The URL can be used to link to this page

06/26/1995 - Packet File Copy TIGARO'WATWDISTIII: CTEOA1t) OF COMMISSIONERS : Serving Unincorporated Area REGULAR MEETING • • GENDA Monday, June 26 :1995700pm :: : . 1. Call to-Order 2 Oatliof.Office 3 Visitor Comments 4. Apptdval-of June 2.6 Mee Minutes 5. a. Discpsgion: Election of Officers • b. Disenssien Meeting Schedules 5. IntergOVerninental Water Board Update - Beverly Froude 6. Operation Manager's-RVort - Mike Miller 7. Non Agenda Items 8. CoMmissioner's.Comments 9. Set Next Meeting Agenda 10. Adjournment Reminder: TVVD Meeting.8-28-95 @ 7:00 IWB-Meeting @ 5:30 Executive Session: The Tigard Water District may go into Executive Session under the provisions.of ORS 191660 (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. MI discussions within.this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meetingbe disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to may dythis session but must not,disclose any information discussed during this session. kathyltsvd17-24.agn baa la� TIGARD WATER DISTRICT BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING May 22, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lou Ane Mortensen, John Haunsperger, Norman Penner, Beverly Froude, Carol Callway, Linda Fox, Rod Kvistad, Eleanor Quimby, Fred Rosebraugh STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Lowry, Mike Miller The Tigard Water District Budget Committee meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. Budget Officer, Lou Ane Mortensen gave the budget message. Chair Mortensen stated that included was the proposed budget for the fiscal year 1995/96. This budget is similar to the budget adopted for the 1994/95 fiscal year. The Tigard Water District budget used to include all operations and debt service of the entire water system, however, due to the withdrawal of City from the District in January of 1994, the remaining Tigard Water District budget only includes the activities of the Tigard Water District Board and the unincorporated areas share of the remaining debt service. All other water activities now included in the City of Tigard annual budget. The proposed budget includes as it's main source of funding an estimated beginning balance of $24,000, revenue anticipated during the year are estimated at $9,200 which provides a total of $32,200 in resources at the discretion of the Board. The proposed budget provides for attorney services and engineering services if needed. It also includes charges from the City of Tigard for staff time spent on the Tigard Water District business. The proposal includes a final levy for the Tigard Water District general obligation bonds. The property levy is just over $34,000 and is estimated to result in a rate just over .6/1000. The Budget Committee must make two motions before the budget is sent on to the Board for adoption. First is a motion to approve the property tax levy in the amount of $34,200 for 1995/96 debt service. The second motion is to approve the proposed budget in the amount of $63,145 as amended by the Budget Committee. Once approved by the Budget Committee, the budget will be advertised and be presented to the Tigard Water District Board at a hearing in June for final adoption. Wayne Lowry stated that he had distributed a proposed budget last week. Mr. Lowry stated that he had inquiries from Budget Committee members questioning whether funds were spent from some of the categories. Mr. Lowry stated that some categories had not been spent (Engineering Services, Board Per Diem). He stated that he had put this budget together similar to the way it was adopted last year, an the assumption that there will be the same sort of activities as last year. Mr. Lowry stated that this was just a proposal and any changes can be made by the committee, as long as there is a motion and a vote taken. If changes are made to the budget, there are two things to be kept in mind; a) $30,560 is the total amount of funds appropriated, b) $33,200 is the total amount of revenues or resources. Mr. Lowry stated that this proposed budget proposes to approve appropriations somewhat less than resources. There is $2,640 in unappropriated ending fund balance and local budget laws does not allow this amount to be touched during the fiscal year. Mr. Lowry discussed the property tax (second page). This is real consistent with last years budget. The debt service on those bonds goes up a little each year, which accounts for the debt service to increase. The assessed value went up quite a bit more than in some areas. The tax rate is lower than anticipated (anticipated 7.73/1000 and it was 5.6/1000). Of all the jurisdictions in the water system that levied this tax, Tigard Water District had the greatest gain in assessed value. For this year, Mr. Lowry has estimated 6.4/1000 even though the dollar amount to be levied is higher than last year. Mr. Lowry stated that he included a page of expenditure details as he did last year. The only changes in dollar amounts were the staff support per hour figure. Beverly Froude questioned the staff support figure being increased and it was stated that those figures have increased. Rod Kvistad stated that the figures for the staff support do not balance (Wegner and budget). Mr. Lowry questioned what the appropriate figures for Wegner would be ($997.44) and the budget figure ($997.44) for a total of $7,128. Mr. Lowry stated that behind the budget message that was read by Lou Ane Mortensen, there is a income statement balance sheet for the District through this date. The District has spent approximately $12,300. On the back side is a statement that shows the detailed expenditures. Carol Calaway questioned on the second page, Special Districts Association Insurance and what this covers? Mr. Lowry stated that the Tigard Water District belongs to a Special District Association and the District obtains its liability insurance through this association. John Haunsperger wanted to discuss the Board per diem and the projected ending fund balance being appropriated into the contingency fund so that the Board will have access to these funds if an emergency arises (last years and this years). Ms. Mortensen questioned whether this should be brought up for discussion in July when Tigard Water District Budget Committee - 5/17/95 Page 2 the new Board member takes office and then move other then? Mr. Lowry stated that this could be done either way. He did state that there was a vote on per diem for the current budget which was that the Board would not be accepting per diem, assuming that the policy would continue, the funds could be moved to contingency and if that changes the Board could vote to change that. John Haunsperger made a motion which stated that the moneys in the Board per diem and the moneys in the projected ending fund balance be moved in the contingency fund for the proposed budget for 1995/96. The motion was seconded by Norman Penner. Eleanor Quimby questioned the reason for having an unappropriated ending fund balance? Mr. Lowry stated that some entities use it to capture their reserve that they want to show will be available for the following fiscal year. John Haunsperger stated that in the past, the contingency funds were set aside and when building projects came up, the funds were available to cover those expenditures. Ms. Mortensen also stated that these funds were used to pay invoices prior to receipt of property taxes in November. Mr. Lowry stated that this Board has not encountered that problem since the only tax revenues were from debt service and also the Water District has a cash flow from the water charges. John Haunsperger questioned when the debt service ends. Mr. Lowry stated that is in January of 1996. A voice vote was taken on the motion which moved the $3,000 down to the contingency which made the contingency $8,640 and the total general fund is $33,200, and passed unanimously. Eleanor Quimby questioned the proposed attorney's fees of $6,300 which is 23% of the personnel expenditures and couldn't a portion of this also be placed in the contingency fund and if needed, be taken out? Beverly Froude stated that last year which was the first year since the merger and they had spent a lot on attorney fees. John Haunsperger stated that in the past we had spent a lot of time negotiating contracts which accounted for the higher attorney fees so placing some of these funds into the contingency would be a good idea. Mr. Lowry stated that there is no limit to the amount that can be placed in the contingency fund but there is a limit to what can be taken out of that fund. Mr. Lowry stated that he would verify what this amount is. Tigard Water District Budget Committee - 5/17/95 Page 3 Commissioner Penner questioned some of these funds being reallocated to the category of advertising and publicity since there will be a need for public education and awareness on water concerns. Mr. Lowry stated that advertising and publicity line item only includes legal advertising and public notices. Eleanor Quimby stated that as a loan officer, when looking at a spreadsheet that was top heavy with attorney fees it posed some question. Mr. Kvistad stated that it is his past experience that people do not like the idea of having a lot of funds in a category with no direct intent for its use. He also questioned hearing that the Board does not anticipate using all the budget funds, and this does not look favorable. He also stated that he is not in favor of placing some of the attorney fees into the contingency. He would prefer reducing the budget that amount. John Haunsperger stated that the District does have limited resources with only receiving 1 % of the water sales within the unincorporated area as revenue. If there is some unforeseen expenditures come up, there are no resources to acquire more funding. Commissioner Mortensen questioned whether there were any fees associated with the closure of the debt bond? Mr. Lowry stated that once that is done, that is it. Mr. Lowry stated that the delinquent taxes on the last two years levy will continue to trickle in for the next few years. Mr. Lowry stated that the limitation on the contingency which limits the amount to be transferred to 15% of the total appropriations budgeted in the fund. This law states that totals which exceed 1 5% may be made only after adoption of supplemental budget which is a little more involved process than a resolution. Mr. Lowry stated that last years budget was not adopted by line item but instead by the bottom line. Mr. Haunsperger stated that to be kept in mind for this next year is the fact that we are still involved with negotiations for water sources and where we are headed at this point is unknown. Ms. Froude stated that for the unincorporated area in terms of education, funds will be needed to send information to those users in the unincorporated area. It was questioned, whether it would be appropriate to begin designating funds for long term water supply? Mr. Haunsperger stated that there are not a lot of funds available. Tigard Water District Budget Committee - 5/17/95 Page 4 It was stated that it makes more sense to label expenditures specifically than making other line items greater than needed. The beginning fund balance is $24,000 and the total expenses through May 26 are half that amount which makes it appear that the line items include a lot more money than is expected to be spent. Ms. Quimby discussed not having control over some of the costs such as engineering, cost of staff, attorney fees, and Boundary Commission dues. The matter of placing some additional funds into travel, food and lodging to cover three members attendance at conferences versus two was discussed. The Committee discussed placing the funding into the area that is most expected that the funds will be needed. Discussed additional funding for long term water supply in terms of advertising and informational flyers provided for the unincorporated area (approximately 2,000). Mr. Lowry stated that if this is a foreseen cost a new category can be added. Commissioner Haunsperger stated he did not see a need for this purpose since the issue of long term water supply will be a joint effort by the Intergovernmental Water Board to inform all the District which will include the unincorporated area as provided by the IGA. Linda Fox questioned what happens to the funds not expended at year end? Mr. Lowry stated that the $24,000 figure is basically the actual revenue in the current year and the actual expenditures netted out and becomes the beginning fund balance. Mr. Lowry stated that the $24,000 figures is the estimate of what the beginning fund balance will be at the beginning of the 1995/96 fiscal year. Committee discussed the cost of doing a mailing for 2,000 households in the unincorporated area and where those funds would need to be budgeted. A motion was made by Norman Penner that the Committee establish a new line item called Public Relations and move $4,000 from the Attorney's fees line item (which would be reduced to $2,300) be transferred to it. This motion was seconded by John Haunsperger. A voice vote was taken with all members in agreement with one no vote (Linda Fox). Committee discussed the difference between advertising/publicity and public relations being the advertising which include public notices. The Committee discussed changing the advertising/publicity line item to state meeting notices. One of the Committee members questioned the cost of insurance which totals $2,928 (actual expenses) and the proposed budget amount is less is there an expected decrease? Mr. Lowry stated that it is not expected to be reduced. Mr. Lowry stated that the $487.00 has been paid ahead and will not be included in next years budget Tigard Water District Budget Committee - 5/17/95 Page 5 ($2,400). Linda Fox moved to change the insurance line item to $2,600 and reduce the contingency line item by $200 ($8,440). This motion was seconded by John Haunsperger and voice vote was taken which passed unanimously. One of the Committee members questioned the Boundary Commission Dues and Mr. Lowry stated that the Boundary Commission is the entity that deals with annexations and urban growth boundaries. This entity is self supported by charging other governments within their area a certain fee per capita. This fee is paid by the City, County and Special Districts. Committee members discussed the debt service line item which is higher and Mr. Lowry stated that is due to the being the final year and it was not a level debt service so it climbed slightly and secondly, the District's assessed value has increased more than some of the other jurisdictions in the Water District which is what has been used to determine the debt split between the other entities. Mr. Lowry discussed that the City is in negotiations for a long term water source. The City has been talking with the City of Lake Oswego which could involve a large cost to expand their treatment plant and their intake facility on the Clackamas River which would entitle the District to a water source. This has not been discussed in great detail at this time to determine how this project will be financed. According to the City of Lake Oswego this project is approximately $40,000,000 and the City of Tigard would incur about $16,000,000 - $18,000,000 of that cost. The possibility of funding with a G/O bond or a revenue bond have not been discussed. These capital costs will not be reflected in the Tigard Water District budget, but will appear in the City of Tigard's budget, and will eventually affect all rate payers. Mr. Kvistad questioned the possibility of transferring the staff support correction on the expenditures which results in a $582.00 reduction, and Mr. Lowry's recommendation was to leave these figures as estimated. With further discussion the Committee decided to reduce the staff support line item by $582 by placing that dollar amount into the contingency fund which places that amount to $9,022. Discussion was held on COLA increases. Mr. Lowry stated that TPOA (Tigard Police) have included in their contract the amount of their July COLA, OPEU is not scheduled for an increase since their extension did not include a COLA, and the management has requested a 3% increase which has not been voted on by Council at this time. These COLA's are based upon the CPI. Budget Officer Mortensen stated that the reason for the increase over last years budget amount in staff support has the added support of Mike Miller. Tigard Water District Budget Committee - 5/17/95 Page 6 The Committee questioned whether the expenditure detail a published document? Mr. Lowry stated that this expenditure detail is public record although it does not get submitted to the County. Based upon the income statement for Contractual Services and by the end of the fiscal year all the funds will be expended, will the balance of the expenditure detail ($7,710) a realistic amount to be spent in the future for contractual services. Mr. Lowry stated that the $7,710 is a erroneous amount and should be $7,128 although he stated another figure could be used. Carol Callway made a motion to change the figure for Staff Support to $7,800 from $7,710. This motion was seconded by Beverly Froude. This motion was amended to state that $90 would be withdrawn from the Contingency to support the request for the $7,800 rounding of Staff Support to the budget. A voice vote was taken which passed unanimously. At the request of Beverly Froude an update of what the Committee changed so far was: • Addition of line item above Attorney fees - Public Relations $4,000 • Attorney Fees - $2,300 • Finance Review - 0 • Boundary Commission Dues - $3,400 • Election Costs - 0 • Meeting Notice - $600 (changed title) • Board Per Diem - 0 • Special District's Associated Conference - $400 • Travel Food and Lodging - $650 • Special District's Association Dues - $100 • Insurance - $2,600 • Engineering Services - $2,500 • Meeting Staff Support - $7,800 • Miscellaneous - $500 With a total of $24,850 and a Contingency of $8,350 which will account for the final total of $33,200. Commissioner Mortensen questioned the percentage used for the anticipation for collection of property taxes? Mr. Lowry stated that was 94% which has increased over the last four to five years from 91 % Mr. Lowry stated that $4,980 can be used by a simple Board resolution and anything more than that would require a supplemental budget. Tigard Water District Budget Committee - 5/17/95 Page 7 At this point with no more further deletions, additions or changes, Mr. Lowry stated that to forward this budget on as the approved budget, the Tigard Water District board needs to make two motions. One motion is needed to deal with the property tax levy which is one of the main functions of the budget committee to approve tax levies (once approved by the Committee, the Board cannot change that). The second needed motion is to approve the proposed budget in the amount of $65,785. Board Member Penner made a motion to approve the property tax levy in the amount of $34,210 for 1995/96 debt service, this motion was seconded with a voice vote taken and passing unanimously. A second motion was made by a Committee Member to approve the proposed budget for 1995/96 in the amount of $65,785 as amended by the Budget Committee. This motion was seconded with a voice vote taken and passing unanimously. Mr. Lowry stated that he would advertise the budget as amended for a budget hearing to be held at the next Tigard Water District Board Meeting on June 26, 1995. Mr. Lowry stated that this would be a public hearing. There will be two notices, one with some special budget forms that outline the budget proposal and a follow up ad eight to fourteen days prior to the meeting. He also stated that the Budget Committee has the ability to change the budget 10% from any fund but cannot change the tax levy without going through the re-publishing process. Mr. Lowry stated that if there were any questions between now and the next meeting, that he could be contacted. Mr. Haunsperger wanted to express his appreciation to the Budget Committee for their time put into this endeavor. Paul Johnson a resident from the Walnut triangle stated that he appreciated being allowed to attend and observe the process. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. kathy\twd\budg et.twd Tigard Water District Budget Committee - 5/17/95 Page 8 CLACKAMAS MULTNOMAH WASHINGTON 11111 PORTLAND METROPOLITAN: AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT`: BOUNDARY COMMISSION 800 NE OREGON STREET#16(SUITE 540) PORTLAND,OREGON 97232 PHONE:731-4093 June 16, 1995 TO: Affected Units of Government And Other Interested Parties FROM: Ken Martin, Executive Officer RE: Metro Study of Boundary Commission The Metro Charter requires the Metro Council to do a study of the Boundary Commission and to implement the results of the study including seeking legislative action if necessary. Section 7, paragraph 5 reads in full: (5)Boundary commission functions. The council shall undertake and complete a study of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission, with advice of the MPAC, by September 1, 1995. The council shall implement the results of the study and shall seek any legislative action needed for implementation. The Council has assigned its staff analyst John Houser to do the study in conjunction with a five member committee of MPAC representatives. These five MPAC members are: Portland City Commissioner Charlie Hales, Clackamas County Commissioner Judie Hammerstad, Washington County Board Chair Linda Peters, Lake Oswego Mayor Alice Schlenker and Tualatin Valley Water District Board Member Rob Mitchell. The first meeting of this group will be at 7:30 am, Thursday, June 22, 1995 in Room 274 at Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland 97232. The second scheduled meeting of this group will be at noon, Wednesday, July 5, 1995 in the Council Annex room at Metro. Additional meetings will be scheduled at a later date. KSM/Imr . . I:\w pw in\metro\st udymem.618 STAFF COMMISSIONERS KENNETH S.MARTIN,Executive Officer RAY BARTEL,Chair MARILYNN HELZERMAN DENIECE WON,Executive Assistant TOM WHITTAKER,Vice-Chair SY KORNBRODT KELLY PAIGE,Executive Assistant BOB BOUNEFF SUE LAMB LANA RULIEN,Administrative Assistant NATHALIE DARCY 141LTNOMAH WASHINGTON • PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION 800 NE OREGON STREET#16(SUITE 540) PORTLAND,OREGON 97232 PHONE:731-0093 July 8, 1995 TO: Affected Units Of Government And Other Interested Parties FROM: Ken Martin Executive Officer(A.A./---- RE: Metro Study of Boundary Commission The MPAC subcommittee on the Boundary Commission study held its second meeting on July 5, 1995. Committee members present included Judie Hammerstad, Linda Peters, Alice Schlenker, Rob Mitchell, Jeannine Murrell and Charlie Hales. Metro staff present were John Houser and Legal Counsel Dan Cooper. Others present at the meeting included Metro Councilors Ruth McFarland & Susan McLain, Clackamas River Water District Manager Dale Jutila, Rockwood Water P.U.D. Manager Duane Robinson, Tigard Planner Ray Valone, Tualatin City Councilwoman Sue Lamb, Portland Annex- ation Coordinator John Bonn, Washington County Commissioner Andy Duyck, Kimi lboshi of McKeever/Morris and Boundary Commission staff director Ken Martin. The following is a summary of the July 5th meeting: Dan Cooper gave a broad brush sketch of the Boundary Commission's relationship to Metro as seen from the perspective of the Metro Charter. He said that the Charter gives Metro jurisdiction over "matters of metropolitan concern." He noted that the Charter provides for a regional framework plan. He said Metro could get involved in direct services by utilizing its power to do so which is granted in the Charter. He also stated, however, that the Charter requires any direct delivery by Metro be approved by MPAC. He said the Boundary Commission operation could be affected by these two charter provisions. Finally he said the most direct relationship is spelled out in the charter provision calling for this study. Cooper stated that ORS 268.320 which has been on the books for years does specifi- cally provide that the powers, functions and duties of the Boundary Commission could be transferred to Metro upon a vote of the people within Metro. Judie Hammerstad asked if Metro could then in turn transfer those powers to other governments. Dan said no. STAFF COMMISSIONERS KENNETH S.MARTIN,Executive Officer RAY BARTEL,Chair MARILYNN HELZERMAN DENIECE WON,Executive Assistant TOM WHITTAKER,Vice-Chair SY KORNBRODT KELLY PAIGE,Executive Assistant BOB BOUNEFF SUE LAMB LANA RULIEN,Administrative Assistant NATHAUE DARCY • Metro Study of Boundary Commission Page 2 July 11 , 1995 Dan Cooper summarized that if this study determines that "everything is fine the way it is," then no changes would need to be made. If the group determines the function is appropriate but should be taken over by Metro, then that proposition would have to be put on the ballot. If, however, the Council decides they want to change the powers, the process, or who does what, then such changes will need to be drafted into a bill which the Legislature must approve. Dan responded to several questions about what powers could be written into the Charter verses what powers would need to be sought through legislation. He said he thought an argument could be made that some substantive powers could be put into the Charter but at best these would likely be litigated. He said just as the state has preempted the field of land use planning through the LCDC, so the state has pretty much preempted the field of boundary changes. There was further discussion of the issue of Charter powers and implementation of the 2040 plan with Dan Cooper generally responding that specific implementation mea- sures such as incorporation of a city would require statutory changes. Judie Hammerstad asked if the 2040 Plan could dictate mergers of water districts by requiring basin-wide approaches to water service. Cooper said generally no. Ken Martin gave an outline of the Boundary Commission organization and operations. He said everything he would cover is in the memo with attachments which has been handed to each committee member (see attached July 5th memo). Charlie Hales ultimately posed a question which he believes is at the crux of this study. He asked if it were conceded that the Boundary Commission has properly fulfilled its role and that the function should continue, what is it that the Commission can do to further the cause of growth management and the 2040 Plan? Other committee members agreed this was the critical issue and some thought a later meeting should really be devoted to this. Ken Martin said what the Commission had to offer along these lines was process and power. He reviewed the powers of the Boundary Commission (can deny formation of any new government or annexation to any existing unit, can initiate any kind of proposal, can approve formation of new units though they ultimately must go to a vote, can merge or consolidate districts with no vote). He said while these powers may not be sufficient to fully implement 2040 or control growth, they provide a significant step in that direction. He said Metro has none of these powers. He suggested it might be wise to utilize and expand if necessary these existing powers rather than trying to transfer them to Metro in some fashion. He said what is,also needed to implement 2040 and deal with growth management is a legal process, at least to the extent that implementation depends on changing the boundaries of, rw- Metro Study of Boundary Commission Page 3 July 1 1 , 1995 creating or eliminating units of government. A legal process is necessary and the Boundary Commission already has that process in place. There followed general discussion on the subject of implementation of the regional plan and growth management problems. Committee members expressed frustration with their currently available tools. They noted the problem that density requirements of plans are not coordinated with availability of urban services, that unincorporated area residents are attached to special districts and the status quo. Judie Hammerstad said the outlying cities need a way to get their urban growth areas into the cities. Alice Schlenker expressed a widely held view in the group that the plans seem to be pushing units to provide the services to support the greater development but many folks adjacent to cities want to keep things just the way they are. The group determined it would be important to identify areas that are impediments to the implementation of 2040 and then relate these to the role of the Boundary Commis- sion. Charlie Hales said what he would like to see from the Boundary Commission is a description of: 1) What can the Boundary Commission do to implement the 2040 plan given its current powers; and 2) What could the Boundary Commission do to implement the 2040 Plan with additional powers. Susan McLain said there will be a Metro Council Land Use Planning Committee meeting at 1 :30 on July 11th to address the 2040 implementation issue and the first part of that discussion will focus on regulatory methods which she believes could include boundary commissions. The Committee confirmed that the next meeting will be at 7:30 a.m., July 19th at Metro. They went on to set four additional meetings for Tuesday, July 25th at 7:30 AM, Monday, August 7th at 4:00 PM, Monday, August 14th at 4:00 PM and Monday, August 28th at 4:00 PM. KSM/lmr 1:\w pw in\metro\study mem.71 1 s Tigard Water District Resolution No. 95 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT APPROVING THE BUDGET, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, DECLARING THE AD VALOREM TAX LEVY AND CLASSIFYING THE LEVY AS PROVIDED BY ORS 310 . 060 (2) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 . Whereas, the budget for the Tigard Water District for the year beginning July 1, 1995 was duly approved and recommended to the District board by the regularly constituted budget committee at its meeting on , .May 22, 1995, after proceedings in accordance with Chapter 294, Oregon Revised Statutes; and Whereas a summary of the budget document as required by Chapter 294 . 