfere with the Fire Department emergency signals. Another benefit of this is, if they locate here,is it would allow us to leave the capacity on the pole for their competitors to use also. If we get involved in this,we could work out an arrangement that we could co-habitat the cells so that we could put some of our own emergency arrays on the pole to send signals. In 1992 Tigard Tigard Water District Board Meeting-March 25,1996 Water District passed resolution 20-92,a resolution establishing a policy to restrict antenna height at district owned properties. What it says is that the existing antennas,as well as the proposed antennas for the new telemetry system can function at 3 feet above the roof ridge. As a result, there is a policy to restrict antenna height at district owned property,to not exceed 20 feet or 3 feet above the highest point of an existing structure which ever is greater. Commissioner Haunsperger offered to give some history on that issue. Sprint would need a 1500 sq. ft. equipment room at the base. It may be designed also for other users to utilize the space. Commissioner Haunsperger stated that cell sites are like a honeycomb, and need to over lap areas. Mr. Monahan stated that it would improve the cellular service,as there are a lot of cellular phones throughout the area. The City Council also asked Mr. Monahan to mention the space issue to the downtown merchants. In mentioning it to the president of the downtown merchants,he wasn't thrilled about the idea. Commissioner Haunsperger stated that as long as the resolution didn't get changed for the reservoir sites,and it was only for this area,there would not be a problem. Commissioner Froude stated that when they are put in the residential area,that's when it becomes a problem. Commissioner Mortensen asked if they would be analog, or digital signals? It would be digital. Commissioner Haunsperger stated that the density in the cellular business has become so great,that they have to add more to handle the capacity. Mr. Monahan stated that the rent would go to the water fund. Commissioner Penner stated that on behalf of the Water Board,their real interest is to feel like they are being kept in the loop. Administrator Monahan apologized for moving the severe weather shelter so quickly,and also for the Farmers Market. Mr.Monahan stated that he recommended that the Farmers Market use the Water Building,rather than City Hall,and plans to be here again this year. Commissioner Mortensen asked if the liability insurance will be covered? Mr. Monahan stated it would,as we have a rider on their insurance policy. Commissioner Penner thanked Mr. Monahan for taking the time to speak with them. 5. Intergovernmental Water Board Update Commissioner Froude stated that Mike Miller is going to speak about the Menlor Reservoir Site. She stated that they got an up-date,a draft of the water rate study. CH2M Hill are suppose to come back with a finished product next time. There are items that need to be looked at and decisions the IWB need to make. We will need to look at the system development charges,and adjustments to the revenue requirement,and decide if we want to change any of these. The water rate is moving along,and should be completed next month. She feels that with spending this much money on water the water rate study,the rates will be raised. Mike Miller stated that the SDC'S will probably increase,but the water rates are still being reviewed. Commissioner Fronde stated that Tigard's SDC'S are$1,000 in comparison, McMinnville's are$2400. Commissioner Haunsperger asked if the IWB had reviewed the statement of the account for the water. Do they have a revenue statement,and a full accounting of the moneys that were transferred to the city from the Water Department? And,has it been reviewed by the auditors? He Tigard Water District Board Meeting-March 25,1996 stated that he would like to see the report. Commissioner Froude stated that they would go over the budget at the next meeting. Commissioner Haunsperger asked if we are using an outside auditor for the figures,or using the finance figures? Mike Miller stated that he can get them a copy of the audit for last year,that was done by Coopers&Lybrandt. Commissioner Froude stated that they were just starting the budget process now,and will be brought up next time. 6. Operations Manager's Report Mike Miller spoke about the Menlor Reservoir Site,located off Scholls Ferry Road next to Bull Mt. Meadows. In 1990,EES completed the master plan,called for a 2.5 million gallon reservoir at the elevation of 410 ft,and an additional 1.0 million gallon reservoir at 470 ft. on the North side of Bull Mountain. It just so happens that the Menlor property will accommodate both reservoirs. However,when Murray Smith&Associates looked at the master plan and where we are going, the reservoirs on the South side of Bull Mountain,the current plan calls for the reservoirs to be built at 410 ft.,and 550 ft.which makes more hydraulic sense because of pumping to a higher elevation, and back feeding down. They looked at what they could do to accommodate a 550 zone on the North side of Bull Mountain. The proposal is to look at acquiring new property on the North side to build a new reservoir at 550 ft. There is ra►.+yGa Ly adjacent to our current parcel that is up that high. We haven't been given the go ahead to look for it,but are studying the possibilities. One of our reservoirs on 135TH Ave., South of Walnut Street, is a 800,000 gallon reservoir,built in two sections is leaking. Chris Uber, from Murray Smith explained it,to be like two doughnuts stacked on top of one another,and where the two doughnuts meet is where the crack is,and we have never been able to seal it properly. We have attempted several times to seal it,but the two sections are incompatible to seal properly. Several things have been tried,but we still have leakage problems. The reservoir is too old to really salvage, so in the proposal it is to expand the 2.5 million gallon,add the additional 800,000 gallons to the capacity,and round to 3.5 million gallon reservoir. We started the conditional use process,looking at what we need to do to meet conditional use conditions and issues that the county will propose. Then start preliminary engineering this spring. We have the site work done,at least where it should be located. Construction is slated for 1996- 97. Commissioner Volpe asked when they were going to do 510 feet? Mike stated that if they can get the yl Viiia if,the pumping facilities will be there,whether it be at 470 feet,or 550 feet. If we can get the property it may be as long as five years out,before we would build a new one million gallon reservoir at 550 feet. Currently,we pump water from 125TH and Bull Mt. Road to Hi Tor, and then it feeds down to Bull Mt. Meadows,and Kerrons Crest,to Scholls Country Estates,and to the end of Bull Mt. Road. By having the 3.5 million gallon reservoir,or 4.70, 5.50 million gallon reservoir up here,it will service