Loading...
08/09/2000 - Packet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Servin Ti ard, Kin 7 Ci , Durham and Unincorporated Area Wednesday, August 9, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order Motion to call meeting to order 2. Roll Call and Introductions Staff to take roll call 3. Approval of Minutes—July 12, 2000 Motion from Board for minute approval 4. Regional Water Consortium Membership—Ed Wegner(S minutes) Discussion on the Board's membership and participation with this regional group. S. Aquifer Storage Recovery—Mike Miller(I5 minutes) 6. Long Term Water Supply Update—Ed Wegner(20 minutes) Update on long term water options 7. Informational Items Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed ■ Email from Todd Heidgerken regarding the initiative petition filed to require voter approval for TVWD to utilize Willamette River as a drinking water source. ■ July 26'x'Oregonian article regarding above mentioned initiative ■ Memo from Todd Heidgerken regarding the contract between TVWD/Wilsonville for the Willamette Water Treatment Plant ■ Letter from TVWD regarding water rates charged to the City of Tigard ■ Oregonian article(8-2-00)regarding petitions on Willamette River water ■ Memo from CH2Mhill regarding rate model study ■ Oregonian article (8-8-00)regarding suit to halt initiative ■ Oregonian article(8-9-00)regarding Wilsonville's ability to borrow$10 million from Oregon Economic and Community Development Department ■ Memo from Portland Water Bureau on augmenting the Bull Run supply 8. Public Comments Call for any comments from public 9. Non Agenda Items Call for any non-agenda items from Board Members. Next meeting date September 13"' 10. Adjournment—Approximate time 7.00 p.m. Motion for adjournment • Light dinner will be served at 5:15 p.m. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d), (e),69&(h)to discuss labor relations,real property transactions,current and pending litigation issues and to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential;therefore nothing from this meeting maybe disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session,but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes Jilly 12 2000 Members Present,• Bill Schederich, Patrick Carroll, Gretchen Buehner, Paul Hunt, and Jan Drangsholt Staff Present,- Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz, and Dick Bewersdorff — Planning Manager visitors.. Paul Owen, Norm Penner, Henrietta Cochran, Beverly Froude, Tim Ramis, Margaret Rollo, Gary Parcher, Chris Farmer, and Jaime Ramsey 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call am vductions 3. Approval ofnunutes—lune 1411000 Commissioner Gretchen Buehner motioned to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2000, meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paul Hunt, voted upon and passed unanimously. 4. Clute Property—Mike Miller Mike Miller gave background information on the Clute property—Tax Lot 600. Property was purchased in order to provide an access road to Menlor Reservoir. Originally only a portion of the property was wanted just for the access road. After about two years of negotiations, the purchase of the whole property was finalized. It was always the intention that the surplus property would be disposed of and the proceeds used to purchase another reservoir site on Bull Mountain. Land partition was initiated in January 2000. It has been appealed; it goes to the Hearings Officer on July 24. A packet of the compiled history of the acquisition was distributed, including answers to specific questions raised at the Tigard City Council meeting. According to the IGA all capital improvements, land purchases, and improvements to the system after the signing of the IGA are to be based on division of assets proportionately divided between the entities. The City of Tigard is named on the deed but the property was purchased with funds from the water system assets. Intergovernmental Water Board 1 July 12,2000 Appraisal of the property was completed (January. 1997) prior to the purchase of the property. At that time the highest value of that property was single-family development, although current zoning is R-25. Information was gathered from minutes of IWB and Tigard City Council meeting minutes and the open house that was held prior to construction of the Menlor Reservoir. It is evident that the story is consistent in that at some time the property would be disposed of. There was no real mention that it would be turned over to open space or used for parks. A nature trail with connection to the Menlor Reservoir site, which is still in a natural state, making that into what is now known as Cache Creek was purchased using Metro Greenspace funds by Washington County and turned over to the City of Tigard. Several options were talked about on the whole project, i.e., keep the property and the house, donating to greenspaces or parks, or nature center, but in looking at how the water fund is set up the funds would be needed to purchase other property so the property would be sold outright. Commissioner Schederich asked in November to contact Metro to see if they would be interested. They were contacted and they said NO. They were not interested in using Metro Greenspaces money. They felt the property was not of significant value with trees or wetland. Another contact was made with Metro this week again and there has been no response to this recent inquiry. Zoning at one time was R-15 with Washington County, but with the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tigard and Washington County to provide urban services to outlying county area, the zoning was changed. Dick Bewersdorff added that when the agreement process happened, Washington County agreed to have the zoning administered by the City of Tigard. The original zoning was adopted in the 1980's. Mr. Miller opened the meeting up to citizens in attendance that wished to address the land partition issue. ➢ Margaret Rollo, 15374 SW --??-- Speaking for neighbors with concerns for development in that area: parking congestion issues —> parking for access to Cache Creek property lack of greenspace in the area, their primary concern is for children — not enough room in schools for growth, children would be placed in portable units. Their request is that consideration be made to leaving the property as greenspace. ➢ Chris Farmer, 15350 SW Firtree Drive —Same concerns, petitioned: Neighbors not happy with the partitioning of land Thought the property was against a conservation area and considered property as greenspace —> Their hope is that government will work to represent the citizens —► Put up with three years of construction Intergovernmental Water Board 2 July 12,2000 —► Petition with 75 signatures obtained within three or four days, not one neighbor in favor of selling or partitioning the greenspace area. ➢ Jaime Ramsey, 15367 SW Firtree Drive —� Keep property as greenspace Property is valued at approximately $250,000 and is too sloped to be valuable for development Planned use application of the partition doesn't include any public facilities other than a six foot corridor for a nature trail —� Includes a significant amount of sensitive land with slopes greater than 25% Considered to be a wildlife corridor Clute property is like a bridge between conservation and greenspace area Existing homesite is the only flat area on the property, all else is steeply sloped —� Ecological studies indicate there are pleated woodpeckers, which are state sensitive species, wildlife habitat assessment was high Recommend retention of large trees Request it remain as greenspace and ask for rezoning as R-4.5 Initiate change to zoning to ensure the integrity of the neighborhood would be maintained Lack of greenspace in the area, which would be of more value to the community ➢ Gary Parcher, 15362 SW Firtree Drive -► Agrees with previous comments Requests not acting without thinking of the long-range future of the area Other options available to get funds without the sale of this property Ed Wegner, Director of Public Works which operates the water system and also the parks system asked to make a few comments. He indicated the only money available to the City of Tigard is the Metro greenspaces money. The City of Tigard has used up its greenspaces money. Metro (William Edy and John Desmond) was contacted again this last week to get their response. The trail on the plan was from neighborhood plans to allow access to top of property to the Cache Creek property. It was never intended to be for use as a trailhead with parking facilities. When Menlor was purchased (the site is large enough for two reservoirs), engineers suggested a second reservoir go at the 550 elevation. If that were to happen, possibly there would be no need for the remainder of the Menlor site and that could be deeded over to the City or Washington County. The reservoir was not build for the City of Tigard, but for all residents of the water service area. Chris Farmer requested that the community who puts up with the construction should get something back. Margaret Rollo asked about the parking situation. She thinks people would drive to access the Cache Creek property. Intergovernmental Water Board 3 July 12,2000 Mr. Wegner indicated there were two or three other ways to get into the Cache Creek area as well. Jaime Ramsey stated the closest and easiest access is through this property. Mr. Wegner indicated the traffic was intended to come off Roshack. The soft path can come out. It was added as a good will gesture for the neighbors in that area during construction. It could be on the outside of the fenced area. Margaret Rollo asked what the construction date for the higher reservoir was and whether the City of Tigard greenspace funds would be replenished by that time. Mr. Wegner indicated it would depend on when the purchase of land to construct the reservoirs happens. There is a need for at least two more reservoir sites in the Bull Mountain area. One of the two sites needs to be built in the next three years. Property should be purchased in the next 18 months. Metro greenspaces money was a one-time thing. The City of Tigard funds are the SDC's for parks and the park levy fund. That amount dwindles. Jaime Ramsey stated that information from the City Council meeting indicated there was a $50,000 surplus for parks and some numbers in the budget were inflated. Mr. Wegner indicated there is a three-year construction program to be completed for all those things, i.e. trail systems and other developments. Jan Drangsholt commented that she didn't think the zoning could be changed. It's her understanding that Washington County has to do that. The land was purchased from capital funds from the water system not from the City of Tigard. The water system needs to recover moneys spent from the capital improvement funds in order to make other water system improvements. Gretchen Buehner indicated she is a land-use lawyer and has represented numerous citizen groups who have wanted to protect greenspace in their local area. She sympathizes with their issues. She stated the water district lost money last year. The City of Portland almost doubled the rate they charge for water. This fiscal year has been run in the red. There is no money. If the Sizemore Initiative 47 passes we will not be able to fund standard operating costs. The 3% rate increase will help, but there won't be money to put into the capital improvement funds that are needed for maintaining pipes, water mains, and building for the future. If the citizens in that area can raise the money to pay for the land, they are welcome to buy it and put it in greenspace. . Funds are needed to buy up land necessary to provide services to everyone in the water district. She stated that Beverly Froude is working on a park proposal that would be farther east on the hill and suggested they get involved in that project. The reality however is that we have no control over what Portland charges us for water. They keep raising the rate. Yet we have a limitation on our ability to increase our water rates. Chris Farmer questioned how much money would need to be raised in order to buy the property and keep it as open area. Commissioner Buehner said that would depend on Intergovernmental Water Board 4 July 12,2000 the appraisal. Mr. Wegner stated an appraisal was completed three years ago when the property was purchased, but not since then. It would have to be updated. Jaime Ramsey commented that he felt that the owner of the property can request zoning changes through Washington County. Mr. Bewersdorff stated it is zoned and planned by Washington County. It would have to go to the Washington County Planning Commission Board for approval. The property owner would have to petition to have to change it. Commissioner Patrick Carroll asked why the original zone designation was changed initially, yet we are not the controlling agency. Mr. Bewersdorff stated we have control of land use applications and processing of building permits. Washington County held the developing of comprehensive planning and policy issues. They could not gave that away to us. They gave us the opportunity to review developments and control building permits. Commissioner Buehner asked if it was anticipated that the county would look into a down-zoning application in a positive way. Mr. Bewersdorff indicated it was hard to say. They have density requirements that must be maintained. Bill Schederich commented that no property has to be developed just because it's zoned for housing. It could just be left in grass. Rezoning it would be an extreme measure. Margaret Rollo asked what the original appraised value was. $287,000 is the amount it was appraised at and $350,000 is what was paid. Commissioner Schederich stated it would be appropriate for staff to acquire a free estimate of it's worth from a real estate agent, not an appraisal. Jan Drangsholt repeated that it is water system money. The water system has been in trouble since Portland started charging double. Jaime Ramsey asked if the board was in favor of getting the zone changed. Commissioner Buehner stated in her opinion as a land use lawyer in this county she thought the chances of getting it down zoned were slim to none. Commissioner Schederich questioned the present status of placing the property on the market. Mr. Wegner responded that the minor land partition process to cut out the easement is all that has been started. That has been appealed by this neighborhood group. That hearing is July 24, 2000, with the City of Tigard. Commissioner Schederich suggested this be discussed further next month after the hearing on the MLP is decided. He requested staff get a real estate market estimation of the value of the property based on present zoning. Chris Farmer asked if there was anything as a community that can be done to contain Portland. Since we have no water rights we are at their mercy. Intergovernmental Water Board 5 July 12,2000 S. IGA Restructuring—Ed Wegner/Tim Ramis Mr. Wegner stated that at the May meeting he was asked to contact the City Attorney's office and look at various ways to restructure the Intergovernmental Agreement between the four agencies as to how a vote could take place based on the September election from the Citizens for Safe Water requiring a charter amendment for the City of Tigard. Mr. Tim Ramis sent a letter dated May 31, 2000, and spoke to the City Council in open session last night and presented options. The time was turned over to Mr. Ramis. Mr. Ramis began to present his thoughts on voting relating to the structure of the IGA. ■ Voting Each