Loading...
12/08/1999 - Packet INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, December 8, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introductions 3. Long Term Water Supply 4. Utility Manager Report - Mike Miller a. Rate Study b. Reservoir Site 5. Director's Report - Ed Wegner 6. Public Comments 7. Non Agenda Items 8. Adjournment Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) & (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 may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. kathyUwb12-8.agn Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes November 10, 1999 Members present: Paul Hunt, Jan Drangsholt, Gretchen Buehner, Patrick Carroll, and Bill Scheiderich Staff present: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Bill Monahan, and Kathy Kaatz Visitors present: Jack Polans, Roel Lundquist,Jane Turner, Paul Owen, Norman Penner, Bob Windeckey 1. Call to Order The regularly scheduled meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:40 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken with all members present with Bill Scheiderich arriving at approximately 5:45 p.m. Since Chairperson Scheiderich was late in arriving and since the Vice Chair, Beverly Froude is no longer on the Board, an election for a new Vice Chair was held. Commissioner Hunt nominated Patrick Carroll which was seconded by Commissioner Buehner and passed unanimously. A motion was made by Commissioner Hunt to approve the meeting minutes of the September 22, 1999 meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Buehner and voted upon and passed unanimously. 3. Progress on Long Term Water Supply Update Commissioner Hunt gave the report on long term water supply. He read a prepared statement as follows: "The Tigard City Council has directed me to inform the IWB that the City will not be seeking voter approval for use of the Willamette as a drinking water source in the near future. The Council is considering all options available to us for meeting the long-term water supply needs of all customers in the IWB area. We are working as quickly as we can, and will be presenting a proposed course of action to our IWB partners in the near future. We believe that this deliberative approach is in the long term best interests of all customers in the IWB. I and my fellow Council members appreciate your forbearance and cooperation in working with us during this process". After reading the above statement, the Board was asked if they had any comments. Commissioner Buehner made the statement that she was not at liberty to discuss this IWB Meeting Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 1 matter without her Board's approval. It was stated that members of the Board would receive copies of this statement. Chairperson Scheiderich questioned whether there was a tentative schedule for presenting a course of action within the near future and would there be a status report prepared for the December meeting? Mr. Wegner stated that staff would be working on this within the next few weeks. No other comments were made. 4. Director's Report Ed Wegner distributed the following information: ➢ Literature distributed by the Portland Water Bureau regarding demand and consumption information of customers ➢ Wholesale customer consumption statistics ➢ Response letter to Jack Polaris regarding drinking water sources ➢ Memo regarding water sampling process Chair Scheiderich questioned the status of disposing of the surplus property at the Menlor Reservoir site? Mr. Wegner stated that we have not worked on that property at this time. It was discussed that this site is approximately 2 acres and the purchase price was approximately $219,000 and estimated value of the remaining property somewhere in the neighborhood of$200,000. Mr. Wegner stated that this issue would have to be discussed after the next meeting. 5. Tigard House Expansion—Kathy Palmer The discussion will be discussed later during the meeting since Kathy Palmer was not present at this time. 6. Utility Manager's Report Mike Miller starting by presenting an update on the water rate studies status. Mike continued by stating that CH2M Hill has the software model close to completion. He stated that this model would allow the flexibility to adjust rates on a yearly basis, if needed. CH2M Hill is continuing to clean up the program since this is a different version than the previous. We remain to have difficulty with the data gathering since our Finance department has recently went through a utility billing software upgrade and have not been able to furnish the necessary information to CH2M Hill. Mr. Miller stated that the information needed will probably not be ready in time for the December meeting. Commissioner Hunt expressed his concern with the lack of financial information and the importance of getting this information and proceeding with this project. Commissioner Carroll questioned when the new rates for Portland took effect? It was stated that those new rates were in place effective July 1, 1999 and the new rates, which have been rumored to be in the area of.82 cents effective July 1, 2000. IWB Meeting Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Miller stated we are looking at real estate to purchase future reservoir sites. We are currently looking at various properties listed below: ➢ Venture Property—property located off Bull Mountain at the 550 feet elevation. Property was originally for parkland. Currently negotiating and have presented a counter-offer. ➢ Tigard Tualatin School District—property located on Bull Mountain road. ➢ Bull Mountain at 150th ➢ Sunrise Lane— (Cash property) South of Mentor site at 550 zone Mike stated that the 1998 Water Quality Report is now located on the City of Tigard website and is also linked to Waterdata.com, an AWWA site for utilities wanting to link their Consumer Confidence Reports. With the arrival of Kathy Palmer from the Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association, the Board allowed her presentation at this time. Ms. Palmer stated that the Historical Association's main mission is to educate the public about Tigard history and in so doing they maintain the John Tigard house which is located on Tigard Water District property adjacent to the Canterbury reservoir site at 103`d and Canterbury. Ms. Palmer continued by stating that they have received a generous donation from the Tigard family and would like to utilize those funds to build a facility on the property and add a multi use facility to include restrooms at approximately 1,200 square feet. Mr. Wegner stated that there is a lease agreement on this property and the Board would need to approve the TAHPA to proceed with permitting and plans for this facility. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned whether the house was removable since the existing lease states that the house will be removed at the end of the lease, or was on a permanent foundation? Ms. Palmer introduced Don Feller,the Financial Chairperson for TAHPA who stated that this structure is placed on a permanent foundation. Mr. Wegner did state that if in the future the Tigard house was removed the newly proposed facility could be used as a park facility since the treed adjoining area could be used as a park. It was the consensus of the Board to update the lease to allow for construction of another building contingent upon land use approval. It was determined that the Board will review the updated lease and TAHPA to bring back the design. 7. Public Comments Jack Polaris, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Court requested that the Board move the audience closer to the Board members to allow better listening ability. Staff agreed to accommodate Mr. Polaris's request and make more appropriate meeting room configuration. Mr. Polaris also quoted figures from the October 22, 1999; Hotspots issue from the Tigard High School on the percentage of water brought into the system. Mr. Monahan stated that Ed Wegner had responded to Mr. Polaris's request on November 3`d regarding the water supply source. IWB Meeting Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 3 7. Non Agenda Items Mr. Bob Windeckey, 16682 SW Queen Anne, King City stated that he did not hear Mr. Hunt's comments regarding the Willamette River and requested a written copy of the statement. Visitors and Board members were furnished a copy of the statement. 8. Adjournment The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. and the next meeting was scheduled for December 8, 1999. Commissioner Buehner stated that the next meeting of the Tigard Water District will be Monday, November 15`h at 7:00 p.m. IWB Meeting Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Wegner FROM: Mike MillermA RE: Wholesale Contract Discussion Update DATE: November 5, 1999 There have been some interesting developments from the Portland Wholesale Contract Oversight Committee during the past couple of months. Attached are the minutes from the June 28 and September 20, 1999 of the Oversight Committee and September 17, 1999 memo from the Rates and Finance Work Group. There has not been a meeting of either the Oversight Committee or the Rates and Finance Work Group since September 24, 1999. Although the committees have not meet, Portland has sent out a status report to make us aware that work is underway and the process is going forward. Several white papers are proceeding and are on track. Consultants (Tom Gould with EES and Paul Matthews of IUG) are working together on a concept paper"Conceptual Basis for Wholesale Contract and Rates" otherwise known as "The Central Theory". The paper will outline optional approaches to various questions such as: • Ownership of Facilities — existing and new • Funding mechanisms • Financial recovery—who will pay for assets and how will costs be shared Time line for this paper, at the end of September, was 30 days. Portland thought to have items wrapped up in late spring 2000 with contracts following after that. After the participates understand the basic concepts of the items listed above a more detailed analysis of other rate and finance issues of the following can take place: • Facilities Planning and Provisions • Cost of Service • Rate Base Valuation of Assets (Debts/Credits) • Operations and Maintenance • Rate Design At this point in time when Portland talks ownership, it could mean that everyone owns a portion of the system or could mean status quo. Middle ground would be that Portland owns the existing facilities and that the new facilities would be jointly owned. Some additional questions that come to mind from these discussions are: What exactly is ownership? Is it capacity or is it water? Are we willing to pay a regional SDC to Portland? Will the Portland Utility Review Board be laying down guidelines for the contracts? It was raised at one of the meetings that at a future date, Portland may decide to limit water sales to outside users due to growth. Example: City of Gresham has a high rate of growth, so to accommodate their demands Portland cuts back amount of water it sells to TVWD or whomever. I thought that to be a very interesting comment from Portland staff. Another consultant to Portland, Dave Hasson, is writing a paper on "ownership". Currently Bob Rieck is maintaining liaison with him and the other consultants for the finance piece of the project. On conservation, Jeanne LeJeune has developed a draft outline for a workshop on water conservation and is waiting for Bill Maddaus' return from Australia to set a date and time. The purpose of the workshop is to gain a common understanding of what conservation is, what it isn't, to understand where we have programs in common and where we don't, to understand how other communities may have addressed conservation in wholesale contracts and to have a discussion of what we might expect to be included in a contract with Portland. This workshop may be scheduled sometime in November or December. Ed Tenny, another consultant from EES, is continuing to explore various resources from around the country, which can provide models or other information for our discussions with Portland. Finally, in Portland's status report dated October 27,1999, Portland has indicated that they will call a meeting when it is warranted, which will be determined by the progress made by the consultants. Q0 TLANO CITY OF Erik Sten, Commissioner �o Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator v % 1120 S.W. 5th Avenue PORTLAND, OREGON Portland, Oregon 97204 Information (503)823-7404 ` BUREAU OF WATER WORKS Fax(503)823-6133 TDD(503)823-6868 October 27, 1999 TO: Wholesale Contract Discussion Participants FROM: Mike Rosenberger Water Bureau Administrator OL SUBJECT: QUICK STATUS REPORT Because we have all been extremely busy, and because we have not met in awhile, I want to give you a quick status report. I want to be sure that all of us are aware that work is underway, and the process is going forward. On the Finance front, we are proceeding as we discussed at our last meeting. The framework for discussing many of the pricing issues will be the "ownership"paper that Dave Hasson is writing. Bob Rieck is maintaining liaison with him and the consultants. On the Conservation front, Jeanne has developed a draft outline for the workshop, and is awaiting Bill Maddaus' return from Australia(next week) to nail down both content and timelines. On the Institutional Arrangements front, Ed Tenny is continuing to explore various resources around the country, which can provide models or other information for our discussions. We will call a meeting when it is warranted, which will be dictated by the progress made in these areas. I think we are on track. Talk to you soon. C.: Ed Tenny Tom Gould Paul Mau:tews Dave Hasson Bob Rieck Jeanne LeJeune i1 it Equul 01) portrvni1Y EinpIo .i cr h TualatinValley Water District 1850 SW 170th Ave.•P.O.Box 745•Beaverton,Oregon 97075.503/642-1511 •FAX:503/649-2733 TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO EXPAND AND MODIFY THE WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF WILSONVILLE Distributed to WWSA and membership on December 7, 1999 WWSA membership response to WWSA due no later than March 7, 2000 The Tualatin Valley Water District delivers this Proposal to Expand and Modify (Proposal) the proposed Willamette River Water Supply System (Project) as proposed by the City of Wilsonville, to the WWSA and its membership for their consideration pursuant to Section 5.1 of the 1997 WWSA intergovernmental agreement. This proposal includes this transmittal document, the request for qualifications as developed by the City of Wilsonville and the December 1998 Preliminary Engineers Report for the Project (PER), which the WWSA and members have previously received. The goal of this proposal is to coordinate the WWSA partners and the City of Wilsonville in developing the Willamette River as a long-term source of high quality drinking water at a competitive cost. Implementation of the Proposal will assure Project participants an ownership interest in a water supply system that will provide high quality water in a manner that is consistent with the Regional Water Supply Plan at the most competitive cost available. The Proposal will carry out the goal of WWSA to make efficient use of the water rights held by WWSA for the collective benefit of the participants in the Project. Tualatin Valley Water District proposes to expand and modify the City of Wilsonville's proposed project as described in the PER. In summary, the Proposal is to build: 1. A river intake and raw water pump station system, located approximately at river mile 39, sized to allow the intake for the ultimate system capacity requirement of 120 mgd; 2. A three stage water treatment facility with an initial system capacity of 15 mgd, with the ultimate system capacity requirement of 120 mgd; i >. A high service pump station; 4. System administrative facilities co-located with the treatment facility; and 5. A transmission line from the treatment facility north to provide service to Sherwood and Tualatin and sized to accommodate future needs of the TV WD WATER - not to be taken for granted Proposal to Modify and Expand December 7, 1999 Page 2 Cost estimates for the Project are contained in the PER. The governance structure for the Project will be negotiated as part of a project agreement. The Project participants will own the project. A Project board will be responsible for the management of the Project. Non-participating WWSA members, and WWSA will retain the later buy in option provided by the WWSA agreement. In accordance with the WWSA agreement, WWSA will transfer/assign sufficient water rights to the Project to allow it to function at planned capacity. A project agreement will be negotiated. It is anticipated that the City of Wilsonville will be the lead agency, responsible for the permitting, design, and construction of the Project. Unless, otherwise agreed to by the parties participating in the facility, the Project shall be operated and maintained by WWSA as outlined in Section 4 of the WWSA agreement. Section 5.1 requires WWSA members to notify WWSA of their acceptance or rejection of this proposal to expand and modify the City of Wilsonville's proposed project no later than March 7, 2000. Acceptance of the Proposal will be considered acceptance of the Project. A final project agreement detailing these issues and the governance structure will be adopted. A failure of a member to respond by that date will constitute a rejection of the Proposal by that member. The City of Wilsonville has initiated a process to develop the Willamette River as a drinking water supply option. It is the goal of TVWD to have WWSA become a partner with the City of Wilsonville in the construction of the Willamette River Water Treatment System. We believe the partnership will be valuable in creating an important supply option that will be instrumental in allowing us to provide clean water to our communities. Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 111 SW 5`h Avenue, Suite 1670 Portland, OR 97204-3620 (503) 223-3033 FAX (503) 274-6248 Memorandum To: Ed Wegner Date: December 7, 1999 From: Wade Hathhom Project Number: 470070 Subject: Scope of Services cc: J. Thompson, R. Goff Presented herein is a scope of services to be provided to the City of Tigard (City) by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) as part of an on-going Cost Allocation/Facilities Plan project being conducted for Joint Water Commission (JWC). The scope of services to be provided include: (1) an engineering assessment of the infrastructure needs for providing water to the City and (2) an analysis of wholesale rate options for sale of the water by the JWC. In the first portion of this work, EES will examine the City's present and future demands for water, incorporate those into the JWC's forecast, and develop a capital improvement plan required in meeting those needs. This plan will include an outline of the capital needs on both the raw and finished water portions in order to provide water to the City over the next forty years. In the second phase of the work, EES will provide a preliminary estimate or 'ballpark figure' as to the cost to the City of water sales from the JWC based on various rate alternatives established through conversations with the City and the JWC. This work may be extended (subject to future City approval) to include an analysis of the implementation of an actual contract and rate for sale of water to the City. More detailed descriptions for each element of the proposed work, along with outlines of associated deliverables, are contained in the respective subsections below. It is EES's understanding that this work will be conducted under an existing contract with the JWC for similar work as part of a Purchase Order agreement between the City and JWC. All material produced will be subject to review by the City and the JWC. All approved products for this work may be used as part of the final report to the JWC for the parent project. I:\470070\Contracts\Tigard ext.doc December 7, 1999 Task 1 - Facilities Plan Task 1.1 - Development of Planning Level Data EES will utilize the demand data already provided by the City through the year 2050 to modify the overall water supply needs for the JWC. These numbers will be used to address the raw water needs in serving the City of Tigard over the next forty years and the adequacy of existing JWC water rights in serving that additional demand, during both winter and summertime conditions. EES will also examine the impacts that may arise in serving the City while meeting the present and future demands of the existing JWC partners. In this effort, EES will also meet with engineers from Murray, Smith and Associates to outline the hydraulic requirements in serving water to the City's present storage and distribution system from a pbmned Cooper Mountain reservoir. Deliverable(s): EES will provide the City with a Technical Memorandum outlining the impacts of the City's additional water supply needs on the present and future demands of the JWC. In this memorandum, EES will identify the availability of raw water resources in meeting the needs of the City through the year 2040. In addition, EES will outline the impacts that may arise in meeting those demands, while continuing to serve the needs of the existing JWC partners. EES will also present a summary of the hydraulic demands; namely hydraulic grade, in serving water to the City from the proposed Cooper Mountain reservoir site. Task 1.2 - Options & Hydraulic Assessment Taking the planning data, EES will begin to prepare various infrastructure options for providing water to the City of Tigard. These options will focus on needed water treatment plant improvements, additional storage, increased transmission capacity, and potential raw water conveyance facilities. All proposed projects will center around service to the City through possible intertie from the Sexton Mountain reservoir (in Beaverton) and/or service from a Cooper Mountain site that is being planned for a new reservoir location by the JWC. This work will also extend the on-going hydraulic modeling being conducted by EES for the JWC and will examine the hydraulic demands and capacities in meeting the present and future water supply needs of the City. EES is also prepared to present the various capital improvement needs before separate meetings of the JWC, City and Intergovernmental Water Board. Deliverable(s): EES will provide the City with a Technical Memorandum outlining various capital improvements needs in serving water from the JWC to the City over the next forty years. This memorandum will outline both the hydraulic and infrastructure demands in meeting those needs, as well as identify specific improvements to the transmission, storage and treatment facilities of the JWC. Task 1.3 - Implementation and Cost Estimate Once the capital improvements needs have been identified, EES will incorporate those projects into an overall JWC capital improvement plan. This plan will outline a schedule for improvements and identify associated individual project costs. I:\470070\Contracts\Tigard_ext.do c December 7, 1999 Deliverable(s): EES will provide the City with a Technical Memorandum outlining the proposed schedule and costs for various capital improvements needs in serving water from the JWC to the City over the next forty years. Task 2 - Preliminary Rate Estimate Task 2.1 - Meeting with the City EES, as part of this task will meet with appropriate City officials and management to discuss the basic parameters for sale of water. Issues discussed would include the basis under which rates would be set, options for initial cash payments and the basic business principles under which the sale would occur. Task 2.2 - Meeting with Joint Water Commission As part of this task, EES will meet with the JWC participants to discuss the basic principles under which a sale of water to the City would occur. These would include discussions on the principles under which the City would purchase water as well as issues of concern to the JWC. These issues would include the basis under which the rates would be set, cash flow management and capital financing contributions. Task 2.3 - Development of Rate Alternatives Based on the discussions with the City and JWC, two rate options will be developed in order to provide alternatives for sale of water by the JWC to the City. As an example, one option could be a dollar per CCF rate which would include recovery of currently invested assets for provision of water service as well as reflecting the cash flow implementation associated with acceleration of infrastructure improvements in order to serve water to the City. A second option could include a dollar per CCF rate to cover existing asset usage and operation and maintenance expense. Additionally, this option could include up front cash payments by the City to the JWC for infrastructure improvements with a discounted refund by the JWC upon termination of the contract with the City. The alternatives developed will be based on joint discussions with the City and JWC. It should be noted that the rate alternatives developed would be estimated rates. These will be based on the existing cost of assets, additional cost of acceleration of capital improvements as well as local improvements necessary for the City to provide service. These estimates will be useful in determining whether or not the terms of the sale or contract are acceptable to the City and JWC to warrant further refinement of the contract terms and rates. Deliverable(s): EES in this task will provide a written letter report summarizing our findings with respect to the rate alternatives for sale of water to the City. Additionally, EES will provide for a public presentation to the City Council as well as to the Joint Water Commission Board. Optional Task - Development of Contract Terms and Rates If the City and JWC should determine that an acceptable sale arrangement can be made based on the results of the study from Phase I, Phase II will provide for further refinement and development of the actual contract terms and rates for sale of water to the City. This would include detailed financial analysis in order to determine the exact rate and/or cash buy-in LA70070\ContractsUigard_ext.doe December 7, 1999 required from the City. Additionally, a detailed