a ban out here,and not deleting. Commissioner Volpe asked if there are enough customers to need both reservoirs? Mr. Miller stated yes. Commissioner Volpe asked that when you service the people from Hi Tor,to Bull Mountain Meadows are they being served through a pressure reducing valve? Mike Miller stated that currently there is a pressure reducing valve located on our property. Commissioner Mortensen asked what happened with the 135TH site off Walnut Street? Mr. Miller stated there are two reservoirs on that site,the 800,000 gallon reservoir, and the 2.5 million gallon reservoir. There is also a well on site. Commissioner Volpe asked if the 3.5 million gallon reservoir would be concrete? Mike stated that we would be looking at pre-stressed concrete Dykman wrapped, like Tigard Water District Board Meeting-March 25,1996 the 2.5 million, 10 million,and 1 million at Hi Tor. Commissioner Mortensen asked if the well was not usable any longer? Mike stated the well is,usable,and we are keeping it. Commissioner Haunsperger asked if we are still looking at the property at the end of 141ST and Bull Mountain? Mike stated that he last time they had spoken with Mr. Baggenstos on 144TH,he indicated his unwillingness to sell until tax laws changed. 7. Non Agenda Items Kathy had stated that Wendy had resigned as taking minutes at the TWD meetings,and that Diane will be her replacement. Kathy stated that a replacement notice for Lou Anne Mortensen, who has resigned as Tigard Water District Commissioner can still be run in the April issue of the City Scape,as the dead line is April 8th. The ad can also be run in the Tigard Times,or in the Oregonian. Commissioner Froude asked if they should run the ad in the Oregonian,or try the City Scape and Tigard Times for a month? Commissioner Haunsperger asked if we don't normally post the notice? Kathy stated that we could do that,post it at City Hall,and Library. Commissioner Froude stated we would do that first,before advertising in the newspapers. 8. Commissioner's comments Commissioner Penner stated that he had a note from the Portland Metropolitan Local Government Boundary Commission about a levy that is assessed against us for the 1996-97 fiscal year for $910.00,and the first assessment,or the first quarter payment is due July 1996. It was given to kathy for payment. 9. Set Neat Meeting Agenda Commissioner Haunsperger moved to seek the services of the previous budget committee of last year. Commissioner Froude seconded the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Mortensen stated that the Budget Meeting is set for May 13,1996,with the budget committee. Approval from the commissioners for the budget on June 24,1996,with two public notices going out for two different dates. 10. Adjournment Chairperson Penner made a motion to adjourn the TWD meeting. This was seconded by Commissioner Haunsperger. The meeting adjourned at 8:35pm. Tigard Water District Board Meeting-March 25,1996 ... 4`°""c� CIACKAMAS ot:0,� ,1 . �• �•% * couNTy Board of Commissioners\'.�OR DARLENE HOOLEY CHAIR ED UIST April 11, 1996 COMMISSIONER JUDIE HAMMERSTAD COMMISSIONER Mayor Wade Byers Gladstone City Hall 525 Portland Avenue Gladstone, OR 97027 Dear Mayor Byers . I have received a copy of the letter that you sent to each of the cities in the region expressing your concerns about the recommendations of the MPAC Boundary Commission Workgroup. Your letter also requested that they testify in opposition to the proposed recommendations. I would like to take this opportunity to address several of the points raised in your letter and to more fully explain the intent of the workgroup' s recommendations . First, I am disappointed that you have attempted to rally opposition to the workgroup' s recommendations prior to the publication of the our final report . The report will be mailed to each city, county and special district in the tri-county area this week. I believe that many issues that you have raised are addressed in the report . Second, your letter noted that "virtually every annexation proposal will be no doubt appealed by a citizen and/or special district . " I would note that under present law, the general public and special districts are free to testify in opposition to city annexation proposals at a boundary commission hearing. They also may appeal a decision of the boundary commission. The workgroup has proposed that a local annexation decision can be appealed to Metro, but only by another jurisdiction or as a result of a determination by Metro that the action may violate the Regional Framework Plan. The general public would retain the right to use the remonstrance or land use appeals processes provided under existing law. While special districts may have the right to appeal city annexation decisions, the workgroup recommendations would include a requirement that the cost of the appellate process be paid for by the jurisdiction initiating the appeal . Third, your letter contends that the boundary commission "exists to promote the interests of cities" and that the workgroup recommendations are "a blatant attack on cities . " I would respectfully disagree with both of these conclusions . The boundary ' commission was established to reduce fragmentation among 906 Main Street • Oregon City, OR 97045-1882 • 655-8581 Page 2 Mayor Wade Byers governmental jurisdictions. This concern related, not only to the proliferation of special districts, but to the establishment of small cities that were incapable of providing services without the assistance of other jurisdictions . Though the law does establish a preference for single service providers (cities) , the boundary commission has frequently recognized special districts as the most appropriate service provider for a particular area. There are many examples in Clackamas and Washington Counties where special districts effectively provide services within city boundaries. The workgroup' s recommendations clearly do riot constitute an "attack" on cities. The recommendations return control over most local annexation proceedings to the cities, except when there is a jurisdictional dispute involved. ' Most annexations involve small parcels or islands. In non-contested cases, such actions would be handled exclusively at the local level . The workgroup recommended the Metro' s decisionmaking criteria for contested cases include a presumption that all areas within the urban growth boundary ultimately be within a city. The criteia also would require compliance with existing SB 122 agreements . For example, in the North Clackamas area, cities and special districts are working through a process of identifying how and by whom services will be provided throughout the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the region. The contested case process proposed by the workgroup would be required to implement the terms of any agreements that may result from this locally-directed process . Finally, I would point out that the three city representatives