Loading...
City Council Packet - 09/29/1993 ( Council Agenda Item I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 JOINT MEETING: KING CITY, DURHAM, TIGARD WATER DISTRICT & SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON COUNTY INTERIM JOINT WATER AGENCY BOARD • Meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Council President Schwartz. Councilor Schwartz asked persons sitting at the table to introduce themselves. The following persons signed in: Tigard City Council: Council President John Schwartz, Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, and Paul Hunt. Tigard Staff present: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Janice Deardorff, Personnel Director; Loreen Edin, Acting Public Works Director; Mary Gruss, Accounting Supervisor; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Tim Ramis, City Attorney; Terry Tourney, Accounting Assistant; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. Durham City Council: Mayor Peggy Manning. Durham Staff present: Roger { Gano, City Manager. King City Council: Mayor Lynda Jenkins; Councilors Claudia Anderson, Pauline Chamberlain, John Greene, Barbara McCaige; Barbara C. Stilson (Council President). King City Staff present: John A. Buol, City Manager (also serving as Acting Interim Manager of the Joint Water Agency). Tigard Water District: Board Chair John Haunsperger; Board Members; Beverly J. Froude, Lou Ane Mortensen, Art Pedersen. Also present: Legal Counsel, David Knowles. Southeast Washington County Interim Joint Water Agency: Board Member Clarence Nicoli. JWA Staff Present: Brian Clancy; Mike Miller; Richard Sattler; Randy Volk. (Also serving on the Joint Water Agency Board as well as other councils or boards who are already listed include Lynda Jenkins, Chair; Beverly J. Froude, Paul Hunt, Patrick J. Reilly; John Schwartz). Other persons present: Clark Belfour, Tualatin Valley Water District; Robin Franzen, Oregonian; Bruce Griswold, City of Lake Oswego; Darrel Johnson, resident of The Highlands; Jesse O. Lowman, Tualatin Valley Water District; Ken Martin, Boundary Commission; Donna Schmidt, Tigard Times. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 - PAGE 1 Council President Schwartz introduced City of Tigard City Administrator Patrick Reilly. Mr. Reilly facilitated the review of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement by guiding those present through a series of overhead projector outlines presented for discussion. (A copy of the set of material reviewed by Mr. Reilly is attached to these minutes). During the presentation, the following represents the general issues raised: • (King City) A concern was expressed that the other two cities had been convinced to withdraw from the Tigard Water District and then the alternative for the City water department was introduced. (Tigard) The response was that, until recently, it had been assumed that the Tigard Water District would dissolve. It is now known that the Tigard Water District Board does not support the action to dissolve TWD at this time. In fact, the Tigard Water District may continue indefinitely. • (King City) Concern was expressed as to why Tigard thought this alternative (City water department) would be any better than the Joint Water Agency or, before that, the Tigard Water District (i.e., what was wrong with the way the old Tigard Water District was doing business?) (Tigard) Response was the City of Tigard wished to become more involved in securing a long-term water source and to become more involved with water-related decisions which affected the City's operations. One example cited, with regard to decisions which affect the City, was that of growth. Through participating in water decisions, growth issues can be managed more effectively. Another issue for Tigard was the desire to have one water system for the entire city. At this time the City of Tigard is served by the Joint Water Agency and by Tualatin Valley Water District. The Tigard Council wants to assure continuity for all residents (for water service) within City boundaries. • (Tigard) It was stressed that the agreements before the Tigard Water District and the cities of King City and Durham were draft agreements. The proposed agreements require long-term water contracts and capital improvements to be approved by three of the four entities. • (Tigard) A member of the Tigard City Council reviewed some background information surrounding this issue. In January, 1991, there was a presentation of the steps (approximately 30) involved in forming a 190 Agreement. At that time, the cities began preparations to withdraw from the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 - PAGE 2 Water