Loading...
07/24/2006 - Packet TIGARD WATER DISTRICT BOARD of COMMISSIONERS MEETING Serving the Unincorporated Area AGENDA Monday,July 24, 2006 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions 2. Approval of Minutes —June 26, 2006 3. Visitor Comments 4. Request from Washington County to Amend Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) — Clark Balfour 5. Update on Bylaws and Bylaw Modifications 6. Election of Officers • Chair and Vice Chair • IWB Representative and Alternate 7. Water Supply Update—Brian Rager 8. IWB Update—Beverly Froude/Janet Zeider 9. Non-Agenda Items 10. Set next meeting date—August 28, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., Water Auditorium 11. Adjournment Executive Session: The Tigard Water DistrictBoand may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (2)(d), (e), dam'(h)to discuss labor relations,realppopenj,transactions,and current and pending litigation issues.if an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced ident foing the applicable statute.All discussions within this session are confidential;therefore nothingfrom this session may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this Session, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed.No Executive Session may,be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision.Executive Sessions are closed to the public. TIGARD WATER DISTRICT BOARD of COMMISSIONERS Serving the Unincorporated Area Monday,June 26,2006 7:00 p.m. Members Present: George Rhine,Janet Zeider, Beverly Froude, Marc Delphine (arrived at 7:02 p.m.), Charles Radley (arrived at 7:11 p.m.) Staff Present: Dennis Koellermeier, Michelle Wareing,Joy Koss Visitors: Wynne Wakkila, Helen Honse, Kinton Fowler, Patti Fowler, Lisa Hamilton-Treick 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Commissioner George Rhine called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Commissioner Marc Delphine arrived at 7:02 p.m. and Commissioner Charles Radley arrived at 7:11 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes—May 22, 2006 Commissioner Beverly Froude motioned to accept the minutes, Commissioner Janet Zeider seconded the motion, and the board voted unanimously to approve the minutes. Skipped to Agenda Item #4 4. Budget Adoption Process for Fiscal Year 2006-07 • Public Hearing—A public hearing was opened by Commissioner Rhine for the Budget Adoption Process for fiscal year 2006-07. A request for public comment was made. Wynne Wakkila asked if there was money in this budget to purchase real property. Commissioner Rhine responded there was not money in the budget to purchase real property. Public hearing was closed. • Adopt Budget— Commissioner Delphine inquired about the $600 budgeted for Travel Food Lodging. Commissioner Rhine clarified those dollars were allocated for the SDAO Conference. Michelle Wareing read Resolution No. 06-01, adopting the budget for fiscal 1100C 0 7 c_,. t f$11 0 02/_ nn ''C2t1 UUU-U/ for a total of.p 11 U,UJU.UU. • Resolution No. 06-01 —Commissioner Zeider made a motion to approve and adopt the budget for 2006-07, Commissioner Froude seconded the motion and the board voted unanimously to approve the resolution. Returned to Agenda Item #3 Tigard Voter District Draft Copy Jane 26, 2006 1 3. Visitor Comments Kinton Fowler- 16170 SW Hazeltine Lane, unincorporated area of Bull Mountain, Mr. Fowler attended a meeting with City of Tigard on the 20th where they discussed the feasibility study and mentioned a couple of properties in the unincorporated area that are Tigard Water District properties (reservoir at High Tor Drive and a small property on 150th). He got the indication that they may be in negotiations or planning negotiations with the Tigard Water District to either sell or transfer those properties to the City of Tigard. He would like to speak for the people of the unincorporated area that are working on this corporation process and ask, respectively, that the Tigard Water District table any kind of transfer of property of the unincorporated area until it is determined whether or not there will be a City of Bull Mountain. Mr. Fowler reported that August 9th is the last date that the Washington County Commissioners can put an initiative on the November ballot to incorporate the City of Bull Mountain. Lisa Hamilton-Treick- 13565 SW Beef Bend Road, unincorporated area of Bull Mountain Ms. Hamilton-Treick, speaking on behalf of the Friends of Bull Mountain, presented an original letter dated June 25, 2006, to Dennis Koellermeier and copies to the Board of Commissioners. The letter was addressed to the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) and Tigard Water District (TWD) with copies to the Washington County Board of Commissioners, Larry Derr, Clark Balfour, Oregon Special Districts Association and State Representative Jerry Krummel. The essence of the letter is that the Friends of Bull Mountain have been made aware that there appear to be some proposed land transactions or asset transfers in the works and they ask that any transaction now under way be suspended pending the election. Additionally,Ms. Hamilton-Treick commented there has been a significant change of circumstance in regards to the Tigard Water District and the future of unincorporated Bull Mountain since agreements were prepared by the City of Tigard back in 1993. No one anticipated that the City of Bull Mountain would now be placing an incorporation proposal on the ballot. When Ms. Hamilton-Treick started to make reference to plans to bring all of Bull Mountain into the City of Tigard's city limits and eventually dissolve the district, Commissioner Rhine clarified that the district would not be dissolved because the district represents the unincorporated part of Washington County served by the Tigard Water system. Whether Bull Mountain goes into Tigard or forms the City of Bull Mountain, there is still a portion of the county the TWD would serve. Although the constituency would probably change, this board would continue to exist. Ms. Hamilton-Treick had additional concerns and questions about assets and Commissioner Rhine replied that there has been nothing before this board about transfer of assets. If that were to occur, then it could generate an Executive Session. Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked that Clark Balfour be present at that meeting if that occurred. A discussion continued about two parcels of land on High Tor in the unincorporated boundary area and pledged to the City of Tigard and a parcel on150th. It was her understanding, according to Mr. Balfour's analysis of the situation that, should they incorporate as a city, the assets in their future boundary area would become the assets of the City of Bull Mountain if the water district was dissolved. Just like the assets that are in the City of Tigard's boundary, those would likely become assets of the City of Tigard if the district dissolves. Commissioner Rhine confirmed that the properties are deeded to the Tigard Water District and pledged to the Tigard Water system as long as they are needed. Tigard Water District Draft Copy June 26, 2006 2 Ms. Hamilton-Treick asked that the Tigard Water District commissioners receive a copy of the June 20th Tigard City Council transcript. Commissioner Rhine clarified that she could not request that, but he could and asked Mr. Koellermeier to provide those for the board. Helen Honse - 14640 SW 14L Avenue, unincomorated area of Bull Mountain Ms.Honse asked if the board would be open to taking more visitor comments after Agenda Item#9. Commissioner Rhine responded that the board would accept more comment. Also, Ms. Honse had concerns about maintaining