on the workgroup (Portland, Lake Oswego and Cornelius) unanimously supported its recommendations. In addition, the workgroup received testimony from other cities in support of the "contested" case concept which returns a significant level of control of local decision-making back to the affected cities . Fourth, you raise the concern that Metro could utilize the contested case process to favor itself as an ultimate service provider or regulator. In response, I would note that Metro has a distinct and significant role in the development of growth management policies for the region. It is responsible for the development and implementation of the Regional Framework Plan, the RUGGO' s and the Regional Transportation Plan. In each case, these documents are being developed in consultation with MPAC, JPACT, local jurisdictions . To date, none of these growth management planning tools have included a service provider or regulator role for Metro. It is these types of documents, as well as locally developed SB 122 agreements, that will guide Metro' s consideration of contested cases under the workgroup' s proposal . Page 3 Mayor Wade Byers Throughout the meetings of the workgroup, Metro has never expressed any active desire to assume any of the functions of the boundary commissions . However, Metro and many local jurisdictions recognize that a serious attempt may be made during the 1997 legislative session to completely abolish the commission. It is the intent of the workgroup' s recommendations to identify those types of local boundary change decisions that may require some type of regional review, while returning control over most decisions to the affected local jurisdiction. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the workgroup' s recommendations with you sometime prior to the MPAC hearing. The report will be presented to MPAC on April 24 with a public hearing starting at 7 P.M. . Sincerely, )Ze74/( 2.77-(/ / Commissioner Judie Hammerstad Chair, Boundary Commission Workgroup cc : MPAC Members Tri-County Cities • FINAL REPORT FROM THE METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE BOUNDARY COMMISSION WORKGROUP Introduction This report summarizes the work and recommendations of the Boundary Commission Workgroup of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee IMPAC) . The workgroup was established in June 1995, following a request by the Metro Council that MPAC develop recommendations concelning the future status and operations of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govenment Boundary Commission (the commission) . The request was made to implement the provisions of the 1992 Metro Charter which require that the Council "undertake and complete a study of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission with advice of the MPAC. " The charter further authorizes the Council to "implement the results of the study and seek any legislative action needed for implementation. " The six-member work group was chaired by County Commissioner.Judie Hammerstad from Clackamas County. Other workgroup members included: Portland City Commissioner Charlie Hales, Tualatin Valley Water District Board Member Rob Mitchell, Cornelius City Councilor Jeannine Murrell, Washington County Commissioner Linda Peters, and - Lake Oswego Mayor Alice Schlenker. All of the workgroup members are members of MPAC. Metro Councilor Susan McLain attended the workgroup meetings and served as the liaison with the Metro Council . Staff was provided by the Metro Council Office . The staff of the commission provided summaries of the early workgroup meetings and promptly responded to all information requests from the workgroup. The workgroup also was assisted by the McKeever/Morris consulting firm and in the development of funding proposals by Kent Squires, General Manager, Oak Grove Sanitary District . Commission History As early as the mid 1950s, the Legislative Assembly recognized that local government response to the rapid growth of suburban areas throughout the state was fragmented and resulted in the ineffective provision of urban services in metropolitan areas. Legislation was introduced, but not adopted, in the 1957 Legislative Assembly to create a statewide local government boundary commission. • Following the work of the Portland Metropolitan Study Commission, legislation to establish boundary commissions in certain local areas was introduced in the 1967 Legislative Assembly. The legislation passed in the House but died in a Senate committee. Similar legislation was reintroduced and passed in the_ 1969 Assembly. 1 This legislation created the Portland Metropolitan Area Local ;� Government Boundary Commission with a jurisdiction of all of Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah and Washington Counties (Columbia County was removed from commission jurisdiction in 1979) . By the time the commission was created, the number of local governmental units within its jurisdiction had reached over 300 . Many small cities had been created to avoid annexation to larger cities. These cities had no capacity to provide urban services. Suburban areas were generally served by a patchwork of special districts . Fragmentation and a lack of planning for the provision of urban services we're commonplace. One study concluded that the average citizen in the Portland metropolitan area was subject to decisions made by 11 separate units of government. During its 27 years of operation, .the number of units of government has declined from 290 to 105. Current Commission Role The following discussion outlines how the commission defines its purposes and jurisdiction, the types of actions subject to commision review, its decision-making 'processes and the criteria used in the decisionmaking process . Purposes. Though there have been a number of technical and procedural changes enacted since 1969, the essential purpose and role of the commission have remained unchanged. The Law defines these purposes to be : 1) guide the creation and growth of local jurisdictions to prevent illogical boundary extensions and encourage restructuring of overlapping units: • 2) assure service quantity and quality and financial integrity • of local jurisdictions; 3) provide impartial forum for resolution of local issues; 4) provide decisions consistent with local comprehensive plans and statewide planning goals : 5) reduce fragmented service delivery by encouraging single agency service delivery. Jurisdiction. The commission' s jurisdiction. includes all cities and thirteen of the most common types of special districts. These include water, sanitary, fire, county service and park and recreation districts. Notable exemptions to the commission' s jurisdiction include school districts and people's utility districts. 