416 was duly published in the Tigard Times in accordance with Chapter 294 .421; and Whereas a hearing by the Tigard Water District board on the budget document, as approved by the budget committee, was duly called and held on June 26, 1995, whereat all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to appear and be heard with respect to the budget . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard Water District Board that : Section 1 : The Board adopts the budget for 1995/96 in the total sum of $65, 785 . Section 2 : The amount for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1995 and for the purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows : General Fund Materials And Services 24,850 Contingency 8,350 Total 13,200 Debt Service 32,585 Total Budget 65,785 Section 3: The Tigard Water District Board hereby levies the taxes provided for in the budget . in the amount of $34, 210 and that these taxes are hereby levied upon all taxable property within the district as of July 1, 1995 . The following allocation and categorization subject to the limits of section llb, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution constitute the above aggregate levy: Subject to General Excluded from Government Limitation the Limitation Debt Service 0 34, 210 THIS BUDGET IS HEREBY ADOPTED and appropriated by the Board of Commissioners, Tigard Water District, on June 26, 1995. TIGARD WATER DISTRICT Beverly Froude, Board Chair Date ATTEST : Lou Ane Mortensen Budget Officer Tigard Water District Resolution No. 95-_ Page 2 05/23/95 Tigard Water District Approved Budget General Fund 1995/96 Resources Adopted Proposed Approved Revenues 1994/95 1995/96 1995/96 One percent water sales 5,730 7,700 7,700 Interest Earnings 500 1,500 1,500 Total Revenues 6,230 9,200 9,200 Beginning Balance 30,075 24,000 24,000 Total Resources 36,305 33.200 33,200 Expenditures Personnel 0 0 0 Materials and Services Attorney 6,300 6,300 2,300 Financial Review 3,000 0 0 Boundary Commission dues 3,230 3,400 3,400 Election Costs 2,500 0 0 Public Relations 0 0 4,000 Meeting Notice 590 600 600 Board per diem 3,000 3,000 0 Special Districts Assoc conference • 400 400 400 Travel/Food & Lodging 650 650 650 Special District Assoc Dues 100 100 100 Insurance 2,300 2,400 2,600 Engineering Services 2,500 2,500 2,500 Meeting/Staff Support 5,823 7,710 7,800 Misc 500 500 500 Total Materials and Services 30,893 27,560 24,850 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 30,893 27,560 24,850 Contingency 3,000 3,000 8,350 Total Appropriations 33,89330,560 33,200 Projected Ending Fund Balance 2.412 2,640 0 06/01/95 Tigard Water District Approved Budget Debt Service Fund 1995/96 Adopted Proposed Approved Resources 1994/95 1995/96 1995/96 Property Tax Collections 27,895 32,585 32,585 Interest Earnings 280 0 0 Total Resources 28,175 32,585 32,585 Expenditures Interest 2,303 1,629 1,629 Principal 25,592 30,956 30,956 Total Expenditures 27,895 32,585 32,585 Projected Ending Balance 280 0 0 Property Tax Summary Debt Service Requirement 27,895 32,158 32,158 Collection Rate 94% 94% 94% Levy Required to produce requirements 29,675 34,210 34,210 Projected Assessed Value 403,753,000 535,566,065 535,566,065 Projected Tax Rate per $1,000 AN 0.073 0.064 0.064 Impact on Home valued @ $100,000 7.35 6.39 6.39 05/23/95 Tigard Water District Approved Budget Expenditure Details Attorney Estimated 13 hours for the year at $175 per hour. Election Costs Election happened in March 1995 Meeting Notice Publication of board meetings, election, Budget committee, and budget hearing notices. Public Relations Funds for fliers and information for unincorporated area. Staff Support Accounting 2 hours per month 24.21 581 Meeting 10 hours per month 24.21 2,905 Ed Wegner 2 hours per month 41 .56 997 Randy Volk 2 hours per month 35.93 862 Mike Miller 2 hours per month 32.76 786 Budget Total 14 hours 41.56 581 Misc Staff Time 1,088 7,800 Debt Service Debt Service Required 152,912 Levy Required (94% collection rE 162,672 District Share of Levy 34,210 Board per diem Deleted by budget committee SDA Conference 2 members attend at$200 each Travel etc. 2 members at Seaside conference room and board for 3 nights. Contingency Amount set aside for unanticipated expenditures relopment Comeission vim b.held on June 26, ie 95 FORM NOTICE OF BUDGET HEARING a.e,....m F,.1 LB-1 U R.vwa.aao., ifartteazzlz,Tual4t in nut purpose 04149 ameba b to Maass IN budget for Ameeting athe Tigard Water District Board werbebeMm June 26 19 95 YAasapp,oved by th,i Tualatin Development Commission %dee pwP�04048 Converse. Deem. Fro*.Med rode yirotere .t 7e00lopm..i 8777 SW Burnham St.. Ti Gard OR.Th. iadbew.e.Awpyatry.boelm.ybeaMpecud0robuOM nyd„CI ty of Tualatin offices ,,,,,,,,,1 gbloa,yF,netwdgetror Tualatinoatacgyeebsgv,ningjoy i,T995esapp,wedbyew Tigard Water District B Committee ,rMaan M horn c48:30 An and5:00FM.Tlae sedate.theft*budget w s+Cxnexnr.a tg dud b L4cemw«d Griot ccns49ra w#,to beaks a accoM,Bp seed chap die preceding year. A summary of d»budget IS presented below.A copy a n»budget may be inspected or obtained et Tigard Water District *on d,s budget,an esidel led below. o.. w..e,.raeeeee+, +en...wee 8777 SW Burnham Nees d hapo St-- Tiaard- OR between re r8 am ard_S�m.Ttas centaea th.ttlre btdge4 1lat1n I 6/9/95 Lou Ogden lr(503) 692-2000 Is...ream was prepared of a basis of eccouving that is Bconsisterd tlnot consistent with the basis of accounting used during the precemrp year. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Major changes.a any,and ores tined on the budget,are explained below. • cover aeN. .. ,.. ,+ m o •. .ro,.. tia w,..w,* - . TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS Adopted Budget Approved Budget Washington f Tigard Ifune 1, 1991 Beverly Froude r639-4171 Tete Yere-199445- Next Year-1996-90 - ----- - - Band stvere. FINANCIAL SUMMARY .rlal and Services 414,.108 416.053 adOu=ay ( 906,008 745/S0 ! Adopted Budget Approved Budget t um,. 2.153.5E1 1.95,338 • TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS This Yew-1994-95 Next Y_ea-1995-98 ,Nen 3077.b00 4bo.Doo 1.TNN PetsorN Services... -. -0- - .70 depend„ 3.228.1i18 3.f28_067 2 Total Material and Services I $30,893 524.850 xem em.rmemm sod Fleudoe+r 88,000 84,000 3.Total Capital Osney. . ... . . . . . ..... I -0- 9- ppopMadaEMeFund Berland 993.425 8.357.1979 TaNDeaservtce.. .. I 27.895 32,585 .Ar.mmr-astlemtltesto9 8411 5,782 Anacgated - - -- - ' RewKemems -0- '0- aaewExc,gPropwgTww. 6 025076 6,263J72 a Tao,coru:,pe,.c,es1 3,000 8.350 Nay Tarr Remixed a Menne e.d9N I 2.050.706 24194,025 1.TNN An Ot s,Expenditures w,a Reod,eurents-.. .. 1 -9- _0_ 09!7 _Add Ir.atosop ii 8.075382 8,357.197 em Taxesllp,aedieaN.esenQwtapeto 2,050J06 2,094.425 O.TotauneulterneledNEnemaFuersawnc�a _ I 2,692 --4-- 9 Towfeoo,.n,.nu-add pnaslexo09,0 64.400 45.785 nand Propwly Taxa Na le Pe Una. .. ..-RwxN- .... Anticipated 10.TNN Resooxcr Except Property Teres - - 36.585 33 627 w b Co.a.Awrl Resources 11-Taal Property Taxes Regwed to Balance Budget - . I 27.895 32.158 Leer-Mkt OW 11 and ra.--.-- --_- -- I 11-Total Resources-add apex 10 and II 64.48Q_, 65.785 n M Tea Bre 13.TNN Prop0y T.,es Required M Balance Budget(ane T11 1 27-895 32..158 Anticipated re.Pius-Estimated Property Taxes Not a C. be Received ,- I - law Outside Me rBw.Contesting Tax Levy A.Loss Due lo Constitutional LirMs . . . I -0- -0- Newt N o a B.Discounts Allowed,Other UrcWn:led Amounts ... 1.78 0 2.052 15.Total Tax Levy-add roes 13 and 14. . - .. .... 29.675 34.210 .a1Sfitsmlllatalalhs.1.5l -- - _ - _' tae levy Within Me T.x Base- _ -0- -D- dTA1LMeNi W aWeaT6411lpd One-Year.one-YleOOlOIea M.TO.B... .. -0- -0- dug Debt A,uehWed,No.tinned Tax Levers IA.au,viads.d 13Nu.. OM9Serialn.Ated By Type ht.Serand Continuant Lewes... -0- -0- in1sAN Brow ONLY•COMPLETED - - ---- 19.Levy Mr Payment of Bonded Debt - - 2 9.4 7 5 34.210 2n Total a Ines16Mmugbl9reaualsfineut 529.675 34.210 Deb Outstanding Debt Authorized,Not Incurred STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS N 1.199-10 Aow.ved Bud.N Yew AN 1.,995-pe Amwtl%deal Year Debt ON.Mndgnq Debt ANlwnxe0 Not Incurred 603 0 Noun ZI As Sunnnn2.d 0 None 0 As Summarized IL. 1?-14? PUBLISH BELOW ONLY IF COMPLETED 2.750 Long-Tenn Debt Debt Outstanding Debt Authorized,Not Incurred r in x,0,45.9 or revenue f99_s-em,Bormwwy)es.m,.rbed better. Aly 1.1995-96 Approved Budo.1 Year Aur 1.1995-90 Appoved BWoe1 Yee, Estimated Amax4Eatlr,at.d Estimated Bonds - .. . .. 5 1n-956 b W Borrowed Intelsat Ram beer.*Cost imwrt Beating wartwy, - -- - Omer 7y(.t .yys, S 30.956 FUNDS NOT REQUIRING V This budget includes Ito intention M borrow in anticipation of revenue TSnnd-Tenn Borrown,g7 as adorned:ed below A PROPERTY TAX TO BE LEVIED FUND LIABLE Estimated Arndt/01 Estimated Estimated to be Buttoned- Interest Rale Interest Cost Nig.,Taal Anticipated Rsguifi rretdB must equal Tact Rewutua ❑Rephubkatlon I 11 District Actual Data Adopted Budget ApprovedFUNDS NOT REQUIRING Law Year 1993-94 This Year 1994-95 Neal Yew 19;Val FORM A PROPERTY TAX TO BE LEVIED LB-2 321.193 338.050 346,3194._ P gash ONLY completed pation of this page.Total Anticipated Rpu entente mad puN Taal Resources ❑R°P bacaa°n 1,195 4.000 .. . ... Name of Actual Data Adopted Budget Approved Budget Fund General Fund Last Year This Yea, P494-95 Next Year 1995-96 31,496 9i,j71 _0- 0 +quu.,naea. T I Taal Personal e,ixea S 30.893 S 24.850 d Balance 2.Taal Malensls and Services 32 ,1¢8 3744046 443.996 3.Total Capital Outlay -0- -0- . pea,,..,• _407.876 ?L4.Qq, 441.9514____ 4-Tae1Debt Service -0_ -- 0- 1 Dtstrtc4 A pW -- - - - 5.Taal Transtea _ 1993 94 ed Budget ed B��dgst 6.Taal Contingencies 3.000 8.350 tam Year This Year 1994-➢5 NMA Yeas 1995-96 7.Taal AN open Expenditures and Regwtemenu -D- -0- a-Total Unappropriated N Endep Fund Behnke 7_4 1 7 -0- 34_893 37.946 37 286 9 TotalRequiements T6 105 31.700 4.575.62o 812,00(1 654.750 l9.Total Resources ExoeotProperty Taxes 36 1n5 11 7(10 FORM FUNDS REQUIRING A ?SO ADD a%) ..009752.861 444.306 LB-3 PROPERTY TAX TO BE LEVIED Bele mea-1 {411.1717n .'' 44.000 I Publish ONLY completed porno,a this page. IDRepubecatiprn Batrroa- 4_860.U? 11925.807 1-'tjt[{_342 Name of 9..-....... 4.