methodology will be developed for use as part of the terms and conditions of the contract in order to set the rate in future periods. Subject to City approval, this work would be conducted on a time and material basis. Fee Estimate EES has prepared a fee estimate for the work outlined above. The personnel and billing rates shown are standard and represent the same as that given for the parent JWC project. Fee Estimate and Hours Joint Water Commission Cost Allocation/Facilities Plan City of Tigard Extension R.Goff W.Hathhorn Sr.Engr. Staff Engr. CADD Tasks $128/hr $115/hr $99/hr $69/hr $65/hr Totals 1.Facilities Plan 1.1 Planning Data 24 16 $3,864 1.2 Options 16 24 32 16 $7,464 1.3 Implementation 8 24 24 $4,952 2. Cost Allocation 2.1 Meet City 16 $2,048 2.2 Meet JWC 32 $3,072 2.3 Prepare Rates 68 $9,728 Totals 1 116 48 48 72 16 1 $31,128 1:\470070\Contracts\Tig ard_ext.doc December 7, 1999 Schedule The inclusion of the City of Tigard into the on-going analysis will not significantly alter existing project timelines. Accordingly, EES has prepared the following schedule for related activities and deliverables: Estimated Project Timeline Joint Water Commission Cost Allocation/Facilities Plan City of Tigard Extension December January February March Tasks 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1. Facilities Plan 1.1 Planning Data 1.2 Options 1.3 Implementation 2. Cost Allocation 2.1 Meet City 2.2 Meet JWC 2.3 Prepare Rates *Draft JWC CIP *Associated with existing Joint Water Commission Contract. 1:A470070\Contracts\Tigard_ext.doc December 7, 1999 IWB Meeting December 8, 1999 1. Durham and Tigard to amend contract IGA to conform to others with wordage of water sales — same 1% 2. Annual �,.Ieeting End of January/First of February Calling to set schedule 3. Opening for Water Resource Specialist 4. Regional Conservation Program Regional reports from Consortium and Coalition 5. Regional Transmission Scenario Preliminary evaluation of the four Regional Transmission Scenarios 6. Consortium Paper Describing Organization Mandates of Consortium Purposes, Authorities and Limitations Water Conservation Program Evaluation An Overview Prepared by the Regional Water Providers Consortium and the Columbia — Willamette Water Conservation Coalition December 3, 1999 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION — AN OVERVIEW The Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) for the Portland Metropolitan Area places a high reliance on conservation water savings to help meet water demand to the year 2050. However, in order to understand the impact conservation is having on demand, water providers must have tools in place to evaluate conservation programs and track water use and savings from conservation. Given the region's stake in water conservation and the estimated cost of achieving water conservation targets,the 26 member Regional Water Providers Consortium (Consortium) charged a combined Consortium and Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition workgroup to develop strategies to track changes in water demand and measure the effects of individual and regional water conservation programs.' A demand tracking program is in place. The group recommends implementing a conservation program evaluation program to provide a complete picture of water use and future reductions resulting from conservation and to study the effectiveness of the programs. WHY DO WE NEED CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION? Creating a conservation program tracking and evaluation strategy is important for several key reasons: • Improving confidence in water conservation"as a resource" for meeting future water demand; • Ensuring sound investment of public and private dollars; • Meeting public expectations; • Meeting regulatory expectations • Ensuring that all members of the Consortium are moving together toward common goals. By coupling demand tracking with specific program evaluation,water utilities will have a better understanding of the impacts of conservation programs on demand. Utilities will also have a better idea of how limited resources should be utilized to achieve targeted water savings while serving the needs of customers and meeting expectations of both political entities and regulatory agencies. Recommendations based on"Tracking and Measurement of Water Conservation Program Impacts on Water Demand in the Portland Metropolitan Region"prepared by consultants Bill Maddaus and Jack Weber,April, 1999. STRATEGY FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS It is recommended that water providers establish a systematic, standardized process for evaluating water conservation programs and projects. A component of evaluation should be considered for every program. The extent and complexity of the evaluation will depend on the program goals and objectives and cost to the utility or region. How much will it cost? It is recommended that 10-15% of the total conservation program budget is spent on program evaluation. Not every program can or should be evaluated using such resources. For example,pilot programs should receive more scrutiny than well-established and proven conservation programs. However,it is recommended that all programs have some component of evaluation in the program planning and implementation strategy,where feasible. In other words,all conservation efforts should be evaluated against some pre- determined measures of success, such as the numbers of students participating in conservation classroom activities or amount of water predicted to be saved based on any sort of incentive program. Recommended organizational structure: Maddaus and Webber proposed two organizational structures to coordinate demand tracking and specific conservation program evaluations. The first choice is a centrally located monitoring and reporting office (Coalition or other entity.) The second option relies more on individual providers to do their own evaluations. Both scenarios rely on a centralized body to provide regional summaries and analysis and to ensure the integration of program evaluation and demand tracking. The linking of these measurement programs is crucial in understanding what impacts conservation measures have on overall water use for all the member providers and to accurately assess the impact and cost effectiveness of specific conservation measures. Regardless of which organizational structure is used,water providers should begin program evaluation as soon as possible. Information is power. The more you know about the effectiveness of your conservation programs and how much water they save,the better informed you will be to make decisions concerning your water supply. The attached checklist is designed to assist conservation staff in completing the evaluation process and encapsulates the strategy developed by the Consortium/Coalition workgroup for measuring individual conservation programs. More detailed information supporting and explaining the strategy is documented in the report titled "Evaluating Water Conservation Programs" and can be provided on request. 2 CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION CHECKLIST The following checklist is designed to help the conservation program manager systematically plan, design, and implement a successful conservation program evaluation. Phase I: Conservation Program Planning and Design ❑ Identify program goals -what are you trying to achieve? (e.g.,reduced outdoor water use, distribution of low flow fixtures?) ❑ Define specific objectives -what do you want to learn about conservation(consider project cost or scale and relative importance to water savings, stakeholders, etc.) ❑ Select evaluation methods and tools and scope-include quality control strategy. ❑ Identify quantifiable"measures of success" (e.g.,water savings, number of items distributed, participant rate, changes in knowledge, attitude or behavior,etc.). ❑ Contact and communicate with key program evaluators (Do the players know about their respective responsibilities? Can data be obtained in a timely manner? Are communication lines open?) ❑ Collect all necessary up-front data (e.g.,billing data, attitude/knowledge survey,etc.) ❑ Assess evaluation methods and desired products (consider desired outcomes, data, resource, time requirements). Consider target audiences and the best ways to reach them(e.g., multi-media approach). Coordinate with parties that will need to participate in evaluation processes (i.e. meter readers, utility billing staff, etc.) at this time. ❑ Include program evaluation component in program budget(approximately %15 of budget for program evaluation) and timeline. Phase II: Implementation ❑ Re-confirm priorities for program evaluation(e.g., outputs, format, etc.) with agency managers and key stakeholders. ❑ Establish methods to