2 Local Actions Subiect to Review. The following types of actions by local jurisdictions are subject to commission review: 1) incorporation, dissolution, merger or consolidation of a city or district; 2) initiation of a new function by a district; 3) annexation to or withdrawal from a city or district; 4) formation or expansion of privately-owned community water or sewer system with certain exceptions; 5) extraterritorial water or sewer line extensions . Decision-making Process The general commission process for the consideration of actions subject to its review is as follows : 1) submittal of the proposed action to the commission by the initiating local jurisdiction, or by citizens requesting an action; 2) scheduling a commission hearing; 3) preparation of a commission staff report, including recommendations; 4) holding of a public hearing by the commission; 5) commission decision, which may include approval, denial or modification of the proposed action; 6) issuance of a commission final order. The commission has up to 120 days to take action on major proposals, such as the initiation, merger or consolidation of a city or district . Commisssion action on all other types of actions, such as annexations, must be completed within 90 days. The law also has established a 25-day expedited process for the consideration of small non-contested actions. The effective date of -the commission' s final orders depends on the type of action under consideration. All commission decisions are appealable to the state Court of Appeals. Decision-making Criteria The state statute governing the commission does hot clearly and separately define the criteria that are to be applied , by the commission to the action items that it must review. The policy 3 • section of the statute (ORS 199 .410) provides that "a single governmental agency, rather than several governmental agencies is in most cases better able to assess the financial resources and therefore is the best mechanism for establishing community services. " The commission has interpreted this language to mean that it should give a preference to cities as service providers. Other examples of language in the governing statute include a provision of the policy section which provides that the intent of the commission is "to create a governmental structure that promotes efficiency and economy in providing the widest range of necessary services in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well- ordered and efficient development patterns . " ORS 199 .462 provides that the commission "consider local comprehensive planning for the area, economic, demographic and soliological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed boundary change. " The commission has utilized the general policy and intent statements throughout its government statute to develop a series of 17 general decision-making criteria. These include: 1) Avoid fragmentation of public services . 2) Orderly development of urban area is in the best interest of the citizens of this state. 3) Effect of the growth of one unit of government on other units of government . 4) Insure orderly determination of local government boundaries . 5) Determine the local service provider when local comprehensive plans are unclear. 6) Preference for single agency provision of urban services (cities as prefered providers) . 7) Promote efficiency and economy in providing urban services . 8) Encourage planned, well-ordered and efficient development patterns. 9) Guide creation and growth of units of government to prevent illogical boundaries . 10) Encourage reorganization of overlapping units of government . 11) Assure adequate quality and quantity of urban services. 4 • 12) Assure financial integrity of units of government affected by a boundary change. 13 . Serve as an impartial forum. 14) Make decisions consistent with local plans and statewide goals. 15) Consider timing, phasing and availablity of services . • 16) Reduce fragmentation by encouraging single agency service delivery. 17) Consider economic, demographic, and sociological trends and past, present and future development of the land. Workarout Review Process Initial workgroup meetings in July and August 1995 focused on the identification of issues and concerns related to the current operation of the commission. The workgroup also extensively discussed the current local and regional land use planning process and how these activities relate to the commission. In September, the workgroup finalized a list of issues that would become the focus of its review. These included: 1) the purpose of the commission 2) the authority of the commission 3) policy framework for decision-making (including criteria) • 4) commission governance 5) funding 6) status of the commission advisory committee 7) commission decision-making process 8) appellate review, and - 9) the expedited consideration process. A discussion paper outlining these issues and identifying related policy questions was sent to local jurisdictions subject to the commission. The workgroup then held a series of three public hearings in October. Written and oral testimony was received from the commission (including current and former commissioners and staff) , cities, counties, special districts and the general public. 5 Workgroup meetings during November and December reviewed the information received during the hearing process and refined the nature of the issues and policy options that would receive further consideration. During a series of worksessions in January, February and March, the workgroup developed its preliminary and final recommendations and approved its final report to MPAC. Workgroup Findinas and Recommendations The workgroup has developed recommendations in four principal areas related to the commission. These include: 1) function and structure, 2) criteria, 3) geographic boundaries, and .4) funding. Each of these areas are addressed below. Function and Structure Discussion. The commission and its supporters contend that the existing functions and structure should be retained with only a few minor changes . They argue that, while the commission has reduced fragmentation and inefficient service provision, its continuation in its present form is necessary to maintain the status quo. They note that "the easy recreation of confusion and . inefficiency is only avoided by the presence of the Commission. " Supporters contend that the commission provides timeliness, centralized • processing efficiency, impartial fairness and uniformity to the boundary change decision-making process. They argue that returning many boundary change decision-making functions to local jurisdictions would increase costs and result in decisions based on political considerations. Actions by one jurisdiction could have significant impact on .another jurisdiction and it would be more difficult to insure the state and regional interests are addressed. For example, they note that the state shares a variety of revenue sources with local jurisdictions and therefore has a significant interest in the development of efficient and economical local government structures. Commission supporters recognize that there are many new mechanisms that may assist local jurisdictions in resolving boundary and service provision issues among themselves. These could include the SB 122 (ORS 195 . 