individual jurisdiction is required to vote as a separate entity. Jan Drangsholt questioned why it is different than a park district or school district that taxes. Mr. Ramis explained that IWB is operating as a group of separate governments through an IGA and decided to work together. It's not one unit of government. Commissioner Norm Penner interjected that it could have voted as a unit when it was the TWD. Mr. Ramis responded that even if IWB was a district it wouldn't change the outcome with respect to Tigard's situation because it is a separate unit of government that is restricted by the charter. An alternative would be for Tigard to opt out as identified in the memo. Voting on source by individual voters is an advisory vote. This is an administrative decision and cannot bind elected officials unless there is a charter provision. The view is that each city's attorney should review on a case by case basis to see if they agree. ■ Options for Restructuring the IGA The relationships within the jurisdictions can change for greater influence in governing decisions over source. The water supply contract currently needs three out of four jurisdictions for the water supply contract. Choosing source, however, this body advises but does not control the decision for source. Language can be changed to the agreement. It could state that unanimous vote is required before making a decision on source, or it could say that any jurisdiction can proceed on its own with respect to source, or three votes required. Tigard wants to remain a partner in this group and does not want to go back to a district situation. Other entities can make proposals. Intergovernmental Water Board 6 July 12,2000 Commissioner Hunt suggested to Commissioner Penner that the other entities get together to make suggested changes to the agreement. The City of Tigard is not in a position to redraft the contract that everyone else will agree with. Commissioner Hunt would personally welcome a draft of an IGA and then discuss where we agree and where we don't agree. The current IGA expires in 2018 with ten year good faith notice. Jan Drangsholt said all three entities, other than Tigard, all voted to go to the Willamette River for water. According to the contract, Tigard would have to go with IWB. The agreement was broken, but is not enforceable. Commissioner Schederich asked where negotiations stood with Portland for a successful long term contract. Mr. Wegner informed the board that there is to be a meeting July 26, but the contract is still not ready. The City of Tigard's contract with Portland expires in 2007, others expire in 2003. TVWD expires in 2003 or 2004. Commissioner Buehner commented as the President of the CPO regarding the letter she submitted. The point of the letter was to convey to the City of Tigard and the IWB the feeling of upset and concern about being betrayed and disenfranchised by the way the agreement is set. The CPO represents the King City incorporated and unincorporated area, which is a large chunk of the Tigard Water District. She has met with Paul Hunt in the past; members of the TWD are working on suggested changes to the agreement. She has a strong concern for the people who feel entirely powerless in this situation and are being controlled and manipulated by the City of Tigard. That is the perception that is out there. Now speaking in her capacity as Commissioner to the TWD she further expresses concern. Specific references in her letter that says the City of Tigard has no obligation to provide water services to any area beyond the current district as it existed in 1993. Tremendous expansions are being faced in the district with the new areas coming into the UGB. This needs to be fixed. There are significant problems that should be addressed by the City of Tigard. She does not feel it should be the responsibility of the volunteers who don't have the paid staff that the city does to come up with the entire agreement. There will be some good changes, but there are some serious problems if you look at the agreement carefully. Mr. Ramis stated he did not think Paul Hunt was saying that someone else should draft an agreement on all issues. But with respect to the structure of the relationship between the entities, Tigard does not want to be in a position of suggesting to other jurisdictions what the relationship might be to the extent that their ideas about changing the relationship should come from the other jurisdictions. The technical issues about the area served is logically something Tigard would take on. Tigard Council, who did not favor what happened, shares frustration. Through our system of government, concerns and frustrations can be brought before Council for resolution. Commissioner Buehner stated she spoke with Mr. Ramis about some of the technical changes over six months ago and asked him to look at them. Mr. Ramis stated he is a Intergovernmental Water Board 7 July 12,2000 lawyer, not the administrator. Commissioner Buehner remarked that she knows he is not the administrator, but asked him to follow up and has asked the Council as well. Mr. Ramis stated it was legitimate to ask the staff of the city to deal with it. Commissioner Penner commented that the TWD has been looking at the agreement and has worked on some revisions. He asked what mechanism is necessary to deal with presenting those suggestions with the other entities. Commissioner Schederich suggested a presentation be made to the councils of the other entities. Commissioner Drangsholt thought a working draft should be presented to the other councils and suggestions made from that. Commissioner Penner will be meeting with the other entities to discuss the IGA. 6. Integrated Water Resource Management Strategy—Ed Wegner Mr. Wegner distributed two sets of documents for discussion. Discussions with the JWC, which consists of Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tualatin Valley and Forest Grove, have included the raising of Hagg Lake. Integrated Water Resources Management Group — comprised of members of the JWC, Lake Oswego Corporation that operates the lake (not the City of Lake Oswego), Tualatin Valley Irrigation, Unified Sewage Agency, and Washington County. This group is interested in an integrated management program to work in the basin of the Tualatin River water shed. They have a vision to manage water resources for the greatest collective benefit. They meet monthly to discuss municipal and industrial, agricultural needs of the irrigation district and the in-stream flows. The question is when to get the source for all their needs. In January 1999 they commissioned a study by Montgomery Watson to talk about raising Hagg Lake. The study is a preliminary investigation to identify potential fatal flaws and to give some kind of a cost estimate. The evaluation has not identified any fatal flaws or obstacles that would prevent the project based on engineering and operational considerations. It compares a 20-foot raise and 40-foot raise to the dam. It identifies the permits (according to 1999 regulations, which have changed during the last year). The study identified the following costs for additional storage: 20-foot raise = $62m provide an additional 26,600 acre feet of storage 40-foot raise = $112m provide an additional 50,600 acre feet or storage There were no geotechnical issues. Permitting would be necessary and would go through the Corp of Engineers. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the dam; they have seen the study and have funds budgeted to take the next step in the phase of the study. This is not included in the cost allocation that was provided. The JWC has asked us to participate in the meetings with the Integrated Water Resources Management Group. Intergovernmental Water Board 8 July 12,2000 Commissioner Schederich asked when the next installment of the feasibility study could be expected. Mr. Wegner indicated that USA is the managing partner of this study and they are commissioning an update. Montgomery Watson is doing the update and it is expected by year-end. Commissioner Buehner asked for clarification on the costs that the JWC presentation made earlier this year. Mr. Wegner stated that those figures did not include raising the dam. Commissioner Schederich asked when IWB could expect an update on the JWC progress status. Mr. Wegner indicated that he and Bill Monahan have attended several meetings and have another meeting on Friday. Within the next few weeks there should be serious indications of them seriously looking at including us into the JWC as a potential member with a buy-back clause. Commissioner Buehner requested an update on the South Fork meetings. Mr. Wegner reported that those discussions have slowed down a lot. There has not been a meeting in several months. There is a question on water rights and ownership. Clackamas will be a fishing river. A consultant told him the corps said that Tigard should be down on the Willamette, not on the Clackamas River. There have been a few staff meetings, but things have slowed down somewhat. The elected officials meeting is not scheduled until the end of September. The Portland meeting is on July 36. Portland's previously scheduled meetings have not taken place, but have been pushed back again and again. The rate increase of 3% went into effect July 1, 2000. The SCD charge will be going to the City Council in August. 7. Informs NOfia/Items Informational packets were distributed and briefly explained by Mr. Wegner. —► City of Sherwood Resolution Oregonian article Portland summer water augmentation Wilsonville/Tualatin Valley agreement article and how it effects the WWSA -� Memo regarding WWSA Consortium Board Meeting Minutes -� Memo from Bill Monahan regarding letter to editor article Mike Miller commented on Portland's peak event for the summer. Looking at the forecast they are going with the median for draw down in June. We are currently in peak season and they are looking at October for a refill date. Looking at a warmer, dryer summer this year. City of Tigard peak water usage has been 12.79, 12.69, and 12.75. Intergovernmental Water Board 9 July 12,2000 Portland will begin using the wells and will draw water from Bull Run Lake. Commissioner Drangsholt asked about Sherwood getting water from Tualatin Valley. She thought they got their water from Portland. Mr. Wegner stated that they do get about two-thirds of their water from Portland Water. TVWD will take more water from the JWC. 8. Publl c Comments—No further comments 9. Non Agenda Items 10. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2000. Commissioner Hunt motioned for adjournment of the meeting. The vote was unanimously approved for dismissal. Intergovernmental Water Board 10 July 12,2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Intergovernmental Water Board FROM: Ed Wegner G/ RE: Clute Property Appeal DATE: August 8, 2000 On July 24, 2000, the City of Tigard's Hearing Officer held a public hearing on the appeal of the City of Tigard partition at 154th Avenue. The same neighbors that addressed you last month represented the appellants and sited the same issues. I represented the applicant, as Mike Miller was on vacation. At the end of the hearing, the Hearing Officer kept the record open for one week for the appellant to submit in writing additional information, then another week for the applicant to reply. Attached you will find copies of each document. The Hearing Officer will make his decision within the next two weeks. We will keep you informed as to his decision and the next steps if the neighbors decide to proceed with further appeals. MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Epstein, Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Michael Miller, Utility Manager RE: Response to Appeal Testimony on City of Tigard Partition, Casefile No.: MLP2000-00003. DATE: August 7, 2000 On July 24, 2000, a hearing was conducted on the decision to approve the request to partition a 1.74-acre lot into two parcels. After the hearing was conducted the appellant filed additional testimony contained in the original decision. The following is a summary of the issues raised by the appellant and the staffs response. Appellant's Statement: Knowing that the subject site is being developed and the intended use is being changed ask the Hearings Officer to carefully and thoughtfully consider the following: • The neighborhood and the City of Tigard will have no control over who will visit this large open space. The trailhead must be developed in accordance with the Community Development Code including adequate public facilities. Off-street parking for not less than ten cars with ample room for maneuvering is appropriate. The Director's Decision must be amended to require off-street parking. Applicant's Response: The applicant is not requesting to develop the site. We are only requesting a minor land partition which will enable us to dispose of surplus property that is not necessary for the operation of the water system. The intended use of the property is not being changed, it is and continues to be zoned R-25. Off-street parking is not required for a minor land partition nor is the requirement of a pedestrian trail. The six-foot wide nature path dedication to the City of Tigard is for a soft trail. Its intended purpose was to allow the neighborhood of Round Tree Estates the ability to access the undeveloped portion of the Menlor Reservoir site, which is already laced with soft, natural trails, and to access the Cache Creek open space. The proposed trail on the partition would have chips as the wearing surface, as opposed to the natural dirt trails that already existing on the Menlor site. It is a connecting trail and not a "trailhead" in the sense of a National Park or Regional Park such as Forest Park in the West Hills. Soft trails are paths utilizing wood and brush chippings as the material Response to Appeal Testimony on City of Tigard Page 1 of 5 Partition, Casefile No.: MLP2000-00003 for the path surface. Soft trials are intended for pedestrian foot traffic only and not, bicycles or motorized equipment. Appellant's Statement: The proposed nature path right-of-way is too narrow. The right-of-way must be no less than 25 feet wide. This will allow 15 feet for the nature trail and 10 feet for screening and buffering from parking and possible future development. Applicant's Response: The proposed nature path is not included on any City Capital Improvement Plan and is outside the City of Tigard boundary. The proposed six foot wide corridor along the proposed partition property line, for future use as access to.a City owned pathway located on Tax Lot 400, allows access to adjoining open space not related to street connections. Although not required as part of the minor land partition, this satisfies Section 18.810.040.6.2 of the Community Development Code. After reviewing additional criteria for minimum widths, Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within a roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane and eight feet for two-way bikeways when separated from the road. Again, the applicant is proposing an access to a pedestrian trail and not a bikeway. Therefor this section of the Development code is not applicable. Appellant's Statement: The Director's Decision must be conditioned to require the Final Plat to include adequate public rights-of-way to serve as the nature path and trailhead; and, the Applicant must improve the nature trail and public facilities. Applicant's Response: Again, the proposed nature trail is a simple walking path, with a wearing surface of chipped wood and brush, so that the