ensure quality control. ❑ Determine strategic points before, during, after program implementation in which program manager will coordinate with other key participants in evaluation process. ❑ Collect data and other information (e.g., photo documentation) needed to measure success and characterize the results in meaningful ways. ❑ Analyze results based on stated goals. ❑ Report results -design reporting formats to reach target audiences. ❑ Produce feedback mechanisms based on program evaluation results. Refine conservation programs as needed. yt{ R e g i o n a I p a r t n The Bull Run Water Managers Advisory Board represents wholesale water purveyors who currently hold contracts with Portland for the resale of water.The Advisory Board makes stip recommendations to the Portland Bureau of Water Works and the Commissioner-in-Charge relating to the sale of water to purchasers outside the City. This includes, but is not limited to, review of portions of the annual budget and capital improvement programs that affect outside City purchasers. In addition, members of the Bull Run Managers Advisory Board play, important roles in regional partnerships focused on specific issues. October, 1999 Conservation Regional Planning . The Columbia—Willamette Water The Regional Water Providers Consortium .a; Conservation Coalition was established in 1993. Twenty-five Oregon cities and districts along with Its seventeen members include cities and water Metro are members of this Consortium which formed` districts.The Coalition develops and implements in December, 1996.The Consortium coordinates regional conservation programs and projects,achieving implementation of the Regional Water Supply Plan for economies of scale and providing a regionally consis- the Portland metropolitan area and provides a forum tent conservation message to customers throughout the for collaboration on water supply and resource metropolitan region.Current projects include multi- management issues affecting the region.All water media summer wise water campaigns,pilot projects on providers retain full authority to manage their outdoor water audits;and coordinating landscape individual water systems.Key activities for this year seminars and workshops with local nurseries on include development of a regional transmission and efficient water use in landscape. storage strategy and strategic plan,and conservation and source protection strategy implementation. Demand Management and Peaking The Consortium's role in water conservation: Daily summer demands in the Bull Run system average The Consortium has completed compiling information about 160 million gallons,compared to average winter concerning efforts to track the effectiveness of water flows of about 100 million gallons a day(mgd). conservation programs.A project goal is to track Summer demand can exceed 200 mgd.During the past ' changes in demand patterns over a period of years.The decade wholesale customers have cooperated with the development of a detailed work program to implement City by reducing peaking to help the Bull Run system the Regional Water Supply Plan conservation programs operate smoothly in the summer. is underway including work on evaluating the profiles, savings,and costs of these programs and any This summer wholesalers plan to buy water from refinements needed to these programs. Portland in an even,consistent pattern that does not vary more than 10%each day. Since water customers The Consortium's role on ESA issues in Bull Run: do not use water evenly, the wholesale districts use The water providers that rely on the Portland Bull Run their storage facilities and other water supplies to meet and wellfield system for all or a part of their supply are their customers needs.This cooperation helps Bureau participating in efforts to study the effects of summer operators manage system flows and water quality. diversions on fish habitat in the lower Bull Run River and the Sandy Basin system.This work involves fish The Bureau and some wholesale customers are habitat studies within the Bull Run related to summer implementing a Customer Demand Monitoring project flow releases and to evaluate the potential for more that targets real time water use information from a storage within Bull Run. sample of both residential and non-residential customers. In addition,water providers are represented on the Water Quality Metro WRPAC(Water Resources Policy Advisory k; Committee)Ghat advised adoption of regional Disinfection By Products: policies to protect riparian areas within the urban area In response to EPA's Disinfectants/Disinfection By and is evaluating policies to protect fish habitat under Products Rule and the Interim Enhanced SurfaceWater k Statewide Planning Goal 5.The Regional Water Treatment Rule of 1998,Bull Run Water Managers. Providers Consortium recently supportedthe -with systems serving more than 10,000 services(City t Governors request for more federal funding for fish of Gresham,Ci of Portland Citof Ti andTualatn restoration and will consider policy adoption on ESA Valley Water District,Rockwood Water PUD Powell ' issues during coming months. Valley Water District,and West Slope.Water D iAct Consortium's role in emergency planning: - currently are working together to assess the occurrence ur of disinfection by-products throu throughout all the`s stems =R Water provider agencies are providing information to g Y the Consortium concerning emergency preparedness to After cooperative monitoring,the group will an, identify priorities for coordinating improvements to its data to consider proposing a joint monitoring plan to regional emergency preparedness. Oregon Health Division. Regional Infrastructure Planning Lead and Copper Rule: l In 1995 the Portland Water Bureau and regional water, Water Managers meet monthly to discuss issues and providers developed the Lead Hazard Reduction interests related to infrastructure planning. Although Program and a Joint Water Quality Monitoring Plan as the group is not charged with creating technical an alternative strategy for compliance with the Lead solutions, it does assist in identifying and formulating and Copper Rule.OHD approved the strategy in plans. November, 1997.Since then,joint monitoring and program coordination has resulted in cooperative Wholesale Contract Development public notification and education programs concerning An Oversight Committee of the Bull Run Water hazards of exposure to lead.Currently the Portland Managers is working to develop consensus on long- Water Bureau and regional purveyors are designing term contract language and concepts for wholesale of and developing the Lead-In-Water Testing program. water from the Portland Water Bureau to other water utilities in the Portland area.The committee's target is Wellhead Protection: the year 2000 for bringing new contracts before City The Portland system has a groundwater supply which Council and the wholesalers' decision-making bodies. . comes from 24 wells located along the Columbia River This committee is composed of representatives from between the Airport and Blue Lake Park.This the Portland Water Bureau,Tualatin Valley Water groundwater system is used for both emergencies and District,City of Tualatin,City of Tigard,City of as a summer supplement to Bull Run water.The Gresham,Rockwood Water District,and one agency Portland Water Bureau and the Cities of Gresham and representing the other holders of contracts with the Fairview are appointing an intergovernmental Portland Water Bureau.Two subcommittees—Rates& committee to coordinate and update existing wellhead Finance and Conservation&Ownership/Governance— protection programs in each of those jurisdictions. are meeting to analyze all issues. Powell Valley Road Water District in southeast Wholesale Operations Coordination Portland also utilizes wells as a supplmental source and has a State-approved wellhead protection program of Bull Run Water Managers began meeting to discuss its own. wholesale operations more than 10 years ago.Today the focus of the group is in upgrading water quality communications that affect all members of the wholesalers' group.The group also addresses peak demand management and supply coordination. Prepared by the City of Portland Bureau of Water Works 10199 To: Lorna Stickel Date: November 17, 1999 From: Joe Glicker Reference: Subject: Preliminary Evaluation of Transmission Scenarios for December Board Meeting The project team on the Regional Transmission Strategy project met to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the four regional transmission scenarios against the evaluation criteria that have been developed for the project. This memorandum summarizes those preliminary evaluations. We will review and modify the evaluations over the next month as we obtain comments from the CTSC and the CTC. SCENARIOS UNDER EVALUATION To briefly review,there are four scenarios plus the base case: Base Case: Currently planned transmission improvements of a new 72-inch diameter line from the Joint Water Commission to TV WD, 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 30-inch interconnection of between some of the WTP's on the Clackamas River. Scenario 1. Holistic. Allows any potential excess capacity from any source within the region to be brought to where demand is needed. Modeled after the electric utility grid system. Scenario 2. Emergency Interconnections. Assures that every supplier has access to one of six primary supplies in the region(Bull Run, Columbia South Shore wellfield, Clackamas River, Tualatin/Trask River, Willamette River and local groundwater) and a secondary source that is different than the primary supply. The capacity of the secondary source access is at average day demand for emergency purposes. Scenario 3. Zonal. Divides the region into two zones, east and west,with the dividing line being the west slope of the West Hills. Allows for each of the major sources in each zone to be transmitted as needed within the zone and provide a small intertie between the zones. t Scenario 4. Subregional Interconnected. Assumes that the Willamette source does not expand service beyond Wilsonville and Sherwood. Allows other sources in region to meet demands throughout the region. EVALUATION AGAINST THE PROJECT CRITERIA We have previously identified 11 different evaluation criteria for this project. Each of the scenarios, including the Base Case, were considered against each of the criteria. Only descriptive language of the evaluation is shown at this time. Rating of the scenarios against the criteria using a scale of 1 through 5, with 5 being the highest and 1 the lowest rating against the criteria, will be conducted after review by the CTSC, the CTC and the Board. The following describes the reasoning behind the rankings we developed. These evaluations were done from the perspective of transmission, and not source. Some comments about the implications of these transmission scenarios on source, and suggested additions to the evaluation criteria, are provided at the end of this section. 1. Weather-driven reliability. Logic: Assumes that the Willamette and Clackamas Rivers are less sensitive to droughts and the Bull Run and JWC supply are the most weather sensitive. Therefore, those scenarios that provide the most access to the Willamette and Clackamas sources are the most reliable in drought events. Ratings: Scenario 1: Everyone has access to all sources. Most favorable. Scenario 2: Portland relies on BR. West side partly on JWC. Limited access to Willamette and Clackamas rivers for many. Scenario 3: More access on west side to Willamette Scenario 4: Little west side access to Willamette, but some to Clackamas More Portland access to Clackamas, but load on Clackamas is high Base Case: No access to Willamette or Clackamas for JWC or Portland users 2. Emergency Reliability Logic: Assumes that access to multiple sources provides greater reliability in emergencies. Ratings: Scenario 1: Everyone has access to all sources. Scenario 2: Everyone has access to 1 backup source Scenario 3: Both west side and east side have access to multiple backups within zone, but only minor access between west and east sides. Scenario 4: West side has access to Portland, Clackamas as backup. Base Case: Most systems have some emergency backup, but many are not on a separate source. 2 s 3. Water Quality Logic: Assumes that all sources will meet drinking water standards. Assumes that river sources are all similar in character. Assumes that Portland system has slightly less consistency over time due to seasonal fluctuations in unfiltered Bull Run Ratings: Scenario 1: With access to many sources,might have more variability over time. Scenario 2: Sources consistent over time and among providers. Scenario 3: Sources consistent over time and among providers. Scenario 4: Sources consistent over time and among providers. Base Case: Sources consistent over time and among providers. 4. Transmission Costs Logic: Total preliminary planning level opinion of capital costs in each scenario for the pipelines is shown. Storage costs are not included in this numbers, but will be highest in Scenarios 1 and 3, next highest in Scenario 4 and lowest in Scenario 2. Ease with which costs and benefits can be clearly allocated to entities to maximize perceived fairness is subjective. Ratings: Scenario 1: $300 million. Largest pipe sizes and longest distances lead to highest costs. Harder to clearly identify beneficiaries of each element. Scenario 2: $90 million. Lowest cost. Easiest to tie cost and benefits together. Scenario 3: $200 million. Easy to tie cost and benefits together. Scenario 4: $200 million. A bit harder to tie costs and benefits together than Scenario 3. Base Case: No cost assigned as base case improvements common to all scenarios. 5. Environment Logic: If transmission facilitates moving water to minimize environmental impacts and maximize environmental benefits, rates higher. Greatest need to mitigate environmental issues are fish on the Bull Run. Second greatest is fish in Clackamas River. Instream water quality mitigation is assumed need on the Tualatin River. The Willamette River is assumed to have the fewest environmental issues. Ratings: Scenario 1: Allows moving supplies around to minimize impacts and maximize benefits. 3 Scenario 2: Some improved ability to adjust supplies to minimize impacts, but not large improvement over base case. Scenario 3: Allows Willamette to mitigate Tualatin issues, and Bull Run and Clackamas to trade water. Scenario 4: Heaviest reliance on Bull Run and Clackamas, which have the most environmental issues. Base Case: No ability to adjust to environmental needs. 6. Efficiency Logic: If transmission system facilitates access to whatever supplies exist,then rated higher. Ratings: Scenario 1: Allows access to any existing source. Scenario 2: Some minor improvement in ability to bring excess supplies to areas of need through interties. Scenario 3: Allows access to supplies on a zonal basis. Scenario 4: Allows access to Bull Run and Clackamas supplies. Base Case: No ability to bring current excess supplies to areas of need. 7. Operating Flexibility Logic: If transmission system allows providers to choose sources,then rates higher. Ratings: Scenario 1: Allows access to any source. Scenario 2: Some minor improvement in ability to choose source. Scenario 3: Allows access to supplies on a zonal basis. Scenario 4: Greater reliance on east side sources. Base Case: No ability to currently choose source. 8. Long-term System Development Logic: If transmission system takes advantage of near-term improvements,then rated high. Ratings: Scenario 1: Takes advantage of near-term improvements. Scenario 2: Takes advantage of near-term improvements. Scenario 3: Takes advantage of near-term improvements. Scenario 4: Takes advantage of near-term improvements. Base Case: Takes advantage of near-term improvements Note: There is no difference among the scenarios for this criteria. Suggest dropping this criteria. 4 9. Short-term Local Needs Logic: If scenario is difficult to implement or will take a long time to put into place,then rated lower at being able to meet short-term local needs. Ratings: Scenario 1: Relatively difficult to implement and will take the longest to put into place. Willamette solves short-term needs. Scenario 2: Easiest to implement and shortest timeframe to make improvements. Willamette solves short-term needs Scenario 3: Relatively easy to implement. Willamette solves short-term needs. Scenario 4: Relatively difficult to implement and will take relatively long to put into place. Can't solve short-term needs until long-term in place. Base Case: No impediment to solving short-term need. 10. Legal/Regulatory Feasibility Logic: Scenarios that call for construction of link between Clackamas and the westside are assumed harder to construct due to issues associated with routing. Ratings: Scenario 1: Clackamas to west side crossing, largest construction program. Scenario 2: Smallest construction program. Scenario 3: Moderate construction program. Scenario 4: Moderate construction program but includes Clackamas to west side crossing. Base Case: No need for projects. 11. Institutional/Financial Feasibility Logic: Scenarios with more potential partners are assumed to be harder to implement. Ratings: Scenario 1: Many partners in projects, requires regional agreements. Scenario 2: Easy to implement with bilateral agreements. Scenario 3: Zonal agreements required, but not regional. Scenario 4: Agreements among a number of providers required. Base Case: No need for agreements. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA The issue of the relationship of source and transmission is one that has been an undercurrent of the project since the beginning. We have attempted to separate these two 5 issues as much as possible and focus on transmission independent of source issues. However, during the evaluation process it was apparent that each scenario has different assumptions about source development inherent in it. These underlying assumptions are shown in Table 1. For each scenario,the sources that are assumed would, or could be developed and in some cases,the degree of their development is shown. Table 1. Assumptions of Sources in Transmission Scenarios SCENARIO INHERENT SOURCE DEVELOPMENT 1. Holistic Dam 3 Large Willamette Tualatin/Trask Clackamas 2. Emergency Backup Moderate Willamette Tualatin/Trask Clackamas 3. Zonal Large Willamette Tualatin/Trask Clackamas 4. Subregional Dam 3 interconnect Small Willamette Tualatin/Trask Clackamas 5. Base Case Dam 1&2 Expansion ASR development Moderate Willamette Tualatin/Trask Clackamas Because the varying scenarios do have these varying implications on sources, it is suggested that two new criteria be added to reflect these implications. These criteria are: Source Cost. Minimize the cost of source development to the region. Source Environmental Impact. Minimize the adverse environmental impacts of source development and maximize the environmental benefits. The suggested evaluation of these criteria then are: 12. Source Cost. Logic: Ratings reflect subjective judgement of relative cost of each scenario plus ease with which costs and benefits can be clearly allocated to entities to maximize perceived fairness. Assumes Dam 1&2 expansion is the least cost, Tualatin/Trask and Clackamas 6 r source development are the next lowest cost, Willamette development is next highest, and Dam 3 is highest cost source development. Ratings: Scenario 1: Constructs Dam 3 and other sources, but transmission system allows source development to be timed to minimize net present worth. Scenario 2: Willamette, Tualatin/Trask and Clackamas development. Scenario 3: Willamette, Tualatin/Trask and Clackamas development. Scenario 4: Dam 3 is required to be constructed earlier than in Scenario 1. Base Case: Moderate source development program. 13. Source Environmental Impact Logic: Assumes greatest potential source environmental impact is in the Bull Run and next greatest is on the Clackamas River. Assumes Tualatin/Trask is next and the Willamette has least environmental impact. Ratings: Scenario 1: Constructs Dam 3 and all other sources. Scenario 2: Smallest source development program. Scenario 3: Moderate source development program. Scenario 4: Constructs Dam 3 and all other sources expect Willamette. Base Case: Moderate source development program. SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS In examining the above analysis of the scenarios against the evaluation criteria, some observations can be made about each scenario. 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 items such as reliability, flexibility, efficiency, and 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 that relate to 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. This scenario assumes that the Willamette source is developed up to a capacity of around 50-60 MGD and that it is 7 piped far enough north(to Tigard at least)to tie into the JWC and other westside systems. If the Willamette is only developed as in Scenario 4, as a smaller more local source, then additional pipeline cost would be needed to bring this source to the north in order to obtain the reliability and other benefits of it in the regional system. Scenario 3 Zonal. This scenario provides the same types of benefits as the Holistic scenario does in terms of reliability, environment, efficiency and flexibility, but not quite to the same level as the Holistic scenario does (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 similar to Scenario 3, 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. It's cost is of course the lowest and since it is a"do nothing"alternative, it is the easiest to achieve. From this evaluation, the choice between the scenarios becomes a question of what things are most important, and how important are they relative to cost and feasibility. This leads to another important point when considering these scenarios. These scenarios do not need to be mutually exclusive. That is, a regional transmission strategy could be adopted that moves from one scenario to another over time. In the short-term (say the next 10-20 years), the projects contained in the Emergency Backup Scenario 2 could be built. This would add the Willamette to the regional system, and connect the Portland and Clackamas systems, the Portland and JWC systems, and Willamette and JWC systems. Then in the longer-term, a second Willamette pipeline could be added (the Zonal scenario)and/or a connection between the Portland/Clackamas systems and the westside (the Holistic scenario) could be built. This would allow a slow evolution of the regional transmission network without requiring substantial regional changes in the near-term. This strategy of an incremental approach to a longer-term regional vision could also be considered as a possible approach to the regional transmission strategy. 8 r i ��. .. ��r� � �a� $�� ,;. • �m. :w3 ,s..,m Via,` .-:-"�*„ A,.t,? +., r•,+n*�r��, Organizational Mandates Regional Water Providers Consortium Purposes,Authorities and Limitations October 1999 This briefing paper covers the Consortium established purposes, as well as past, current, and planned activities. This overview should not be viewed as limiting the discussion, but rather to help those who may not be familiar with the history of the Consortium to understand its background. The Consortium does not have a mission statement per se, nor does it have a written vision statement. In formulating a 5-year Strategic Plan one of the possible outcomes would be to write a mission or vision statement,so long as the authorizing IGA does not conflict with them, or the IGA could be amended if needed. The purposes of the Consortium are established in several different places, primarily the authorizing intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Information on the Consortium's role can also be gleaned from the staffing IGA and the by-laws for the Board and Technical Committee. The authorizing IGA that each entity signed upon joining the Cons6rtium states in Section 2 that the purposes of the Consortium are to: A. Promote the voluntary coordination of individual and collective action of Participants implementing the Plan; B. Serve as the central custodian for Plan documents, including computer models; C. Review and recommend revisions to the Plan, as appropriate; D. Provide a forum for the study and discussion of water supply issues of mutual interest to Participants and to coordinate the responses of Participants to such issues; E. Provide a forum for review and discussion of water resource related issues preliminary to any final actions by individual Participants, regarding issues which could be considered to related to application of the statewide land use goals, comprehensive plans, regional plans, or land use regulations; F. Establish an avenue for public participation in water supply issues in addition to public participation activities of the individual Participants. There are other sections of this primary IGA that are central to the intent of forming the Consortium that should be considered as strategic planning proceeds. Section 3 endorses the Regional Water Supply Plan, stating that the individual Participants"...agree to cooperate among themselves in its implementation". This section notes that the RWSP is provide guidance for individual water supply decisions but does not require any mandatory action by individual Participants. Section 4 further notes that no individual Participant"....has assigned or granted to any other or to the Consortium its water rights t or the power to plan, construct, and operate its water system or perform, and other obligation or duty assigned to it under law". Section 5 contains a list of Consortium Authorities relating to funding, staffing, meeting arrangements and the following ' planning activities: L. Establish a process to coordinate Participant response to water policy issues of mutual concern; M. Establish procedures to solicit the view of the public on water supply and water resource issues within the Consortium's purview; N. Establish a process whereby water policy and water supply disputes or disagreements among Participants may be resolved. Section 9 outlines the powers of the Consortium Board which is specifically authorized to' do the following as well as some other powers