the integrity of the proposed boundary area up through the forum where the voters have a chance to vote and appealed to the board as representatives of the unincorporated area to observe and maintain that should that become an issue. Wynne Wakkila-Ms. Wakkila asked if the IWB would actually own the land. Commissioner Radley responded that was not a simple question and referenced the letter Clark Balfour submitted that provided detailed analysis of the laws and ownership. Commissioner Froude commented that the Intergovernmental Water Board is the final arbiter as far as voting and Tigard Water District is just one part of that. 5. Update on Bylaws and Bylaw Modifications No update on Bylaws and Bylaw Modifications at this time. 6. Water Supply Update and 7. IWB Update—Dennis Koellermeier Summer Peaking- Mr. Koellermeier reported that it has been an interesting year from a supply standpoint because the hot weather was three weeks earlier than normal. The system did a very good job meeting peaks on weekends. On Sunday the system used 12.5 mg of water,which only brought storage down to about 90 percent. Today's usage should be about the same. The peak numbers are not as high as expected. The whole metropolitan region is seeing conservation messages kick in, because some places are shaving 10 percent off historical peaks of water usage. Portland Contract-Tigard signed a 10-year water supply contract with the City of Portland effective July 1st that provides about 60 percent of Tigard's supply. This contract gives the ability to buy interruptible water (non-contract water) at a lower cost. Tigard can buy extremely inexpensive water when it is available in the winter to load the ASR wells,which makes the ASR system more economically viable. Agencies on the westside (except West Slope Water District) opted to take the 10-year contract and those on the eastside took the 20-year contract. Mint Water Commission (TWCI —Tigard is still working through the process of the environmental impact statement for the Henry Hagg Lake Dam Raise project. Tigard started taking water last week from the JWC. Lake Oswego—Tigard is currently taking water from Lake Oswego and the kick-off meeting for the joint supply study with Lake Oswego is June 27th. Tentative reports will probably be available on that feasibility in October. Willamette River - There has been no activity on the Willamette River Water Coalition. The process of renewing or extending water rights,which was made very clear by the legislature, has Tigard Water District Draft Copy Time 26, 2006 3 been muddied by the interpretation of various state agencies that are involved. The Water Resource Department is at a point where they will have to make a decision. The Willamette River Water Coalition has elected to put an administrative hold on the process so it is not decided under the current set of rules, go back to the legislature to clarify a few issues, and then take the issue up again next year. 8. Update on Water Related Educational Information—Marc Delphine Mr. Koellermeier indicated he had been in contact with the contractor and provided information sources to keep the project moving. He then referred to another project where the City of Tigard has the opportunity to use the Tualatin Valley TV studios to produce programming where he has reserved some of Tigard's programming capacity. A video project has begun about water for the Tigard service area,the choices,and the decisions that are coming up, etc. The same data sources link these two projects together and,hopefully, the board will agree that the two projects will grow together. Both projects tell the same message; one in print form and the other in video form. Putting this together is probably a 60-day process. Mr. Koellermeier indicated the data source, scripts,etc.,used to develop the video will be shared with the print media people scheduled by Commissioner Delphine. He also indicated the City of Tigard may not create a website of its own, but refer people to a series of websites by providing a link. 9. Board Comments on Bull Mountain Economic Feasibility Study Mr. Koellermeier offered an introduction to this topic and made suggestions to the board as follows: • The board is clearly an interested party in this potential proceeding. • Staff thought it appropriate to have an agenda item and the materials that are available for a discussion on this item if desired. • The range of actions as a board is very broad: TWD could accept the report, take position on the proposed formation of a new city and convey that action to the Board of County Commissioners, or TWD could take no action. • Mr. Koellermeier stated his goal was to provide the board with information and share questions he is aware of that pertain to water. • He was prepared to answer questions and indicated the audience would be a good source of information if the board had questions. Commissioner Rhine thought a discussion should take place. He remarked that if a position were to be taken,it should be taken at the PWB level. Commissioner Froude responded the IWB is only as strong as each individual city, so the IWB would be the final arbiter. Commissioner Rhine said the IWB,representing Tigard Water Service area (Tigard,Durham, King City and Tigard Water District) ought to discuss whether they plan to modify or not modify the charter if a new city is formed. Commissioner Radley suggested that the TWD recommend putting that issue on the IWB agenda in the near future. Commissioner Rhine indicated that was a fine position for the board to take. Discussion continued about water related issues and statements made in Clark Balfour's letter as they may pertain to the IWB. Mr.Koellermeier clarified that the IWB is simply an ORS 190 organization,which is very common, and creates its own charter. Mr. Koellermeier said that because the proposed boundaries of the new city do not encompass the entire water district, the ORS law that addresses that issue does not apply. A remnant of the water district would be left and it would have to be determined at that point whether it is an economical,viable organization. Tigard niter District Draft Copy June 26, 2006 4 Mr. Koellermeier pointed out two issues from the water perspective. First,the clause in the IWB formation ordinance stating the City of Tigard is under no obligation to serve water to areas that would come into the Tigard Water District after the formation of the IWB. Secondly, the proposed density as laid out in the economic feasibility study is 20 percent denser than what was assumed for the same property when the water master plan was done. That is not fatal, but all parties are treated equally in the IWB. From the aspect of capital planning and expenditure, the IWB is bound to the boundaries of the various jurisdictions. If the new city comes in and needs additional capital,which it will if they are going to put in 20 percent more people than anticipated, there will be an unequal situation and the IWB will have to determine if they are willing, through water rates,to subsidize the growth in that area for higher density. The IWB may come back and say the area within this higher density is going to have to come up with an additional share of the cost of developing those improvements. Those are the issues staff thinks this board will have to resolve regarding its relationship with the potential new city and the IWB. Commissioner Radley commented that while the density may be higher,it was his understanding that a large part of area 63 and 64 would be set aside for parks and would not be developed. The actual number of water customers might be less than originally projected. Mr. Koellermeier