neighborhood can have access to additional open space. Construction of public facilities is not required of the nature trail and is not a requirement of the minor land partition. Appellant's Statement: As stated in oral and written testimony previously submitted, a storm drainage system exists along the entire northern property line of the proposed larger parcel. During the week of July 24, 2000, the owner of the subject site cleared brush and trees from the drainageway. Section 18.810.100.13 requires the dedication of a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way when a development is traversed by such a watercourse, drainageway or channel. The Director's Decision must be amended to recognize a 15- foot easement for the existing storm drainage system along the northern property line of the subject property. Applicant's Response: An easement created by instrument, dated September 30, 1994, Recorded October 31, 1994, Recorder's fee No 94099912, in favor of Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County for a storm drainage across the northern 15 feet of the property is Response to Appeal Testimony on City of Tigard Page 2 of 5 Partition, Casefile No.: MLP2000-00003 already in place. Yes, the drainage swale was overgrown and City crews removed brush and some saplings from the swale. To the applicant's knowledge, the City has never received a complaint about drainage problems in this area and was unaware of the existence of the drainage swale due to the area being overgrown with brush and blackberries. Appellant's Statement: City improvement standards do not appear to have been enforced when 154th Avenue street extension was built. The Decision must be amended to include a wider right-of- way or a slope easement on the east side of the street extension. Applicant's Response: The proposed partition exceeds minimum requirements for the partitioned piece. As per City Engineer's statements in the appeal, "the width of the right-of-way (ROW) is not set by topographical constraints adjacent to a roadway. It is agreed that there is a slope to contend with, and it will have to be addressed when the applicant submits construction plans for the roadway extension. This is no different than any other project. Likely, the City will need to establish a slope easement on the east side of the roadway to cover the graded slope that will exist behind the ROW." SW 154th Avenue is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan map. At present there is approximately 38.feet of ROW on SW 154"' Avenue north of this site. Washington County approved the narrow ROW as part of the Round Tree Estates project. Since the narrow ROW is an existing condition, it does not make sense to require a wider ROW on this parcel. We are proposing to extend SW 154th Avenue partially onto the site in order to provide a standard driveway approach to give access through the smaller parcel to Tax Lot 400 (Mentor Reservoir Site). The extension is shown to be built to City standards to match existing improvements. The purpose of the partition is to break off the larger parcel and establish a smaller parcel to access the Menlor reservoir. Additional street improvements, beyond the scope for the proposed minor land partition, will be constructed when or if development of the property occurs. Appellant's Statement: The Director's proposed deed restrictions including Sensitive Lands Review prior to tree removal on slopes greater than 25% is meaningless and redundant since Sensitive Lands review is required by code. I believe it is the Director's intent to protect Sensitive Lands and trees. The Director's Decision must be changed to require the creation of a Conservation easement prohibiting development on slopes greater than 25% on the subject site. As sited in previous submitted testimony this would best protect the Sensitive Lands, wildlife habitat and trees while buffering wildlife habitat from future development and providing a wildlife corridor connecting the Conservation Easement in Response to Appeal Testimony on City of Tigard Page 3 of 5 Partition, Casefile No.: MLP2000-00003 the Morningside Subdivision and the Menlor Water Reservoir site (tax lot, 2S105131300400). Applicant's Response: Staff cannot find anything in the code that requires this. Again the application is only for a minor land partition. Appellant's Statement: To assure primary residential development with compatible non-residential development at appropriate locations and at appropriate scale (Section 18.510.010.A) the Director's Decision must be conditioned to limit, through deed restrictions, all future development on the subject site to single-family detached housing. This will maintain the integrity of adjacent Conservation Easements, open spaces and wildlife habitat while protecting livability for existing and future neighborhoods. High-density, multi-family development is not appropriate on the subject site. Applicant's Response: Again, this request is only for a minor land partition. The Water Section is not in the business of developing properties for uses other than for water related functions. If, in 1997, we were able to purchase only the proposed smaller portion (0.39-acre parcel) for access to the Menlor reservoir, we would have done so. However, the property owner at that time did not want to partition the property. The proposed 1.35 acre parcel is surplus and the Water Section can better utilize the proceeds from the sell of the remaining parcel (1.35 acre) to purchase another property further to the south of the Menlor Reservoir site for a new 2.5 million gallon reservoir with an overflow elevation of 550 feet above Mean Sea Level. The property is currently zoned R-25, which does allow for 13-25 residences per acre. Multi-family development is allowed in the zone. Any restriction placed upon the property cannot hinder what the zone currently allows. It is very interesting that the Appellant only wants to see single-family detached housing placed on the property when it develops. Perhaps the Appellant does not realize that single-family attached. housing exists within Round Tree Estates in the form of duplexes. The Applicant does not have a crystal ball and cannot foretell the future of the proposed 1.35-acre parcel. The existing house has three bedrooms and two full baths. It needs some fresh paint, updating of the kitchen, landscaping and new garage. Due to the size of the proposed parcel and location, someone might be interested in just purchasing it for their own mini estate. The following page shows examples of existing soft trails and a paved neighborhood trail within the City of Tigard. Other than the paved City street, there are not any additional public improvements and no off-street parking. Response to Appeal Testimony on City of Tigard Page 4 of 5 Partition, Casefile No.: MLP2000-00003 Photo of soft trail on SW Fairview Ct Looking from soft trail to SW Fairview Ct. l Soft trail on SW 118th Ct. Paved neighborhood trail on SW Riverwood Lane I�! Soft trail between two homes on SW Riverwood Lane Attachments: Preliminary Title Report, dated January 9, 1997 (storm easement) Response to Appeal Testimony on City of Tigard Page 5 of 5 Partition, Casefile No.: MLP2000-00003 TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 12360 East Burnside Box 16016 Portland, Oregon 97216 Transnation (503) 256-1160 FAX (503) 254-3865 Right-of-Way Associates, Inc Attn: SUSAN ANDERSON 10186 SW Laurel St. Beaverton, OR 97005 2cc 02-41-00 PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT Dated January 09, 1997 Parties CLUTE, Sandra Title Officer Kim Wyylie Prop. Add: 13230 SW 154th Ave Title Number W162413T Ref: Portland, OR 97223 �. ALTA Owners Std. . Coverage $1,000.00 Premium: $ 175.00 A consolidated statement of all charges, credits, and advances, if any, in connection with this order will be provided at closing. Effective January 2, 1997 at 8:00 A.M. , title to the land described herein is i vested in: SANDRA F. CLUTE DESCRIPTION: d in Section 5 Township 1 West, of the Willamette A tract of Ian p 2 South Range e Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe on the North and South centerline of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, said iron pipe being North 00 48' East 1897.04 feet from the South one-quarter corner of said Section 5; running thence from said beginning point South 890 12' East 337.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 00 48' East 225 feet to a point; thence North 891 12' West 312 feet, more or less, to a point 25 feet East of the North-South centerline of said Section 5; thence North 0 48 East parallel with said North-South centerline 764 feet, more or less, to a point 25 feet South of the South right of way line of Scholls Ferry Road (County Road No. 812); thence Northeasterly to a point on the South right of way line of Scholls Ferry Road which is 50 feet East of the North-South centerline of Section 5; thence Westerly along said South right of way line 50 feet to the North-South centerline of Section 5; thence South 01 48' West 989 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to Tom Miller Builder, Inc., an Oregon corporation, by Bargain and Sale Deed recorded April 17, 1995 under Recorder's Fee No. 95026309. January 09. 1997 2 W162413T We are prepared to issue title insurance in the form and amount shown above subject to the usual printed conditions, stipulations and exclusions from coverage appearing in such policy form and to exceptions as shown herein. This report is preliminary to the issuance of a policy of title insurance and shall become null and void unless a policy is issued, and the full premium therefore paid. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real pro erty or by the public record: proceedings by a public agency which may resul in taxes or assessments. or notices of such proceedings. whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements. or claims of easement. not shown by the public records, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. water rights. claims or title to water. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services. labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area. encroachments or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose.. 6. Regulations, including the power to acquire rights of ways and easements. and to levy assessments of the Unified Sewerage Agency. (No liens as of January 2, 1996. ) 7. The rights of the public in and to thatportion of the herein described property lying within the limits of roads and highways. 8. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof, Dated : May 25. 1950 Recorded . June 5. 1950 Book : 307 Page : 503 In favor of : Utilities For : West Coast Telephone Company Location : Not shown 9. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof. Dated Sy instrument, 30, 1994 Recorded Ocmer 31. 1994 Recorder's Fee No. : 94099912 In favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County For Storm drainage Location The North 15 feet January 09. 1997 3 W162413T 10. An easement createdby instrument. including the terms and provisions thereof. Dated Se tember 30, 1994 Recorded OMber 31. 1994 Recorder's Fee No. : 94099913 In favor of Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County For Sanitary sewer Location 15 by 15 feet along the Northerly boundary 11. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof, Dated June 23, 1995 Recorded April 1, 1996 Recorder's Fee No. : 96028265 In favor of City of Tigard For Public utilities and water line Location 15 feet along the West and a portion of the North boundary NOTE 1: Assessed value for the 1996-97 tax year: . Land $ 58,880.00 ' Imrovements $ 91,520.00 ToM $150.400.00 NOTE 2: Taxes paid in full for the year 1996-97 Total Amount $1.751.97 Levy Code 051.78 Account No. 2S1 5DB 00600 Key No. R481758 END OF REPORT DSik TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, your number one title company in the Portland Metro Area, would like to thank you for our success. We continue to strive to meet your title needs. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. i Sincerely, i Kim Wylie i January 09, 1997 4 W162413T 1: APPEAL TESTIMONY: DECISION MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2000-00003, City of Tigard, , APPEALED: Partition @ 1540' Avenue; Notice of Decision Issued June 2, 2000; Public Hearing July 24, 2000 FROM: Jaime C. Ramsey RECEIVED 15367 SW Fir Tree Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 JUL 31 2000 Hm: (503) 590-3318 Wk: (503) 625-2560 x.417 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT e-mail: ramsev@teleport.com DATE: July 31, 2000 K TO: Larry Epstein, Tigard Hearings Officer On June 2, 2000, the Director approved the proposed partition of the Clute Property in which the Applicant proposed to partition the subject site into two parcels and to dedicate two public rights-of-way. The neighborhood and I have followed development on the subject site for the past five years through public meetings and constant contact with city staff. The Nature Trail is Part of the Application During public meetings the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District committed to building a nature trail establishing access to public open spaces located to the south. The Applicant's Statement and Narrative included the nature trail (Exhibit J, pages 1 & 2), the Director's Decision referenced the nature trail (Exhibit K, pages 11 & 12), and Ed Wegner's testimony on July 24, 2000, confirmed that the nature trail is part of the application. Issues Knowing that the subject site is being developed and the intended use is being changed I ask the Hearings Officer to carefully and thoughtfully consider the following: • The neighborhood understands that the City intends to provide a trailhead for the immediate neighborhood and is very thankful. We have offered to help build, improve and maintain the trail system.. However, the neighborhood and the City of Tigard will have no control over who will visit this large open spaEe. The trailhead must be developed in accordance with the Community Development Code including adequate public facilities. Off-street parking for not less than ten cars with ample room for maneuvering is appropriate. The Director's Decision must be amended to require off-street parking. • The proposed nature path right-of-way is too narrow. The right-of-way must be no less than 25 feet wide. This will allow 15 feet for the nature trail and 10 feet for screening and buffering from parking and possible future development. Appeal Testimony Jaime C. Ramsey Page 1 of 2 ' APPEAL TESTIMONY: • The Director's Decision must be conditioned to require the Final Plat to include adequate public rights-of-way to serve as the nature path and trailhead; and, the Applicant must improve the nature trail and public facilities. • As stated in oral and written testimony previously submitted, a storm drainage system exists along the entire northern property line of the proposed larger parcel. During the week of July 24th, 2000, the owner of the subject site cleared brush and trees from this drainageway. Section 18.810.100.6 requires the dedication of a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way when a development is traversed by such a watercourse, drainageway or channel. The Director's Decision must be amended to recognize a 15-foot easement for the existing storm drainage system along the northern property line of the subject site. • City improvement standards do not appear to have been enforced when the 154`h Avenue street extension was built. The Decision must be amended