020-195 . 080) intergovernmental service agreement process, Metro' s 2040 early implementation measures and the development of the Regional Framework Plan. But they contend that the agreement and planning process are still evolving and there is no assurance they will fully address all boundary and service delivery issues . Supporters also contend the existence of comprehensive land use plans and intergovernmental service provision agreements, do not address many issues addressed in the commission' s decision-making 6 • criteria. For example, while such plans and agreements may set service area boundaries, they often do not address issues related to the timing, availability and financing of service provision. In addition, they may not address the question of whether an area . outside a city boundary is to be annexed. The commission proposed potential statutory changes to address its relationship with the SB 122 process and the implementation of the Regional Framework Plan. These included a commission-administered process for setting urban service boundaries based on SB 122 agreements and with clear statutory direction that the commission' s decisions should be consistent with adopted regional plans. The workgroup also received extensive testimony from several local jurisdictions which advocated a substantial reduction in the scope of the commission' s functions. These suggested changes were based on two principal assumptions : 1) that a large percentage of the local boundary and service provision decisions subject to commission review are minor and have only a limited local impact, and 2) there are extensive state, regional and local planning processes now in place that reduce -the need for the commission. Some jurisdictions have established local processes for the consideration of annexations. These procedures generally include a local planning commission and city public hearing process . Other jurisdictions file annexation proposals directly with the boundary commission. In addition, property owners may choose to file annexation proposals directly with the commission. A large majority of the commission' s work involves the review of proposed city. annexations. Such annexations often involve a single • parcel or a small number of parcels that are being annexed at the, request of the landowner. In many cases there is no opposition to the proposal . Testimony suggested that commission review of such cases is costly and time consuming. It was noted that most commission hearings on these types of actions are noncontested. Some of those offering testimony to the workgroup suggested that only "contested" cases be subject to review at the regional level . It is generally agreed that at the time the commission was originally established, the governmental landscape in the metropolitan region was characterized by a proliferation of small units of governments, distrust and competition between governments and an almost total lack of intergovernmental cooperation and planning. However, many of those testifying before the workgroup noted that in recent years new regional and local intergovernmental planning processes have . been mandated. They contended that the completion of these processes will significantly reduce the need for a boundary commission. At the regional level, the 1992 Metro Charter requires the development of a regional framework plan by December 1997.- The 7 plan will address transportation and mass transit systems, administration of the urban growth boundary, housing densities, urban design and settlement, open spaces, and water sources and storage . Cities and counties will be required to make land use decisions consistent with the framework plan, and the Metro Council will adjudicate and determine the consistency of local comprehensive plans with the framework. In addition, Metro is completing a review of the urban growth boundary under the 2040 process that will result in boundary adjustments and the creation of urban reserves outside of the boundary. At the local level, the Legislative Assembly has enacted legislation (SB 122). requiring local governments to develop urban service agreements for areas inside an urban growth boundary. These SB 122 agreements must address who will provide each urban service, the functional role of each service provider, determination of service areas, and assign responsibilities for planning and administration of urban services. Such agreements would be required for sanitary sewer, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation and street, road and mass transit services. A variety of economic, financial, feasibility, cost . allocation, demographic and sociological factors must be addressed in developing the agreements . The agreements will -be required to be in place by the time of the city' s next comprehensive plan acknowledgement by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission. In the metropolitan region, Metro has been designated as the review, advisory and coordinative agency. • Several jurisdictions also contended that there is now a much higher level of intergovernmental cooperation related to service delivery issues. They noted that there are numerous agreements affecting police, fire, emergency and library services . In addition, they noted the recent regional study effort on future water source and delivery issues that involved all of the region' s water providers. In conclusion, those who support reducing the scope of regional boundary adjudicaton functions argue that many of the functions now performed by the current commission will be addressed through other types of regional or local planning processes. In most cases, the commission' s role would be reduced to simply reviewing noncontested cases or confirming that a local action is consistent with the regional framework plan or a local SB 122 agreement . Recommendation. The workgroup makes the following recommendations concerning the scope of the regional boundary change review and adjudication process and its administrative structure . 1) The scope of the boundary change review process be substantially reduced to include only "contested" cases. A contested case would include any action in which there is a dispute 8 between two or more jurisdictions or when a staff review of the action concludes that it may violate any regional plans or local urban service agreements. This criteria would apply to any type of local action that is currently subject to review by the boundary commission. The workgroup concluded that many local annexations involve small areas that have no regional interest or significance. Under the workgroup' s proposal, these types of will be handled at the local level . Local jurisdictions will establish processes for soliciting public input concerning these actions. Local citizens and property owners can participate in this process and attempt to influence their local decisionmakers. There are adequate provisions • in existing law that provide procedures for legal appeal or electoral remonstrance procedures for those who may object to a decision. In addition such decisions in the future will be governed by existing SB 122 urban service agreements and the provisions of the framework plan. Major decisions related to the initiation, merger, consolidation or dissolution of a unit of government occur infrequently. In recent years, these actions have generally involved the merger or consolidation of special districts. In most cases, these mergers and consolidations have proceeded only after extensive economic analysis and a local public hearing process. Under the workgroup' s proposed recommendation, if such actions were not objected to by another jurisdiction or did not violate regional or local plans or agreements, local approval by the affected jurisdictions and administrative review at Metro would be all that is necessary to validate the proposed action. 2) The boundary review function be transferred to Metro. This recommendation is based on two factors. . First, it is anticipated the number of local decisions that will be contested will represent only a small percentage of the cases currently considered by the commission. This reduced workload would not be sufficient to support an independent agency with a five-person staff. Second, several mechanisms have been put in place in recent years to facilitate local management of the region' s growth management process. Metro now administers many aspects of this process - including management of the urban growth boundary, development and administration of the regional framework plan and serving as the coordinator of the local SB 122 urban service agreement process . . Transfer of the regional boundary review function would be a logical extension of these regional planning functions. 3) Boundary Review Process and the Structure and Role of a Metro Boundary Review Office. The workgroup recommends the establishment of separate boundary review processes for "noncontested" and "contested" cases. These processes would -apply 9 to all types of local actions that are currently subject to �• boundary commission review. Non-contested cases. The non-contested case process would include the following steps : 1) Proposed actions would be developed by a local jurisdiction. 2) The jurisdiction would conduct an analysis and public input process based on the nature of the proposal . 3) The jurisdiction would consult with Metro boundary review staff to determine the necessary legal requirements for filing the proposal with Metro. 4) The jurisdiction would make a decision to file the proposal . _ 5) Metro staff would review the proposal to insure it complies with necessary legal requirements (ie. including an accurate metes and bounds description of lands proposed for annexation) . Legislative change will be necessary to rely on computerized maps for determining metes and bounds. If deficiences are identified, the proposal would be returned to the- local jurisdiction for correction. 6) Metro staff would review the proposal to determine if it qualified as a contested case. If it is determined that the proposal is not contested, the staff would notify the jurisdiction that the filing of the proposal had been accepted. The jurisdiction would be authorized to proceed with the proposed action subject to statutory appellate procedures . 7) Metro staff would provide required information to affected local offices (ie. elections and assessment and taxation departments) . The boundary commission currently provides this information. Contested cases . The first five steps of the contested case process would be the same as the non-contested process . If Metro staff determines that a proposed action is a contested case, the following process would be followed. 1) The proposing jurisdiction would be notified. The jurisdiction would have the opportunity to eliminate those elements of the proposal that caused it to become contested. For example, if another jurisdiction objected, there would be an opportunity to negotiate a solution. If Metro staff determined that the proposal violated a regional plan, the proposing jurisdiction would have an opportunity to address these issues. 10 2) If a proposal retains its contested status following step 1, it would be referred for a hearing before a hearings officer. The hearings officer would render a decision on the proposal . (Note: The workgroup considered used either a hearings officer or a citizen review board to hear contested cases . The workgroup is recommending the use of a hearings officer for several reasons . These include : 1) a hearings officer would have knowledge of applicable laws and local and regional plans and agreements, 2) a hearings -officer would provide constant and objective decisions, and 3)- a hearings officer would be more cost-effective. It is recommended that the hearings officer serve on a contract basis to preserve objectivity and as a least-cost option. 3) The decision of the hearings officer may be- accepted or the proposal modified to Comply with the decision. If not, the proposal may be dropped or the decision appealed to the Metro Council . 4) The decision of the Metro Council may be accepted or the proposal modified to comply with the decision. If not, the proposal may be dropped or the decision appealed to the state Court of Appeals. 5) If. at any point during the contested case process, the objecting jurisdiction withdraws its objection or Metro staff determines the proposal has been modified to comply with applicable regional plans, Metro would accept the filing of the proposal, and the proposing jurisdiction could proceed with the proposed action. Decision-making Criteria Discussion. The commission and its supporters argue the existing statute provides general policy and intent statements that are sufficient for the development of decisionmaking criteria. They note the commission has used this statutory direction to develop 17 more specific criteria which are outlined in its administrative rules. They contend that these criteria give the commission flexibility in addressing the often unique aspects of individual proposals. In addition, the criteria give the commission the opportunity to examine important issues that extend beyond compliance with an applicable land use plan. The commission noted that issues related -to the adequacy of services or governmental structure are frequently the most critical to be examined. The workgroup also received testimony from local jurisdictions that expressed concern about the current criteria. This concern focused on three principal issues. First, some special districts objected to the statutory and criteria language which gives a preference to cities as , s.ervice providers . They noted that as some special districts have merged 11 in recent years, they have become the most efficient service providers in many areas of the region. Second, it was argued that the general language of the current criteria may be subject to multiple interpretations that has resulted in a lack of consistency in commission decisions . For example, testimony from one special district questioned how the language "most efficient service provider" could be interpreted. Third, - some contended that the current criteria work against the development of regional and subregional approaches to service delivery. It was suggested that existing regional efforts to quantify the quality and quantity of public services and identify service provision areas be utilized to develop sounder boundary change decision-making criteria. Recothmendation. The workgroup recommends that, as part of the transfer of the boundary change review process to Metro, statutory language be enacted to give Metro the authority to establish clear and objective criteria that will be used to examine local proposals . Metro would consult with MPAC and local jurisdictions in developing these criteria. The workgroup also adopted four specific recommended criteria. These include: 1) compliance with provisions of the regional framework plan, 2) a presumption that all territory within the urban growth boundary will ultimately be within a city, 3) consideration of the economic and financial effects of the proposed action, and 4) compliance with existing SB 122 agreements. Geographic Boundaries - Discussion. Since 1979 the jurisdiction of the commission has included all of Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties . The workgroup received some testimony that questioned the need to include the rural portions of these counties within the commission' s jurisdiction. They noted that the municipalities in rural Clackamas and Washington Counties are distinct communities . The effect of boundary changes in these areas is generally limited to the individual city and possibly an adjacent special district . They noted_ that the larger communities, such as Sandy and Canby, would be subject to the same SB 122 urban service agreement requirements as more urbanized cities. The commission and its supporters expressed several concerns about removing more rural areas from its jurisdiction. They noted that growth management and boundary change policies within the region's urban growth boundary could impact nearby rural areas. In addition, growth policies in nearby cities, such as Sandy and Canby could have impact inside the urban growth boundary. They` also 12 • contended the commission had been effective in addressing service delivery and the proliferation of service providers in the Mt . Hood Corridor. It was also noted that the removal of a large geographic area would reduce the funding base for the commission. Recommendation. The workgroup recommends that, as part of the transfer of the boundary change review process to Metro, the jurisdiction should be limited to units of government that are wholly or partly within Metro' s boundaries . Proposed changes outside the Metro boundary would be processed using existing statutory procedures that apply in areas of the state that do not have boundary commissions. Funding Discussion. The commission' s funding is currently provided through the collection of assessments from -cities, counties and special districts and from filing fees collected from jurisdictions submitting proposals for commission review. Cities and counties pay a per capita assessment and special districts pay an assessment based on the assessed value of property within the district. -Large entities such as Metro, the Unified Sewerage Agency and several, larger special districts aav a flat fee. A total of 42 percent of the commission' s funding comes from cities, 31 percent from districts, and 27 percent from filing fees . Several special districts testified that the current assessment system unfairly penalizes those who live in unincorporated urban areas that are served by several special districts . They noted that each special district pays an assessment and the county pays an additional assessment . For example, the Oak Lodge Fire District testified that governments in its area pay a total of 41 cents per capita in commission assessments. By comparison, residents of nearby cities paid 10 cents per capita. The commission responded by explaining that its funding is based on the potential for providing services to local units of governments . They noted that in areas served by multiple special districts, each of the districts may receive services and therefore each district should pay its fair share . Recommendation. Adoption of the entire package of workgroup recommendations should reduce the cost of providing necessary boundary review services. The commission currently processes about 125-150 proposals annually. If the boundary review function is transferred to Metro and the geographic boundaries are reduced, the workgroup assumes the number of proposals received will decline . In additon, if the hearing process is limited to contested cases only, staffing needs will be reduced. The current commission budget is $349, 022 for FY 95-96 : - The commission has a 4+FTE staff and is housed in the State Office 13 Building. It is difficult to precisely forecast the funding needs t" for a Metro-based boundary review process . This is primarily due to the difficulty in estimating the number of local proposals that will result in contested cases and the associated hearing and appellate costs related to these cases . Workgroup staff developed two potential staffing scenarios. The first scenario assumed the workload reduction would result in a two-person staff with a total budget of $194, 608 . The second scenario assumed a three-person staff with an estimated cost of $287, 550 . The actual budget will need to be determined by Metro at the time the transfer of the commission' s functions actually occurs. The workgroup recommends that funding for Metro' s boundary review office be provided from three sources. These would include : 1) a minimal assessment collected from all jurisdictions subject to the revised boundary review process, 2) a system of fees for the filing of proposed actions, and 3) payments for the costs of a contested case review by the party initiating the case. A specific funding . proposal should be developed by Metro in consultation with MPAC and • the affected units of government . The proposal should address the funding equity concern raised by jurisdictions that serve unincorporated areas. In addition, the workgroup recommends that, due to the uncertainty of the office' s workload, the methods of funding should be reviewed after two years of operation. The workgroup also recommends that when Metro assumes the boundary review function, the transfer shall include all current commission contingency and capital reserve fund balances, files and equipment . These fund balances were estimated to be $52, 482 in FY 