stated areas 63 and 64 were considered in the master planning effort of 2000. There was a density assumed for those properties. The system capacity to serve those areas at a given density is incorporated into the master plan, as well as the sizing of capital improvements since 2000. There is also language in the agreement that Tigard is under no obligation to serve those areas for the life of the IWB,which is at least until 2018 unless it is renegotiated before then. Ms. Hamilton-Treick commented that parks, commercial,industrial, 25% slopes, sensitive land and wetlands are not included in the net buildable acres. She continued to express her concerns about having water provided to the area. Ms. Hamilton-Treick stated the Metropolitan Housing Rule is what determined the density for 63 and 64 resulting in a projection of about 600 more households. The new City of Bull Mountain does not have to provide for super-sizing the density. It is possible the density could end up less than it would have been in the City of Tigard. Commissioner Rhine asked Commissioner Zeider if she had any comments. Commissioner Zeider commented that she was really impressed with the economic feasibility study and felt water was the only issue the board would have anything to do with. Commissioners Froude and Delphine had no comment. 10. Non-Agenda Items Commissioner Delphine commented that he would like food and water provided for the meetings. There was a brief discussion about the refreshments offered to the board and guests. Mr. Koellermeier indicated water would be provided for future meetings. 11. Executive Session—Real Property Transactions Commissioner Rhine asked Mr. Koellermeier to explain more in the public meeting the reason why the board would need to go into Executive Session. Executive Session does not give the right to make any decisions, only hear comments by Oregon law. The TWD cannot make a determination on what to do because that has to be done in a public session. There are topics that are germane to hold in Executive Session,which means the public is not included and those issues are listed in the italicized section at the bottom of the Agenda. Tigard II'ater District Draft Copy june 26, 2006 3 a Mr. Koellermeier commented that he made a presentation to the IWB at their last meeting on this same issue regarding property and a Tigard Water District board member at that meeting asked him to bring the same issue before this board. This does not include this board taking action to purchase a piece of property,which would be an action of the IWB. The Commissioners discussed the reasons for going into Executive Session and Commissioner Rhine told the guests,who expressed their concerns about the board going into Executive Session,that the board would call Mr. Balfour when and if it was appropriate. Commissioner Rhine then announced they will go into Executive Session and proceeded to read the notation pertaining to Executive Session provisions of ORS 192.660. The Tigard Water District Board of Commissioners went into Executive Session at 8:31 p.m. and ended at 8:50 p.m. At 8:53 p.m. the TWD meeting reconvened. 12. Set next meeting date—July 24,2006, at 7:00 p.m. 13. Adjournment Commissioner Delphine motioned to adjourn, Commissioner Froude seconded the motion, and the meeting unanimously adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Joy Koss,TWD Recording Secretary Date: Tigard IFater District Draft Copy June 26, 2006 6 WASH[NGTON COUNTY OREGON July 7, 2006 To: Craig Prosser, City of Tigard Dennis Kollermeier, Tigard Water District Greg DiLoreto,Tualatin Valley Water District Bob Cruz, Clean Water Services Alec Jensen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Jillian Detweiler, Tri-Met Keith Hobson, Tualatin Hills Park&Recreation District Ray Valone, Metro From: Robert Davis, County Administrator Subject: Tigard Urban Service Area Agreement As you know,the Bull Mountain Residents for Incorporation(BMRI) submitted a petition to the County to create the City of Bull Mountain, and is requesting that the proposal be placed on the November 7,2006 ballot. Upon review,the County determined that the petition complies with State and Metro filing requirements and has scheduled public hearings on the proposed incorporation in accordance with Metro Code 3.09.130, as required. County Counsel has subsequently advised staff of the need to make certain amendments to the County's Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area(CFP)and to the Tigard Urban Service Agreement(TUSA). The proposed changes are necessary because the CFP and the TUSA do not contain language recognizing that the urban unincorporated territory in the Bull Mountain area may choose to incorporate. The proposed changes would allow for the incorporation of the new city and would require the parties to the agreement to consider making any changes to the TUSA to recognize the existence of the new city, if formed. Enclosed for your consideration are the proposed changes to the TUSA. The County respectfully requests that,if possible,the changes be approved by your council or board before August 8, 2006. However,if the changes are not acceptable,please advise the County at your earliest convenience,but no later than August 8,2006. Also enclosed for your information is a copy of Ordinance No. 666. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or desire additional information,please call Paul Schaefer at 503-846-8817. c. Jerome Colonna,Beaverton School District Superintendent Participating Staff S:\Ping\WPSHARE\2006ord\Ord666\Notices_AfSdavits\TUSA REVISIONS LTR.B DAVIS County Administrative Office 155 N.First Avenue,Suite 300,MS 21,Hillsboro,Ott 97124-3072 phone:(503)846-8685 • fax:(503)846-4545 Proposed Draft Changes —June 29, 2006 TIGARD URBAN SERVICE AGREEMENT November 26, 2002 This AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Washington County, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,hereinafter"COUNTY,"the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,hereinafter"CITY,"Metro,a metropolitan service district of the State of Oregon,hereinafter"METRO,"and the following Special Districts of the State of Oregon,hereinafter"DISTRICT(S)," Clean Water Services; Tigard Water District; Tri-Met; Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District; Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District;and Tualatin Valley Water District RECITALS WHEREAS,ORS 195.025(1)requires METRO,through its regional coordination responsibilities,to review urban service agreements affecting land use, including planning activities of the counties, cities,special districts, state agencies;and WHEREAS, ORS 195.020(4)(e)requires cooperative agreements to specify the units of local government which shall be parties to an urban service agreement under ORS 195.065; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.065(1)requires units of local government that provide an urban service within an urban growth boundary to enter into an urban service agreement that specifies the unit of government that:will deliver the services, sets forth the functional role of each service provider,determines the future service area,and assigns responsibilities for planning and coordination of services; and WHEREAS,ORS 195.065(1)and(2)require that the COUNTY shall be responsible for: 1. Convening representatives of all cities and special districts that provide or declare an interest in providing an urban service inside an urban growth boundary within the county that has a population greater than 2,500 persons for the purpose of negotiating an urban service agreement; 2. Consulting with recognized community planning