to include a wider right-of-way or a slope easement on the east side of the street extension. • The Director's proposed deed restrictions including Sensitive Lands Review prior to tree removal on slopes greater than 25% is meaningless and redundant since Sensitive Lands review is required by code. I believe it is the Director's intent to protect Sensitive Lands and trees. The Director's Decision must be changed to require the creation of a Conservation Easement prohibiting development on slopes greater than 25% on the subject site. As sited in previous submitted testimony this would best protect Sensitive Lands,wildlife habitat and trees while buffering wildlife habitat from future development and providing a wildlife corridor connecting the Conservation Easement in the Morningside Subdivision and the Menlor Water Reservoir site (tax lot 2S105DB00400). To assure primary residential development with compatible non-residential development at appropriate locations and at appropriate scale (Section 18.510.010.A) the Director's Decision must be conditioned to limit, through deed restrictions, all future development on the subject site to single-family detached housing. This will maintain the integrity of adjacent Conservation Easements, open spaces and wildlife habitat while protecting livability for existing and future neighborhoods. High-density, multi-family development is not appropriate on the subject site. Because the neighborhood has no assurance that the subject site will be further developed in the future; these issues must be resolved now. I respectfully ask the Hearings Officer to strengthen the Director's Decision as outlined above and sited in previously submitted testimony. Respectfully, Jaime Ramsey Attachments: Exhibit J —Applicant's Statement and Narrative Exhibit K— Director's Decision Appeal Testimony Jaime C. Ramsey Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager Tigard City Council Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Regional Consortium Transmission Strategy DATE: August 7, 2000 The Transmission and Storage Strategy was approved by the Regional Consortium at the June 7, 2000, Board Meeting. An Executive Summary is attached for your review. The primary emphasis of the strategy is emergency inter-connections for systems without them, but does not preclude longer term connections for areas that need them. On page ES-18 a paragraph addresses Tigard's continued search for a long term water source and how the three options we are exploring (i.e., Portland, JWD and Clackamas) might effect the Regional System. No Willamette River source is referenced in the strategy for the City of Wilsonville. According to Lorna Stickel, Consortium staff, the connection from Wilsonville to the north is a decision to be made in the future. The Technical Sub-Committee (I am a member) will develop implementation aspects of regional actions on the strategy. Aspects of the Transmission Strategy will be incorporated in the next update of the Regional Water Supply Plan. Cc: Mike Miller Norm Penner Attachments a PSP Hi sboro Portland ,A. 5e Y 2ver --GTenY. -r �o - �! Ts Milwauk.e 0 lake swego t��r Tgord E� •� King ,, � Gladstone f G G Cit .,ha Clock Sandy omos v--��7 T�olot�n TI rr T—Win Sherwood l'P- Tr -�West Linn �• M Oregon 1 City 6 `P Wilsonville wTf C O Canby /n Ri ew \ f t L Regional Water Providers Consortium Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Final Report July, 2000 Q MONTGOMERY WATSON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Regional Water Provider's Consortium (Consortium) is seeking to develop a Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy (RTSS). This Strategy is an outgrowth of the regional cooperation that began with the development of the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) and continues with the work of the Consortium. The purpose of this Strategy is to develop short and long-term visions for regional transmission and storage, and to identify the institutional arrangements that can facilitate these visions. The Consortium determined at the outset of this process that the Strategy should identify ways that future planning could complement and integrate water supply improvements that are already happening in the region. The RTSS should also provide the information that water suppliers need in order to make informed decisions about future transmission and storage projects. The Strategy was developed in coordination with the Consortium Technical Subcommittee (CTSC), and the Consortium Technical Committee (CTC). These groups provided regular input and direction for the development of this project. In addition, review, comment, and direction on work elements was received from the Consortium Board. Public and stakeholder input was received in two open houses held over the course of the project. Montgomery Watson was selected to prepare the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy by the Regional Water Providers Consortium in response to a request for proposals. A contract authorizing this work was signed and dated June 14, 1999. Major subconsultants for this work were Murray, Smith & Associates (MSA), Financial Solutions Consulting Group (FSCG), and Gary Fiske and Associates (GFA). A number of other consultants with experience in local regional planning acted as advisors and reviewers of work products on the project. PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS One of the most critical variables in determining the requirements for water infrastructure development are the water demands that must be satisfied. The Portland region as a whole developed a regional forecast of future water demands when it developed the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) in 1996. Subsequent to the RWSP, a number of water systems continued to modify and develop their own water demand forecasts. Some of these forecasts were prepared as part of developing Water Master Plans to fulfill the requirements of the Oregon Health Division for water system planning. Other forecasts were developed to better represent the ongoing changes in water consumption and the impacts of conservation that have been observed since the RWSP forecast was prepared. Regional Wlater Providers Consortium tale ES Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Developmeni Project Report Executive Summary For this project, water demand information was provided by the member agencies of the Consortium. Because the demand numbers were obtained from a variety of different sources, they arc not consistent with respect to the assumptions that are inherent in the forecast from each water provider, and comparisons in forecasts between water systems should be made carefully The current water demands for peak day and average day consumption, as well as projected demands to the years 2020 and 2050, are shown in Table ES-1. The source of the demand information for each water provider is also indicated in Table ES-1. "fable ES-1 shows a total projected year 2020 peak day demand for the region of about 550 MGD. This rises to 660 MGD by the year 2050. The total projected regional average day demand in the year 2020 is about 260 MGD. This rises to about 315 MGD by the year 2050. EXISTING SUPPLY, TRANSMISSION AND S'T'ORAGE FOR THE REGION The metropolitan region is currently supplied, or will soon be supplied, by six major sources of water. Major sources are defined as those with a capacity of 10 mgd or greater. These major sources are: • Portland's Bull Run supply • Portland's Columbia South Shore Well Field • The Joint Water Commission QWC) Water Treatment Plant utilizing the Trask/Tualatin system • The Clackamas River utilized by four water suppliers • The Willamette River supply currently under design and construction • Local groundwater. Water in Portland's Bull Run watershed is stored in two main reservoirs with a total storage capacity of about 17 billion gallons. The Bull Run supply is then conveyed by gravity via three transmission pipelines (Conduits 2, 3 and 4) from the Headworks to a 50 MG reservoir on Powell Butte. Transmission capacity of the three conduits ranges from 205 to 210 mgd depending on hydraulic conditions. Portland's Columbia South Shore Well Field is located near the Columbia River between the Portland airport and Blue Lake Park. The firm emergency capacity of the Well Field is considered to be approximately 90 mgd. In addition to the transmission systems associated with these sources, the Portland system includes a major transmission pipeline from Powell Butte to eastern Washington County. The Joint Water Commission treats water withdrawn from the Tualatin River (including stored releases from Barney Reservoir and Hagg Lake) at a Water Treatment Plant in Forest Grove, and pumps it to the 20 MG Fernhill Reservoir. Regional Wlater Prnvzderr Consortium pine ES Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary Clackamas River Water (30 mgd), the South fork Water Board (20 mgd), the City of Lake Oswego (16 mgd) and North Clackamas County Water Commission (8.5 mgd) each have separate intakes and water treatment plants on the lower Clackamas River. F.ach facility has its own pumping, treatment, storage and transmission systems for delivery to its customers. The Willamette River is currently being developed as a new source by the City of Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water District. Other communities in southwest Washington County may also participate in the project. Anticipated initial capacity of the new water treatment plant is 10-15 mgd to serve Wilsonville, with an intake capacity of from 70 to 120 mgd. The initial project is scheduled to be completed in April 2002. Several water purveyors currently rely on groundwater as their primary source of supply. Some of these are the cities of Milwaukie, Wood Village, Fairview, Wilsonville and Sherwood and the Damascus Water District. Many other providers also rely on local groundwater for emergency backup or to meet peaking needs. The RWSP identified that most of these existing regional sources of supply have the potential of being expanded in the future should the need arise. Supply from the Bull Run could be expanded through construction of small raises of existing dams or through construction of Bull Run Dam No. 3. A new supply conduit (Conduit 5) could be built to accompany Dam No. 3, or as a replacement and addition to the existing three Bull Run conduits. The Portland Water Bureau also completed a Master Plan for the Powell Butte site that would allow the construction of up to three new 50 MG reservoirs at the same elevation as the existing Powell Butte Reservoir (530 feet) and a 20 MG reservoir at an elevation of 600 feet. Expansion of the reliable capacity of the Columbia South Shore wellfield could be accomplished through drilling additional wells and/or aquifer storage and recovery using the Bull Run source. Expansion up to 120 mgd is being investigated. The water treatment plant for the JWC Trask/Tualatin system is designed to be expanded to a 120 mgd peak day capacity and the planned future phases of the second transmission pipeline from that.source are sized to carry that capacity. The RWSP identified the Cooper Mountain area as a location for a future large (50 MG) storage reservoir-at approximately the same elevation as the 530 feet Powell Butte reservoirs. All four water suppliers using the Clackamas River as a source have the potential for expanding their water treatment, storage and transmission systems. The RWSP showed potential expansions of up to approximately 140 mgd from this source. Applications for additional water rights to expand the withdrawals from the Clackamas River further are currently in process. The RWSP also discussed a large storage reservoir (50 MG) along Forsythe Road on the south side of the Clackamas River. The existing water rights of Wilsonville and the Tualatin Valley Water District on the Regional Water Providers Consortium pale F..S 3 Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary Willamette River would support an ultimate 120 mgd capacity from this source. To utilize this water, transmission capacity would have to be built to the north, to the proposed Cooper Mountain Reservoir, to the City of"l'igard's 10 MG reservoir, or to other reservoir locations within the area served by the source. In the RWSP, the region was considered to essentially contain three main nodes — East, West and South. For purposes of this analysis, these primary demand nodes roughly correspond to Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties. The combined year 2050 peak day demands for these three nodes utilizing the demand numbers from Table ES-1 are shown in Table ES-2. Also shown in Table ES-2 are the major sources in those nodes and a rough approximation of their current or anticipated development capacities. As indicated in Table ES-2, each node is in approximate balance between demand and sources within the node to the year 2050, assuming that these sources are developed and utilized as planned over time. Currently, about half of the demand in the West node is served not by sources within that node, but by the Portland system. Table ES-2 Peak Day Demands by Node r EAST: Portland and Eastside 227 Bull Run 210 CoSS GW 92 WEST: Washington Co. 253 Tualatin/Trask 120 Willamette 120 SOUTH: Clackamas Co. 184 Clackamas 139 Every water provider should have the capability of obtaining an emergency source of water in case its primary source is unavailable for any reason. The capacity of this emergency source should meet average annual demand. This would provide water for typical domestic, commercial and industrial use even during the emergency. Other levels of emergency supply (such as minimum winter demands, seasonal demands, or some fraction of average annual demand) are possible and should be evaluated on a project-specific basis if desired. Most water providers in the region currently have access to some emergency backup supply, with some exceptions. Most of these exceptions would be eliminated if the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant and an interconnection between water treatment plants in the Regional Wlater Providers Consortium n lie I .S Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary Clackamas Basin were completed. Use of some of these emergency sources is based upon interties between water systems. The main existing internes that are currently active between water systems in the region that are not used routinely as water supply connections are: • CRW—PWB: 4 mgd • Milwaukie —PWB: 2 mgd (not active) • Milwaukie—CRW: 2 mgd • Milwaukie - Oak Lodge WD: 2 mgd (not active) • Lake Oswego—PWB: lmgd • Lake Oswego—West Linn (SFWB) —5 mgd • Beaverton- PWB: 2—4 mgd • Beaverton—TVWD —4 mgd • Beaverton—Tigard— 1-2 mgd • Tigard—Lake Oswego: 4- 8 mgd • Tigard—TVWD: 2 mgd Although most providers in the region have access to some emergency source of water, there are limitations on these emergency connections. In some cases, (such as for those providers on the Portland system), the capacity of the emergency source may not meet current annual average demands. For others, such as the suppliers in the Clackamas Basin, the emergency supply is simply another supplier using the Clackamas-River. Thus, if the Clackamas River is lost as a source for any reason, emergency supplies would not be available. ASR systems being developed in Portland, Washington County and Clackamas County will improve provide additional emergency supplies, and provide a resource similar to local groundwater. Regional WlalerProviders Consortium Wane F.S-> Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary Table ES-3 Annual Average Demands (Emergency Demands) by Node I i F f F !E EAST: Portland and 95 CoSS GW 92 Eastside WEST: Washington Co. 60 Local GW and 15 Surface Water SOUTH: Clackamas Co. 33 Local GW and 10 Surface Water An approach to strengthening emergency connections in the region would be to require that every water provider have access to both a primary source of supply that is one of the six major regional sources, and to a secondary source of supply that is another of the six major regional sources of supply. Table ES-3 summarizes how the region currently looks from this perspective on the general nodal basis. Table ES-3 shows that the emergency demand for the East Node is slightly greater than the existing capacity of the Columbia South Shore wellfield and both the West Node and South Node should consider improved emergency connections. EVALUATION CRITERIA There are a number of potential visions for regional transmission and storage. In order to select among these potential visions, criteria by which the options can be compared are needed. Several previous regional planning efforts have considered criteria for evaluating the options for regional water projects. These previous planning efforts were reviewed as a basis for identifying issues and developing the evaluation criteria for this project. From these past efforts, a draft list of criteria was developed. The criteria were reviewed by the Consortium Technical Subcommittee (CTSC) and the Consortium Technical Committee (CTC). Final draft versions of the criteria were reviewed by the Consortium Board. The final version of the key issues and evaluation criteria are given below. It is recognized that some of these goals may be mutually exclusive, and therefore, transmission and storage options may do better at satisfying some than they do others, or that compromises that Regional Wlater Providers Consortium pgge I S G Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary provide only partial benefits may be needed. Efficiency. Maximize the use of current supplies before developing new ones. "Weather-driven" reliability. Minimize future daily and seasonal shortages, including their magnitude, frequency, duration, and number of agencies affected, that result from existing supplies and infrastructure not being able to serve demands. Emergency reliability. Minimize future shortages, including their magnitude, frequency, duration, and the number of agencies affected, that result from unexpected failure of supplies or facilities due either to catastrophic events or other causes. Water quality. Meet regulatory drinking water standards for all water delivered to all providers. Maximize the ability of individual providers to choose the source(s) of delivered waters. Maximize consistency among providers and over time of delivered water quality. Minimize adverse water quality impacts within the transmission and storage system. Transmission and Storage Cost. Min m ze cost to the region of developing transmission and storage facilities. Maximize the perceived fairness of the manner in which costs are shared among the region's water providers. Source Cost. Minimize the cost of source development. Transmission and Storage Environmental Impact. Minimize adverse environmental impacts due to construction and long-term operation of the facilities. Maximize environmental benefits. Source Environmental Impact. Minimize adverse environmental impacts of source development. Maximize the environmental benefits. Regional operating flexibility. Maximize the ability to use water from various sources in order to meet demands throughout the region. Long-term system development. Minimize the foreclosure of long-term supply and infrastructure options due to near-term actions. Ability to meet immediate local needs. Minimize limitations on local agencies' abilities to meet their short-term needs. Legal/regulatory feasibility. Minimize legal and regulatory hurdles. Facilitate regional growth goals, standards, and requirements. Institutional/financial feasibility. Minimize the magnitude and difficulty of required institutional changes. Minimize the difficulty of reaching agreement on regional/local Regional Vater Providers Consortium Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary control issues. PRELIMINARY SCENARIOS Four basic scenarios were developed to represent a broad range of visions for regional transmission and storage. In addition to the four scenarios, a "base case" representing the existing situation was included for comparison purposes. Projected water demands to the year 2050 formed the basis for facility sizing under each scenario The transmission pipeline routes shown in this Executive Summary are considered to be the primary routes. Various alternative routings that can be considered are shown in the full Report. The scenarios are: Base Case: The Base Case includes not only the existing transmission system, but also several transmission facilities that various water providers in the region have already committed to building in the future. While some of these projects may not be constructed for a long time, they are nevertheless considered as "givens" from the point of view that planning for additional facilities should consider these facilities as if they were certain to happen. These projects include currently planned transmission improvements of a new 72- inch diameter line from the Joint Water Commission to the Tualatin Valley Water District, a new 96-inch diameter Conduit 5 for the City of Portland, a 60/54-inch diameter Willamette transmission line north from Wilsonville to Tualatin, and a 24-inch interconnection between some of the water treatment plants on the Clackamas River. Scenario 1 - Holistic. Scenario 1 reflects the concepts developed as part of the RWSP. This concept envisioned major regional water supply sources connected to regional storage facilities through a transmission system which allowed each local provider to ultimately use one or more of all of the supply sources to meet peak season and peak day demands. The model for this approach is the electrical power grid system, whereby a transmission network is established that allows various source generation facilities to be utilized by customers. It allows any potential excess capacity from any source within the region to be brought to where demand is needed. Major elements include a 96-inch diameter transmission main from Powell Butte to the Clackamas Basin area, a 60-inch diameter transmission main from Clackamas to Tualatin and transmission pipelines to carry 120 mgd of water north from a Willamette River water treatment plant in Wilsonville. This scenario also assumes that new regional storage reservoirs would be built in Washington and Clackamas Counties in order to smooth operation of the regional system. Estimated cost of this scenario is approximately $350 million. Scenario 2 - Emergency Interconnections. This scenario reflects a primary and emergency source approach where each local provider develops or selects its own primary water supply source from one of the regions six major sources. Each provider also Regional Wlater Providers Consortium Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary independently or jointly develops emergency average day demand backup supplies from a second, separate source that is another of the region's six major sources. The Powell Butte to Clackamas connection is built at a smaller diameter, 54-inch, than in Scenario 1, the Willamette transmission pipeline is only sized for 60 mgd, and the Clackamas to Tualatin pipeline is not constructed under this scenario. Estimated cost of this scenario is approximately $100 million. Scenario 3 - Zonal. Scenario 3 reflects the development and use of regional storage and transmission facilities to serve zonal supply sources developed to their maximum capacity. The regional transmission and storage facilities are sized to serve two specific geographic areas, east and west, from these sources. The east zone is served from the Portland and Clackamas River supplies and the west zone is served from the Joint Water Commission and Willamette River supplies. The dividing line between the east and west zones is the west slope of the West Hills that run south from Portland through Lake Oswego and West Linn. It allows for each of the major sources in each zone to be transmitted as needed within the zone and provides a small intertie between the zones. Estimated cost of this scenario is approximately $250 million. Scenario 4 - Subregional Interconnected. This scenario reflects the ultimate development of existing sources and supplies to serve expanding water demand needs. Included under this scenario is the further interconnection of City of Portland, Trask/Tualatin and Clackamas Rivers supplies as well as an east to west connection of existing Clackamas River supplies. It assumes that the Willamette source does not expand service beyond Wilsonville and perhaps Sherwood. Estimated cost of this scenario is approximately$200 million. INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL CONCEPTS Development of a regional transmission and storage strategy may require the creation or expansion of governance institutions, and can entail new financial commitments by the participating water providers. Selection of an appropriate institutional model and a sound financial structure are linked to the selection of a desired transmission/storage scenario. Some institutional and financial approaches are best suited to specific scenarios; others are relatively flexible and universally applicable to any favored scenario. Several different institutional models were reviewed for application to the regional transmission and storage scenarios that were considered in this project. The use of Intergovernmental Agreements was found to offer the greatest flexibility and opportunity for regional consensus building. This study also examined several financing instruments including volume charges, capacity charges, membership dues, buy-ins/buy-outs, regional SDCs, local SDCs, and capacity leasing. All of these options have the capability of being utilized in developing regional transmission and storage projects. The exact ones that are Regional Vater Prnviderr Consortium pale ES-9 Regional Transmisnon and Storage Strategy Development Prnject Report Executive Summary utilized should be selected as part of the Intergovernmental Agreements that are formed. EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS AGAINST THE PROJECT CRITERIA Each of the preliminary regional transmission and storage scenarios, including the Base Case, was considered against each of the evaluation criteria identified above. Rating of the scenarios against the criteria was qualitative, that is, numerical ratings were not assigned. Scenario ratings were reviewed by the CI'SC, the CTC and the Consortium Board. Some observations can be made about each scenario based on the evaluation. Scenario 1 - Holistic. This scenario consistently ranks highest for the criteria that relate to the benefits that the regional transmission system generates. These benefits are factors such as reliability, flexibility, efficiency, and the ability to take advantage of environmental benefits. At the same time, this scenario consistently ranks the lowest for criteria such as cost,legal and regulatory feasibility, and institutional and financial feasibility - all indications of how difficult it will be to actually build this vision of regional transmission. It also ranks lower on the ratings of implications for source development, because it creates an unconstrained market for source that could result in overbuilding of source facilities. Scenario 2 - Emergency Backup. This scenario provides moderate benefits in terms of improving regional reliability, but does not allow much benefit in terms of environmental enhancement or efficiency. However, it has the lowest cost of all the scenarios (except the Base Case) and would be the easiest to implement. Scenario 3 - Zonal. This scenario provides the same types of benefits as the Holistic scenario in terms of reliability, environmental impact, efficiency and flexibility, but not quite to the same level as the Holistic scenario (perhaps 80% of the benefits obtained in Scenario 1 are obtained in Scenario 3). However, the cost of Scenario 3 is only two-thirds the amount of Scenario 1 and it will be considerably easier to implement. Also, it is less likely to lead to overbuilding of sources, because supply and demands are more matched at the subregional level. Scenario 4 - Interconnected Subregional. This scenario has a cost that is a bit lower than Scenario 3 due to exclusion of storage reservoirs, but does not attain the same level of benefits for the region as Scenario 3. The main reason is that this scenario does not include any substantial development of the Willamette River as a supply. Because the Willamette is the surface source most resistant to drought of those involved, and because it is the least susceptible to impacts from the Endangered Species Act, having it as part of the regional mix adds flexibility and reliability that cannot be achieved without it. Scenario 4 also will be more difficult to implement than Scenario 3, although not as difficult as Scenario 1. Base Case. The Base Case does not achieve enhancements of reliability, efficiency, flexibility, or environmental benefit. Its cost is of course the lowest, and since it is the "do Regional Water Providers Consortium pale F S I 0 Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary nothing" alternative, it is the easiest to achieve. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND INVOLVEMENT AND CONSORTIUM INPUT Public information in the RTSS planning process has been provided directly via public information brochures, and indirectly via newspaper stories. Staff for the Consortium prepared an information brochure concerning the project and mailed it to a 3,800-name project mailing list. This mailing list included individuals that expressed interest in past regional water planning activities as well as environmental groups, large water users, regulatory agencies,water suppliers and others in the re '91 staff also provided on. Consort a briefing on the project to the City of Portland's Water Quality Advisory Committee. A number of articles concerning the project have also appeared in The Oregonian newspaper. The first Public Workshop on the project was held on November 9, 1999 at the Oregon Institute of Technology Conference Center in Milwaukie, Oregon. Approximately 20 people attended the Workshop. The Workshop covered the project evaluation criteria, scenarios and financial and institutional options. Comments received at the workshop indicated that participants were in agreement with the evaluation criteria that were being utilized. They also felt that the scenarios that were being proposed represented an adequately broad range of options for discussion. A second Public Workshop was held on April 3, 2000 at the offices of the Tualatin Valley Water District. As with the first workshop, the complete project mailing list was sent a notice of the meeting and a paid advertisement was placed in the Metro section of The Oregonian prior to the meeting. Again, approximately 20 people attended the Workshop. This Workshop reviewed the draft recommended plan. The substantive comments that were expressed in these forums by those who participated were: • Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) should be utilized more in the recommended plan. • The pipeline connecting Clackamas County to southwest Washington County should take the most southerly route option following Interstate-205 to more easily bring Clackamas River water to the Wilsonville area. • The Willamette River should not be considered as one of the major sources in the region that should be connected via regional transmission. • Further expansion of storage reservoirs in the Portland Bull Run supply should be included in the recommended plan over the next five years. One of the options for a pipeline from Clackamas County to the west that is shown in this Report is the route that follows the Interstate-205 corridor. However, this route was not the preferred route in the Regional Water Supply Plan, which investigated all the routing options in some detail, for several reasons that remain valid. Much of this route lies outside the Regional Wlater Providers Consortium gape Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary Urban Growth Boundary, raising land use questions. The route also traverses a relatively large area that would require pipeline installation in rock, which would raise the cost for the project by up to hventy percent. "Therefore, the primary route shown in this report is the route suggested in the Regional Water Supply plan. Based on the comments of the City of Wilsonville (see below), the Willamette River remains as one of the major sources in the region. However, if this source is not developed as currently planned by the City of Wilsonville, it would not impact the recommended Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy. A connection between Wilsonville and the north would still be required as shown in the Strategy, only to serve Wilsonville instead of to bring water from Wilsonville to the north. No additional detail on potential development of new reservoirs in the Bull Run watershed was included in the final report. Such development would be a source, not transmission or storage issue, and is therefore not part of the scope of this report. However, if such new reservoirs were to be constructed, the Strategy recommended in this report would be adequate to take advantage of this new source development. The Consortium Board has provided input and direction for the development of the draft RTSS. At the Board's September 1999 meeting, the evaluation criteria and scenarios were discussed. Modifications to the evaluation criteria were made to address Board comments. The Board commented that the range of scenarios being presented represented a good range of options for further evaluation. The December 1999 meeting of the Consortium Board considered the draft evaluation of the scenarios. Board members identified which of the policies represented by the evaluation criteria for the project were rated as "most important" for the RTSS. The criteria that Board members rated the criteria as most important were: • Emergency reliability • Water Quality • Cost Discussion at the meeting indicated that the Board members felt that the vision for the RTSS should not be constrained by issues of legal, regulatory and institution feasibility, short-term needs, or environmental issues. These concerns would be represented in the higher projected costs for some scenarios or could presumably be overcome with the appropriate level of effort. This was why those criteria did not rate higher. In the discussion of the scenario evaluations, Board members expressed three major points. These were: • Improved emergency interconnections (such as the Emergency Scenario 2) between and Regional Vater Providers Consortium cane E, Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary among water systems in the region are vital. These interconnections would improve regional reliability and improve access to emergency supplies of water when there were problems with an individual source or system. • The costs of a transmission system that allows very large quantities of water to be moved throughout the region (such as the Holistic Scenario 1) does not appear to justify' whatever added benefits this approach would achieve, compared to less ambitious regional interconnections. • The long-term network should be consistent with the decisions that commuruties make that are now looking for new sources of supply and should be phased and built from the nearer-term improvements. The uncertainty concerning which sources in the region will ultimately be utilized has a serious impact on any commitment to a large transmission system. The most appropriate transmission network might look different depending on the source that Tigard, Sherwood and others in southern Washington County that are looking for water, chose as their primary supply during the next few years. If the source for these communities becomes the Willamette River, then perhaps the Zonal Scenario (Scenario 3) would be most appropriate. But, if the Portland system or the Clackamas River becomes the source, Scenario 4 may be more appropriate. The RTSS should be phased in a manner that allows nearer-term improvements to be made to improve emergency interconnections, but then allows the longer-term network to be consistent with source decisions as they are made. These three key points become the primary drivers for the recommended Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy presented below. The Board also reviewed the draft recommended plan at its March 1, 2000 meeting. At this meeting the Board felt that the draft recommended plan represented the goals and desires of the Board and was a good strategy for the region. At the request of the Consortium Board, member agencies of the Consortium were asked to provide comments on the draft recommended Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy. Agencies were asked to respond to three specific questions: 1. Whether the agency agreed that the policy values shown in the draft Strategy were the most important. 2. Whether the agency agreed with the near and long term strategies identified in the draft report. 3. What changes the agency would recommend considering in the final Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy. Comments were received from eight Consortium member agencies. All of the agencies that commented supported the priorities of the policy values expressed in the Strategy. Most Regional Vater Providers Consortium aye s' Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary agencies emphasized the importance of improved reliability as the single most important policy value. All of the agencies that commented also supported the near and long term strategies in the recommended plan. A fexv of the agencies expressed concern that they will not benefit sufficiently from some of the specific recommended improvements to justify the costs of participating in them. They emphasized that as shown in the Strategy, project Participation would be on a voluntary basis using intergovernmental agreements among participants. Several agencies also provided detailed comments on the report and suggested technical clarifications. Among these detailed comments was the City of Wilsonville's input that, contrary to the public input at the April 3rd Workshop, the Willamette River should be considered as a source because the City of Wilsonville is developing this source. All the comments of Consortium members were evaluated and incorporated into the final report. REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE STRATEGY Based on all the above information, the recommended Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy is: Build interconnections between and among individual water systems within the region to increase the reliability of supply to individual communities and to the region as a whole. In the long-term, develop either a Zonal or Interconnected Subregional transmission and storage system, depending on the source(s) that the communities in southern Washington County that currently need water, develop for their primary supply. Develop these projects through intergovernmental agreements (IGA's) among those agencies which choose to participate in the individual projects. Specific elements of the Strategy should include: • Each community in the region should have access to both a primary supply and an adequate emergency source of water. • The primary supply should be one of the six major sources in the region (Bull Run River, Columbia South Shore Wellfield, Clackamas River, Trask/Tualatin River,Willamette River,local groundwater). • The emergency supply should be sized to meet at least the annual average demand of the community and should be a separate source from the primary supply. Preferably, the emergency source would be one of the six major sources in the region (Bull Run River, Columbia South Shore Wellfield, Clackamas River, Trask/Tualatin River,Willamette River, or local groundwater) that is not the Regional Fater Providers Consortium pine ES-14 Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executim Summary community's primary supply. • The sizing of interconnections between water systems should consider future potential peak season and peak day supply needs as well as emergency needs. The level of demand that should be met in an emergency (for example, 85 percent vs. 100 percent of average annual demand) should also be considered when sizing these interconnections. Sizing of each specific project should be reviewed and modified at the time the project is actually designed and constructed. Interconnections should also consider the effects of mixing source waters on blended water quality characteristics. • If a new,east-west transmission connection is made to connect Portland and Washington County, it should be via a route that also connects the Clackamas basin to this transmission line. • While the primary elevation for the transmission connections should be set based on the existing major storage reservoirs in the region (Portland's Powell Butte Reservoir at around 530' elevation and JWC's Fernwood Reservoir at around 520' elevation), not all of the transmission system flow need go to this elevation. Much of the service territory in the region can be served at elevations in the 450' to 490' range. Pumping costs from the river system water treatment plants can be reduced substantially if a portion of the flow goes to the lower elevations. Similarly, there are portions of the region that require higher elevations for service. As specific storage and transmission projects are designed and constructed, both these higher and lower elevation issues should be considered. Pipeline design, should be based upon the pressures of the 530' elevation at a minimum to reduce potential limitations in the utility of the transmission pipelines. • The timing for construction of each project in the Strategy should be determined through negotiations among the project participants that are interested in building the project. Costs should be allocated among participating agencies, and those agencies that do not participate should not be assessed-any costs for these projects. The benefits of putting this regional transmission strategy into place include: • Improved protection against loss of any water source for any reason. • Improved ability to bring available water supplies to communities that may need water. • Improved flexibility to respond to environment concerns in source waters. Regional Water Providers Consortium nage I,", Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary • Ability to utilize lower cost water sources in the winter when water is plentiful and to close higher cost sources during those periods. • Improved ability to utilize surface sources as part of aquifer storage and recover projects. The institutional model that is recommended for implementing the elements of the short- term strategy is Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA's) organized under ORS 190. This institutional arrangement offers the greatest array of options for developing detailed system guidelines. It allows relatively easy "evolution" to accommodate future changes in institutional scope or mission. It retains local representation and control while entering into the regional strategy. For each of the projects under RTSS, IGA's could be developed between the project participants to identify cost allocations, operating responsibilities and other obligations and requirements. There are several projects that are currently already in the adopted Capital Improvement Programs (CIP's) of various water providers in the region. These projects should be considered as consistent with and as components of, this recommended Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy. These projects are shown in Figure ES-1 and Table ES- 4, and include: • The second transmission line from the Joint Water Commission water treatment plant in Forest Grove that would connect to the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) and the transmission improvements in the TVWD system to bring this water to its storage reservoir. • The transmission line from the City of Wilsonville's new water treatment plant using the Willamette River as a source, north to its termination point. This termination point is currently assumed to be within the City of Wilsonville, but may extend further north depending on upcoming decisions of other communities. • An interconnection between the water treatment plants using the Clackamas River as a source. • The downstream portion of Bull Run Conduit 5. • A second reservoir on Powell Butte. Regional Wlater Providers Consortium pine Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary J. Vancouver S � - b;a 1 R'�ar Comas as \ 66' ''off Forest CP ove 8- ,2 Hl sboro Gr , J- RA ;2 — PB 11 Portland 44 Gresham Y'� a Beaverton50 54" w t - -- -45 60 CP R a 1��--cp" A\ — 1 R 2. 9\ qF r� R 2 ( ja -f RC7 6 p . 