District. As time passed, other unanticipated events occurred. One unforeseen dilemma arose when it became known that the Washington County Board of Commissioners did not want to appoint or be involved with the appointment of a board member from the unincorporated area to the Joint Water Agency. (A member of the Joint Water Agency noted the Tigard Water District then decided it must remain as a board, because it was necessary to appoint the member of the Joint Water Agency). There was general discussion about the history of this effort. Mr. Ken Martin, Boundary Commission Administrator, concurred and clarified past events with regard to the County's position on this issue and the resulting impact this had on the process. He noted at this point it was important to move forward on this issue and to proceed under the circumstances which are now before the decision-makers. • (T WD) It was also noted there is a bond levy which must be overseen by the Tigard Water District Board (as well as to appoint a representative to the JWA Board). A Councilor from Tigard noted the Tigard Water District will remain as a participant with rights as one of the parties to the agreement. • (King City, Durham, TWD) Concern was expressed regarding the make-up of the water agency board and the balance of powers. An advisory board was not perceived to have enough authority and ability to influence a decision of the Council. • There was a request to review again the overhead page which cited the key differences (page 7 of the attachment). It was noted by a Tigard Councilor that the City of Tigard would have no more authority than they would have had under the Joint Water Agency with regard to capital improvement programs and the water supply contract. • City of Durham representative asked if there was any preliminary data which indicated how much savings there would be by eliminating redundancies. City Administrator Reilly advised preliminary estimates project that approximately a $150,000 savings could be realized. These savings would come through elimination of doubled-up department functions and personnel, as well as duplication of field equipment and vehicles. City Administrator Reilly stressed the City of Tigard does not usually lay off personnel. In the past, changes (reductions) in staff are accomplished through attrition or by movement of personnel within the organization. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 - PAGE 3 In response to a question, Mr. Reilly advised that an immediate reduction in water rates would probably not be realized. Over the long term, however, growth in water rates would be minimized because of cost savings by elimination of redundancies. Mr. Reilly explained the water function would be handled as an "enterprise fund." Revenue and expenses would be accounted for separately from other City functions. I Several members of the King City Council (as well as a TWD Board member) noted their reservations that this amount of money was, in fact, the amount which could be saved. They questioned why more detailed information and financial data was not presented. They also expressed concern that the agreement may be too general in terms to guarantee that water revenues would be utilized for water-related expenses. • (TWD) A member from the Tigard Water District board advised she thought the Advisory Board, in essence, would abdicate all authority to the City of Tigard Council. A King City Council member also noted this was of concern. She cited the example that a Planning Commission's decision (as would an Advisory Board's) could be over-ridden by City Council. There was brief review of some items contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement. It was noted that on Page 5, Item 7, there was concern that the City of Tigard would be able to alter the rules and regulations governing water service. • Concern was expressed regarding employees currently working for the Joint Water Agency. • (King City) There was a notation of concern regarding Page 4, Item F, that the 1% rebate to the cities be used for water-related expenses. • There was a request that a complete inventory of assets be done soon. • Councilor Hunt (Tigard) acknowledged the reluctance of the other decision- makers. The following questions were asked: Were there were any areas of consensus/agreement at this time? What areas were of the most concern? In these areas of concern, were there any ideas on how to move forward toward negotiation and resolution? CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 - PAGE 4 Councilor Hunt summarized, what he thought he heard as the main areas of concern or disagreement with the current Tigard proposal: 1. The status of the Advisory Board needs to be negotiated. There was concern by the other entities that this Board be empowered with more authority than a typical city advisory board. 