organizations within the area affected by the urban service agreement; and Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 1 3. Notifying Metro in advance of meetings to negotiate an urban service agreement to enable Metro's review;and WHEREAS, ORS 195.075(1)requires urban service agreements to provide for the continuation of an adequate level of urban services to the entire area that each provider serves and to specify if there is a significant reduction in the territory of a special service district; and WHEREAS,ORS 195.075(1)requires that if there is a significant reduction in territory,the agreement shall specify how the remaining portion of the district is to receive services in an affordable manner; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.205 TO 195.235 grant authority to cities and districts(as defined by ORS 198.010)to annex lands within an urban growth boundary, subject to voter approval, if the city or district enacts an annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020, 195.060 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235, 197.005, 197.319, 197.320, 197.335, and 223.304, and if the city or district has entered into urban service agreements with the county, cities and special districts which provide urban services within the affected area; and WHEREAS, ORS 197.175 requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, amend, and revise their comprehensive plans in compliance with statewide planning goals, and enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goals 2, 11, and 14 require cities and counties to plan, in cooperation with all affected agencies and special districts, for the urbanization of lands within an urban growth boundary, and ensure the timely, orderly, and efficient extension of public facilities and urban services. NOW, THEREFORE,the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: I. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. Parties to this AGREEMENT shall provide land use planning notice to each other in accordance with the provision of the"Cooperative Agreements,"developed per ORS 195.020(4)(e). B. The parties to this AGREEMENT are designated as the appropriate provider of services to the citizens residing within their boundaries as specified in this AGREEMENT. C. The CITY is designated as the appropriate provider of services to citizens residing within its boundaries and to adjacent unincorporated areas subject to this AGREEMENT as shown on Map A,except for those services that are to be provided by another party as specified in this AGREEMENT. D. The CITY and COUNTY will be supportive of annexations to the CITY over time. The CITY shall endeavor to annex the unincorporated areas shown on Map A, in keeping with the following schedule: Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 2 1. Near to mid-term(3 to 5 years): Bull Mountain area and unincorporated lands north of the Tualatin River and south of Durham Road and 2. Far-term(10 years or later): Metzger area. E. Pursuant to ORS 195.205,the CITY and DISTRICTS reserve the right and may, subsequent to the enactment of this AGREEMENT, develop an annexation plan or plans in reliance upon this AGREEMENT in accordance with ORS 195.205 to 220. F. In keeping with the County 2000 Strategic Plan or its successor,the COUNTY will focus its energies on those services that provide county-wide benefit and transition out of providing municipal services that may benefit specific geographic areas or districts. The COUNTY recognizes cities and special service districts as the ultimate municipal service providers as specified in this AGREEMENT. The COUNTY also recognizes cities as the ultimate local governance provider to the urban area. G. Within twelve months of the effective date of this AGREEMENT and prior to any consolidation or transfer of duties or any single or multiple annexations totaling twenty acres,the parties shall identify any duties performed by the parties that will or may be assumed or transferred from one party to another party by annexation, consolidation or agreement. The affected parties shall identify how the duties will be transferred or assumed,including the transfer of employees and equipment. The process to transfer duties,employees and equipment shall account for the cumulative effects of annexation, consolidation and transfer by agreement. This process shall also address large scale annexations and the large scale transfer of duties by consolidation or agreement. In the event the affected parties cannot agree upon the processes to transfer duties, employees and equipment,the provisions of Section VII of this AGREEMENT shall be used to resolve the dispute. H. The COUNTY shall have the responsibility for convening representatives for the purpose of amending this AGREEMENT,pursuant to ORS 195.065(2)(a). I. Not:\id sianciine the roles and responsibilities provided herein for desi<_Tnated ser' lie pr o.iti !r.. ",,(1 TRU. the COI_'N l Y.the CITY and the i}iS"i l l( "f . aerec that this, .`,f inE111:h.. i does riot prohibit incorporation of a e ri that, is Lotllerv.ise .Ilt e ! H , II. AGREEMENT COORDINATION A. Existing intergovernmental agreements that are consistent with this AGREEMENT shall remain in force. This AGREEMENT shall control provisions of existing intergovernmental agreements that are inconsistent with the terms of this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT does not preclude any party from amending an existing inter-governmental agreement or entering into a new inter-governmental agreement with one or more parties for a service addressed in this AGREEMENT, provided such an agreement is consistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT. B. The CITY and COUNTY have entered into an intergovernmental agreement for the CITY provision of building, land development and specific road services on behalf of the COUNTY to the unincorporated lands in the Bull Mountain area. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29,2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 3 C. CITY and COUNTY shall endeavor to take all action necessary to cause their comprehensive plans to be amended to be consistent with this AGREEMENT within twelve months of execution of this AGREEMENT,but no later than sixteen months from the date of execution. II1. AREA AFFECTED BY AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT applies to the Tigard Urban Service Area(TUSA) as shown on Map A and properties added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)that are to be annexed to the CITY in the future as described below in Section VIII. IV. URBAN SERVICE PROVIDERS A. The service provisions of this AGREEMENT, as described in Exhibits A through G, establish the providers and elements of urban services for the geographic area covered in this AGREEMENT; and B. The following urban services are addressed in this AGREEMENT: 1. Fire Protection and Emergency Services(Exhibit A); 2. Public Transit(Exhibit B); 3. Law Enforcement(Exhibit C); 4. Parks,Recreation, and Open Space(Exhibit D); 5. Roads and Streets(Exhibit E); 6. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water(Exhibit F); and 7. Water Service(Exhibit G). V. ASSIGNABILITY No assignment of any party's rights or obligations under this AGREEMENT to a different,new or consolidated or merged entity shall be effective without the prior consent of the other parties affected thereby. Any party to this AGREEMENT who proposes a formation,merger, consolidation, dissolution, or other major boundary change shall notify all other parties of the availability of the reports or studies required by Oregon State Statutes to be prepared as part of the proposal. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT shall become effective upon full execution by all parties. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 4 VII. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT shall continue to be in effect as long as required under state law. The COUNTY shall be responsible for convening the parties to this AGREEMENT for the review or modification of this AGREEMENT,pursuant to Section VIII. VIII. PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT A. Parties shall periodically review the provisions of this AGREEMENT in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to propose any necessary or beneficial amendments to address considerations of ORS 195.070 and ORS 195.075. B. Any party may propose modifications to this agreement to address concerns or changes in circumstances. C. The body of this AGREEMENT(Recitals and Sections I through IX)may only be changed by written consent of all affected parties. Amendments to the exhibits of this AGREEMENT may be made upon written consent of the parties identified in each exhibit. D. The periodic review of this AGREEMENT and all proposed modifications to this AGREEMENT shall be coordinated by the COUNTY. All requests for the periodic review of this AGREEMENT and all proposed modifications shall be considered in a timely manner and all parties shall receive notice of any proposed amendment. Only those parties affected by an amendment shall sign the amended agreement. All amendments that include boundary changes shall comply with Chapter 3.09 of the METRO Code or its successor. E. Lands added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary that are determined to be annexed to the CITY in the future by separate process, such an Urban Reserve Plan, shall be subject to this AGREEMENT. The appropriate service providers to new urban lands for the services addressed in this AGREEMENT shall be determined through the provisions of this Section unless those determinations are made through the development of an Urban Reserve Plan and all affected parties agree to the service determinations. This AGREEMENT shall be amended to address new urban lands and reflect the service provider determinations consistent with the provisions of this Section. . 10 1f1. .' 1 ;! 73;."-i' Cif\ 1 forme(. 11h(' tiar11c to thin A(41 FJVIF]` 1 sh :ll a11. in'ti!111cat i()n', of(IlitenclinctiL,to this \GRfhl\IE1\T 111;1\' he Ilecc,s;;1'e to -- ore( !none :'Cr111t1111;ino \t 1111 C 11'ti 19l ;MCI 3114 otherane11C;ihle IX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION If a dispute arises between or among the parties regarding breach of this AGREEMENT or interpretation of any term thereof,those parties shall first attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiation prior to any other contested case process. If negotiation fails to resolve Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 5 . the dispute,the parties agree to submit the matter to non-binding mediation. Only after these steps have been exhausted will the matter be submitted to arbitration. Step 1 —Negotiation. The managers or other persons designated by each of the disputing parties will negotiate on behalf of the entities they represent. The issues of the dispute shall be reduced to writing and each manager shall then meet and attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute is resolved with this step,there shall be a written determination of such resolution signed by each manager,which shall be binding upon the parties. Step 2—Mediation. If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days of initiation of Step 1, a party shall request in writing that the matter be submitted to non-binding mediation. The parties shall use good-faith efforts to agree on a mediator. If they cannot agree,the parties shall request a list of five mediators from an entity or firm providing mediation services. The parties will attempt to mutually agree on a mediator from the list provided, but if they cannot agree, each party shall select one name and the two mediators shall jointly select a third mediator. The dispute shall be heard by the third mediator and any common costs of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties,who shall each bear their own costs and fees therefore. If the issue is resolved at this Step,then a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by each manager and shall be binding upon the parties. Step 3—Arbitration.After exhaustion of Steps 1 and 2 above,the matter shall be settled by binding arbitration in Washington County, Oregon, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association,the rules of the Arbitration Service of Portland, or any other rules mutually agreed to,pursuant to ORS 190.710-790.The arbitration shall be before a single arbitrator;nothing shall prevent the parties from mutually selecting an arbitrator or panel thereof who is not part of the AAA panel and agreeing upon arbitration rules and procedures. The cost of arbitration shall be shared equally. The arbitration shall be held within 60 days of selection of the arbitrator unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. The decision shall be issued within 60 days of arbitration. X. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE If any portion of this AGREEMENT is declared invalid,or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this AGREEMENT. XI. SIGNATURES OF PARTIES TO AGREEMENT In witness whereof,this AGREEMENT is executed by the authorized representatives of the COUNTY, CITY,DISTRICTS, and METRO. The parties,by their representative's signatures to this AGREEMENT, signify that each has read the AGREEMENT, understands its terms, and agrees to be bound thereby. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 6 CITY OF TIGARD By: James E. Griffith,Mayor Date Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 7 TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT By: Chairman,Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 8 AN TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT By: President,Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 9 TRI-MET By: General Manager Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 10 CLEAN WATER SERVICES By: Tom Brian, Chair Date Board of Directors Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 11 TIGARD WATER DISTRICT By: Chairman,Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 12 TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By: Chairman,Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 0 WASHINGTON COUNTY By: Tom Brian, Chair Date Board of Commissioners Approved as to Form: By: County Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—lime 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 14 METRO By: Presiding Officer Date Approved as to Form: By: Legal Counsel Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 15 • EXHIBIT A PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND PUBLIC EMERGENCY SERVICES TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT, CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. That the TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT(TVFR) is and shall continue to be the sole provider of fire protection services to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA)shown on Map A. 2. That TVFR, CITY and COUNTY are and shall continue to provide emergency management response services to the TUSA. 3. That TVFR is and shall continue to be the sole provider of all other public emergency services to the TUSA,excluding law enforcement services. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 16 Arierrmmruriama EXHIBIT B PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE TRI-MET, CITY, COUNTY and METRO agree: I. That TRI-MET,pursuant to ORS Chapter 267, is currently the sole provider of public mass transit to the Tigard Urban Service Area(TUSA) shown on Map A. Future options for public mass transit services to the TUSA may include public/private partnerships to provide rail or other transit service, CITY operated transit service, and transit service by one or more public agency to all or part of the area. 2. That TRI-MET shall work with the COUNTY, CITY, and METRO to provide efficient and effective public mass transit services to the TUSA. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 17 EXHIBIT C PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNTY and CITY agree: 1. That as annexations occur within the Tigard Urban Service Area shown on Map A,the CITY will assume law enforcement services and the area will be withdrawn from the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District. The Sheriff's Office will continue to provide law enforcement services identified through the Cogan Law Enforcement Project and those services mandated by state law. Eventually,the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, consistent with its conditions of fonnation,will be eliminated when annexations on a county-wide basis reach a point where the function of the District is no longer economically feasible. 2. That over time as annexations occur within the urban unincorporated area, the primary focus of the Sheriff's office will be to provide programs that are county-wide in nature or serve the rural areas of the COUNTY. The Sheriff's office will continue to maintain needed service levels and programs to ensure the proper functioning of the justice system in the COUNTY. The Sheriff's Office will also continue to provide available aid to smaller cities(e.g.,Banks and North Plains)for services specified in the COUNTY'S mutual aid agreement with those cities upon their request. The Sheriff's Office will also consider requests to provide law enforcement services to cities on a contractual basis consistent with the COUNTY's law enforcement contracting policy. 3. That the COUNTY and CITY and other Washington County cities,through the Cogan Law Enforcement Project, shall determine the ultimate functions of the Sheriff's Office that are not mandated by state law. 4. That the COUNTY and CITY shall utilize comparable measures of staffing that accurately depict the level of service being provided to residents of all local jurisdictions in the COUNTY. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 18 EXHIBIT D PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR PARKS,RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE CITY,TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT(THPRD), COUNTY, and METRO agree: 1. That the CITY shall be the designated provider of park,recreation and open spaces services to the Tigard Urban Service Area(TUSA)shown on Map A. Actual provision of these services by the CITY to lands within the TUSA is dependent upon lands being annexed to the CITY. Within the Metzger Park Local Improvement District(LID),the CITY will be a joint provider of services. The CITY and THPRD,however,may also enter into inter- governmental agreements for the provision of park,recreation and open space services to residents within each other' boundaries,such as the joint use of facilities or programs. This provision does not preclude future amendments to this AGREEMENT concerning how park, recreation and open space services may be provided within the TUSA. 2. That the CITY and the COUNTY should further examine the feasibility of creating a park and recreation district for the TUSA. 3. That standards for park,recreation, and open space services within the TUSA will be as described in the CITY'S park master plan. 4. That the CITY and COUNTY are supportive of the concept of a parks systems development charge as a method for the future acquisition and development of parks lands in the TUSA that are outside of the CITY. The CITY and COUNTY agree to study the feasibility of adopting such a systems development charge for lands outside of the CITY. 5. That at the next update of its parks master plan,the CITY shall address all the lands within the TUSA. 6. That the Metzger Park LID shall remain as a special purpose park provider for as long as a majority of property owners within the LID wish to continue to pay annual levies for the operation and maintenance of Metzger Park. The CITY and COUNTY also agree to the continuation of the Metzger Park Advisory Board. However,the COUNTY as administrator of the LID,may consider contracting operation and maintenance services to another provider if that option proves to be more efficient and cost-effective. This option would be presented and discussed with the Park Advisory Board before the COUNTY makes a decision. 7. That continuation of the Metzger Park LID shall not impede provision of parks, and eventually recreation services,to the Metzger Park neighborhood by the CITY. Continuation of the Metzger Park LID will be considered as providing an additional level of service to the neighborhood above and beyond that provided by the CITY. 8. That the CITY and COUNTY will coordinate with Metro to investigate funding sources for acquisition and management of parks which serve a regional function. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 19 9. That Metro may own and be the provider of region-wide parks,recreation and open space facilities within the TUSA. Metro Greenspace and Parks facilities typically are to serve a broader population base than services provided to residents of the TUSA by the CITY. Where applicable,the CITY, COUNTY, and METRO will aspire to coordinate facility development,management and services. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 20 EXHIBIT E PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR ROADS AND STREETS CITY and COUNTY agree: I. Existing Conditions and Agreements A. The COUNTY shall continue to retain jurisdiction over the network of arterials and collectors within the Tigard Urban Service Area(TUSA)that are specified on the COUNTY-wide roadway system in the Washington County Transportation Plan. The CITY shall accept responsibility for public streets,local streets,neighborhood routes and collectors and other streets and roads that are not part of the COUNTY-wide road system within its boundaries upon annexation if the street or road meets the agreed upon standards described in Section 2.C.(2)below. B. The COUNTY and CITY agree to continue sharing equipment and services with renewed emphasis on tracking of traded services and sharing of equipment without resorting to a billing system, and improved scheduling of services. Additionally,the COUNTY and CITY shall work to improve coordination between the jurisdictions so that the sharing of equipment and services is not dependent on specific individuals within each jurisdiction. The COUNTY and CITY shall also work to establish a more uniform accounting system to track the sharing and provision of services. C. Upon annexation to the CITY,the annexed area shall be automatically withdrawn from the Urban Road Maintenance District(URMD). D. Upon annexation to the CITY,an annexed area that is part of the Washington County Service District For Street Lighting No. I shall be automatically withdrawn from the District. The CITY shall assume responsibility for street lighting on the effective date of annexation of public streets and COUNTY streets and roads that will be transferred to the CITY. The COUNTY shall inform PGE when there is a change in road jurisdiction or when annexation occurs and the annexed area is no longer a part of the street lighting district. 2. Road Transfers Transfer of jurisdiction may be initiated by a request from the CITY or the COUNTY. A. Road transfers shall include the entire right-of-way(e.g.,a boundary cannot be set down the middle of a road)and proceed in a logical manner that prevents the creation of segments of COUNTY roads within the CITY'S boundaries. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 21 B. Within thirty days of annexation, the CITY will initiate the process to transfer jurisdiction of COUNTY and public streets and roads within the annexed area, including local streets,neighborhood routes, collectors and other roads that are not of county-wide significance.The transfer of roads should take no more than one year from the effective date of annexation. C. The COUNTY: (1) To facilitate the road transfer process,the COUNTY will prepare the exhibits that document the location and condition of streets to be transferred upon receipt of a transfer request from the CITY. (2) Prior to final transfer,the COUNTY: (a) Shall complete any maintenance or improvement projects that have been planned for the current fiscal year or transfer funds for same to the CITY. (b) Shall provide the CITY with any information it may have about any neighborhood or other concerns about streets or other traffic issues within the annexed area. This may be done by providing copies of COUNTY project files or other documents or through joint meetings of CITY and COUNTY staff members. (c) Shall make needed roadway improvements so that all individual roads or streets within the area to be annexed have a pavement condition index(PCI)of more than 40 and so that the average PCI of streets and roads in the annexed area is 75 or higher. As an alternative to COUNTY-made improvements, the COUNTY may pay the CITY'S costs to make the necessary improvements. (d) Shall inform the CITY of existing maintenance agreements,Local Improvement Districts established for road maintenance purposes, and of plans for maintenance of transferred roads. The COUNTY shall withdraw the affected territory from any road maintenance LIDs formed by the COUNTY. D. The CITY: (I) Agrees to accept all COUNTY roads and streets as defined by ORS 368.001(1)and all public roads within the annexed area that are not of county-wide significance or are not identified in the COUNTY'S Transportation Plan as part of the county-wide road system provided the average PCI of all COUNTY and public roads and streets that the CITY is to accept in the annexed area is 75 or higher as defined by the COUNTY'S pavement management system. If any individual COUNTY or public street or road that the CITY is to accept within the area has an average PC1 of 40 or less at the time of annexation, the CITY shall assume jurisdiction of the road or street only after the COUNTY has complied with Section 2.C.(2) of this exhibit. (2) Shall, in the event the transfer of roads does not occur soon after annexation, inform the newly annexed residents of this fact and describe when and under what Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 22 conditions the transfer will occur and how maintenance will be provided until the transfer is complete. E. The CITY shall be responsible for the operation,maintenance and construction of roads and streets transferred to the CITY as well as public streets annexed into the CITY. CITY road standards shall be applicable to transferred and annexed streets. The CITY shall also be responsible for the issuance of access permits and other permits to work within the right-of-way of those streets. 3. Road Design Standards and Review Procedures and Storm Drainage The CITY and COUNTY shall agree on: A. The CITY and COUNTY urban road standards and Clean Water Service standards that will be applicable to the construction of new streets and roads and for improvements to existing streets and roads that eventually are to be transferred to the CITY,and streets and roads to be transferred from the CITY to the COUNTY; B. The development review process and development review standards for COUNTY and public streets and roads within the TUSA, including COUNTY streets and roads and public streets that will become CITY streets,and streets and roads that are or will become part of the COUNTY-wide road system; and C. Maintenance responsibility for the storm drainage on COUNTY streets and roads within the TUSA in cooperation with Clean Water Services. 4. Review of Development Applications and Plan Amendments A. The COUNTY and CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities and the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT),shall agree on a process(es)and review criteria(e.g.,types and levels of analysis)to analyze and condition development applications and plan amendments for impacts to COUNTY and state roads. B. The review process(es),review criteria,and criteria to condition development and plan amendment applications shall be consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan,the Regional Transportation System Plan, COUNTY and CITY Transportation Plans and Title 6 of METRO'S Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 5. Maintenance Cooperation A. The COUNTY and CITY,in conjunction with ODOT, shall consider developing an Urban Road Maintenance Agreement within the TUSA area for the maintenance of COUNTY, CITY,and state facilities, such as separately owned sections of arterial streets and to supplement the 1984 League of Oregon Cities Policy regarding traffic lights. A. The COUNTY and CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities,shall develop a set of minimum right-of-way maintenance standards and levels of activity to be Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 23 used in performance of services provided under the exchange of services agreement described above in 5. a. C. The COUNTY may contract with the CITY for the maintenance of COUNTY streets and roads within the TUSA utilizing an agreed upon billing system. D. The COUNTY, CITY and ODOT, in conjunction with other Washington County cities, will study opportunities for co-locating maintenance facilities. 6. Implementation Within one year of the effective date of this AGREEMENT,the CITY and COUNTY agree to develop a schedule that describes when the provisions of this exhibit shall be implemented. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 24 EXHIBIT F PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CLEAN WATER SERVICES, (CWS), CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. As a county service district organized under ORS 451, CWS has the legal authority for the sanitary sewage and storm water(surface water)management within the CITY and the urban unincorporated area. CWS develops standards and work programs, is the permit holder,and operates the sanitary sewage treatment plants. 2. The CITY performs a portion of the local sanitary sewer and storm water management programs as defined in the operating agreement between the CITY and CWS. This agreement shall be modified on an as-needed basis by entities to the agreement. 3. At the time of this AGREEMENT,the following are specific issues that the parties have addressed as part of this process and agree to resolve through changes to current intergovernmental agreements. A. Rehabilitation of Sewer Lines with Basins Identified with High Levels of Infiltration and Inflow(I&I). B. For lines that are cost-effective to do rehabilitation, CWS and the CITY will consider cost-sharing regardless of line size under a formula and using fund sources to be agreed on between CITY and CWS. The cost-share is to be determined through specific project intergovernmental agreements. Following the evaluation of program funding methods, CWS, in cooperation with the CITY, will determine the long-term funding for I&I and other rehabilitation projects. C. CWS,with assistance from the CITY and other Washington County cities, shall undertake periodic rate studies of monthly service charges to determine whether they are adequate to cover costs, including costs of maintenance and rehabilitation of sewer lines. The rate study shall consider sewer line deterioration and related maintenance and repair issues. 4. Master and Watershed Planning: A. Primary responsibility for master and watershed planning will remain with CWS,but the CITY will be permitted to conduct such planning as long as these plans meet CWS standards. CWS and the CITY shall use uniform standards, such as computer modeling, to conduct these studies. CWS and the CITY shall determine their respective cost- sharing responsibility for conducting these studies. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 25 B. CWS and the CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities using the City/District Committee established by CWS,shall develop uniform procedures for the coordination and participation between CWS,the CITY and other cities when doing master and watershed planning. 5. Sanitary Sewer Systems Development Charges CWS and the CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities, shall use the results of the CWS Conveyance System Management Study,or updates, for options for collection and expenditure of SDC funds to address current disparities between where funds are collected and where needs are for projects based on an agreed upon CITY/CWS master plan. 6. Storm Water Management System Development Charges A. CWS and the CITY shall use the results of the CWS Surface Water Management Plan Update Project to address all aspects of storm water management and to provide more direction to CWS and the CITY. B. Watershed plans being prepared by CWS for storm water management shall address the major collection system as well as the open-channel system to identify projects for funding. 7. Maintenance CWS, in cooperation with the CITY and other Washington County cities, shall use the results of the CWS Conveyance System Management Study for guidance to resolve issues related to roles of the DISTRICT and the cities in order to provide more cost effective maintenance of the collection systems. Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 26 EXHIBIT G PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR WATER SERVICE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT(TVWD),TIGARD WATER DISTRICT(TWD), CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. Supply: A. Supply generally will not impact service boundaries, given that a limited number of sources provide all the water in the study area and the number of interconnections between providers are increasing and are encouraged to continue in the future. B. Future supply and conservation issues may be addressed through the Regional Water Consortium to the extent reasonable and practicable for water providers in Washington County. Service providers in the TUSA shall continue to participate in the Consortium and use it as the forum for raising,discussing and addressing supply issues. C. The Consortium may also serve as a forum to discuss and resolve water political issues to the extent reasonable and practicable for water providers in Washington County. The Consortium is an appropriate forum to bring elected officials together and for promoting more efficient working relationships on water supply and conservation issues. D. Intergovernmental agreements shall address ownership of interconnections between CITY and Districts' sources, whether for the purpose of wholesale provision of water from one entity to the other or for emergency use, in the case of a boundary change that involves the site of the interconnection. 2. Maintenance/Distribution: A. TVWD,TWD and the CITY do not anticipate any events in the foreseeable future that would necessitate maintenance,rehabilitation or replacement beyond the financial reach of any of the water providers in the TUSA. Each provider will continue to be responsible for providing the financial revenue stream through rates and charges and to accrue adequate reserves to meet foreseeable major maintenance needs. B. TVWD,TWD, CITY,and COUNTY agree to maintain and participate in the Cooperative Public Agencies of Washington County in order to efficiently share and exchange equipment and services. C. To the extent reasonable and practicable, TVWD, TWD and the CITY shall coordinate mandated(under Oregon law)underground utility locating services to efficiently provide service within the urban service areas. D. TVWD,TWD and CITY agree to provide to one another copies of as-builts of existing and new facilities and other types of water system maps for the purposes of facilitating planning,engineering and design of other utilities or structures that may connect, Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 27 intersect or be built in proximity to CITY facilities. The CITY agrees to incorporate such mapping into its GIS mapping system of utilities and other facilities. TVWD, TWD and CITY agree to develop and maintain a common, on-going,up to date GIS mapping system showing facilities of each water provider within the TUSA. 3. Customer Service/Water Rates: A. Price of supply and bonded indebtedness will most likely have the greatest impact on rates. B. TVWD,TWD, and the CITY believe that rates are equitable within the TUSA. C. Given adequate water pressure, level and quality of service should not vary significantly among different water providers in the TUSA and does not appear to be an issue for most customers. 4. Withdrawal/Annexation/Merger: A. Notwithstanding Section I of this AGREEMENT-Roles and Responsibilities,or existing agreements between the providers, future annexations may lead to changes in service provision arrangements. Modifications to any service area boundary shall comply with METRO Code Chapter 3.09 and provisions identified under Section IV. If necessary,the Metro Boundary Appeals process shall be employed to resolve conflicts between parties as they arise.TVWD,TWD, and the CITY shall continue to work together to adjust boundaries as appropriate to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of providing service. B. In the event that the entire service area of any DISTRICT is annexed in the future,that district shall be dissolved. No attempt shall be made to maintain the district by delaying annexation of a token portion of the district(e.g.,the district office). C. The area of TVWD known as the Metzger service area shall remain in TVWD, except those portions agreed to by both TVWD and CITY that may be withdrawn from TVWD upon annexation to the CITY. In exchange, TVWD will support the CITY joining as a partner of the Joint Water Commission. D. Providers that propose a merger,major annexation or dissolution shall give all providers in the study area an opportunity to influence the decision as well as plan for the consequences. None of the parties waives its right to contest a major or minor boundary change by any of the other parties on the issue of the appropriate service provider for the area encompassed by the boundary change except when the party has expressly waived that right as to a described service area in an agreement executed subsequent to this agreement. wpshare\Sb122\Tigard USA\Final Agreement 11-26-02.doc Proposed Draft Changes—June 29, 2006 Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26,2002 Page 28