2^ ,a PAF ��, �: (RA 36 \�- R \ L PAF v- 36" tiJ 600' / PB PAF R °�I 1k PA 6O\ � 36- PAF Fake OswegoTiga _ KIng 60 King ,��\ Gladstone wr City ��D r \ L — ; r PAF wrr Tualatin — Sherwood wrr R 21- SO' I West L,nn ,)00 0 10000 20000 Ln pq Ci 24'0 G,ty < . EXISTING PROPOSED 0P Wilsonville .NT PUNT t SUPPLY rRJ F r Canby \ ,Zl Figure ES-1 FEBRUARY 2000 REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND CP �GP) ---- ���� STORAGE STRATEGY RECOMMENDED RECOMI+. ,".'CONAL -,.. ... ((( REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM FUTURE (Po - _ - PAF �� ©MowI wArsow POSSIEL. _ FUTURE — — — - - � tPaF; Table ES-4 RTSS Projects Projects in Planning JWC Supply II 72" JWC/TVWD Intertie 48" Willamette Supply 63/54" Clackamas WTP's Intertie 24" Conduit 5—Phase I 84" Powell Butte Reservoir II 50 MG Recommended Additional Projects Powell Butte / Clackamas 60" Basin Intertie JWC/WCSL Intertie 60" JWC/Willamette Intertie 60/54" Possible Other Projects Clackamas /Wash. Co 60" Intertie Conduit 5—Phase II 84" Conduit 5—Phase III 84" Cooper Mountain Reservoir 50 MG Powell Butte Reservoir III 50 MG Powell Butte 600' Reservoir 20 MG Regional Vater Providers Consortium pine ES-1 Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary Several other major projects are recommended for further exploration consistent with this strategy and are also shown in Figure ES-1 and Table ES-4. These are: • An ultertie between the Joint Water Commission and the Portland system. • An intertie between the Portland system and water sources in the Clackamas basin. • An intertie between the terminus of the Willamette transmission pipeline and the Joint Water Commission pipeline. Also shown in Table ES-4 are several possible other projects that depend on future decisions about the regional water supply network. The routes shown in Figure ES-1 are representative of the general corridor that the transmission pipeline would take. As discussed in Section S, there are multiple alternative routings for each pipeline. The specific routing for each pipeline should be determined through more detailed study of options and negotiations among those water providers participating in actual project construction. If the communities in southern Washington County that are currently looking for a long- term source of water (Tigard and Sherwood) decide to use either the Clackamas basin supplies or the Portland system, then a pipeline from the Clackamas basin to those communities should be constructed. If those communities decide to use the Willamette River as their source of supply, then the Willamette transmission pipeline should be sized larger and the connection to the JWC system completed earlier. If those communities decide to use the JWC source as their supply, then the JWC interties to the Portland and Willamette systems should be sized larger and these connections completed earlier. Other local connections or improvements in connections between individual water providers should also be undertaken as part of the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy. Examples of these may include: • Capacity increases of the existing intertie between Clackamas River Water and the Portland system, • Reactivation of an inactive connection between the Portland system and the Oak Lodge Water District, • Improved connections between Portland and Lake Oswego, and Portland and Milwaukie, and Regional Wlater Providers Consortium page ES-1 S Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary • A connection between Fairview, Wood Village and the Portland system. While these connections may not be of regional significance by themselves, the cumulative effect of the sum total of many of these improvements could be of regional significance. ASR projects are currently being developed in Portland, Washington County and Clackamas County systems to improve supply reliability. As the capabilities of these ASR systems become better known, they may impact the sizing and timing of some of the transmission and storage facilities recommended in the Strategy. Regional Wlater Providers Consortium page ES-19 Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Development Project Report Executive Summary Page 1 of 1 WWSA Managers, For your information, an initiative petition has been submitted to the Washington County Elections Division that would require voter approval before the Tualatin Valley Water District would be allowed to use the Willamette River as a drinking water source. Once the Washington County Elections "certifies" the petition, petitioners can begin to gather signatures. Since TVWD is organized under the "special district" laws, there is a question of what effect this initiative petition may have. I will keep you posted on future events and actions. Todd Heidgerken Executive Director Willamette Water Supply Agency Phone: (503) 848-3013 Fax: (503) 356-3113 Safe Watergroupstartspetition to halt Willamette treatment plant from being built at all," said Jim Some residents have opposed J, The initiative wants Hansen, a Citizens for Safe Water drinking from the Willamette River t_ Tualatin Valley dtstrlCt spokesman. even though the treated water Hansen said the group probably meets federal drinking water stan- `r voters to have a say in will aim to place the issue on die dards. "They say federal standards S drinking water issues March 2001 ballot. According to are too lax. Washington County officials, peti- Wilsonville, "Tualatin Valley € tioners need to collect about 7,339 Water District and the state Pe : By EMILY TSAO signatures by January to make that partment of Corrections are con- THE OREGONIAN filing deadline. tributing money to build a$43 mil- TIGARD —A group that hopes The filing in Washington County lion water treatment plant. Plan- { to eliminate any chance of building follows a series of recent city ballot ning for plant construction has be- a treatment plant in Wilsonville for measures. Tigard and Wilsonville gun, and Wilsonville residents € drinking water from the Willamette voters changed their city charters could see Willamette water in their River has filed an initiative petition to require a public vote to drink pipes as early as next year. that asks whether Tualatin Valley from the Willamette. Sherwood The district has committed Water District residents want a say and Tualatin residents voted down about $17 million toward plant on the issue. bond measures to finance Wiliam- construction. But Tualatin Valley Citizens for Safe Water has filed ette River plant construction. Wil- officials say the agency lacks the an initiative petition that asks sonville voters have passed a bond necessary pipes to get the water to whether to add an ordinance that measure to build a plant. their customers and has no plans would require voter approval to The Tualatin Valley Water Dis- to use the water within the next drink from the Willamette. Wash- trict serves about 165,000 residents five years. ington County election officials ap- and includes parts of unincorpo- "It is a long-term investment," proved the petition Tuesday. rated Washington County, Hills- said Greg Diloreto, the general "We're trying to stop the plant boro,Beaverton and Tigard. manager for the district. WILLAMETTE WAFTER SUPPLY AGENCY I CLEAN WATER FOR OUR CO M M UNITIES MEMORANDUM July 18, 2000 To: WNVSA Board Members WNN'SA Managers From: Todd Heidgerken Executive Director Re: TVWD / Wilsonville Agreement Enclosed is a copy of the final agreement between the Tualatin Valley Water District and the City of Wilsonville regarding the land purchase, design, build and operations of the Willamette Water Treatment Plant. The following are some of the highlights of the agreement: • Wilsonville will convey to TVWD an undivided 49% interest in the property at a cost of$1,291,350. • TVWD's ownership interest may be conveyed to WWSA. • Wilsonville will provide the project management during design and construction. • The total cost of the facilities shall not exceed $46,881,674 (doesn't include property). • Of the total cost of the facilities, TV WD's share shall not exceed $17,000,000 (doesn't include property). • Parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith, a future Operation and Management agreement within one year. • Wilsonville will initially provide Operations Management. In the event that Wilsonville's water treatment plant capacity usage becomes less than 50% of annual plant production usage, TVWD may assume the Managing Owner function. Any questions regarding the agreement can be directed either to Greg DILoreto or myself. The WWSA members will be kept posted on the progress of developing subsequent agreements as reference in the enclosed document. 165() SW 170th Ave. • Beaverton, OR 97075 - Yhonc 503-6,42-1511 Fas 5113-�>t�i i ti � TualatinValley Water District 1850 SW 170th Ave.•P.O.Box 745•Beaverton,Oregon 97075.503/642-1511 •FAX:503/649-2733 July 21, 2000 City A.dmini.strator City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 This is to inform you of the intention of Tualatin Valley Water District to adjust the water rate charged to the City of Tigard under the contract between TVWD and the City dated July 1, 1995. Enclosed is the worksheet used to determine the rate utilizing the same methodology as in years past. The rate will be 81.0 cents per hundred cubic feet. The effective date of the new rate will be July 1, 2000. We apologize for the lateness of this notification and since it is a reduction in the rate from the past year we intend to use July 1 as the effective date. Respectfully, 1 C William A. Koerner Manager, Financial Services cc: Greg DiLoreto, General Manager, TVWD Ed Wegner, City of Tigard Two orroups petition on Willamette River wate t- water treatment plant.By rejecting city is looking to have the Tualatin tures in Sherwood and 1,500 Signa- water. Tualatin's anti-Willamette the measures, residents took their Valley Water District operate its tures in Tualatin to place the issue Shortly after that election, I igard cities out of the project. water system. on city ballots in March or later. officials stepped hack k of t t the activists want assurances; But the treatment project has Even though die city and the For the past year or so, Citizens Willamette project even though Sherwood is concerned forged ahead with$43 million from district are working on a five-year for Safe Water groups and other they had not yet askcd residents . Wilsonville, the Tualatin Valley contract that would not allow Wil- interested residents have worked about drinking the river's water. i about Tualatin Valley role Water District and the state De- lamette River'water into the Sher- together in hopes of defeating any In the same election, Wilsonville � atter t District Corrections.And once wood system, some residents are attempt to drink from the Willarn- residents gave their approval fur a By EMILY TSAO I concerned [hat both agencies ette. bond measure that would M for ,rnt olrrconl,�rr the plant is operating, some resi- could agree to change the contract l dents fear officials will make an- � g Earlier this month, they filed a construction of the water ucat- Citizens for Safe Water groups other attempt to bring Willamette without voter approval. find they similar initiative petition for the meat plant. ollicials intcrl,rctcil have filed .initiative petitions in River water into Sherwood and have concerns about what will Tualatin Valley Water District, that as a green light and �%c,it Tualadn and Sherwood, hoping to Tualatin. happen after the five-year contract which has about 165,000 residents ahead with plant constructirnr change city charters so that people expires. in parts of Tigard, Hillsboro, Bea- plans. will have a right to vote on whether "We have no assurances that the With this charter amendment, verton and unincorporated Wash- But opponents of the WilLu rtctte they drink from- the Willamette city (of"Tualatin) won't try to use residents "will have the right to ington County have filed it lawsuit,contending the River. _ Will;unette water in the future," vote" on the issue, said Gleiin In September, Tigard and Wil- city needs to hold another vote and Earlier this vear, residents in said Kathy Newcomb,a member of Brostrom, a co-petitioner for. the sonvill©residents voted in favor of specifically ask residents whether both cities voted down bond mea- Tualatin Citizens for Safe Water. Sherwood initiative. the charter amendments that they want to drink from the Wil sures that would have provided Some Sherwood residents are Petitioners estimate they will would require voter approval to lamette River. A hearing on that iti money to build a Willamette River particularly .)ncerned because the need to collect about 930 signa- tap die Willamette for drinking scheduled for September. �) ) (60 1 P (� "j fti;�. Draft MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL City of Tigard Water Rate Study Status TO: Mr. Mike Miller, Utility Manager,City of Tigard COPIES: Mr. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director,City of Tigard FROM: Art Griffith,CH2M HILL DATE: July 31, 2000 In the fall of 1999,CH2M HILL was authorized to update the City's cost-of-service water rate model. This update would incorporate including changes in the City's customer base and water demands due to growth, anticipated changes in the City's source of water supply, and updated distribution system capital improvement plans. Over the past several years,there have been major changes in the City of Tigard's costs to purchase water from Portland.The City had been investigating alternate sources of supply, including construction of a regional water treatment facility with neighboring purveyors. At the time this rate study update was initiated, there seemed to be a viable alternative for construction of a water treatment facility,including identified funding scenarios and costs to Tigard. Using this information, the water rate study,including revision of the cost-of- service model,was begun. The City provided the budgeting and customer data required to initiate this work. As a result of a public vote in the fall of 1999, the City has been re-evaluating long-term water supply options and has not made a final decision. To anticipate a project with such large financial impact,City staff,Council, and the Intergovernmental Water Board are considering a series of water rate increases that will allow the City to pay current expenses and accumulate capital reserves. To assist the City in this process, CH2M HILL prepared a number of financial planning scenarios for presentation to the Intergovernmental Water Board. These financial planning scenarios incorporated various water supply project costs, capital reserve accumulation rates,purchased water costs (from Portland,Lake Oswego, and other sources), system growth rates,and planning periods. Particular emphasis was given to a placeholder water supply project with a capital cost of approximately$44,000,000 and that could provide water to the City at a cost of$0.60/ccf. In all cases,rate projections were presented as across-the-board percentage increases from existing rates. Identifying a water supply project,including identification of its capacity,cost, and schedule,is a critical prerequisite in defining future water rates and revising the City's cost- of-service rate structure. This is because of the anticipated large financial impact of the water supply project. For example,the purchased water and debt service costs associated with a$44 million water supply project are expected to comprise up to 50% of the total water utility revenue requirement. The cost-of-service portion of the rate study was not emphasized primarily because the total rate revenue requirement,which depends on the water supply project cost, reserve accumulation policies, and purchased water costs,was not identified. 31 JULY MEMO.DOC 1 CITY OF TIGARD WATER RATE STUDY STATUS At this time, the City is continuing to evaluate water supply project options and is also awaiting the results of November elections. No further policy decisions regarding the City's long term water supply source or decisions regarding future water rate increases are expected before November. Because of the anticipated schedule in defining the City's long-term water supply source, completion of the cost-of-service rate study update is not recommended at this time. Since the costs and capacities associated with a water supply project are not known at this time, a definitive cost allocation basis is not available for up to 50% of the water utility's expenditures in the years following project completion. Updating the cost-of-service portion of the rate study should incorporate a more definitive cost allocation basis than is available at this time. At the City's direction,CH2M HILL intends to periodically follow up with City staff in upcoming months as additional data regarding water supply project alternatives become available. When such data are available,CH2M HILL is available to complete additional financial consulting work, to possibly include evaluation of additional financial planning scenarios to assist in the evaluation of water supply alternatives and revision of the cost-of- service rate structure after the City's long-term water supply source is identified. 31 JULY MEMO.DOC 2 Suit seeks to halt initiative against rver-/'water plant - Gr DiLoreto, the water dis- water could be purified to federal drives against using the Willam- nation that the initiative Greg p g g petition, One of the initiative petition' County counsel says trict's general manager, said the drinking-waterstandards. ette's water in Tigard and Wilson- approved for circulation last co-sponsors, Douglas W. Larsor district was not taking part in try- Last month,tfte district entered ville.In those cities,voters approv- month by the county's Elections said last week that the district' contesting the filing by a ing to quash the initiative, al- a contract with Wilsonville to help ed city charter amendments re- Division,does riot address"music- board chairman,Jim Duggan.ar, Water district consultant is though its law firm,Cable Huston build a water treatment plant on quiring further public votes to ap- ipal legislation" as me Oregon another board member pressure, up to petition backers Benedict Haagensen&Uoyd,also the Willamette.The contract obli- prove the Willamette as a drinking Constitution requires for such ini- him to withdraw the initiative.sa} represents Matthews in the suit. gates the district to pay about$185 water source. tiatives. ing it was hampering the district' ey RICHARD COLEY Matthews' lawsuit, filed in million of the$43 million plant's In Sherwood and Tualatin,resi- Co-sponsor claims pressure supply negotiations with Portland. THE oascoNUN cost.All of the decisions,Matthews dents have rejected bond mea- Larson said Monday that Du Washington County Circuit Court, Y € says he is a district resident and said,were made in public by the sures to help fuiance the water "The selection of drinking water gan had contacted him a recon. A consulting economist for the district's elected board. treatment plant in Wilsonville. sources and planning for future time,again urging the petition b Tualatin It a Water District is would anis customer and therefore"has Valley Matthews agreed,however,that In the water district, serving needs is administrative or ministe- withdrawn. ing to hal[an initiative that would an interest pl the planning,seine- the initiative's aim would weaken about 165,000 residents in arts of nal in nature and not a legislative require the district's voters to a tion and implementation of drink- P egt No hearing has been schedule eq P- the district's bargaining position Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard and matter," Matthews' complaint on the lawsuit. prove its using Willamette River ing water sources provided by the with Portland to buy water.The unincorporated Washington says. "We'll just do whatever th water. district" district's current 25-year contract Cour the initiative also would Ye County, The suit also asks for a declara- judge[ells us to do,basically"sai The suit was filed by Paul L Matthews said he was chal- with the city expires late in 2004. require a public vote on any dis- tory judgment that if the petition is Alan Rappleyea,an associate mur Matthews,senior vice president of lenging the initiative because"this Negotiating for a new contract has trict use of Willamette River water, circulated and the initiative ap- ty counsel. Contesting the suit' Integrated Utilities Group. The is the wrong way to make public started. The action names the county proved. it would impair the dis- substance,he said,would be up t fine is helping the water district policy." The district's board has Citizens for Safe Water,an activ- and its elections director, Ginny trice s obligations to Wilsonville, the initiative's backers, includin negotiate a new long-term contract spent S3 million on a pilot project isi group taking part in the water Kingsley,as defendants. thus violating another state consd- Citizens for Safe Water,as inten,a. for buying water from Portland. testing whether the Willamette's district initiative,has led petition The suit seeks a judge's determi- rational provision. nors. J State AIP" extends ' help to Wilsonville La, last:nonth, const,ucuo,, crews began moving earth for - — the treatment plant's foundation and bridge supports. Managers The abilityto borrow orrow also have refined the project's $10 million for the estimated costs to$46.9 million.P Willamette River waterThe plant is scheduled to bq: completed by.April:"'2002, al;: plant could lower rates though treated river,w4terprob�. ably won't go"to homes until Oc By AIMEE GREEN tober2002. rue°arcoNinrr.11 Wilsonville ratepayers will be: WILSOWLLE. Residents responsible for$21 million of the and businesses could end "up plant's costs: ,. $11 millior>- haying slightly less for a Wiliam through city-issued bonds and. ette River water treatment plant, $10 million through the.state's; now that die city has been bond-loan.-Another$2.5 million' awarded the ability to borrow- will come from fees',collected': $10 million from the Oregoq• from new homes and businesses'. Economic and Community De- and a city reserve fund.The Tua-: velopment Department. latin Valley Water District will'• The savings largely depend on pay $17 million. The state De-,' the lower interest rate the state, partment. of Corrections will` gets vs. what the city can get chip in$6.4 million. from the sales of its own bonds Inst September, Wilsonville to build the purification plant. voters approved bonds for the Hard numbers won't be avail, treatment plant, but some resi able until the fall. dents think the city also should: Right now, water rates are have asked voters if they specifi- scheduled to increase 117 per cally wanted to drink Willamette cent from last April througli water. Wilsonville Citizens for April 2002 to pay for the city Safe Water has filed two lawsuits bonds. aimed at stopping the treatment Already, city managers know, plant. borrowing the limit of$10 milThe group and the city have i lion through die state will save asked a judge to issue a summa- hundreds of thousands in clos, ry judgment on the first"case„ ing costs. Plus, die city won't; which is scheduled for Sept. 18' need to cushion payments un, in Clackamas County Circuit der the state's bond loan with an Court. ,.. extra 25 percent, which is rey quired for extra assurance. "It's terrific news for the city` and the ratepayers, said Gary Wallis,city finance director. FROM :PORTLAND ITER BUREAU 503 e23 6133 2000.08-08 09:17 #626 P.01/01 CITY OF Erik sten, Commissioner Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator o x PORTLAND, p 1120 S.W 5th Avenue Al D, OREGON 1N Portland,Oregon 97204 �--� Informidon(503)823-7404 BUREAU OF WATER WORKS ' Fax(503)823.6133 TDD(503)823-6866 For more information, contact: Ross Walker, 823-7500 August 8,2000 City to Augment Bull Run to Stretch Seasonal Supplies In response to an extended warm, dry summer season,the City of Portland Bureau of Water Works will supplement Bull Run supplies throughout the month of August, and possibly later into the fall. The City will add supply from two sources, consistent with the Bureau's Summer Supply Plan, approved by City Council. On August 9, the Water Bureau will start pumping from the Columbia South Shore wellfield. blending a ratio of 20% well water to 80% Bull Run. On August 28,the City will evaluate the supply status to determine whether to continue running the wells into the fall. Bull Run Lake, a reinforced natural reservoir in the Bull Run watershed will provide a second source of augmentation. The City plans to release 30 million gallons a day from Bull Run Lake for 20 days, starting August 15_ "These are basically routine operations given our weather this summer,"said Michael Rosenberger, Water Bureau Administrator. "We aren't in a crisis. We don't expect a shortage. However, our warm, dry weather may extend into the late fall. Since we can't predict when the rain returns, we need to manage our resources to make sure the water lasts as long as summer. Having the wells and the lake as.back-up helps us do that." An Equal Ol)portunity Employer State extends i help to Wilsonville Lat, last month, const.uci;o., crews began moving earth for the treatment plant's foundation and bridge supports. Managers The abilityto borrow also have refined the project's $10 million for the estimated costs to$46.9 million. The.plant is scheduled to b�: Willamette River water The. by Apel,`"'2002, ah: plant could lower rates though treated river, ter prob j. ably won't go to homes until Oc,; By AIMEE GREEN tobe72002. THEgREGONfAN ` ',Wilsonville ratepayers will be: WLLSOjWILLE. Residents responsible for$21 million of the- and businesses could end 'up" plant's', costs:, $11million- paying slightly less for a Wiliam through"city-issued bonds and: ette River water treatment plant, $10 million through the.state's; now that the city has been bond-loan.,Another$2.5 million' awarded the ability to borrow,- will come from fees,collected;: $10 million from the Oregon. from new homes and businesses: Economic and Community De- and a city,reserve fund.The Tua velopment Department. latin Valley Water District will. The savings largely depend on pay $17 million. The state De the lower interest rate the state partment. of Corrections will: Lgets vs. what the city can get chip in$6.4 million. from the sales of its own bonds Last September, Wilsonville- ; to build the purification plant._ voters approved bonds for thg Hard numbers won't be avail, treatment plant, but some resi able until the fall. dents think the city also should. Right now, water rates are have asked:voters if they specifi- scheduled to increase 117 per-,• cally wanted to drink Willamette cent from last April through water. Wilsonville Citizens for April 2002 to pay for the city, Safe Water has filed two lawsuits bonds. aimed at stopping the treatment Already, city managers know, plant. borrowing the limit of$10 mil-. The group and the city have lion through the state will save asked a judge to issue a summa hundreds of thousands in close ry judgment on the first case„ ing costs. Plus, the city won't which is scheduled for Sept. 18 need to cushion payments un- to Clackamas County Circuit der the state's bond loan with an extra'25 percent, which is rel' k quired for extra assurance. "It's terrific news for the city and the ratepayers, said Gary Wallis,city finance director. awt seeks to halt imbative against aver-water plant Greg DiLoreto, the water dis- water could be purified to federal drives against using the Wiliam- nation that the initiative petition, One of the initiative petin County Counsel Says trict's general manager, said the drinking-water standards. ette's water in Tigard and Wilson- approved for circulation last co-sponsors, Douglas W. Lar district was not taking part in try- Last month,Ute district entered ville.In those cities,voters approv- month by the county's Elections said last contesting t{iC week that lie disc filing by A ing to quash the initiative, al- a contract with Wilsonville to help ed city charter amendments re- Division,does not address"music- board chaimram Jim Duggan. Water district Consultant U though its law firm,Cable Huston build a water treatment plant on qufring further public votes to ap- ipal legislation" as the Oregon another board member pressi f0 petition backer Benedxt Haagensen&Uoyd,also the Willamette.The contract obli- prove the Willamette as a drinking Constitution requires for such ini- him to withdraw the initiative. up represents Matthews in the suit. gates the district to pay about$185 water source. tiatives. ing it was hampering the diso million of the$43 million plant's In Sherwood and Tualatin,resi- supply negotiations withPord2 By RICHARD COLBY Matthews lawsuit, filed init Crtcost AU of the decisions,Matthews dents have rejected bond mea- Co-sponsor claims presswe Larson said Monday that I THE OREC(1NIAN Washington County Circuou , says he is a district resident and said,were made in public by the sures to help fuhance the water "The selection of drinking water gas had contacted film a sec A consulting economist for the district's elected board. treatment plant in Wilsonville. sources and planning for future time,again urging the petido Tualatin ValleyWater District is su- water customer and therefore"has Matthews agreed,however,that N [he water distric4 serving needs is administrative or ministe- withdrawn. ing to halt an initiative that would an interest in the planning,selec- the initiative's aim would weaken about 165,000 residents in parts of rial in nature and not a legislative No hearing has been sched require the district's voters to ap- tion and implementation of drink- the district's bargaining position Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard and matter," Matthews' complaint on the lawsuit. prove its using Willamette River ing water sources provided by the with Portland to bury water.The unincorporated Washington says. "We'll just do whatever water. district" district's anent 25-year contract County,the initiative also would The suit also asks for a declara- judge tells us to do.basically- The suit was filed by Paul L Matthews said he was chat- with the city expires late in 2014. require a public vote on any dis- tory judgment that if the petition is Alan Rappleyea,an associate Cr Matthews,senior vice president of lenging the initiative because"this Negotiating for a new contract has trict use of Willamette River water. circulated and the initiative ap- ty counsel. Contesting the , Integrated Utilities Group. The is the wrong way to snake public started. The action names the county proved, it would impair the dis- substance,he said,would be t firm is helping the water district policy." The district's board has Citizens for Safe Water,an activ- and its elections director, Ginny trict's obligations to Wilsonville, the initiative's backers, incl negotiate a new long-tens contract spent S3 million on a pilot project isl group taking pan in the water Kingsley,as defendants. thus violating anther state consti- Citizens for Safe Water,as into for burying water from Portland. testing whether the Willamette's district initiative,has led petition The suit seeks a judge's deterni- tutionai provision. nors. FROM :PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 503 823 6133 2000,0e-08 09:17 #S26 P.01/01 CITY OF Erik sten.Commissioner ' Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator x 1120$.W 5th Avenue PORTLAND, OREGON Pbrtland,Oregon 9204 Informadon(55 03)823-7404 BUREAU OF WATER WORKS Fax(503)823.6133 TDD(503)823-6868 For more information, contact: Ross Walker, 823-7500 August 8, 2000 City to Augment Bull Run to Stretch Seasonal Supplies In response to an extended warm, dry summer season,the City of Portland Bureau of Water Works will supplement Bull Run supplies throughout the month of August, and possibly later into the fall. The City will add supply from two sources, consistent with the Bureau's Summer Supply Plan, approved by City Council. On August 9, the Water Bureau will start pumping from the Columbia South Shore wellfield, blending a ratio of 20% well water to 80% Bull Run. On August 28,the City will evaluate the supply status to determine whether to continue running the wells into the fall. Bull Run Lake, a reinforced natural reservoir in the Bull Run watershed will provide a second source of augmentation. The City plans to release 30 million gallons a day from Bull Run Lake for 20 days, starting August 15. "These are basically routine operations given our weather this summer,"said Michael Rosenberger, Water Bureau Administrator. "We aren't in a crisis.We don't expect a shortage. However, our warm, dry weather may extend into the late fall. Since we can't predict when the rain returns,we need to manage our resources to make sure the water lasts as long as summer_ Having the wells and the lake as.back-up helps us do that." An Equal Opportunity Fmployer