relating the agreement itself- 1. Approve the Consortium's annual work plan and budget 2. Set Consortium policy 3. Approve new Consortium Participants 4. Recommend water supply, water planning, and regional cooperation actions to Participant governing boards, commissions, or councils, especially, but not limited to actions to implement the Plan 5. Approve minor amendments to the Plan 6. Recommend to the governing boards, commission,or councils of the Consortium Participants major amendments to the Plan; , 7. Periodically review the Plan comprehensively, on a schedule providing for review at least every five years, commencing with the date upon which the Consortium is formed, or on a shorter schedule determined by the Board. Another section that could play into the Strategic Planning Committee's work is Section 9 E. 4, which notes that the Board can establish subcommittees of itself, including a standing"Executive Committee." The Board by-laws provide that the Chair of the Technical Committee will be an ex-officio member of the Executive Committee, and that the Board will determine the purpose of the Executive Committee at the time of its formation. An additional section of the By-Laws, Article 8 title Advocacy, allows the Board Chair to act for the Board, or to delegate this to others including staff,but only as to previously authorized positions. The IGA between the Consortium Board and the City of Portland establishes provisions for Portland to provide staffing services to the Consortium. This is more of a functional, operating agreement than the authorizing IGA. A point relevant to the strategic planning discussion is that the term of this IGA will expire in 2002 unless extended or terminated sooner under the provisions of the agreement. In summary,the above discussion highlights key provisions that address the purposes or role of the Consortium. Taken on balance, these provisions establish a wide range of issues the Consortium Board may address,and contexts in which the Consortium may function. These provisions also limit the effects of Board actions on individual 2 participants. The IGA itself then does contain some guidance and sideboards as to the discussion future roles. Major Program Areas of the Consortium Based on just under two years of history and on the adopted third year work program the primary program areas of the Consortium, other than standard logistical/administrative support and public involvement, are as follows: ✓ Conservation analysis and program implementation ✓ Water supply transmission and system interconnections for both supply and emergency backup purposes ✓ Emergency preparedness planning ✓ Source water protection ✓ Intergovernmental coordination to present a unified presence in regional,.state, and federal program implementation and policy development More detail on specific activities in provided in the next section. Past, Present, and Anticipated Activities Review In looking to the future role of the Consortium, one aspect of the process is to assess where the Consortium has been so far, and where it is anticipated to go in the next year. A year-end report was prepared for the first full year of operation(July 1997-July 1998). Current and anticipated activities are set forth in the work plans for fiscal years 1999-99 and 1999-00. In a nutshell, the past, present, and anticipated Consortium activities are as follows: 1997/98 ➢ The Consortium and its Board and standing technical committees were formed and started operation as a dues functioning organization. The Consortium Board decided to meet on a quarterly basis. By-Laws were adopted for the Board and Technical Committee. Public notice procedures and mailing lists were established. Work Program formulation for the next year became part of the process. ➢ The Source Water Protection participation strategy was developed in collaboration with a Stakeholders Advisory Committee. The Board adopted the strategy in May 1998. ➢ A project focused on water conservation program implementation was initiated in April 1998. The project scope included development of a strategy to track and measure water conservation effects, review and confirm key conservation-related assumptions in the RWSP, and develop a conservation program work plan to meet regional water savings targets. The Consortium established a close working 3 relationship with the Columbia Willamette Conservation Coalition to accomplish these outcomes. ' ➢ Coordination activities related to federal, state, regional and local or subregional water resource related planning activities and programs were conducted. 1998/99 ➢ Specific work initiatives related to the logistical (which absorb a portion of the budget each year thereafter) and the coordination activities become part of the ongoing activities. ➢ Conservation program implementation continues as a strong Consortium initiative, including reports to and discussions with the Board, completion of conservation baseline survey of all Consortium members, completion of consultant-generated report and staff-generated implementation strategy for tracking and measurement. Revisiting RWSP conservation targets and assumptions, along with development of the program work plan will be initiated this year. Discussion of the-respective role and relationships of the Consortium and the Coalition have'also'been a focus. ➢ Coordinated Emergency Planning Phase 1 was initiated, involving completion of a survey of Consortium member agencies current resources, priorities and needs pertaining to emergency preparedness and response. The survey results have been input to a database. Analysis of this informationis projected for completion this year. ➢ Preparation of a detailed scope of work for a Transmission and Storage Strategy Development project was presented to the Board in March 1999. The project scope included work tasks to begin in this year. The consultant selection process has been completed and contract will be signed in May 1999. ➢ Activities pertaining to the Consortium's Source Protection Participation Strategy have included participation in Senator Ron Wyden hearings regarding the impacts of the 1996 floods on federal lands and subsequent policy actions, development of Title 3 of Metro's regional growth management functional plan, and statewide discussions on community right to know and pesticide sales and use tracking. 1999/2000 ➢ A major initiative for this upcoming year will be completion of the Transmission and Storage Strategy Development project. A one-time assessment for professional services was approved to assist in completing this Strategy. ➢ A work plan for conservation program implementation will be developed and submitted to the Consortium Technical Committee and Board for discussion of recommendations and resource requirements,refinement and approval. ➢ A second phase of the Coordinated Emergency Preparedness Planning element is will identify strategies, which could improve the ability of the regional water providers to prevent and manage emergency service interruptions. This work will be coordinated with the development of the transmission strategy. A strategic planning initiative should be completed. This effort will set the direction for the Consortium for the next several years to direct future budgets and work programs. 4 For the IWB action, I suggest the following, "The Tigard City Council has decided to not seek voter approval in the near future for authorization to use the Willamette River as a drinking water source and the City is in the process of reevaluating long term water source options. One option that it is now being considering is seeking a long term supply commitment from the Joint Water Commission. A study to update information we currently have on this option is necessary in order to give it serious consideration. In April of this year each IWB member governing body approved the Willamette River Water Supply System capital improvement Program as the program for the long term water supply to serve IWB members. In order for Tigard to move forward with its reevaluation of long term water options for the system, it is requesting the cooperation of each IWB member in recommending to their governing body recission of the April actions to a program. When the pprove the Willamette capital improvement reevaluation is complete, Tigard will return to this Board with a recommendation on an appropriate capital improvement program that will best meet the long term water needs of the customers of all members. I move that the Board direct each member to request their respective governing bodies to rescind the action taken by each earlier this year in adopting the Willamette project capital improvement program, and to report to this Board at its next meeting the response of each governing body to this request."