+97.1117 L 99�_Atl7_ t NO--34Z,_ .,.... Actual Data Adopted Budget Approved Budget Fund Debt Service Last Yea, TMs Year 1994-95 I Next Year 1995-96 et ACtUei ply A�apta�q� � g � - LAM Yes 1993-94 This Y.�y 1994 95 Nest YeW' I Taal Personal Services .. ... .. 2 Total Materia%and Services ... ... .. .... 3 Taal Capital Outlay 207.346 79.297 76_948 4 Total Debi Service _ _ .... _ _I S 27 995 5 17-085 Xf.606 412,o00 115.000 5 Taal Tie-mists I ......••.•.1 ' 6 Taal Contingencies. - .. .. .. 10.000 25_000 2,10X00 7.Total An OtherEsperdlwes and Requaemennls- .,,.. 69.194 23.469 9.Taal Unappropriated a Ending Fund Balance..1 7 B n _ - 0- I p .4.0.a. 9 Total Re9uiremenls 28.1 75 32_5115____1 swarm...{ 70 Total Resources Except Property Taxes 2 80 4 27 r, 247,954 113.491 315_417 t t Total Prop.Tares RecetveNRpuired to Balance 2 7 R 9 S 3? 158 ua _321,237 ._213,491 1_T5-417-, .. 12 Total Resources(add lines 10and II) - I 7R 1704 "` 32.585 I _ 13.Property Taxes Required to Balance(from Tia 11)1 S 97 A 9 5 5 32.158 FUNDS REQUIRING A IC Enervated Property Taxes Na to be Received.. A.Loss Due to Constitutional tlmLimit... .. -0 PROPERTY TAX TO BE LEVIED 2-0 52._- B Discounts,046.,U ncaiect.d Amounts.... 1 Z fl 4- 15 Taal Tax Levy(add ties 13 end 14)...... ... 79-675 34.710 tee ❑Republication 16 Levy Within me lax Base . .... ... ... - 17.Ora-Yea,levy Outside the Tax Base.... .. Actual Data Adopted Budget Approved Budget 13 Benet and Continuing Levies.... .. Last Year 1993-94 This Year 1994-95 Next Year ev 1995-96 t9 ly loa t Payment Bonded Deed I S 29_,,t75 S 34 210 - ' 4,264 6,875 - 4.5UU TT8226-Publish June 8, 1995. F OnOn DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date: June 6, 1995 REGION 4 RIGHT OF WAY Tigard Water District File: R6237.017 P.O. Box 23000 Name: Tigard Water District Tigard, OR 97223 Section: Pacific Hwy-McDonald FILE CODE: Highway: Beaverton-Tualatin Hwy County: Washington FAP#: You own property needed for improvement of the above highway. This property is described on Exhibit A. A determination of Just Compensation for the needed portion of your property has been made by a qualified Appraiser, based on market information. This is the amount outlined in the attached "Acquisition Summary Statement". You also have the right to donate the property if you wish. Please sign the enclosed Easement Document Deed and have it notarized. Please return the signed document to this office in the envelope provided. When the Right of Way Manager accepts the Document, it becomes a binding agreement. Notification of acceptance and payment will follow. Should you wish to donate the property, please notify me, and I will see that you receive the necessary forms and instructions. RELOCATION BENEFITS For an outline of any relocation benefits available to you, see the "Relocation Summary Statement" which is also attached. Thank you for your cooperation and time. If you have any questions, please call me at: 388-6400. 141111:1111r Mary Brophy Right of Way Agent Attach: Form #734-1712 U 63020 O. B. Riley Rd. Bend, OR 97701 734-2290 (--93) (503) 388-6196 File : R6237.017 Name : Tigard Water Date : June 6, 1995 ACQUISITION SUMMARY STATEMENT *Land and**Improvements $ 550.00 Damages $ -0- Other -0- $ -0- TOTAL JUST COMPENSATION $ 550.00 * LAND ACQUIRED 390 S. F. Permanent Easement ** IMPROVEMENTS IN ACQUISITION AREA: 1. Landscaping & Irrigation NOTICE TO VACATE: Written notice to vacate will not be required. Possession will be upon payment. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATELY HELD OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL JUST COMPENSATION SHOWN ABOVE. 1. None Form 734-1714 (11-90) EXHIBIT A File R6237017 Pacific Hwy. W. - S.W. McDonald St. Sec. Beaverton - Tualatin Highway Washington County RDS 10-06-94 108-1-10 Van S. Camp (Tigard Water District, C.P.) Permanent Easement for Slopes, Water, Gas, Electric and Communication Service Lines, Fixtures and Facilities. A parcel of land lying in the William Graham D.L.C. No. 39, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, W.M. , Washington County, Oregon and being a portion of that property designated as Parcel I and described in that contract to Tigard Water District, recorded as Microfilm Document No. 84-25846 of Washington County Book of Records; the said parcel being that portion of said property lying Northerly of a line at right angles to the center line of the relocated Beaverton-Tualatin Highway at Engineer's Station 127+15; Southwesterly of the right of way of Burlington Northern Inc. and included in a strip of land 40 feet in width, lying on the Westerly side of said center line which center line is described as follows: Beginning at Engineer's center line Station 112+00, said station being 4,394.57 feet North and 78.58 feet East of the Southeast corner of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, W.M. ; thence South 0 42' 31" West 446.06 feet; thence on a 163.70 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which bears South 22° 43' 17.5" West 122.72 feet) 125.79 feet; thence South 44° 44' 04" West 455.01 feet; thence on a 179.05 foot radius curve left (the long chord of which bears South 23° 39' 52" West 128.74 feet) 131.69 feet; thence South 2° 35' 40" West 241.45 feet to Engineer's center line Station 126+00. Beginning at Engineer's center line Station 126+00, said station being 3,153.01 feet North and 357.19 feet West of the Southeast corner of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, W.M. ; thence South 2° 35' 40" West 510.56 feet to Engineer's center line Station 128+69.11. Bearings are based on County Survey No. 24,915, recorded February 11, 1993. The parcel of land to which this description applies contains 390 square feet, more or less, outside of the existing right of way. NOTE: Non-Throughway. This parcel is located in Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 ' West, W.M. Outside Area: 4.32 acres, more or less, right. / ' 0.1-. �� Marked "CITY Of 30° 5gi 57 PLS 737 SURVE Au �is / / / (3-20-87) D .� 11.4 1• i N.49,625.02 E.21.195.61 Fd.Iron Rod w/Red Plostio Cap Fd. 2%" brass Cop in Mon.Box (CS #22,1551 Marked "DEA INC.CONTROL" '�0$. Marked "CITY OF TIGARD SURVEY (5-20-92) N ox CONTROL POINT. N.49.949.89 co �' + .3` 29 56.99 POC PLS 737" E.21,112.41 '�� (5-19-92) / . N.49,765.84 0/� , E.21,095.19 Fd.3/" Iron Pipe 1/46 (CS #22,155) ' (3-20-87) Fd.F8" Iron Rod / / N.49,979.74 (3-20-87) / p '� ,/ // E.21.103.72 N.49.974.20 oi (CS #20.751) E.21,103.51 L-� r33 • 34 -- ,/ (CS #20,751) '' �' 3t x) (Bent E.) # / • all 32 0 ��2 / W s / i/1"/../• ...-0°.° L.--,........1 ,� / \ w = ' '�'• � \\ N �i// moo' N 7)1/4 --\• 1 4 017 u _ I i oN �� --3 �= c, _ ,. I� ,��+ Fd. 2 " brass Cop 6�� in Mon.Box Marked 6' :y Facilities 4 p \ °O • / "CITY OF TIGARD _ �' SURVEY CONTROL POINT. *C: E.21,000 1 111 29+55.06 PI PLS 737" (5-19-92) N.49.765.96 300 ( k Fd.%" Iron Pipe t E.21,076.82 400 (3-20-87) II (CS #22,155) �____,, N.50.032.05 It. 1%' T E E.21.060.04 11 (CS #20,751) F-- � = ., ZN� 4.32 oat Rt. I c� •� 't 1 �� g MAY 1995 WATER MONTHLY REPORT Revenues/Expenditures: Month of May Year to Date Prior Yr. to Date % of Budget Revenues: Water Sales $303,501.99 $3,645,640.24 $2,831,505.35 Meter Sales 33,770.00 415,130.00 519,135.93 Developer Fees 3,042.00 $134,208.68 96,005.54 Other Income 33,487.54 157,600.77 106,015.27 Total Revenue $373,801.53 $4,352,579.69 $3,552,662.09 114% Expenditures: Personal Services $80,324.09 $672,561.51 $763,856.08 Material Services 132,894.92 1,544,055.51 1,548,428.82 Capital Outlay 28,604.65 178,055.15 254,273.90 Cap. Proj. Res. Fund 00.00 00.00 300,000.00 *Total Expends. $241,823.66 $2,394,672.17 $2,866,558.80 65% SDC Fund: $50,267.01 $511,096.53 $665,853.68 129% SDC Fund Balance: $1,598,161.29 * City accounting system is on a cash basis Meter Installations: 5/8" x 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" Total Durham 2 0 0 0 2 King City 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Area 11 3 0 0 14 City of Tigard 21 0 1 1 23 Total for May 39 Water Consumption and Loss: Total 100 cubic feet of water purchased or produced 205,317 ccf Plus amount of water from storage during May and consumption not billed in April 12,500 ccf Total 100 cubic feet of water billed <185,288 ccf> Water loss from flushing new lines in subdivisions < 500 ccf> Water loss from main breaks (SW Carmen & SW Walnut) < 1,728 ccf> Net amount of water in storage < 10,600 ccf> Amount of water consumed but not yet billed < 10,500 ccf> Total Water loss 9,201 ccf 4% InterOffice Memo To: Ed Wegner From: Mike Miller Date: June 6, 1995 Subject: June 2, 1995 Oregonian Article On Friday, June 2, 1995, The Oregonian published an article on the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) briefing paper that discussed their findings about the chemical make-up of water in 100 community water systems across the country. In addition to the article, the Oregonian published an "In Oregon" section. In this section Tigard was identified as being one of three water service agencies, serving a population base larger than 10,000, that had the most violations. The Oregonian article does not identify the standards that were violated. The article in the Oregonian states: "There is widespread violation of EPA's drinking water health standards and testing requirements, while enforcement is rare. The Safe Drinking Water Act and the source water provisions of the Clean Water Act need strengthening. Adequate funding is needed to restructure or upgrade water systems and to assure safe drinking water now and in the future. In Oregon, 1,492,000 people served by 729 community water systems have violated one or more health standards, treatment techniques, and monitoring and reporting requirements. In Oregon, there have been a total of 3,079 community water system violations". The article does not identify, nor does the NRDC briefing paper, what standards were violated. The article also does not state how or where EPA enforcement efforts might be improved. The City of Tigard makes every effort to comply with regulations and supports research efforts that identifies compliance activities that meet the intent of the law as well as give our customers good return for their rate dollar. After reviewing the Oregonian article, I contacted Mr. Dave Leland, Manager of the Oregon Health Division's Drinking Water Program, and found that the only violation that Tigard had was due to some confusion with the population base of our service area. The confusion occurred in December 1994, when the Health Division records indicated that our population base was higher than what we were reporting. The number of monthly routine water samples is determined by population. Because of the confusion, we came up two samples short for the month of December. This was technically a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, but was very minor, and was nothing more than a clerical error. We collected additional samples in January and have since adjusted the total number of samples to be taken each month based on the Health Divisions population base for our service area. - Mr. Leland stated that minor violations, such as this one in our service area, are reported in a data base to the EPA. The data base does not distinguish between the severity of the June 2, 1995 Oregonian Article 06/06/95 Page 2 violations nor does it contain remarks about the violation. It is simply raw data. This is the same data the NRDC based its report on. In no way does the violation indicate that the quality of our drinking water failed to meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Microbial or chemical contamination had nothing to do with our violation. • THE OREGONIAN, FRIDAY,JUNE 2, .1995 NAS • ReportsFfind;pollutiony poisons in� -tapwaterdrunk741F = b ;millions �+ y. =•i,,-..b" R ?.. 'F-:, , .:��f:_y ,,,::,i,.t`�-`kc"�i{pi ''`�'}_'°-.K'.. "as°F'- e.. - - ;.F.. . --. .._,_.,,,,,t?:.;.. MTwoetnftronmental groups say=� it nnrrnni . to reduce*contain_ ination'in res( tl�e data( .1,2QQ deathsrand 7-- _, - -voirs that supply tapwater. _. tit,. . `CBS�.S401 illness annually '` 410w--...-. ,-.. rt documented 3,079 vi-A- - our water lawt s need to be strengt to contaminated water._ olatkuis by Oregon water systems - ened, not relaxed," said Enviro (.;. -4-:. :; --._ :•... ,',,.- serving almost 1.5 million people. - '- mental Working Group Preside: By GARY LEE-_-!,;',"2,- -'71.---''.. . .-,:-.;-%:•:- -_-_The three Oregon water systems =;.':--r,: ;Ken Cook."This.is America.It's tl L A,TimelrVashingron Post Service with the most violations of safe. . - =1990s.People should be provided br -tip �'sf? :;;; �-: -_._"�--= '.ti T ._-.::_r ";drinking-water:Standards in 1993 1 ter water-than'wl tit they're gc WASHINGTON.. More'than 53-'-' :and 1994 were the Riddle/Riusell t,.• . : .-' million Americans are : Critics attacked the two reports drinking tap.:� .'Creek and Seaside water depart= '� water contaminated.by -lead,.fecal : merits and the Tillamook Water =-- - - alarmist."The American people tc bacteria'and other pollutants,and ' -Commission.The report said that' us that they are willing to pay fc with toxic;chemicals,.according•to : among Oregon's!jars s_- .safe drinking water,"said Robert.1 separate,reports released Thursday ` tems''=those serving more than , Wubenna, president of the Amer br two major environmental orga. '.' ;'10,000 people:-Lebarwn..Wood- = can WaterWorks-.:Association; mzattons. bum and Tigard had the most re-=_ .-nonprofit`=organization based . i Drawing from data compiled by ported violations The most coin--•< Washington..-"But they are not wil the Environmental Protection Agen- mon contaminant in Oregon was. Mg to pay:additional costs whic cy`and local water utilities, the re- coliform bacteria.Some utilities, v- >•provide them no additional protei ports included estimates that the such as those in Tigard and Lake tion." consumption of contaminated water Oswego,were affected by exces- The working. groups report wa . causes 1,200 deaths and more than 7 '; sive levels of lead.Residents serv- compiled from information gathere million cases of mild to moderate IIl-' iced by the Canby Regency system by the group during 1993-94.Durin nes each year.Those figures are far received water containing chemi- that period, 53 million American drank higher than earlier estimates of ef- cats or radioactivity above the re- water that violated safety an fects of waterborne diseases on the: ' port's health standards,and sys- health standards established uncle general population. . _- - tems such as the Oak Lodge Water the Safe Drinking Water Act,the r� port sand. One of'the studies, prepared by District(Milwaukie)and the Powell wa the Natural Resources Defense _ Valley Road Water District were af- The most alarmingm finding ct Council, said water systems serving - fected by microbial contaminants. that fatale normally present ti bade ria that are normally present in sea one out of every five Americans age and can cause disease — wer- were discovered to contain cryptos- found in 1,172 water systems nation poridium, the microbial contami- immune systems are compromised wide serving 11.6 million people nant that resulted in 104 deaths:and —should probably take some steps said Cook. "That clearly demon more than 400,000 illnesses during a to protect.themselves."The reports, strates that the cleanup of our water March 1993 outbreak in Milwaukee. released by the council and the En- is not nearly as effective as it soul( Federal statutes do not require mu- vironmental Working Group, come be,"he said. nicipal water authorities .to clean as Congress is debating changes that Lead was found in 2,551 system: cryptosporidium from water reser- would allow industries and.local serving 10.3 million people,and radi voirs. Cryptosporidium can cause governments more flexibility in oactive materials such as radon anc diarrhea in healthy people and se- complying with the Clean Water uranium were found in 326 system: vere illness in those with weakened Act,which governs cleanup of lakes, serving 1.7 million people,the repor immune systems. - rivers, and other water bodies. The said. "We are not saying that people House passed a revision of the stat- Of the cities where contaminatior should panic or that everybody is ute in May. President Clinton said with fecal coliform bacteria wa' getting sick," said Erik Olson, an this week he would veto the bill if found, New York's water system water specialist with the council and the Senate passed it serves the largest population. Other author of one of the studies. "But Some GOP lawmakers and indus- large cities whose water violates our findings show that there are try lobbyists are pushing for a relax- standards on bacterial contamina clearly some serious health risks ation of the Safe Drinking Water tion included Louisville, Ky.; Wash- posed by tap water and that some Act, which establishes standards ington, D.0-; Columbus, Ohio: and Omgor WATER May 30, 1995 RESOURCES CITY OF TIGARD DEPARTMENT 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 REFERENCE: File(s) 5-80342 We have received your application(s) for a water use permit along with your supporting data, documentation, and fees. A receipt is enclosed here unless you were previously issued one. Your application has been assigned the above referenced file number. Please refer to this number whenever you contact us about your application. Even though your application has been received, filed and assigned an application reference number,no authorization has been granted to develop your water use. The filing of an application does not create a water right. Water may not be used until a water right permit has been issued by the Department. After an application has been accepted for filing, public notification of the application is made, followed by the mandatory 30-day comment period. Thereafter, applications can be considered for processing as time allows. At present the Water Resources Department has a backlog of several thousand applications for water use permits which has delayed our application processing time. In general, applications are processed in the order in which they are received. However, Department staff work through Oregon's 18 river basins on a rotation basis often completing work on all applications within a single basin, then proceeding to the next basin. The processing of an application does not guarantee that a water right permit will be issued. Each application must undergo specialized analysis called a technical review and a public interest review. Until your application is reviewed, it is not possible to determine whether your particular proposed water use will be recommended for a permit. The Water Resources Commission is considering the adoption of rules to protect stream flows for fish species. This action is being contemplated in response to current and future Endangered Species Act fish listings, including many runs of salmon, steelhead and resident fish throughout the state. rE >,•j t, Commerce Building 158 12th Street NE Salem,OR 97310-0210 (503) 378-3739 FAX (503) 378-8130 REFERENCE: File(s) - S-80342 The proposed rules, if adopted, could limit the issuance of new water right permits in certain areas of the state. If and when the Commission adopts these rules, new criteria or restrictions may be imposed on water use applications received after: July 17, 1992, for use of water in the Upper Columbia/Snake Basin (above Bonneville Dam), including the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers and the Hood, Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, Grande Ronde, Powder, Malheur and Owyhee Basins; April 8, 1994, for use of water in the North Coast, Mid Coast, South Coast, Rogue and Umpqua Basins and the Clackamas Subbasin of the Willamette Basin; and June 3, 1994, for use of water in all Oregon basins. When the report on the technical review is completed and sent to you, a 60-day objection period begins during which you, the applicant, or anyone who has expressed an interest in your proposed water use may communicate to us their disagreement with what we have said in our report on your application. After the 60-day objection period, the Department conducts the public interest review and considers any objections which have been made. After any objections have been considered, there may follow time to allow parties to resolve conflicts over the proposed water use. In addition, a 30-day protest period may be required. Lastly, it may be necessary to schedule a hearing or send the application to the Water Resources Commission for their review. If your application is recommended for approval and a permit is issued, the use allowed by the permit will be subject to the Basin Program Rules of the Water Resources Commission, instream flow requirements, the demands of prior right holders and other conditions to conform the water use to particular standards. Please contact a Water Rights Research Assistant of the Water Resources Depai talent if you have any questions. You may write to us at 158 12th ST NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or you may call 378-3739 in Salem or toll free from within the state 1-800-624-3199. Since •ly, Cory C. Engel Water Rights Research Assistant Water Rights/Adjudication Division cc: CWRE I `C2 ■ ■ METRO/NORTHWEST • Nater study finds outlook f• or region better han feared :#Preliminary conclusions indicate that there should be plenty of hearings. `water for the Portland area until at least 2020 Lorna Stickel, chief planner for the Portland Water Bureau and 1 o - study manager, said the optimistic lay R.GREGORY NOKES :;> - ` : .-- ,,„,, :7 outlook relies "on a big chunk of as :of The Oregonian staff sumptions,” including the reliability t Options for meeting Portland-area of Columbia River wells. Moreover, • Rarely do government studies pro- water needs for the next 50 years will in- she said, the study isn't ruling out t` f :duce good news for taxpayers,but a dude phasing in additional supplies. shortages in extremely hot and dry regional study says there's enough Here's one proposal likely to be included :water for Portland-area needs for in a preliminary recommendation due in su Butrewe're finding we have the next quarter-century without July_ enough lead time so we don't have :big-ticket projects. „_ That doesn't mean water bills •Immediate:Outdoor conservation to scurry about,"she added. :won't keep going up.They have and measures,such as incentives for more One major reason for the im- „ Linn alone,residential In West efficient outdoor sprinklers and possibly proved outlook is the availability of 'Tates nearly doubled this year to an requirements for more efficient spin- some backup wells along the Colum .,average monthly bill of $20.96 as kters for new construction. bec which were shut down in 1992 because of concern over contamina- "that community arranges for more •2025:Clackamas River,an additional tion.The threat still keeps other Co- r ;water. 50 million gallons a day. lumbia wells out of the system,how- „. In Portland, which has some of :the cheapest water in the region, III 2036:Acquirer storage for use in peak eVWhile the region is in overall good residential rates increased 3.4 per- demand periods. shape, some communities will face „cent to an average of$11.55.They're $2045:Willamette River,50 million gal- shortages within the next five years .,expected to jump another 6 percent Ions a day. or so without additional supplies. Text year. WATER STATISTICS These include Tigard, Wilsonville But preliminary conclusions from and Damascus. :a four-year study indicate the region ••Current potential supply:About 493 Regional water planners are dis- <should have enough water until at million gallons for an average peak con- cussing joint action to meet such ' least 2020. That means taxpayers sumption day. needs. ' won't face paying for quarter-billion IIICurrent demand:About 365 million "We ought to be able to sell those j dollar water projects — such as a gallons for an average peak day. people water so they don't have to third Bull Run dam or a Willamette go to a source before we're ready to River supply — before then and $2020 demand:About 455 million gal- go as a probably well beyond. Ions. group,” said Gene Seibel, general manager of the Tualatin That outlook depends on comple- ■2045 demand:About 650 million gal- Valley Water District. "Some of us • tion of current projects on the Trask Ions. have some excess water now. . .. In and Clackamas rivers, along with Officials caution that demand can soar the short-term we ought to be able to conservation measures and some much higher in extreme weather condi- keep the Tigards and the Damas- new pipelines to improve water dis- tions. cuses in water." tribution in Multnomah, Clackamas In addition to a third Bull Run and Washington counties. dam and water from the Willamette, "It's far more optimistic than other long-term options include the what we've heard in the past," said water bill, according to a prelimi Columbia River, additional supplies Judie Hammerstad, chairwoman of nary estimate. from the Clackamas and under- the Clackamas County Board of The study by Portland and 27 ground storage. Commissioners, following a briefing other local governments and water The question of who pays for for local officials. "I think we all districts addresses the region's what, and when, remains unan- came away feeling the water supply, water needs for the next 50 years. It swered. The planning group i's only if we can put in transmission lines, was undertaken after a 1992 drought beginning discussions on how to is in pretty good shape." caused serious shortages and raised manage a regional system, including Major supply options,such as the concerns about the long-term sup- a possible role for Metro. Willamette,are still under consider- ply- R. Gregory Nokes covers govern- ation. Regional governments will Preliminary recommendations for ment and politics in the Portland , have to choose from among them future water supply options are due metropolitan area. He can be reached eventually.They would add from$6 in July. A final recommendation is at 221-8409 or by mail at 1320 S.W. to $8 to the monthly residential set for December, following public Broadway, Portland 97201. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN—PHASE 2 PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes of March 28, 1995 Man Fletcher, Clairmont Water District, vice chair, called the meeting to order at Tigard Water District, at 1:45 p.m. Attending: Approval of Minutes: Greg DiLoreto City of Gresham The Committee approved the February 21, 1995 Mike McKillip City of Tualatin minutes. Duane Robinson Rockwood PUD Tom Hoffman Oak Lodge WD Amendment to Project Scope: John Thomas Mt Scott WD Alan Fletcher asked for a vote on a project scope Denny Klingbile Damascus WD amendment. The amendment is for$12,000 for the Larry Sparling South Fork WB Portland Water Bureau to pay Montgomery Watson Carter Harrison Clackamas WD consultants for additional work with the reservoir Jesse Lowman Tualatin availability and IRP models. This work evaluates the Valley WD impact of flows out of the Bull Run reservoirs with the Vergie Ries City of Beaverton additional reservoir at maximum utilization and with 70 Joel Komarek City of Lake CFS to be devoted to instream flows in the lower Bull Oswego Run and Sandy rivers from June through October. The Duane Cline City of Lake amendment passed unanimously_ Oswego Tim Erwert City of Hillsboro Progress Reports: Joint WC Tim Erwert reported the Steering Committee had been Roger Meyer West Slope WD reviewing the model, identifying its shortcomings, Jerry Anderson City of Wood tweaking it, etc. They completed the initial review of the Village report on small groundwater sources. They will be Jeff Bauman City of Wilsonville looking at long-term plan implementation strategies with Ed Wegner City of Tigard Ed Tenny of Montgomery Watson. They are looking at Scott Burgess City of West Linn the role of the Regional Conservation Coalition in South Fork WB reviewing the next conservation report. The committee is Lorna Stickel Portland WB also revisiting the IRP model assumptions. They Robert Jortner Portland WB reviewed the public involvement program and feel it is Man Fletcher Clairmont WD adequate to get the planning through critical decision- Miichael Baker Rockwood PUD making. Eleanor Clark CRRILO,League of Women Voters Metro Regional Water Supply Proposal Process: Greg Nokes The Oregonian Lorna Stickel reviewed the progress report for the Jack Polans self-writer Participants Committee(see Attachment A). Lorna Don Roberts discussed the framework of the water supply plan and Peggy Murphy Portland WB how elements of it might be used by the METRO Council as part of their 2040 Region project. Rosemary Furfey, METRO stafly reported that METRO expects to participate in the planning process for the next 9 months so their Council will be committed and educated about the final plan. METRO expects to use the portions of the Regional Water Supply Plan relating to growth management and land use as they develop the water W a • Participants Committee Meeting March 28, 1995 Page 2 resource element of the Regional Framework Plan. The METRO Council is required to hold public hearings for this process. Rosemary anticipates the council will accept the plan. She said open space and housing density were important as they might affect the ability of water providers to site facilities. (See Attachment B.) Lorna referred to the METRO Council's proposed revisions to the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs). Goal No 9, regarding Watershed Management and Regional Water Quality has been revised since the Committee last reviewed it. Goal No. 10, Water Supply,is a new goal with corresponding objectives. Lorna said to contact Lorna or Rosemary Furfey if there are questions. Rosemary offered to give a presentation on the RUGGOs to the Participants Committee. Lorna is on the MTAC and is responsible for taking concerns and providing input to METRO. Amendments to the RUGGOs will be decided in July. Public Involvement Strategy Update: Lorna reviewed the public involvement strategy update prepared by Brad Higbee(see Attachment C). It incorporates comments from the participants Public Involvement Subcommittee. The Portland Water Bureau is preparing a project information sheet, designed for the lay person. The Oak Lodge Water District is revising Portland's "Million Thanks" brochure to a generic version so it can be used as an information piece by any of the participants. Tom Hoffman expressed concern over developing a master mailing list based on the returned coupons from the "million thanks" brochure. Lorna suggested that participants keep track of who they send the information sheet to and who is interested in receiving more information. Lorna said invitations will be sent to interested stakeholders and an announcement placed in the paper for a Public Forum in May. She said the focus groups will help people weigh and balance values. In response to a question from Rosemary Furfey,Lorna clarified that there will be an additional forum after the preliminary plan is released in July. There have been suggestions about public interest in trying to get on television shows such as NW Reports, Oregon Field Guide, and Town Hall. Some of the providers may approach cable TV in their area. Lorna said Portland Commissioner Mike Lindberg is interested in developing a short, professionally produced video, similar to video projects for West Side Light Rail and others. She said it is expensive, $2,000/minute, and the discussions continue. Commissioner Lindberg may make a proposal to the Steering Committee regarding a way to reduce the cost of the video. Alan Fletcher noted this is not in the budget and it would have to be approved by the Participants. Lorna said the Washington County Forum scheduled for May will be videotaped. Project staff and Participants are working on getting space at the three county fairs. The speakers bureau hasn't been officially set up, although Lorna and Roberta have been asked to provide many presentations. They have received good feedback on the project slide show. Lorna offered project staff assistance to providers interested in giving presentations. John Thomas asked when the staff would set a date for the participating agencies/elected officials workshop. Lorna said the consultants are still refining the IRP model assumptions_ Greg DiLoreto suggested scheduling the workshop for the next participants committee meeting;Lorna noted she would be out of town that day and recommended a date be set for late April or early May. Participants Committee Meeting March 28, 1995 Page 3 Public Comments: None. Other Business: ■ Groundwater Inventory Lorna referred the group to the memo, Small Source Groundwater Inventory(see Attachment D). Water Bureau staff assisted Murray Smith& Associates by producing this inventory as part of the transmission analysis and for the IRP modeling. She asked that the Participants review the report and those with comments or those with additional wells let her know. She said they represent a fair amount of water. Tom Erwert said the Steering Committee is concerned that the status of the wells be accurate regarding current and future use. Lorna said they are following up on information on surface water sources. • Conservation Report Duane Robinson thanked the Regional Conservation Coalition for their letter on the latest conservation report. He said they worked very hard on it and the conservation work will be a highlight of the study. ■ Water Quality Rankings Duane also expressed concern about the City of Portland's Water Quality Advisory Committee's concern over using a national perspective to rank sources. Duane said the committee's bias is toward water quality, which leaves out perspectives on quantity and transmission. Duane said this committee is charged with having a narrow perspective and he feels their framework is not broad enough for a 50-year study. • Aquifer Storage and Recovery Jesse Lowman discussed a meeting with legislative leaders on a bill to authorize ASR. He said there was good response and input. DEQ didn't testify, OEC and Water Watch were both supportive. Comments included questions about water rights. Jesse felt that DEQ does not see nitrates as a serious concern. A work group will meet March 29 to discuss and refine the bill. • National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits Jesse also expressed concern about waste water and NPDES permits. He asked if there should be a work group to discuss this. He said DEQ is becoming aggressive in applying the rules and regulations to water supply facilities. Vergie Ries said Beaverton has to get permits to flush water lines and drain reservoirs. Greg DiLoreto said that Gresham needs permits to do hydrant flushing. Vergie said she was in a meeting where Oregon Health Division and DEQ were disagreeing on the interpretation of the law. Greg suggested OWUC might be the place to deal with these regulations resulting from the Clean Water Act. Tim Erwert noted this topic is not in the scope of the intergovernmental agreement for the planning project. He felt individual governments could get together to address this issue. Tim asked Jesse to report on this item at the next Participants Committee meeting. Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Submitted by Peggy L. Murphy G:\PL AMPC3-28.WPD {F 3/2 2/93-- it /ys- " PI ae �F Y� � ' d 4� S "T. x • •.6.` S�. .„,X,�. fF�`:;�k `5.; .. Yi �.S Fi z. t�>& dw"�.:•• $?.\,•r.�"{? ..1 Y� 'a; March 28, 1995 Since the last meeting of the Participants Committee on February 21, 1995 the Project Management Staff have been involved in the following activities: 1) Staff have met with consultants about the public involvement program and the institutional element to discuss the process from now till the issuance of the Preliminary Plan in July. A meeting of the public involvement subcommittee will be set up prior to the next steering committee. 2)Staff have met with BCI staff to discuss the conservation program report and the review process for the Conservation Coalition and the Steering Committee to review that document. 3)Staff attended a meeting at WRD in Salem on the budget issues regarding the state funded share of a Corps reauthorization study for the Willamette projects on February 23. WRD staff will present an alternative for the participants to review for presentation to the legislative subcommittee responsible for reviewing the WRD budget. The ideas discussed ways to reduce this biennium share including such things moving to a four year time span, when the actual start date would be,and if other local match shares could be generated. A fair amount of time was spent discussing the potential opposition of the agricultural community to having a reauthorization feasibility study conducted at all. 4)Staff reviewed the Columbia River National Estuary Program nomination agreement. Contact DEQ staff to suggest that the discussion of beneficial uses note that the Columbia is under study as a potential municipal supply source for the Portland metropolitan region. 5) Staff made a presentation to the Water Services Leadership Group meeting on March 6 about the outcomes for the Phase 2 process and the public involvement process. 6)Staff attended the Metro WRPAC subcommittee on Water Resources and Open Spaces meeting on March 8. The Metro work program for refining the Metro 2040 growth management decision was outlined and this group provided input on the refinement of the unbuildable lands inventory and discussed the type of recommendations that might be made about adequate standards for providing adequate water management inside the UGB. 7)Staff met with three members of the Denver Water Department to discuss with them the IRP process and desired outcomes of the RWSP for our region and how this compared with the situation in Denver. 8)Staff attended the Metro MTAC meeting on March 9 and received information on the refinement of the population forecasts that Metro is conducting at this time. The major point is that the area has grown faster than prior predictions since 1990 and this has resulted in less land supply left inside the current UGB than was anticipated. The more detailed Metro 2015 population forecasts are being developed now and will likely reflect these faster growth rates. 9)Staff has coordinated the printing and distribution of the conservation program to the Col/Willamette Conservation Coalition. 10)Staff have met with the consultants to discuss revisions to the environmental rankings based on the review of these materials as drafted. 11)Staff participated in the public involvement subcommittee meeting which occurred on March 10. 12)Staff have been working to assist in any refinements to the current water system assumptions as they will be reflected in the IRP model,particularly those related to the Portland wellfield and some of the smaller systems as they play into the transmission analysis. 13) Staff made presentations to the Geological Society of the Oregon Country and the Portland Garden Club about the RWSP utilizing the slide show, handout materials, and discussion. 14) Staff met with Metro staff to discuss the adoption process for the RWSP and the Metro role in that adoption process as well as aspects of the Metro water supply element of the Metro Regional Framework Plan. A report will be made as a part of the PC agenda for March 28. 15) Staff attended a Metro MTAC meeting on March 23 and listened to discussions about the redevelopment land survey and some bills being considered by the Legislature on standards for the urban growth boundary and on expedited hearings processes for subdivisions in urban growth boundaries. 16) Staff reviewed and provided comments to Montgomery Watson about the results of the analysis of flow impacts from a third Bull Run dam in the Bull Run and Sandy Rivers. The results of this analysis will enable a representative mitigation strategy to be incorporated into the IRP process to reflect the costs involved with flow mitigation. 17) Staff attended the Col/Will Conservation Coalition meeting on March 21 along with consultant staff at which the conservation programs packages were discussed and reviewed. Staff is coordinating the response from the Coalition for the Steering Committee. 18) Staff have met with Montgomery Watson to discuss the refinements to the evaluation criteria, rankings, and justification language for the water quality and the environmental elements.