95-96 . These funds would provide a necessary cushion should Metro initially underestimate the costs of processing contested cases and implementing the new review procedure. • • 14 0111111 WASHINGTON VW COUNTY, OREGON Public Meeting Dates for Portland/Beaverton Urban Services Boundary May 29, 1996 7:00 p.m. West Sylvan Middle School cafeteria/gym 8111 SW West Slope Drive Portland, OR 97225 May 30, 1996 7:00 p.m. West Tualatin View Elementary School gym 8800 SW Leahy Road Portland, OR 97225 June 3, 1996 7:00 p.m. Montclair Elementary School gym 7250 SW Vermont Street Portland, OR 97219 County Administrative Office Phone:(503)648-8685 155 N. First Ave.,Suite 300,MS 21 Hillsboro,OR 97124 tTil II it U.S. BANK : j' PUBLIC FINANCE DEPARTMENT ys....' I 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue 4:: N Post Office Box 4412 0 Portland,OR 97208 _,J 800-863-3479 April 26, 1996 Norman Penner I _. .1r, Tigard Water Dist 13125 SW Hall Blvd. H ,r Tigard, OR 97223 i, zisti: -g N ?.I Dear Norman: II Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note(TRAN) season is upon us once again. U.S. Bank has financing programs to provide the high quality, low cost service you demand. 14 1996 TRAN PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS Individual Knowledge „At' We market all our financings as individual issues, allowing you the N flexibility to move with the market rates. The bond market has been unsettled this year f so market flexibility is important. -_ Technical Knowledge The Internal Revenue Service's rules are confusing. In response, we have �; developed a computer model that will easily size your 1996 TRAN. ,`S i Market Knowledge ^ Over the past several years,we have structured nearly$450 million of TRAN investments for Oregon municipalities. U.S. Bank is a local market leader for .x , TRAN financings. Our reputation is recognized by local and national investors who look : 'j' to us as their primary source of short term investments This high level of demand . 1 allows us to market your TRANs at lower interest rates. ,i, Please give us a call regarding your TRAN issuance. We would be glad to help you with ,- -11' your 1996 borrowing. Tat N ?":1 ` r !�/ �� / C /-' 3/rli-i-t-----12 �r�li� `., V' Mark S.Hudspeth Nancy M. McClain ter.', 40 1 Vice President Vice President z_� Ili -moi i 275-4816 275-3744 `, > V h Y r ti r w�Y __y Date: May 1, 1996 To: Tigard Water District 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Att 'n: Mr. Mike Miller Mike, I saw the request For a volunteer to serve on the Tigard Water District Board in the May issue of Cityscape. I then called Kathy Kaatz and was told the position was still open. I am a 1950 Oregon State Electrical Engineering graduate. My work history was with Mtn. States Power Co. , Bonneville Power Adm. , Portland District of the U. S. Corp of Army Engineers and retired as Vice President, Engineering from F.G.E. Co. in 1988 after 33 years. I have a broad background in engineering, construction, purchasing, project management, contract administration, labor relations and corporate management. I already have some time committments; however, I believe I could serve your Board well . Please call me on 590 - 68I7 if you would like any additional information. Sincerely Wayne K. (Ken) Davis 14986 S. W. Scarlett Dr. Tigard, Oregon 97224 David S . Strauss 16418 SW 129th Terrace Tigard, Or . 97224 May 2 , 1996 Tigard Water District Attn. Mike Miller 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Or 97223 Gentlemen; Please consider this letter my request to be appointed to Position No. 2 of the Tigard Water District Board. This past year my wife and I purchased a home in The Highlands , a community located in the unincorporated service area of the Tigard Water District . It is a pleasure to again return to a suburban area having spent the past twelve years as a resident of Portland. Prior to that most of my life has been spent in the Milwaukie (Oregon) area. While a resident of Milwaukie I had the pleasure of serving four years on the Milwaukie Library Board (appointed) , four years as a member of the Milwaukie Planning Commission (appointed) , and four years as a City Councilman of the City of Milwaukie (elected) . It is my desire to return to community service. For further information I may be reached at the address above or by calling (503) 598-4602 . Thank you for your consideration. i � TIGARD WATER DISTRICT INCOME STATEMENT & BALANCE SHEET As of April 30, 1996 INCOME STATEMENT Accounts I I FY BUDGET I I Prior Y-T- D I I Monthly I I Y-T- D REVENUES 1%PY Water Sales Revenue 7,700.00 7,777.46 7,777.46 Interest Earned 1,500.00 1,234.80 127.18 1,361.98 Recovered Expenditures Total Revenues 9,200.00 9,012.26 127.18 9,139.44 EXPENDITURES Professional Services 4,800.00 49.50 49.50 Contractual Services 7,800.00 1,697.60 2,027.98 3,725.58 Special Department Expense 4,500.00 Office Supplies & Expenses Advertising& Elections 600.00 • Dues&Subscriptions 3,500.00 896.00 896.00 Travel Food& Lodging 650.00 Education&Training 400.00 Insurance 2,600.00 1,804.00 1,804.00 Contingency/Reserve 8,350.00 Total Expenditures 33,200.00 4,447.10 2,027.98 6,475.08 BALANCE SHEET ASSETS • Cash& Investments 31,774.22 (1,900.80) 29,873.42 Net Fixed Assets Total Assets 31,774.22 (1,900.80) 29,873.42 LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE Liabilities Accounts Payable Due Other Funds Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance 24,000.00 27,209.06 27,209.06 Excess of Rev/(Exp.) (24,000.00) 4,565.16 (1,900.80) 2,664.36 Total Fund Balance 31,774.22 (1,900.80) 29,873.42 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 31,774.22 (1,900.80) 29,873.42 g:\Excel\TWD\Monthly\94-5 isbs.:ds 1 TIGARD WATER DISTRICT INCOME STATEMENT&BALANCE SHEET As of March 31, 1996 INCOME STATEMENT I Accounts 1 I FY BUDGET Prior y-T-D I I Monthly I I Y-T- D REVENUES 1%PY Water Sales Revenue 7,700.00 7,77 .46 7,777 46 Interest Earned 1,500.00 1.' 122.49 1,234.80 Recovered Expenditures Total Revenues 9,200.00 _ 122.49 9,012.26 EXPENDITURES ‘I') 00 , Professional Services 4,800.0r J 49.50 Contractual Services 7,80(' 1,697.60 Special Department Expenses 4,500.6k. .° ,e.) Office Supplies&Expenses - Advertising&Elections 600.00 Dues&Subscriptions 3,500.00 j.00 896.00 Travel Food&Lodging 650.00 Education&Training 400.00 Insurance 2,600.00 1,804.00 1,804.00 Contingency/Reserve 8,350.00 Total Expenditures 33,200.00 4,447.10 4,447.10 1 BALANCE SHEET ASSETS Cash&Investments 31,651.73 122.49 31,774.22 Net Fixed Assets Total Assets 31,651.73 122.49 31,774.22 LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE Liabilities , Accounts Payable Due Other Funds Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance 24,000.00 27,209.06 27,209.06 Excess of Revenues/(Expenditures) (24,000.00) 4,442.67 122.49 4,565.16 1 Total Fund Balance 31,651.73 122.49 31,774.22 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 31,651.73 122.49 31,774.22 gNExcel\TWTAMonthly\945isbsods