Loading...
City Council Packet - 11/01/1994 8 J+ CITY OF Ti'IGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). if no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator: Times noted are estimated: it Is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. -Business agert_da_ate= can be heard in ang annfor after 7:30 p.m. - Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 539-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 584-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deat). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the fallowing services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 539-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 584-277s (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf}. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL. AGENDA - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 1 r TIIGAIRD CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1994 AGENDA • STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.): Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss employment of public officers and employees, labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues. Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR°S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 20 and 27, 1994 3.2 Receive and t=ile: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Adjustment to the 1994/95 Budget to Reflect Revenues and Expenditures from Grant Projects Not Included in the 1994/95 Budget - Resolution No. 94 COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 2 S!. i .,S d rNi ~_yat s 4. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO.7 - To consider approval of a reimbursement district agreement between Ken Randall Homes, LLC, and the City of Tigard. The hearing is for the purpose of reviewing the proposed agreement for a sanitary sewer public improvement in Park Street, west of Grant Avenue. The City Council will entertain comments from adjacent property owners at this public hearing. a. Open Public Bearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - City Engineer d. Public Testimony 1. Applicant 2. Proponents 3. Opponents e. Council Questions f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing, h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94-- 5. MON-AGENDA ITEMS 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss employment of public officers and employees, labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues. 7. ADJOURNMENT coal 101.94 COUNCIL AGENDA -NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 3 lligigm 1 - Council Agenda Item 3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Council President Hurst. Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt; Councilors Wend! Conover Hawley, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • Tentative Council Meeting Calendar for November and December is as follows: November 8 Cancelled November 15 Study Meeting November 22 Business Meeting November 29 Tentatively reserved as Business Meeting December 6 Tentatively reserved as Business Meeting December 13 Business Meeting, with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Hearings on Albertson's and Ripley's scheduled December 20 Cancelled December 27 Business Meeting (Councilor Hawley advised she would not be able to attend on this date) Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss employment of public officers and employees, labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues. Council meeting reconvened into regular session at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING • Council Communications and Liaison Deports - none k CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 1 MEE= a Cali to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Council President Hunt advised he had a non-agenda item under Item No. 5 concerning use of assets from the sale of the building on Main Street. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: - None 3. CONSENT A 'E Dom: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 20 and 27, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Adjustment to the 1994/95 Budget to Reflect Revenues and Expenditures from Grant Projects Not Included in the 1994/95 Budget - Resolution No. 94-50 Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt and Councilors Hawley, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 7 - To consider approval of a reimbursement district agreement between Ken Randall Homes, LLC, and the City of Tigard. The hearing is for the purpose of reviewing the proposed agreement for a sanitary sewer public improvement in Park Street, west of Grant Avenue. The City Council will. entertain comments from adjacent property owners at this public hearing. Council President Hunt noted the public hearing would be conducted under the recently adopted provisions for reimbursement districts (Ordinance No. 94-10; Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.09). Council President Hunt referred to wording in Section 13.09.050 which stated "...the public hearing is for informational purposes only and is not subject to mandatory termination because of remonstrances. The City Council has the sole discretion after the public hearing to decide whether a resolution approving and forming the reimbursement district shall be adopted." Interim City Administrator Monahan advised this language distinguishes reimbursement districts from the LID process with. which the public is generally more familiar. 4 y h CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 2 a. Public Hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff Report City Engineer Wooley reviewed how the reimbursement district process worked under the new ordinance. He advised that the intent was to pay back a developer a portion of costs when improvements were made which could be of benefit to other property owners. Mr. Wooley referred to an overhead projector slide which depicted the proposed district map (a copy of this map is shown with Exhibit "B" attached to the resolution). There were six lots identified in the reimbursement district area. Lots 2, 3, and 4 were owned by the developer, Ken Randall. City Engineer Wooley noted that the initial costs submitted by Mr. Randall were $55,000. After some review and because of requirements for documentation of costs, the amount was reduced by the City Engineer to $35,433.14. City Engineer Wooley then reviewed the methodology which is also contained in the exhibit to Resolution No. 94-49. It was recommended that the cost of $5,0^09.02 be charged per lot for connection to the sewer line. City Engineer Wooley advised he thought the costs for the installaAon of the sewer line appeared to be reasonable and it was recommended that an annual fee adjustment be set at 7'x/0. The reimbursement fee of $5,069.02 would be increased by 7 c/'o' each year on the anniversary date of the formation of the district. City Engineer Wooley advised that the administrative charge was allowed by TMC 13.09.030(0 and it was recommended that the administrative fee for this district be set at $100. 'there was discussion on the interest accrual at 7% and whether it was simple interest or compound. It was noted by City Engineer Wooley and verified by Legal Counsel Beery that the interest amount was simple interest. In response to a question by Councilor Rohtf, City Engineer Wooley noted the fee of $5,069.02 would be approximately twice that amount at the end of the fifteen year period. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, City Engineer Wooley advised that Lots 5 and 6 each have a house on the lot, with their own drainage field at this time. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, City Engineer Wooley noted that septic systems could have a life of approximately 20 to 30 years, but sometimes can be repaired, thereby servicing the property longer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 3 111''J J'p There was discussion on location of other sewer lines and whether it would have been more cost effective to utilize existing sewer lines. City Engineer Wi/ooley noted different items were considered, such as the need to secure easements and/or the grade problems for hooking up to existing sewers. In response to a question from Councilor Rohif whether it would have been cheaper for Lot 5 to connect to an existing sewer line, City Engineer WVooley advised possibly it would have been cheaper if an easement could have been secured for no cost. It was noted that only the line in Park Street was considered as part of the reimbursement district. d. Public Testimony Applicant - Ken Randall, 9500 SW Capitol Highway, Suite 300, Portland, Oregon, 97219, testified that in order to connect to the existing sewer, it would have been necessary to construct through established lots which would have meant taking down old trees and going between buildings. He advised it was not his choice to build more sewer line. He noted he undertook building of the homes and sewer line with the "promise" from the City of Tigard that he had the availability of this reimbursement district option. He said that without this ordinance, it would not have been feasible for him to have built the houses. He also advised it was a dramatic cut from his initial request for $55,000 to the present amount of $35,783.14. He noted the eight inch diameter sewer could service many houses. He also noted he had requested a 121% interest rate and referred to his cost of borrowing money. He stated the sewer cannot be sold and that it is for the public good. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Randall advised the price for a new house was based on what the market would bear. He also noted it was his impression that there was a "promise of reimbursement." In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, City Engineer WVooley advised that the sewer line is a public line maintained by the City, and the City owns the line. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Randall advised the sewer plans had already been approved and stamped when he purchase the property. He noted that he "was not given an option" with regard to the sewer lines. There was discussion between Councilors and Mr. Randall with regard to the recouping of his costs and the requirements for sewer service. Duane Meyer, 13210 SW Watkins Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted he was not within the reimbursement district area; however, he was concerned that at some point in time a similar situation would affect him. Mr. Meyer distributed a copy of his questions. (a copy of these are on file with the - i':yrN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 4 Imam- Council packet material.) Mr. Meyer, City Council and staff discussed each of his issues and items were clarified. City Engineer Wooley noted the line was built to serve additional homes. Phil Kelleher, 17690 SW Shawnee Trail, Tualatin, Oregon, noted he owns one of the lots in the reimbursement district. He advised he was surprised to learn it was not connected to the sewer. Mr. Kelleher advised he had contacted City staff and was told that his lot was connected to the sewer. Mr. Kelleher said he did not think Mr. Randall was promised reimbursement. He noted he was concerned that a few lots were going to be charged a lot of money for Mr. Randall's development. He advised h® did not think a sewer connection would increase the value of his property. He noted he was very opposed to the reimbursement district. Margo ®urdel, 10425 SW Park Street, Tigard, Oregon, advised she bought her home in 1992 and has talked with the City on several different occasions about various problems with her property. She advised this was her first home and could not afford to pay for this. She said she should not be incurring costs that Mr. Randall should have paid. In addition, Ms. ®urdel noted concerns that three trees had been taken down in the City right-of-way without notice when the sewer line was installed. These trees were in front of her home. Councilor Hawley clarified for Ms. ®urdel that she would not be required to pay for anything, unless her septic system failed and she hooked up to the sewer. Ms. ®urdel advised she understood this. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern with removal of the trees. City Engineer Wooley advised he would need to review the records with regard to the notice of property owners at the time the trees were removed. e. Staff Recommendation City Engineer Wooley advised that he recommended Council pass the resolution which adopted the staff report. f. Council Questions It was clarified that the interest would not be compounded; it was simple interest. City Engineer Wooley noted that the applicant would enter into an CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PACE 5 f agreement and different items would be specified in this agreement with regard to term and interest. Councilor Scheckla noted concerns with the fifteen year term and suggested the term be shortened to five years. Legal Counsel Beery advised Council did have the ability to modify the term and the interest. g. Public Hearing was closed. h. Council Consideration Councilor Rohlf referred to the interest rate, noting that interest rates charged by the banks are around 12%. Councilor Scheckla outlined his concerns with regard to reimbursement districts overall. Councilor Hunt noted the City has money in sewer funds and may, in the future, want to form reimbursement districts in order to help get some older areas on sewer lines. Councilor Rohlf noted there was a difference between a City reimbursement district and a developer reimbursement district in that the City may have a bigger incentive for controlling costs. He noted he was struggling with supporting the reimbursement district ordinance insofar as he was opposed to reimbursement districts for private developers. Councilor Hawley disagreed with Councilor Rohif on the point that the developer may not be as cost conscientious. She said the reimbursement district was established to encourage development in the City of Tigard. It was her opinion, she advised, that the property value would go up with a sewer line connection; however, this increased value may not be enough to cover costs. In addition she noted the developer was not given an opportunity for an alternative. Councilor Hawley advised she did not object to considering the reduction of the amount of time or the amount of interest for this reimbursement district. Councilor Scheckla advised he would be voting in opposition. Councilor Rohlf noted he is opposed to reimbursement districts in general. With regard to this request, he was not in favor of a fifteen-year term; however, he had no problem with the 7% interest. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU1ES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 6 Council President Hunt noted this reimbursement district ordinance had just ARL been recently approved. He noted discussions had been held about trying to establish sewer lines. He also noted the reimbursement, district ordinance would encourage private industry to develop. Councilor Scheckla stated that in the future he thought research should be done to make sure that the cheapest and easiest way (i.e., easements and existing lines) be examined more completely. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Council President Hunt, to approve Resolution No. 94-49, with Exhibit "A" being amended to change the duration of the reimbursement district from fifteen years to ten years. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt and Councilors Hawley and Rohff voted "yes,"; Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") 5. Non-Agenda Items • Councilor Hunt advised he would like to see the dollars from the sale of the building on Main Street be considered to build a youth activity center. He noted he felt it was important to provide some alternatives for use to assist with problems being experienced with drugs and gangs. He suggested this might be accomplished by forming a committee with high school students to determine what kind of a facility would be wanted. Council discussion followed. It was noted that Jack Schwab, who was also working on the task force for homeless needs, was looking at a youth activity center. It was noted Mr. Schwab would be at the meeting on November 22, 1594 to discuss the Homeless Task Force with City Council. It was suggested that Mr. Schwab be contacted to discuss the youth activity center during the Study Session on November 22. It was noted the Federal Crime Rill has dollars available for youth activity centers. It was suggested that dollars from the sale of this building could be set aside as matching funds. • Reimbursement District Ordinance - Councilor Rohff questioned whether there were any other reimbursement districts in progress. City Engineer Wooley responded there were not. Councilor Rohff noted he would like to re-visit what has worked and what has not worked with the current ordinance; i.e., the tree removal problem as noted by Ms. Durdel. After discussion by Council, the consensus was to re-visit the reimbursement district ordinance to review items such as length of time, inflll problems (i.e., cay COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PACE 7 - s ~11!1111 "Iiiiii 1111 if 61 MEN= what would be the most inexpensive way for sever connections to be accomplished), and also to require a developer to notify and apply for a reimbursement district prior to construction. City Engineer Wooley advised that the new ordinance does allow for a developer to apply for a reimbursement district prior to construction. He advised that Mr. Randall's construction wes already underway before the new ordinance took place. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 p.m. 0- 0,,)LAt;t AA S 1- Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recordfa~ flAa , City of Tigard Date: c=1101.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - PAGE 8 COMMUNITY N _ PAPER, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8033 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising s:"r z Tli~ fbllogving inedtin 1e3~it~ areaXi~i .04 ® G Tearsheet Notice 3' a eadas t;isy bP, ul tan oT. the.. keCOi~ery l"5125 S ~ All City of Tigard SoizlivaPd,'Iigard~ Ogar; 98223, orby sallm:34-4371 13125 Sil Hall Blvd. I. i'd Tigard, Oregon 97223 ® 11 Duplicate Affidavit j . 1 dE:1L; 1T~Sl(1 ESS. pTfN o ® TiGARD CF ' ,B&_L'"=''IfD N. i L, '125 44f HALL BQ_y_I:~V .W 1tfi 3t ` fyid3 S-,sFou (~ov Hall Conferedce% ) ~f~~311 g;:na ? y - a Executive Session: The,Tigard City Council denyart AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Session ;end„r tW =irovisiens ofORSA9,2V} (13~=.; ;e , STATE OF OREGON, ) discvss lak~or,.~elations ceal proocrryLralls4ciions, CAITFI at artu COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, }ss' pendii ; i tigalf©n issue .=5 i, Kathy Snyder ® A,gend'a Reridw ` laving first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising t Rimlmg~ teI -iig(1OWR Halo ~7 3a 0,n&j Director, or his principal clerk, of thigard-Tualatin Times All a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the - ® Publ;c Hearing: r. gre€aid county a3~d state; that the - Reirnbars~,m6nt Lristaict T'o 4Dnsid6r ap ryai,of' `i Vity Council Business Mtg. reirribur~ecnntttdastnctagrecMe.1 k.c ecr~F~ey~32a=kd lxHc e a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the air e cityl£ Tigarsfrl`!a'~ heae~ i6. tleei:rsb hf nevi 6vtp the ro etl r _M1, or anittarv"IelMerrua entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and iinprovemei%t ire Park S1r€ fit, a est, i'Urant ver~u , Tb "i ~ consecutive in the following issues: Council will'eriter.'C8ii7"a:0Mm-,en"ts fromadjace [pry owner, . at:tE is public,heaking. October 2 7 19 9 4 @ Lc l Contxaet eview Wfd M033 -nztib A f ctob&i27,1794'. Subscribed and sworn to belf me this 27th day of Octrob /J OFFIGIAL SEAL ROk3iN A. BURGESS NO?nRY Fi?6LIC - OREGON NotaryePu i for Oregon F(f COt1MISSi0N N0. 024552 My Commission Expires: t.4Y CO, 11SSi0rl EXPIRES MAY 16, 1997 AFFIDAVIT - 11111111111,11 1 RINI 1110111111111111 Council Agenda Item 3.c~ 4 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Administrator DATE: October 3, 1994 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, October - December, 1994 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OR, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. November 1 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 8 Tues Election Day - Regular City Council meeting cancelled. 11 Fri veteran°s Day - City offices Closed * 15 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 19- Sat - League of Oregon Cities Conference 21 Mon Red Lion, Jantzen Beach 21 Mon Joint Meeting with Planning Commission (5:30 p.m.) (Tigard Triangle Study Meeting) * 22 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 24- Thurs Thanksgiving Holiday -P City Offices Closed 25 Fri 29 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting December 6 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 13 Tue (Tentative) Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 20 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting r peceUber c nt 26 Mon Christmas Holiday - City Offices Closed *27 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting January 2 Mon New Years Holiday - City Offices Closed *10 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. OATHS OF OFFICE STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS EXECUTIVE.' UMNARY ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT RECEPTION FOR. NEW MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS 16 Mon Martin Luther King Day - City Offices Closed *17 Tues Employee Recognition Reception - 4-5 p.m. Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) *24 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting h:\lcgin\cathy\cccal Council Calendar - Page 2 10 r M, OA ppyy ~}~p. (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for fisted agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other Issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please Contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED iog n o s or-el t INS IRWIN Ism= 11M opending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount if time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit tune if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF REIMBURSEMENT (DISTRICT NO. 7 - To consider approval of a reimbursement district agreement between Ken Randall Homes, LLC, and the City of Tigard. The hearing is for the purpose of reviewing the proposed agreement for a sanitary sewer public improvement in Park Street, west of Grant Avenue. The City Council will entertain comments from adjacent property owners at this public hearing. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS 11'111'~s IN 11 f PLEASE PIT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Nam®~ 04 NL arse -~vE ~Zavr~c.t ~ Tess q 50L) cev c f~l v • 1 3000 real 3 2 l l.3 $u✓ A/A 7`/GINS ® Name A-dEfross Address i 0 L( Z S~0 ~a U Nams NamO Address Address V. -JAZt Name Name Address Address ame Name Address Address ame Name -Address rasa Name Name Address Address Name Name dross Address Name Namo Address Address ame Name Pess ress Name Name Address Address x legaggg Agenda Item No. QL b. Council Meeting of 1) /0 I -q- BELOW IS A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AGENDAS FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEDS. PLEASE CONTACT CATHY IF YOU HAVE CHANGES, COMMENTS, OR QUESTIONS... Updated: October 25, 1994 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE - CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS November 1 - December 6, 1994 November 1 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting • Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Consent Agenda • Approve Council Minutes of September 20 and 27 • Council Calendar for November, 1994 through January, 1995 • Tentative Agenda Public Hearing(s) • Proposed Reimbursement District - Randy Wooley November 8 Cancel Council Meeting - Election Day November 15 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting • Agenda Review • Form Tree Ordinance Task Force (Resolution) • Ordinance--Trees/developments (allow public review/testimony) • Unfinished Business Report November 21 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Planning to 7:30 p.m. Commission - dinner meeting - Discuss Triangle RN A-MEMENRIERM ei . November 22 6:30 p.m. Study Session • Agenda Review 7:30 P.M. Business Meeting Consent Agenda • Approve Council Minutes of October 11, 18, 25, November 1 . LCRB: Bid Award - 98th Avenue Storm Drainage Public Hearing(s) • Annexation (Wert) Council Consideration: . Building Room Use Policy *November 29 6:30 p.m. Study Session • Agenda Review Consent Agenda G Approval of Minutes Council Consideration: • Homeless Task Force - Final Report to City Council *December 6 6:30 p.m. Study Session • Agenda Review Consent Agenda • Approval of Minutes • Council Calendar . Tentative Agendas Public Hearing • Comp Plan Amendment Albertsons *December 13 *December 20 *December 27 To be scheduled: • Annexations • Planned Development Ordinance • Update on Notification process - proposed amendments to land use notification procedures • Community Development Fee Increases - Resolution • Ordinance - Proposed amendments to Initiative & Referendum process * Meeting dates to be confirmed with Council (date prepared: 10/25/94) Emil 0 AGENDA ITEM 3 . For Agenda of 1 1 D 1 e? CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 1994/95 Budget adjustment - Grant revenue and expenditures PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council adjust the 1994/95 budget to reflect revenues and expenditures from grant projects not included in the 1994/95 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends council approve the attached resolution recognizing grant revenues and appropriating grant related expenditures. INFORMATION SUMMARY Several grants were awarded in the 1993/94 fiscal year, however the related projects were delayed into 1994/95. The projects include the following: * Wetlands attributes study $12,500 * Cook Park Boat dock renovation 17,350 * Fanno creek park improvements 10,000 OThe funds for these projects were included in the 1993/94 budget with the anticipation they would be completed in that year. The attached resolution makes the necessary budget adjustments to recognize both expenditures on the projects and the revenue that will be reimbursed from the grants to cover the expenditures. In addition, the City was awarded a Community Development Block Grant for a portion of the Grant Avenue sidewalk improvement project. The project is on the approved CIP priority list and will be funded by grant funds in the amount of $58,930 and by existing appropriations of $40,900 in the State gas tax fund. The attached resolution also includes the budget adjustment for this grant. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES Increases revenue estimates in the general fund by $39,850 and increases appropriations in the general fund by the same amount. Also increases revenue and appropriations in the state gas tax fund by $58,930. AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of November 1, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Hearing for proposed Reimbursement District No. 7 ~ PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK14 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 7 be formed? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the district as recommended in the City Engineer's Report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Ken Randall Homes, LLC, has applied for the formation of a reimbursement district for a sewer line constructed on Park Street. More detail is provided in the attached City Engineer's Report. In a reimbursement district, the fees are due at the time of connection to 0 the sewer or re-development of the property. Until then, no payment is required from property owners. This is the first reimbursement district application processed under the new reimbursement district ordinance. Under the new ordinance, a public hearing must be held prior to approval of the resolution forming a district. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within the proposed district. After the close of the public hearing, the Council may pass the attached resolution forming the district and approving the City Engineer's Report or .modify the recommendations contained in the City Engineer's Report or deny the application for a reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES e. . Included in the City Engineer's Report. T3~; Psr~ 6>% .~t 1111 l q q 13.09-010 Chapter 13.08 (Repealed by Ord. 94-10) Chapter 13.09 REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS Sections: 13.09.010 Definitions. 13.09.020 Application for a reimbursement district. 13.09.030 City engineer's report. 13.09.040 Amount to be reimbursed. 13.09.050 Public hearing. 13.09.060 Notice of public hearing. 13.09.070 City council action. 13.09.080 Notice of adoption of resolution. 13.09.090 Recording the resolution. 13.09.100 Contesting the reimbursement district. 13.09.110 Obligation to pay reimbursement fee. 13.09.120 Administration. 13.09.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (1) "City engineer" or "engineer" means the person holding the position of city engineer or any officer or employee designated by that person to perform duties stated within this chapter. (2) "City" means the city of Tigard. (3) "Person" means a natural person, the person's heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns; a firm, part- nership, corporation, association or legal entity, its or, their successors or assigns; and any agent employee or any representative thereof. (4) "Applicant" means a person, as defined in subsection (3) of this section, who is required or chooses to finance some or all of the cost of a street, water or sewer improvement which is available to provide service to property, other than property owned by the person, and who applies to the city for reimbursement for the expense of the improvement. The "applicant" may be the city. (5) "Street improvement" means a street or street improvement conforming with standards in the Tigard commu- nity development code and including but not limited to streets, storm drains, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike paths, traffic control devices, street trees, lights and signs and public right-of-way,. (6) "Water improvement" means a water or water line improvement conforming with standards in the Tigard commu- nity development code and including but not limited to 169-7 (Tigard'8/15/94) 13.09.020 extending a water line to property, other than property owned by the applicant, so that water service can be pro- vided for such other property without further extension of the line. (7) "Sewer improvement" means a sewer or sewer line improvement conforming with standards in the Tigard commu- nity development code and including but not limited to extending a sewer line to property, other than property owned by the applicant, so that sewer service can be pro- vided for such other property without further extension of the line. (8) "Reimbursement district" means the area which is determined by the city council to derive a benefit from the construction of street, water or sewer improvements, fi- nanced in whole or in part by the applicant and includes property which has the opportunity to utilize such an im- provement. (9) "Reimbursement fee" means the fee required to be paid by a resolution of the city council and the reimburse- ment agreement. The city council resolution and reimburse- ment agreement shall determine the boundaries of the reim- bursement district and shall determine the methodology for imposing a fee which considers the cost of reimbursing the applicant for financing the construction of a street, water or sewer improvement within the reimbursement district. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.020 Application for a reimbursement district. (a) Any person who is required to or chooses to finance some or all of the cost of a street, water or sewer im- provement which is available to provide service to proper- ty, other than property owned by the person, may, by writ- ten application filed with the city engineer, request that the city establish a reimbursement district. The street, water and sewer improvements must include improvements in addition to or in a size greater than those which would otherwise ordinarily be required'in connection with an application for permit approval or must be available to provide service to property other than property owned by the applicant. Examples include but shall not be limited to full street improvements instead of half street improve- ments, off site sidewalks, connection of street sections for continuity, extension of water lines and extension of sewer lines. The city may also initiate formation of a reimbursement district. The application shall be accompa-' nied by a fee, as established by resolution, sufficient to cover the cost of administrative review and notice pursuant to this chapter. (b) The application shall include the following: (1) A description of the location, type, size and cost of the public improvement to be eligible for reim- bursement. 169-8 (Tigard 8/15/94) I'M d tt,. 13.09.030 (2) A map showing the properties to be included in the proposed reimbursement district; the zoning district for the properties; the front footage or square footage of said properties, or similar data necessary for calculating the apportionment of the cost; and the property or proper- ties owned by the applicant. (3) Post-construction: The actual cost of the improvements as evidenced by receipts, invoices or other similar documents. Pre-construction: The estimated cost of the improvements as evidenced by bids, projections of the cost of labor and materials, or other evidence satis- factory to the city engineer. (4) Post-construction: The date the city accepted the public improvements. Pre-construction: The estimated date of completion of the public improvements. (c) Application for formation of a reimbursement district may be made at any time but shall be made no later than three months after completion and acceptance of the " street, water or sewer improvements. However, the city engineer may waive this requirement upon the showing by the applicant of good cause for the delay, that the delay was not created by the applicant, and that the delay was un- avoidable due to unanticipated or unforseen circumstances. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.030 City engineer's report. The city engineer shall review the application for the establishment of a reimbursement district and evaluate whether a district should be established.. The engineer may request the sub- mittal of other relevant information from the applicant in order to assist in the evaluation. The engineer shall prepare a written report for the city council, considering and making recommendations concerning the following fac- tors: (1) Whether the applicant will finance or has fi- nanced some or all of the cost of a street, water or sewer improvement, thereby making service available to property, other than property owned by the applicant; (2) The area to be included in the reimbursement district; (3) The actual or estimated cost of the street, water or sewer improvements within the area of the proposed reim- bursement district and the portion of the cost for which the applicant should be reimbursed; (4) A methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the reimbursement district and where appro- priate defining a "unit" for applying the reimbursement fee to property which may, with city approval, be partitioned, altered, modified, or subdivided at some future date. The methodology should include consideration. of the cost of the improvements, prior contributions by property owners, the value of the unused capacity, rate-making principles em- 169-9 (Tigard 8/15/94) !III I ISBN- 13.09.040--13.09.050 ployed to finance public improvements, and other factors deemed relevant by the city engineer. Prior contributions by property owners will only be considered if the contribu- tion was for the same type of improvement and at the same location (example: a sewer-related contribution in the same location as a sewer improvement would be considered, a water-related contribution in the same location as a sewer improvement would not be considered); (5) The reimbursement fee shall be adjusted annually beginning on the first anniversary of the date of the reim- bursement agreement as a return on the investment for the person or the city. The annual fee adjustment shall be fixed and determined by the council and computed against the reimbursement fee as simple interest and will not com- pound. The city engineer may take into account the docu- mented cost of any financing, including prepayment points, prepayment penalties, loan fees, and the actual percentage rate of interest being paid by the applicant, when recom- mending the annual fee adjustment to the city council; (6) The amount to be charged by the city for adminis- tration of the agreement by the city. The administration fee shall be fixed by the council and will be included in the resolution approving and forming the reimbursement district. The administration fee is due and payable to the city at the time the agreement in Section 13.09.070(2) is signed. (7) The period of time that the right to reimburse- ment exists if the period is less than fifteen years. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.040 Amount to be reimbursed. (a) The cost to be reimbursed to the applicant shall be limited to the cost of construction, including the acquisition and condemnation costs of acquiring additional right-of-way, the cost of permits, engineering and legal expenses, and the annual fee adjustment fixed and determined by the council. (b) A reimbursement fee shall be computed by the city for all properties which have the opportunity to utilize the improvements, including the property of the applicant for formation of a reimbursement district. The applicant for formation of the reimbursement district shall not be reimbursed for the portion of the reimbursement fee comput- ed for the property of the applicant. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.050 Public hearing. (a) Within a reasonable time after the city engineer has completed the report re- quired in Section 13..09.030, the city council shall hold an informational public hearing in which any person shall be given the opportunity to comment on the proposed reimburse- ment district. Because formation of the reimbursement district does not result in an assessment against property 169-10 (Tigard 8/15/94) 13.09.060--13.09.070 or lien against property, the public hearing is for infor- mational purposes only and is not subject to mandatory termination because of remonstrances. The city council has the sole discretion after the public hearing to decide whether a resolution approving and forming the reimburse- ment district shall be adopted. (b) If a reimbursement district is formed prior to construction of the improvement(s), a second public hearing shall be held after the improvement has been accepted by the city. At that time, the city council may modify the resolution to reflect the actual cost of the improve- ment(s). (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.060 Notice of public hearing. Not less than ten nor more than thirty days prior to any public hearing held pursuant to this chapter, the applicant and all owners of property within the proposed district shall be notified of such hearing and the purpose thereof. Such notification shall be accomplished by either regular mail or personal service. If notification is accomplished by mail, notice shall be mailed not less than thirteen days prior to the hearing. Notice shall be deemed effective on the date that the letter of notification is mailed. Failure of the ap- plicant or any affected property owner to be so notified shall not invalidate or otherwise affect any reimbursement district resolution or the city council's action to approve the same. (Ord. 94-3.0 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.070 City council action. (a) After the public hearing held pursuant to Section 13.09.050(1), the city council shall approve, reject or modify the recommendations contained in the city engineer's report. The city council's decision shall be embodied in a resolution. If a reimbursement district is established, the resolution, shall include the city engineer's report as approved or modified, and specify that payment of the reimbursement fee, as des- ignated for each parcel, is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of that parcel as provided for in Section 13.09.110. (b) When the applicant is other than the city, the resolution shall instruct the city administrator to enter into an agreement with the applicant pertaining to the reimbursement district improvements. If the agreement is entered into prior to construction, the agreement shall be contingent upon the improvements being accepted by the city. The agreement, at a minimum, shall contain the fol- lowing provisions: (1) The public improvement(s) shall meet all ap- plicable city standards. (2) The total amount of potential reimbursement to the applicant. 169-11 (Tigard 8/15/94) MAIM, 4 13.09.080--13.09.110 (3) The annual fee adjustment set by the city council. (4) The applicant shall guarantee the public im- provement(s) for a period of twelve months after the date of installation. (5) The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city from any and all losses, claims, damage, judgments or other costs or expense arising as a result of or related to the city's establishment of the district. (6) The applicant shall acknowledge that the city is not obligated to collect the reimbursement fee from affected property owners. (7) Other provisions as the city council deter- mines necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter. (c) If a reimbursement district is established by the city council, the date of the formation of the district shall be the date that the city council adopts the resolu- tion forming the district. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.080 Notice of ado tion of resolution. The city shall notify all property owners within the district and the applicant of the adoption of a reimbursement district resolution. The notice shall include a copy of the resolu- tion, the date it was adopted and a short explanation of when the property owner is obligated to pay the reimburse- ment fee and the amount of the fee. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.090 Recording the resolution. The city record- er shall cause notice of the formation and nature of the reimbursement district to be filed in the office of the county recorder so as to provide notice to potential pur- chasers of property within the district. The recording shall not create a lien. Failure to make such a recording shall not affect the legality of the resolution or the obligation to pay the reimbursement fee. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.100' Contesting the reimbursement district. No legal action intended to contest the formation o the dis- trict or the reimbursement fee, including the amount of the charge designated for each parcel, shall be filed after sixty days following adoption of a resolution establishing a reimbursement district. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 13.09.110 Obligation to pay reimbursement fee. (a) The applicant for a permit related to.property within any reimbursement district shall pay to the city, in addition to any other applicable fees and charges, the reimbursement fee established by the council, together with the annual fee adjustment, if within the time specified in the resolu- 169-12 (Tigard 8/15/94) 'gigi IRISH 121 }r~. f 13.09.110 tion.establishing the district, the person applies for and receives approval from the city for any of the following activities: (1) A building permit for a new building; (2) Building permit(s) for any addition(s), modi- fication(s), repair(s) or alteration(s) of a building, which exceed twenty-five percent of the value of the build- ing within any 12-month period, The value of the building shall be the amount shown on the most current records of the county department of assessment and taxation for the building's real market value. This paragraph shall not apply to repairs made necessary due to damage or destruc- tion by fire or other natural disaster; (3) Any alteration, modification or change in the use of real property, which increases the number of parking spaces required under the Tigard community development code in effect at the time of permit application; (4) Connection to or use of a water improvement, if the reimbursement district is based on the water im- provement; (5) Connection to or use of a sewer improvement, if the reimbursement district is based on the sewer im- provement; (6) Connection to or use of a street improvement, if the reimbursement district is based on the street im- provement. (b) The city's determination of who shall pay the reimbursement fee is final. Neither the city nor any offi- cer or employee of the city shall be liable for payment of any reimbursement fee, annual fee adjustment, or portion thereof as a result of this determination. (c) A permit applicant whose property is subject to payment of a reimbursement fee receives a benefit from the construction of street improvements, regardless of whether access is taken or provided directly onto such street at any time. Nothing in this chapter is intended to modify or limit the authority of the city to provide or require ac- cess management. (d) No person shall be required to pay the reimburse- ment fee on an application or upon property for which the reimbursement fee has been previously paid, unless such payment was for a different type of improvement. No permit shall be issued for any of the activities listed in Section 13.09.110(1) unless the reimbursement fee, together with the annual fee adjustment, has been paid in full. Where approval is given as specified in Section 13.09.110(1), but no permit is requested or issued, then the requirement to pay the reimbursement fee lapses if the underlying approval lapses. (e) The date when the right of reimbursement ends shall not extend beyond fifteen years from the district formation date. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 169-13 (Tigard 8/15/94) .?i 13.09.120 13.09.120 Administration. (a) The right of reim- bursement is assignable an transferable after written notice is delivered to the city, advising the city to whom future payments are to be made. (b) The city shall establish separate accounts for each reimbursement district. Upon receipt of a reimburse- ment fee, the city shall cause a record to be made of that property's payment and remit the fee to the person who requested establishment of the reimbursement district or their assignee. (c) The reimbursement fee is not intended to replace or limit, and is in addition to, any other existing fees or charges collected by the city. (Ord. 94-10 §2(part), 1994). 169-14 (Tigard 8/15/94) i1pligil S1 IS A e- /'4d v Rf &16 ~'S' 9",~~' j.'~~ AcGNP P7;,/,# ~~B''~. Wove ~m/AI.S ~d N~1~ Tmd i~(~ /s 91r~tea e S a :Sa V7W plpnr pie Pqgkr S$: !illY A,~Oer 'x •c 5 7wis „;d vrL4,oeo - W , /o Vje#,,ut b y W1 y ~/a/,b¢o~.~0 lP?S a ~L7~,~ ,!e'a~ 5f#cv1e-,o . go NOP) #495 1415 LIAJOGP V4AoOrr alWir4S Tb e®4V J. ;A/4C e dOdS t' 7A'eo' tAs ief 00e*1ex oIe y/ Jae a j'jC$ .&,C R, j; ddd~l ~19A5 9~'~ LY WI PfC® e~1'° T~ ~P "a~L/~(°, lw'!7'~+ ~9 L'a 6~ Sf L,~ le t~~S'~~10°°f` qtr! s OXF VAt w adv'2„, W ~1G'C ..3P4'q e t L.®A14e G®~N~~!"B® • ~P✓~°~~aE~ f~/~ l+a3~S't~S Pffs . ,e e~~ rl Ar #S ® ~t/~ Pc C~ ~1~/>• 4~ ~'l df L~~ I )r 0 7'$ 7xs~s .s A,1r rcfva~e~®dr got V, yr RC 0 , Vic 40 !`wee wo Lava Y vir'R.+L I ~iO EY I'YV YV L Y S7 i p~67 4A ~ e ail®►~ sop 5~~/. Sf 3' a- ve 3 .00- 7t, y f0jo qoe. . 24 v C YY, y.r (cr viv Ale a -D cS "rte ~ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO Bill Monahan FROM?: Ed Wegner DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Water Supply Report The attached article by Lorna Stickel at the Willamette Water Bureau Water Basin Conference is an excellent recap of the Regional Water Supply Plan and issues regarding the Willamette River. Would you please forward this to the City Council for information on Water Supply. I will also forward this report to members of the Intergovernmental Water Board. I have also enclosed our invitation to the Willamette River Pilot Treatment Plant presentation on November 15th. Mike Miller and Chris Uber of Murray Smith and Associates will be representing .Tigard, due to scheduling conflicts. kathy\rivpi[ot , ~a!Rii I: r The Challenge of the Willamette: Water Allocation Needs for Instreaffi Use and for Withdrawal by Lorna Stickel Portland Water Bureau Project Manager for Portland Regional Water Supply Plan Vomocil Water Quality Conference OSU October 25-26, 1994 1. Speaker Introduction The Author is the Project manager for Portland Regional Water Supply Plan and works for Portland Water Bureau,. She was a member of Oregon Water Resources Commission from 1983-1994 and was a member of the Western States Water Council from 1989- 1994. Prior to joining the Water Bureau she was a land use planner in Oregon for 17 years. II. Portland Regional Water Supply Plan - Phase 2 (May 1993-Nov. 1995) A recent guest column in the Oregonian began with a seemingly simple question: "Which would you rather drink: water from the Willamette River or from the pristine Bull Run Watershed?" It is the kind of question that 27 Portland area water providers are asking. The Portland metropolitan region is facing some tremendous growth pressures, and future water supplies are part of the fabric of how and where this region will grow. Historically, about half of the residents of the Oregon metropolitan area have been able to drink Bull Run water, which comes from one of the most protected watersheds in the country, thanks to a century of careful development and protection. This water source has developed a mystique and is of very high quality, free of the risks that face many other municipal water supplies for cities of similar size. The residents of the other half of the Portland region are served by a variety of other water sources; from the Clackamas, to Trask/ Tualatin, to individual smaller surface and groundwater sources. All of the supply systems that are currently available will not be enough to meet the needs for the next 50 years, during which time the Oregon side of the metropolitan area is expected to grow by some 800,000 new residents. Where will the water come from to serve this future population? Answering that question is the central task of the metropolitan areas' regional water supply planning effort, which is jointly funded and now in its third year. It's a comprehensive and complex process in which our options are being examined so that the hard choices facing us can ultimately be made. Our basic options are fairly clear: • Conservation - As with any precious resource, conservation offers us a way to ease*the crunch. The drought of 1992 was a wake-up call that prompted the Bull Run water system users and others to reduce their per capita water consumption by about 10%. We can achieve much more than this, and a major focus of the planning work is identification of ways to implement various levels of conservation. The regional supply plan is also looking at possibilities for re-using water. Major water users such as the Port of Portland are looking at using non-potable water in dual systems for its industrial needs. Because of their expense, dual systems may only be practical for larger irrigation uses such as parks and open space settings, industrial and institutional users. • A third darn in the Bull Run to increase its holding capacity - The watershed's incredible productivity and the natural quality of its water make this an attractive alternative. Any future construction, however, will have a daunting series of environmental hoops to pass through. No one's crystal ball is clear enough to show the outcome of those future dealings, but it would be foolishness to stake the entire region's water future on the assumption that a third dam will be built as our sole future source. ® The Willamette River - the Willamette, Oregon's major river system, is augmented in the summer with flows from eleven existing Corps of Engineer's dams. Other communities in upstream areas make use of the this source now. The primary concerns about this source have to do with its water quality, the need to retain adequate mstream flows to protect other uses for the river, and the cost of using this new source. ® The Columbia River - this is the nation's second largest river system and it has flows larger than any other river in the west. It has not been tapped directly for municipal supplies as far downstream as the Portland region, but preliminary pilot test results show that it does have some potential. The concerns about this source are similar to those for the Willamette, particularly in light of the fragile health of Columbia basin salmon runs and the potential for water quality problems with such a large upstream drainage area. The Trask River - The Joint Water Commission which serves part of Washington County is proposing the four-fold enlargement of the Barney reservoir. The existing reservoir is located high in the head waters of a fork of the Trask River. This project already serves part of the Washington County area and is currently in the environmental impact assessment and permitting stage. ® Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) - ASR is a technique which takes surface water flows from any of the existing or future water supply sources, injects it into the ground through wells and then pumps it back out during the periods of need, which could be summer's dry months or in an emergency. This technology, while new to this region, 'is being used in many parts of the southern and southwestern United States. Several aspects are now being studied, including impacts on winter surface water flows, aquifer protection, chemical mixing of the waters, and the amount of water which such storage might yield. The region's water providers will continue to study the key issues before completing a preliminary regional water supply plan which is scheduled to be issued in 1995. In the meantime the region's water providers and decision makers are encouraging the public to take advantage of the public involvement opportunities built into the regional water supply planning process. We need to hear public opinions on how we should meet our future water supply needs. Based on the results of recent surveys, interviews, and public forums held so far we know that our region contains very diverse interests. We have heard clear messages about the central importance of conservation as we proceed into the future. We must also carefully weigh the costs and public health risks associated with the needs for water treatment of the various sources. We must weigh the environmental tradeoffs which might be required to meet these future needs. We must assess the overall costs for new supplies and the equity issues involved with who has to pay. The questions are multiple and complex, without easy answers. Yet choices will need to be made throughout the metropolitan area. We anticipate that no one option will meet the needs of the entire region. The public deserves to know what the choices are. III. Issues as they relate to the Willamette The Portland population currently obtains about 65-70% of its water supply from out-of: basin diversions (Trask & Sandy basins). The future may not allow that same level of out-of-basin diversion. The Phase 2 process is evaluating both increased out-of-basin -111 I'l MEMO i diversions from these same sources as well as developing sources on the Columbia River mamstem and on the Willamette River as well as the Clackamas River (tributary to the Willamette). The title of this pie.-,entation is very aptly named, the Willamette Basin clearly presents a very meal challenge to all users of the system, both instream and out of stream. The bind that water providers find themselves in, even if they are able to pull together a regional look at their water supply needs, is how these needs fit in with the other demands on the system. Two key areas of uncertainty include: 1) Not knowing the instream needs for the Willamette mainstem and its tributaries for such uses as fisheries, water quality, recreation, and navigation. There are 24 instream flows which were established for the Willamette and tributaries by the State in the 1960°s and early 1970's many of which contain a "natural flow" component and a storage component to them. These were to be converted to instream water rights (ISWR) as a part of the adoption of the statute which established ISWR in 1987 legislative session. Most of the NWSF around the state have been converted except for these in the Willamette system. They present a special challenge in terms of the complexities of priority dates and the two different components and the contractual issues revolving around the 11 Corps storage reservoirs. The conversion of these minimum streamflows is, however, limited to the natural flow and storage components of their original adoption which will limit their ability to protect the natural flow part of Willamette flows. On the lower mainstem Willamette in low flow months the minimum streamflows anticipated about 1/4 natural flow and 3/4's storage component bui the actual flow components in an average year appear to be about 1/2 for each type of flaw, leaving a "technical" water availability excess in natural flow. This means that the converted streamflows will not be able to protect all of the natural flow found in the Willamette during low flow months. Therefore the larger issue is just what is needed instream to protect fisheries and other species of concern, recreation, habitat, and to assimilate pollutants that flow into the system. The flow targets of the minimum strearnflows would seem to have validity in the system in that DEQ has based their permits for discharges based on these amounts and in the low flow period of 1992 when the targets were not met for the lower river there were fish mortalities observed. Knowledge of this benchmark is important and it has presented a real problem not knowing what is required to meet these various needs, particularly in light of the second major issue. 2) The Willamette flow pattern is heavily influenced by the release of storage from eleven Corps of Engineers reservoirs, primarily on the eastern, or Cascade foothills side of the valley. These releases augment summer flows considerably and have enabled a flow target of about 6,000 cfs set for the river at Albany and Salem to be maintainea, in spite of increasing diversions from the river and its tributaries. The conversion of the NWSF has been wrapped up in this storage and natural flow issue. However, the Corps has conducted the first part of a study to look at how this system might be augmented and they and the State are engaged in developing a scope of work and budget for doing a "feasibility study for reauthorization of the Willamette projects. The price of purchase of Corps storage is substantially higher for M&I purposes than for irrigation, however, it is not even clear that M&I contracting can take place in face of the current authorization for the projects and due to two existing storage permits held by the. Bureau of Reclamation for all of the currently available storage water for irrigation purposes. The operation of the Corps reservoirs may be able to insure that needed instream flows are present and allow some further use of the river for out of stream uses. A study of the operation of the Corps storage projects in the Willamette system to meet changing multiple purposes is needed. The water providers of the rapidly growing Willamette Valley must do infrastructure planning not only because in some cases it is required under the State Goals and Guidelines/Comprehensive Planning requirements but because it is a responsible thing for water providers to do. In the circumstances noted above for the Willamette it is very difficult-to do an adequate alternatives analysis for meeting future water needs with the number of unknowns evident. This may drive some decision makers to use short term fixes which could result in a wasting of resources to develop less desirable sources. Water providers in the Portland area are attempting to look at the issue of future water needs in a larger institutional framework which in part gets past the fractionalized aspect of so many providers, but Talley-wide there are a number of di cacut water providers. Bringing us all together is being done to some extent with the reservation application process. Some increased coordination of water providers with wastewater providers has occurred in parts of the Willamette Basin, but more needs to be done to merge the issues of M&I water cycle. This cooperation in and of itself is an improvement over the past processes, but in order for the providers to be able to properly evaluate the relationship of the various demand management measures with the various water sources represented by the surface and groundwater in the Willamette valley, the issues mentioned above should be either resolved, or better understood. The "ripeness" of these issues is ready for regional resolution, but the role of the state and federal governments are important and necessary if more effective water management decisions are to be possible. Water providers do not want to be put in the surrogate role of becoming decision makers about growth. Tin the Portland study we are working with Metro in their 2040 process to offer alternatives to meeting the growth needs represented by the growth form decisions of Metro and the other local governments. Water providers should be able to give land use and growth management efforts some information about the water supply impacts of growth and its form. However, not enough is known about water use in relation to different types of development patterns here in the iVW, this should be added to the research agenda. In addition, water providers should be presenting to their publics and decision makers real alternatives in the areas of demand management, to compare with new or expanded sources of supply, the future potential costs of added treatment needed to meet increasing water quality standards, the potential for water reuse, choices about the reliability of a water system to meet all demands under various weather scenarios, regionalization to maximize the use of existing water rights and supplies and the risks implicit with selecting certain alternative ways of meeting future demand. There appears to be a dual challenge to moving through the thorny problems presented by wise water management in the complex Willamette system. From a municipal providers perspective these dual challenges are: 1) The state needs to play a leadership role to establish the basin wide coordination necessary to address the issues of instream flow needs and the operation of the federal reservoir projects. Movement has occurred on these issues, but the commitment of all the state agencies in a coordinated fashion is needed as well as the resources to complete a more comprehensive look at instream flow targets and reservoir operations. Some exciting work in basin modeling is available from other parts of the country, including the Seattle/'Tacoma area, and federal agency coordination through EPA on basinwide issues seems to be moving forward. With the potential for ESA listings and increased Clean Water Act violations present coordination and resources from the federal level should be sought and supported by the State. 2) A comprehensive look at Willamette basin wide issues should be supported by the water and wastewater providers in as active a fashion as possible. In the meantime, the municipalities and water districts need to think in new ways about demand management, system reliability, and alternative sources of supply. New Planning techniques can be applied in deciding how to meet future water needs. It is important to look at water needs beyond traditional single unit jurisdictional boundaries and to evaluate the resource in relation to the other demands being placed on that resource, particularly during any time frame before the Willamette Basin issues mentioned above are resolved. 3) Efforts to address overall watershed management. should be encouraged at the sub- basin level in the Willamette. All affected stakeholders should be involved in such a way that cross jurisdictional boundaries are not an impediment to problem resolution. The nexus of land use planning and watershed health should be improved over time as a part of these efforts which may offer the greatest possibilities for reaching sustainable communities in the Willamette Basin. a~<r b g k ~ ~ n ~ V . V-4 w $ ® r" W M N g Q r .+VVi' Bt ~ ! a ~p ~ t o ~ t ~ V g ~,y a s o 'o 4 0 I