2. More documentation needs to be presented which substantiates the assertion that cost savings of at least $150,000 would be realized if the water services were provided by Tigard as a City department. There was indication from several officials at the table expressing agreement with the above observations as phrased by Councilor Hunt. • There was discussion on whether or not cities were the proper place for managing water systems. Observations were made on both sides of this issue; i.e., problems and successess were cited. • Mayor Jenkins, King City, reminded all present that the most important interest to be represented was that of the consumer. Mayor Jenkins noted there were really only two options left: (1) they would continue to try to work together; (2) or they would not. • Mayor Manning, City of Durham, summarized the next steps in this process as follows: Each entity schedule a meeting of their council or board at which time they will develop a pro and con list with regard to the Tigard proposal. Each entity review their priorities. For example, where does long- term water supply fit within their ranking of importance? Each entity decide whether or not the proposal presented to them with regard to the elimination of redundancies and resultant cost savings is a logical assumption. If not, should an outside audit be conducted? If an outside audit is the choice, then how much would each entity be willing to contribute towards the cost of such an audit? Each entity decide as to which points are agreeable to them in the Tigard proposal and which areas were "sticking points." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 - PAGE 5 Councilor Schwartz asked if anyone disagreed with Mayor Manning's summation of the next step. No objections were noted. It was requested that comments from each of the jurisdictions be given back to City Administrator Reilly by the week of October 18. City Administrator Reilly will compile and distribute the comments to all parties. The next joint meeting was set for October 27, 1993, at 7 p.m., Tigard City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: 9:11 p.m. /;~7 Catherine Wheatley, City R corder Atte t: eetim , City of Tigard -MAyoi~ Date: h-.\recorder\ccm\ccm0929.93 ( CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 - PAGE 6 ASSUMPTIONS WATER GOAL: HIGHEST QUALITY WATER SERVICE AT LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICE Everybody is Trying to Do the Right Thing Tigard Water District is Not Going to Dissolve Everyone is Wary of Others No One Likes Change Midstream and It's Always the Other Guy Who Changes No Value in Accusing Each Other of Improprieties Need to Resolvel Page 1 WHAT CAUSED ALL OF THIS? Proposed Merger Between Wolf Creek Water District and Metzger Water District! (Districts are Temporary Political Institutions) Key Dates: February 3, 1991 City notified of proposed merger of Wolf Creek and Metzger Water Districts April 2, 1991 City of Tigard decides to review water service January 23, 1992 First joint meeting of cities and water district August 11, 1992 Tigard adopts resolution committing to orderly withdrawal from District, ' dissolution of District, and creation of a Joint Water Agency I WHY CHANGE? Defensive/Protection of Local Governance Wanted Influence/Control Over Key Decisions Growth Management... Water Should Be Tied to Land Use Economy of Scale/Consolidation Savings Regional Political Clout One Water Purveyor for City of Tigard Page 2 KEY FEATURES OF TIGARD PROPOSAL 1. A SERIES OF TWO-WAY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE ENTITIES BEING SERVED WATER BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. 2. STILL NEGOTIABLE. 3. RESIDENTS OF TIGARD, KING CITY, DURHAM AND TIGARD WATER DISTRICT PAY SAME RATE FOR WATER, UNLESS RESPECTIVE GOVERNING BODY AUTHORIZES EXCEPTION. 4. WATER IS PROVIDED TO ALL, EQUALLY. IF RESTRICTIONS REQUIRED, ALL TREATED EQUALLY. 5. CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORD WITH LONG RANGE CIP, SUPPORTED BY SOUND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WITH BEST INTEREST OF WATER CUSTOMERS WITHIN AREA SERVED, IGNORING CITY LIMITS. 6. THE ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ANY LONG TERM WATER CONTRACT WILL REQUIRE RATIFICATION BY 3 OF THE 4 PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT. 7. ADVISORY BOARD ...5 MEMBER, 1 FROM EACH CITY AND UNINCORPORATED AREA AND 1 AT LARGE AGREEABLE TO AT LEAST 3 ENTITIES... ROLE IS TO ADVISE TIGARD COUNCIL WITH SELECTED "ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS." A. RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS, SUCH AS RATES, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, OPERATING POLICY CHANGES, { BUDGET, LONG TERM CONTRACTS INCLUDING WATER; B. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE VARIANCES TO OPERATING POLICIES; C. AUTHORITY TO OFFER RECOMMENDATIONS ON ANY MATTER. PERTAINING TO WATER 8. LINE EXTENSION PRACTICES REFLECT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OF EACH CITY. A. NO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ANNEX TO A CITY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT. 9. EACH POLITICAL SUBDIVISION SERVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IS ENTITLED TO 1% OF GROSS WATER SALES WITHIN RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WATER AGREEMENT AND WATER RELATED. 10. ASSUMING AGREEMENTS CAN BE REACHED WITH ALL PARTIES WITH ASSETS PLEDGED TO OPERATION OF WATER UTILITY - E.G., CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL -(WITH ENTITIES RESERVING RIGHT TO DIVIDE AT FUTURE TIME), THE ACTUAL DIVISION OF ASSETS WILL BE MINIMIZED. 11. RESIDENTS OF AREAS CONTRACTING WITH CITY OF TIGARD SHALL NOT BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH EFFORTS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD ASSOCIATED WITH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND GOAL OF ONE WATER PURVEYOR FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD. Page 3 AS A CITY DEPARTMENT Pros Cons Elimination of Redundancies Tigard Benefits More Than Anyone Else Water Savings Passed Along Tigard Has Control to All Maximize Use of Not Expected From Assets/Resources Beginning Reduces Layer of Government Employees Benefit Through ' Larger Organization Page 4 NOW REDIUNDANT ®PERATIM Administration... Finance Department (Billing/Audit/A. R./A. P./G. L./Counter) Permitting Process Engineering Public Information Field Equipment/Vehicles (Utilization Project Coordination Personnel Department Page 5 PROTECTIONS i Jurisdictional Approval Required for Long-Term Water Supply Contract and Capital Improvement Program Rates Will Be Uniform Restrictions (if Required) Will Be Uniform Each Entity Retains Its Assets Page 6 KEY DIFFERENCES t I Tigard as s Provider JWA 1 s 1. Day to Day Service City Department Separate Delivery Water Operation z F: y i E 2. Capital Improvement 3 of 4 Juris- 5 of 7 mem- Program dictions must hers must approve approve f 3. Water Supply Contract 3 of 4 Juris- 5 of 7 mem- dictions must hers Must approve approve 4. "Policy" Decisions Tigard City JWA Council with Advisory Board Review Page 7 k J JOINT WATER AGENCY Pros Cons Governance Is Shared Economies of Scale/ Redundancies Achieved Only Through Negotiations Expected Outcome Unknown Entity/Added Layer of Government 5 7 Water Remains Independent Water Remains Isolated V 2 1 1 A Page 8 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. ~®gal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0350 Notice TT 7682 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice ATIN: Terry • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit '13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard, Oregon 97223 Yl~~lt® Offy OF OEM . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The"followmgmetinghighlights arepublished foryourinformation. Full STATE OF OREGON, ) agendas maybe obtained from the City.Raborder; 13125 S.W. Hall COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' Boulevard, ttod,Oregen 97223. or by calling 639-4171. I, Judith Koehler SPECIAL CITY COUNCII.JOINT' MEtSmaWITH being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising I KING CITY, DURAAM.MGARD WATER DISTRICT Director, or his principal clerk, of the g?* T~ "'PS & SOUTHEASTERN COUNTY a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 INTERIM JOINT WATER AGENCY BOARD and 193.020; published at-- igard in the SEPTEMBER29,1993-7P.M' " of r o,d o,80 tv and state t"Wang TIGARDCITY HALL -TOWN HALL SyUecia)c ify Council 13125 S.W. ~ BOULfiVARD, HOARD, OREGON a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the . Introductions: : entire issue of said newspaper for successive and • Purpose of Meeting: Review of Proposod'Intergovernmental consecutive in the following issues: • Due on ofTiaerd and Alternatives, Sept 23, 1993 Set Next Mewing Dateoceasary. TT7682 - Publish September 23. 1993. 23rd day of Septembe , OFFICIAL SEAL Subscribed and sworn t afore me this ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON i 61. COMMISSION N0. 024552 Notary lic for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY16,1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT