City Council Packet - 09/15/1998COUNCIL MEETING WILL NIGT E.
TELEVISED
h
I:1Wm~pskaloCpkl2d0o L„r.~
I I ~ n~ + 1 . t gn* I W1h ",r F.4;k~k~~ i
r ry r y~, rf x r t y4y th ra~4 f~
! { 1 ly 4~ttl F, tar"~~ d rr s~ X41 ~iv441-L"S.,4ti Ohl t a yIt d..
a ,W,.~."C°'t S~4 ~F~S`~ ,.rot ~ itf +v f ~ Y Fx[
.~,n,,yty~ ~ i + W
W ~ 4 l.k I 5 1 1 A• r ~ A•
~`~~,r.u
REVISED
PUBLIC NOTICE:
.44;; - --k
CITY OF TlGARD
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 639.4171, Ext.
309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following 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: 639.4171, x309 (voice) or
684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 15,1998. PAGE 1
Agenda Item No. ~1 I
Meeting of 10. ►3 •G8
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, advised the Council of an opportunity to take field trips to
the Bull Run water facility on October 3 and to the Hillsboro facility on October 31. He indicated
that he could arrange private tours for those unable to make those dates.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt, and
Brian Moore.
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City
Recorder Catherine Wheatley; and Public Works Director Ed Wegner
1.4 Council Communications
Councilor Scheckla announced a Community Block Grant meeting this Tuesday at 7 p.m.
at the Senior Center.
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
• The Council considered Agenda Item 4 at this time.
2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM REPORT
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, informed the Council. that staff intended to
incorporate training in taking meeting minutes at the November 7 Facilitator training session, in
response to the Council discussion at the last CIT report. She referenced the report detailing the
"One-on-one" meetings between staff and citizens offered as part of the new format
implemented last February. She noted the attendance shown also, commenting that attendance
was usually down in the summer.
Ms. Newton reviewed suggestions staff has received on how to encourage more participation in
the "One-on-one" element. She mentioned staff encouraging people to come to the CIT
meetings to meet one-on-one with staff when people called the City with questions. She
commented that an effect of the "One-on-one" element might be to increase citizens' comfort
level in calling staff directly because they have seen staff people at the meetings. She said that
she would keep close tabs on this element, as it did cost the City to have staff people attend the
meetings.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 1
Bev Fronde, Facilitator, suggested having staff attend CIT meetings quarterly, instead of
monthly, or on an on-call basis. Ms. Newton mentioned another suggestion to announce at the
beginning of the meeting which staff were present for the "One-on-one" sessions, and to send
staff home if no one signed up.
Trish Stormont, Facilitator, commented that although people did not necessarily sign up for
"One-on-ones", they did like the idea and appreciated having the opportunity to take advantage
of it, if they so chose. She said that, given the high turnover in citizens attending CIT meetings,
it might be better to have staff attend for a shorter time than to risk the perception that staff
attended on an irregular basis.
Ms. Newton pointed out that attendance appeared to be cyclical, which was why staff wanted to
continue with the new format for a year or so in order to verify that trend.
In response to a series of questions from Councilor Scheckla regarding attendance, Ms. Newton
said that there was a core group of 10-12 people who usually attended each meeting but for the
most part the attendance was agenda driven. People came to the meetings when interested in a
specific topic. She said that they did have a mailing list for the agenda based on the sign up
sheets at the meetings but the list was purged every summer. She mentioned that the agenda
was printed in the Cityscape also.
Ms. Newton said that primarily the attendees were from the City or Tigard's area of interest (i.e.,
Bull Mountain). She stated that staff kept track of late comers to be sure that the attendance
record was accurate.
Ms. Froude informed the Council of the CIT work done on educating citizens regarding the
neighborhood meetings held by developers as part of the development process. She said that in
breakout sessions they worked with staff planner Julia Hajduk to develop two information
sheets, one with the most frequently asked questions (for the neighbors) and one with typical
neighborhood concerns (for the developers). She commented that people attending the
neighborhood meetings often did not know how to follow the subdivision through the process.
Ms. Newton mentioned that Matrix Development attended the last session to discuss the process
they went through before they did a development. She commented that a problem they needed
to resolve was how to get the information given at a meeting to the people who missed that
meeting without delaying the next meeting.
Ms. Newton asked the facilitators what their concerns and issues were. Ms. Stormont
mentioned getting more people to attend the meetings. Ms. Froude concurred that the meetings
were agenda driven.
Councilor Moore commented that keeping people interested in coming to CIT meetings has
been a long-time concern of his. He noted that the CITs have had excellent attendance at some
meetings, up to 50 to 60 people. Councilor Hunt noted that staff members ask the audience at
each CIT meeting for topics of discussion for the next meeting. Newton mentioned that the
October 1 meeting was the Candidates Fair, focusing on local issues.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 2
Sterling Marsh, Facilitator, commented that the water issue brought in the large numbers to
the meetings. He agreed that the topics of interest determined the attendance. Once the topic
was over, the people tended to forget about it.
Councilor Hunt suggested using the agenda page in the Cityscape to ask citizens to call in with
what topics they wanted to discuss at the CITs.
Ms. Froude mentioned that a citizen spontaneously thanked the City staff for the speed bumps
on SW 1150'. She spoke to encouraging that kind of response. She added her thanks to staff for
the sweeping of Bull Mountain Road.
3. WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT PLANT UPDATE
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, introduced Chris Uber of Murray Smith & Associates.
Mr. Uber updated the Council on the Willamette Water Supply preliminary engineering study
currently in process. He said that they have worked with the staffs of the various agencies to
establish the capacities needed by all participants in 20 years. He reviewed the anticipated
capacities, noting that Tigard would need 20 million gallons per day (mgd) with an ultimate
capacity of 26 mgd.
Mr. Uber reported that Wilsonville purchased the Young property as a water treatment facility
site. He said that they did the preliminary surface explorations last week on geo-technical site
conditions. They were also conducting a hydrographic survey of the river bottom to determine
where to site structures underwater.
Mr. Uber reported that the first meeting with the Corps of Engineers and other interested
agencies went well. They confirmed that their approach to the intake was the best one with
regard to the environmental considerations of threatened species, the Willamette Greenway, and
established riparian areas along the edge of the river. Those agencies agreed that the proposed
structure would have only minimal impact on the environment or wildlife.
Mr. Uber said that the work on both the treatment plant and the transmission system was
proceeding. He noted that the analysis included potentially using raw water for additional
irrigation purposes. He said that they were developing cost estimates for each system
component and allocating those among the participants to provide the information that the
jurisdictions needed to calculate the costs to the ratepayers. He mentioned discussions of a
potential 20-year bond.
Mr. Wegner reported that he gave Portland Commissioner Sten the evaluation criteria developed
by Tigard so that the Commissioner could respond to those issues when he and his staff made
their presentation next week to the Tigard City Council regarding expansion of the Bull Run
water system.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 3
Mr. Wegner mentioned four comments made by Commissioner Sten during his presentation to
the Regional Water Consortium last night that he felt were instrumental in the progress of the
Portland Scenario. Commissioner Sten had mentioned Portland's willingness to work with
anyone and everyone and to engage in direct discussions on issues of pricing, governance,
ownership and responsibility. The Portland staff felt that regional storage and transmission was
a must with Commissioner Sten recommending formation of a Task Force of technical people to
begin working on a regional transmission and storage system. Mr. Wegner noted Commissioner
Sten's emphasis on the importance of water conservation efforts.
Mr. Wegner pointed out the Commissioner's statement that this proposal was not intended to
delay or impede the decisions that needed to be made soon regarding the water needs of
Wilsonville and Tigard, and that those evaluations and decisions should move forward as
planned. He reported that after the meeting Commissioner Sten reassured him that they were
committed to trying to meet the December 15 deadline to provide Tigard with two options for
evaluation.
Mr. Wegner noted that Commissioner Sten's report discussed expanding the Bull Run and
Portland water system for both people and fish. He reported that Tigard received the model
contract of the Cascade Alliance, an alliance of regional water providers in the Seattle area. He
said that it was not an inclusive draft of the provisions either Tigard or Portland would want to
have in a contract but it was a starting point.
Mr. Wegner asked the Council to review the City's evaluation criteria prior to Commissioner
Sten's presentation next week. Councilor Rohlf commented that he had the sense that
Commissioner Sten was looking for dialog with Tigard next week.
Mr. Wegner reported on the preliminary results of the Davis & Hibbetts' survey of 305 Tigard
Water District residents regarding the City's evaluation criteria. He spoke to getting the word
out to their citizens about the importance of a long term water supply, citing the survey finding
that 46% believed that Tigard currently did or would have in the near future a water supply
problem while 40% were unsure and 14% did not think there was a problem. He said that 55%
stated that they had heard of the City's plans for Willamette River option and Portland Scenario
while 44% had not heard about it.
Mr. Wegner said that 38% found the evaluation criteria list a very good list and 47% found it a
good list. Of those 259 respondents, 76% thought it was good because it covered a broad range
of issues and was a comprehensive list. He said that of the 25% that rated the list negatively, 5
respondents thought it was too expensive while four others suggested that the City consider
limiting water usage. He said that the priority rating for the criteria was tap water quality,
certainty, ongoing costs tied with construction costs, diversity, environmental impacts, and
ownership.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 4
Mr. Wegner noted that Davis & Hibbetts found that overall the awareness of the potential future
water supply problem was not high, despite the publicity sent out by the City. However those
who were aware of the situation believed that there was a solution to the problem.
Mr. Wegner mentioned that Phil Smith from Murray Smith & Associates would lead the
October 20 discussion on the evaluation criteria.
Mr. Monahan advised the Council that several citizens have requested the opportunity to make
comments or ask questions. Mayor Nicoli said that was fine but pointed out that Portland asked
Tigard not to make any decisions until after they completed their in-depth report. He
commented that the Council was not set up to receive public input until after the reports were in
with the facts and associated costs of the two proposals.
• Jim Hansen, Tigard resident, asked for time on a future Council agenda to discuss his concern
that Tigard was operating outside of the stipulated policies of the WWSA and Regional Water
Consortium with regard to public input. He distributed a one-page summary of his arguments.
• Robert Melvin, Tigard resident, representing Citizens for Safe Water, stated his group's
opposition to the Willamette River option. He said that the Willamette River was a polluted and
unproven water source. He supported Tigard negotiating with Portland to secure and continue
their plentiful supply of Bull Run water. He supported better water conservation programs to
stretch Tigard Water District's existing water resources by as much as 15% to 20%. He spoke to
any water source change being approved by a binding vote of the Tigard Water District citizens.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that if Mr. Melvin checked the Council discussions over the past three and
a half years, he would find almost complete agreement with his first three statements. He said
Council considered other water options before they considered the Willamette, including pursuing a
water source through Lake Oswego for a year and a half.
Mayor Nicoli explained that Tigard had several sources of water right now and changed them on a
daily basis as needed. He said that in the past three and a half years, Tigard switched from the
treated water it had been using to Bull Run water primarily because of price. He agreed that going
after a totally new source of water was somewhat different. He said that the situation in Tigard was
such that they went to wherever they could buy the cheapest water.
Mr. Melvin reiterated that the Willamette River was a polluted water source, as documented by
studies. He held that changing from Clackamas to Bull Run or other water sources was not as
momentous as going for the Willamette River, nor was the same degree of cost involved. He
referenced the petitions his group has been gathering opposing going to the Willamette River.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 5
Mayor Nicoli said that the blind survey they had taken before they considered studying the
Willamette River as an option found the reverse opinion. He explained that the blind survey was one
of the reasons they thought investigating the Willamette was a responsible move. He conceded that
public opinion could change but reiterated that the Council did its homework in assessing the
community's opinion of this option before they seriously considered it.
Mayor Nicoli spoke to telling the people all the facts involved in this issue. He said that the
preliminary numbers from Portland indicated that it would cost Tigard ratepayers three to five times
more than they were paying now to expand the Bull Run water system. He held that it was
irresponsible to ask the citizens to vote on a source of water without giving them all the facts, since
everyone would prefer Bull Run to the Willamette River on the face of it. However knowing the
facts might lead to a different conclusion.
Mr. Melvin contended that the Mayor was leading a "headlong rush" for the Willamette River,
citing statements made to the press over the past six months. Mayor Nicoli said that he told the
voters during his campaign that he would resolve the water supply problem for the city. He
reiterated that they worked diligently to get Clackamas River water. He pointed out that it was
not until Tigard seriously pursued the Willamette River option that Portland reversed its former
position on Bull Run water as a long term water supply for Tigard and agreed to do an in-depth
study of the issue to provide Tigard with some hard answers.
Mayor Nicoli noted that a major policy decision like this involved the entire Portland Council, not
simply Commissioner Sten. He reiterated that Tigard agreed not to make a decision until Portland
completed its $2 million dollar study of the issue. He disagreed that he was going headlong after
the Willamette River, stating that the Willamette River was the last option they looked at.
Bonnie Bishop, Tigard resident, asked for clarification on the surveys mentioned by the
Mayor and Mr. Wegner. She said that she was a respondent in the most recent survey. Mr.
Wegner said that the original survey, done a little over a year ago, involved tvfo focus groups
discussing growth, water quality, and water supply issues. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the
survey was on whether or not to do a study, not on whether or not to go the Willamette. Mr.
Wegner said that the second survey, conducted within the last month, polled 305 Tigard
residents regarding the eight criteria for how to select the water supply option. He confirmed
that the survey did not include a question on a public vote on the issue.
Ms. Bishop spoke to allowing the Tigard Water District citizens a vote on this issue. She
commented that the last question on the survey was not included in the staff report tonight. She
argued that the responses on a comparison of the Bull Run system to the Willamette River
system was important information.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 6
Mary Ann Melvin, resident, concurred with Ms. Bishop's comments. She spoke to making
available to the public the information that the Council would get regarding a comparison of
water sources. She said that the citizens were astounded at the thought of going to the
Willamette River for water and appalled that they would not get a vote on the issue. She said
that 95% of the people to whom they have spoken opposed the Willamette River as a source of
water.
Mayor Nicoli stated that no Councilor has stated, either publicly or privately, that they would refuse
to go to a vote. He emphasized that the only thing the Council has decided was not to consider a
vote until after all the information in. He pointed out that Tigard did not own any Bull Run water
and could not dictate to Portland what it did with its water or tell them that they had to spend $200
million to get water to Tigard.
Mayor Nicoli commented that Commissioner Sten has made many public statements. He said that
Mr. Sten personally asked him to ask his Council to make no decisions until the report was done.
He stated that the Tigard Council considered it irresponsible to do anything but wait until the report
was done.
Mayor Nicoli asked what would happen if the Portland report returned a finding that Portland could
not help Tigard with its future water supply needs. Ms. Melvin advised that she doubted that would
happen. Mayor Nicoli explained that it was a real possibility, given the political concerns of the
Portland City Council. They would have to ask their citizens to tax themselves for $100 to $200
million to subsidize getting water to Tigard. He said that Mr. Sten was talking to his Council and
felt that he would have a better reading on the policy issues his Council would support following the
report.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the Portland Scenario involved 50 miles whereas the Willamette
River option involved only 10 miles. He noted that, even if Portland agreed to give Tigard the
water, they would have to get permission to build a dam on Federal land. If they did not get that
permission, then Portland had no way to collect the water they had and transmit it to Tigard. He
emphasized that there were political decisions involved that were beyond both Tigard's and
Portland's control. Ms. Melvin said that that was not what they have been hearing at the meetings
they have attended on this issue.
Mayor Nicoli said that the Council received monthly briefings on this issue. They have questioned
scientists and educated themselves on this issue for two years now. He stressed that they were not
making this decision lightly. He pointed out that a bond measure for the Willamette River option
was $40 million while the Portland Scenario meant a $100 to $200 million bond. He said that just
the $40 million bond would be the largest bond issue the City would ever pass. He said that the
Council was not comfortable making this decision because of the amount of money involved. Ile
reiterated that they intended to study it thoroughly.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 7
Ms. Melvin asked if the Mayor would go on record that when all the facts were in, he would go to
the people for a vote. Mayor Nicoli said no, because they did not know what either the Portland
report or the Willamette report would find. He pointed out that they might have to eliminate one of
the options completely and then there was nothing to vote on.
Mayor Nicoli reiterated that he would not commit to anything until he got all the facts in. He said
that the Council has discussed the issue of voting and was not opposed to it but they would not
make a decision until they saw the benefit of the $3 million worth of technical studies currently in
progress.
e Wallace Zink, Tigard resident, spoke to the health of the children being more important than
the money they would have to spend to get Bull Run water. He spoke to putting the issue to a
vote of the people. He said that the Willamette River was too polluted to use.
Mayor Nicoli said that the Council has already requested staff to study what was in the Willamette
River. He reiterated that the City was gathering those facts for the people. He cited the chemist's
study of the Bull Run and Willamette River water both before and after water treatment. He said
that they found that in some cases they could get some of the water cleaner than the Bull Run water.
He noted that in terms of water quality, they have exceeded the Federal guidelines.
Jim Hansen commented that the Council was being responsible in trying to find a long-term
future water source at a reasonable cost but expressed concern at five Councilors deciding on a
$40 million issue and on the future water source of all citizens in the water district. He asked
where the toxicologist reports were. Mayor Nicoli said that the Council has had those studies
done and was having more studies done. He indicated that he had no problem with allowing a
certified toxicologist making a presentation on the Willamette River as a polluted water source.
Mayor Nicoli mentioned that they have heard from State people who had to remain neutral on the
issue as well as people making presentations opposing the Willamette River. He said that anyone
could come in. He noted the public hearings that would be held on the reports once they were
recevied. He emphasized the public nature of this process and the Council discussions of this issue.
Mr. Hansen contended that they have seen the Council trying to cut off input from the citizens,
citing the CIT breakout sessions as an example. He argued that Councilor Hunt, as the WWSA
Chair, had a strong motivation to see that agency. He held that Councilor Hunt was feeding
input and opinions to the other Councilors. Mayor Nicoli explained that Councilor Hunt was the
Council's representative to that group and was doing what the Council has asked him to do.
In response to a statement from Mr. Zink, Mayor Nicoli reiterated that there was not a problem
in putting the question to a vote of the people. They were simply waiting until they got all the
facts in before they decided how to handle the matter. He pointed out that the decision would
not be made until next year, and therefore by the new Council.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 8
Mr. Zink reiterated his concern for the health of the children. Mayor Nicoli agreed that that was
a concern but reiterated that the Council has heard from the experts regarding the number of
contaminants in Bull Run water (contrary to public opinion, Bull Run water was not "pure" but
contained contaminants) and in the Willamette River. He noted that Bull Run water was not
treated. He said that the debate came down to deciding which source could guarantee to be
cleanest. He agreed that the Willamette River was not the best source of water but stated that if
they clean it, it was worth studying.
Mr. Zink asked why the City did not go to one of the other water source alternatives mentioned
by the Mayor. Mayor Nicoli said that the Clackamas River option (Lake Oswego) fell through
and the Coast Range would be too costly. Tigard had only three wells; thus, the options
remaining were that of Bull Run and the Willamette River. A problem with Bull Run is that it
looks as if there would not be an ownership interest available to the City.
Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought it was a big mistake on the part of those testifying to think
that safety was not a primary concern of the Council. He said that the Council and their children
would be drinking the same water as everyone else. He said that they were trying to withhold
judgment until all the facts were in. He noted that there was a lot of emotion surrounding this issue.
Councilor Rohlf pointed out that as soon as the Portland option became more available to Tigard,
the Council immediately started looking harder at it. He agreed that the Council was not trying to
run headlong into any issue, citing the discussions of this issue over the past five years he has been
on Council as evidence of Council's careful consideration of the matter. He said that he knew for a
fact that one day they would run out of water and that they needed to have an answer for their
citizens.
Gordon Martin agreed that making a decision on a $40 million bond measure was a big burden
to place on five people. He spoke to letting the citizens decide, even if there was only one
option. He said that he understood that the only source might end up being the Willamette River
and if the citizens decided not to go with that, then they would have to live without water. He
commented that those he has talked with were "scared to death" about drinking Willamette
River water. He reiterated that the people wanted a chance to vote on the issue.
Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, reiterated the question he asked at
the last Council meeting on whether or not the WWSA would dissolve if Tigard went with the
Portland Scenario. Mayor Nicoli said that he would not answer that question as it was too
speculative at this time.
Mr. Polaris asked if the various water providers have joined together to pursue all water
resources. Mayor Nicoli said that Tigard has formed a working relationship with all water
districts in the Portland area with staff meeting monthly with the entire group.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 9
Mr. Wegner reviewed the four outside groups that the City worked with on water issues. The
Regional Water Consortium (26 water providers plus Metro) had a Technical Commission that met
monthly and a Board that met quarterly (Councilor Hunt was Tigard's representative). The Bull
Run Water Managers Advisory Board, the wholesale customers of the Portland water system, met
monthly (he has been the chair for the last year).
Mr. Wegner said that the Willamette Water Supply Association (WWSA) was formed to work on
water rights and to look at the Willamette River as a source of water as well as a natural resource
needing protection. The Intergovernmental Water Board comprised of elected representatives from
King City, Durham, Tigard, and the unincorporated area with one member-at-large met bi-monthly
to advise Tigard on water issues. He said that Ms. Froude was the Tigard Water District
representative while Councilor Hunt represented the City, and he was the staff representative
liaison.
Mr. Polaris commented that those were all government agencies, not opportunities for citizen input.
Mayor Nicoli informed the audience that any information made available to the Council was
available to the public, as long as they gave staff a reasonable amount of time to copy the
documents. He noted that it was the law that anything in the public record was for all citizens, and
that the Council has always maintained that for any controversial issue that has come before them.
Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Wegner was the contact person for water-related records.
Councilor Rohlf commented that during the course of their discussions, he has heard the Mayor
advocate as hard for the Bull Run option as he has for the Willamette River option. He expressed
his amazement at the newspaper reports as compared to his personal knowledge of what was said.
The Mayor referred to being misquoted in the newspaper. Councilor Rohlf said that he thought it
was a mistake to talk about the Mayor as if the Willamette River were the only option.
Councilor Scheckla commented that with the elections coming up, in which two places were open
on the Council and the Mayor's position, the people could have input on the water issue by voting
for the candidate who represented their position. He noted the presence of all candidates, Mike
Benner, Joyce Patton and himself for Council and Mayor Nicoli and Gordon Martin for Mayor.
• The Council considered Agenda Item 5 at this time.
4. GOVERNEMNT STANDARDS AND PRACTICES - TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Mr. Monahan advised the Council that the Government Standards and Practices Commission
came out with a new opinion on guidelines for the use of new technology b public officials.
He commented that it cleared up a lot of issues from their first opinion but also gave some
discretion to local governments. He asked for Council guidance on some of the discretionary
points. He indicated that he intended to develop final.local guidelines for use in training staff.
He asked for Council feedback on the staff interpretations of the Commission's opinion.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 10
Mr. Monahan referenced his memo discussing this matter. He noted that the context of the
discussion involved the principle that a public official could not use his/her official position for
financial gain or to avoid financial detriment.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the detail of the Commission's guidelines on the use of the City's phone
system for personal phone calls to do things that would normally be accomplished during the
regular business day. He mentioned that Tigard already had in place the practice of no long
distance phone calls, even if the employee intended to reimburse the City, because the cost of
processing the reimbursement checks was more than the reimbursement amount itself. He said
that he thought using the City phone system for a long distance phone call charged to the
employee's credit card was acceptable except for purposes of outside employment (i.e., an
employee's second job or for a business owned by an employee).
Mr. Monahan suggested continuing to allow use of cell phones for personal calls only if the
employee had to make the call for job-related reasons, such as unexpectedly staying late. He
noted that the Commission did not recommend reimbursement to the City for use of a cell phone
under those circumstances because of the issue of which rate should the reimbursement occur at:
the government rate or the higher normal rate. Mr. Mogahan recommended not allowing
reimbursement (in order to avoid Finance Department processing) and elimination of the use of
cell phones for personal calls other than those made for job-related reasons.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the Commission's opinion that employees could use personal computers
at work for occasional use on their own time or in preparing application materials for
promotional opportunities within the organization or to play computer games during break
times. He emphasized the prohibition against using the computers for financial gain or
avoidance of financial detriment. He said that the employee could use the computer for college
courses taken as part of an agency training program but not for non-agency related college
courses. Mr. Monahan recommended following the Commission's guidelines.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the issues with access of the Internet. He said that if the employee was
using his work computer to access the Internet for significant periods of time, then the employee
should get his own Internet access at home or the situation could be interpreted as the employee
avoiding financial detriment (paying for his own Internet access) by using his work computer.
Mr. Monahan said that he asked the Government Standards and Practice Commission what the
phrase "the employee's own time" meant. He reviewed the strict and loose interpretations of the
phrase. He said that the Commission representative told him the interpretation of this phrase
was a local option. He recommended defining "the employee's own time" as one hour before
the employee's regular shift began and one hour after it ended, and the time in between the end
of his/her shift and the beginning of an evening meeting which he/she was required to attend as
well as break times and lunch hours. He did not recommend allowing weekend use.
Councilor Moore expressed concern at allowing employees to use the computer during their
break times. He held that the purpose of break time was to take a break away from the work
desk. Mr. Monahan explained that a lot of people did not leave their desk but put a card stating
that they were on their break, primarily because of the lack of quiet space in the crowded City
facilities. He commented that some people found playing computer games on their breaks very
relaxing.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE I I
Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that they were making much ado about nothing. He pointed
out that it did not cost the City anything more if employees used the computer on their own
time, including for Internet access. He said that he did not understand developing rigid rules
when the employees would probably be.
Mr. Monahan said that he supported establishing guidelines so that people knew what they
could do without being challenged. He said that the unlimited use issue conflicted with the
avoidance of financial detriment idea because the employee could avoid spending the money to
purchase his own computer. He commented that the earlier Commission guidelines set up a
class distinction between those who could afford their own computers (allowed unlimited use)
and those who could not afford their own computers (restricted use). He said that this new
opinion clarified that issue by stating that if someone needed a computer that much, he/she
should probably buy one for home use.
Councilor Scheckla asked if there have been incidences of abuse by employees. Mr. Monahan
said no. Councilor Scheckla spoke to retaining discretion and flexibility (as opposed to
implementing minute regulations) as a means of keeping employees happy and productive. Mr.
Monahan agreed that that was a valid concern but argued that implementing guidelines protected
people from inadvertently abusing the equipment. He pointed out that eventually this issue
would receive press coverage and he preferred that Tigard have a middle-of-the-road approach
between the strict and loose interpretations of employee use of work computers.
Councilor Moore suggested following the staff recommendations for the time being and re-
evaluating the situation in the future. He agreed with Councilor Rohlf that employee use of the
computer did not cost the City anything.
The Council considered Agenda Item 2 at this time.
5. WIDENING OF 92ND AVENUE - BENEFITS AND COSTS
Mr. Wegner mentioned the previous Council discussion of the Kampe & Associate contract to
begin design work on elements of the Cook Park Master Plan. He noted Councilor Hunt's
request to reconvene the Task Force to discuss the issue of widening 92°d Avenue and to make a
recommendation to Council on whether or not to include this element in the Kampe contract.
He said that Councilor Hunt's concern had been widening this road solely for the benefit of the
Balloon Festival.
Mr. Wegner said that staff did not agree with improving the street solely for the Balloon
Festival. However, staff did recommend installing sidewalks separated from the auto traffic
because traffic would increase as the athletic fields, trails, and other elements in the Cook Park
Master Plan developed over the next five to ten years. He presented a request from himself,
Police Chief Goodpaster, and City Engineer Duenas for permission to investigate the options
open to the City for widening the road and providing safe pedestrian access.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 12
Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have a problem with doing more studies. He commented that
he agreed with Councilor Hunt's suggestion to separate the pedestrian traffic from the auto
traffic on the steep slope. Councilor Moore concurred. Councilor Scheckla asked if a bike path
could be installed instead of a sidewalk. Mr. Wegner said that answering these sorts of
questions was what they wanted Kampe & Associates to do. He said that they were negotiating
the contract with Kampe right now and they would like permission to include this element in the
contract.
Councilor Hunt said that he would support a recommendation on how to provide for safe
pedestrian movement in that area but he would be reluctant to endorse a recommendation to
widen the street to accommodate more car traffic or spend a lot of money principally for the
Balloon Festival.
ate. / (3 f 8
Mayor Nicoli mentioned a reason for separating the pedestrians from the auto traffic as the
possibility of a kid riding his bike down the hill, straying over the line, and hitting an oncoming
car.
The Council agreed by consensus to move forward with the staff recommendation.
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Councilor Hunt reported that approximately 79 people from the Summerfield neighborhood
attended the City presentation on the proposed library bond and the water issues. He said that
the audience listened attentively and asked good questions. He spoke to getting the message out
through as many of these kinds of meeting as possible.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 p.m.
AAttes Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder 4Tii rd
I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\98o915. Doc
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 - PAGE 13
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
*City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
•Accounts Payable
•
Legal
Notice TT 9 2 3 0
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )a"
I, Katby RnxydPr
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti Bard-TLalat i n mimes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published a+ -T I qarr3 in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Tiaar_d Citv Council Review Board Meeting
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for QN11 successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
September 10 1998
me this l.0th day -f September,1998
OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
Nota ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
*COMMISSION NO. 062071
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD,MEETING
. September 15, 1998 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
• Discussion/Update Topics:
- Citizen- Involvement Team -Facilitators & Staff Resource Mem-
bers
Water Quality Update
Oregon Government Standards & Practices Policies- Technol-
ogy
92nd Avenue - Future Widening
• Executive Session
M230 - Publish September 10, 1998.
My Commission Expires:
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
s TT 9228
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
• City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
• Tigard, Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
.Accounts Payable °
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, yss'
I, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti gird-Tt,a 1 at; n mimes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti ciarA in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for nNF. successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
September 10 1998
Subscribed and sworn
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
r this 1 nth Aar, of GP? tember,1998
OFFICIAL SEAL
ROSIN A. BURGESS
N Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
6
*COMMISSION NO. 062071
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
_ GG,ARD &MCOUNCIL." .
AND Li, 0 '*iCT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
September 15,19981- 6:30 P-M:
TIGARD CITY HALL'.. TOWN HALL .
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
• Discussion/Update Topics:
Citizen Involyement Team Facilitators & Staff Resource'Mem-
bers
Water Quality Update
Oregon Government Standards & Practicesd6licies Technol-
ogy
- 92nd Avenue -Future Widening-
Executive Session
T19230 - Publish September. 10, 1998: \
.,.•..rmer FnQ PROPOSAL
Engineering Design Services for 79th Avenue
Reconstruction (from Durham-Road to Bonita-Road) -
The City of Tigard invites proposals from qualified' consultants to provide
Engineering Design Services for the Reconstruction of 79th Avenue. The
tgsks will include but are not limited to project orientation, preliminary
t will
design, final design, process preparation of th ce project T'h bid o ec~ ncludesatraffic
be used for the bidding g prose.
study and designs of roadway, street lighting, drainage, water, signing and
striping.
Request for proposal documents are available at:
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Telephone: (503) 639-4171, ext. 369
Monday through-Friday between 8:00 s AM and 4:45 be received M 2:00 PM
The original and five copies of the proposal
(local time) on October 1,1498. Neither late nor faxed submittals will be
accepted. Proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope entitled
"Proposal for Engineering Design Services-79th Avenue" and shall be
sent to the City at the above address. ry
'I',228 - Publisb SeMelnber 10.1998._.
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15,1998
6:30 p.m.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:40 p.m.
2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) UPDATE
• Administration Department
3. WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT PLANT UPDATE AND PORTLAND WATER OPTION
O Public Works Department
4. GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AND PRACTICES - TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
• Administration Department
5. WIDENING OF 92ND AVENUE - BENEFITS AND COSTS
0 Public Works Department
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, 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.
9. ADJOURNMENT
\\tig333 W sr\depts4idmtcathy%=%980915.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 15,1998 - PAGE 2
One-on-Ones
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Jul
Au
Se
Lib
2
Fin
PW
2
2
1
Pol
3
1
Adm
1
CC
En
1
4
3
1
Pln
6
1
9
9
3
6
0
1
0
0
Attendance
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Jul
Au
Se
50
64
53
45
16
30
30
10
I:WDM\CATFM000NCIUCITATT.DOC
FREQUENTLY ASKED City of Tigard
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING QUESTIONS Community c erC pment
S(wpingA Better Co mmun:ty
What Is the purpose of this neighborhood meetinuP
The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are
planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let
them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal.
What happens after the neighborhood meetingp
After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often
taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a
while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months between
the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application.
Once an application is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application
has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6-8 weeks
from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications
require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns.
For all types of applications, property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels receive notice of
the public hearing (if applicable), notice of the decision, and are given the opportunity to appeal the
decision.
What if the proposal presented at the neighborhood meeting is not what is actually
submittedp
Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it
generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the
neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the
project is entirely different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required. In any case, notice of
decision is sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development allowing them the
opportunity to appeal.
Now do 1 know what issues are valid?
A decision is reviewed based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the
development code to familiarize yourself with what is permitted and what may not be
permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library or a
copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact
City Planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. Be prepared, however, that
you may not LIKE all the standards, but at least you know what they are. If a development meets the
cede standards. it can proceed.
For your assistance, the Citizen Involvement Team ICITI has compiled a list of helpful
questions to ask that may assist you In determining Your position on a particular proposal.
The following sheet lists those questions.
I:\CURPLN\JULIA\CITINF02.D0C
TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS:
QUESTIONS TO ASK TO MAKE SURE YOUR CONCERNS ARE MET
The following is a list of questions developed by a subgroup of the Citizen Involvement Team. These
questions are intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for proposed development in your
area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests.
Process
What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the application(s)
so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal?
Will the decision on the application be made by staff, Hearings Officer, Planning Commission or City
Council? How long is the process (timing)?
At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input?
Has a pre-application been held with staff?
Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified?
What Planner did you speak with on this project? (This person is generally the Planner assigned to
the case and the one to contact for additional information)
Streets
Will there be a traffic study done? What are the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the
development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary?
What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are
proposed?
Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths?
What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements?
Zoning and Density
What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning?
Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone?
How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum density
allowed in the zone?
Drainage and Water Quail
ty
What is your erosion control and drainage plan? What is the natural slope of the property? What are the
grading plans?
Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own
and maintain the facility?
Trees and landscaping
What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed?
What are the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and/or proposed
1
Agenda Item No.=
Meeting 01-2-11 S ` 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor, ,W -W6C,,
Bill Monahan, City Manager
r~
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Portland Water Option
DATE: September 10, 1998
At the Regional Water Providers Consortium Meeting held on Wednesday, September
9, 1998, Portland Commissioner Erik Sten presented the attached document entitled
"Expanding the Portland Water System". The presentation is a continuation of
Portland's willingness to work with partners in utilizing the Portland water system as a
regional source.
Mr. Rohif and I attended the meeting and will review the document with the council on
September 15, so you can be prepared for questions and comments on September 22,
when Mr. Sten addresses the city council.
On Page 4, of the document, Commissioner Sten confirms his willingness to work with
Wilsonville and Tigard on short term and long term water issues.
r
City of Portland Water Bureau
Expanding the Portland
Watier System
Presentation to the Regional Water
Providers Consortium by Commissioner
Erik Sten, September 9, 1998
t. yy.~ Srl" . J`~ `s~~ Y r., ~ 4Tt`{' S ~~f„y' -~v~•~y'2'RY 1„
Portland Water Bureau
1120 SW 50' Room 601
Portland, Oregon 97204
smaa~raac~.;z4:'':".s?*FP;+~s+I.tfi+ ~~U
4~panqsy4inge Portland
WaCT em
Presentation to the Regional Water
Providers Consortium by Commissioner
Erik Sten, September 9, 1998
The Portland Direction
A set of alternative scenarios was presented to the Regional Water Providers Consortium last
May. These proposals indicated how the Portland water system could be expanded over the
next several decades to meet the water needs of current wholesale customers and other water
providers who have indicated a need for future water supplies. Since May, further work has
taken place to refine these scenarios. Specifically Portland has proceeded with its
Infrastructure Master Planning process to include further analysis of source development, the
impacts of conservation programs on demands, refinements to assumptions about treatment,
and running the scenarios through a modeling program to assess how each utilizes source,
transmission, and storage to meet demands. We have engaged many of the region's water
.providers in discussions of their supply needs and how the Portland.system could be expanded
to meet those needs. The issues associated with governance, ownership, contracting, and cost
allocation are also being evaluated and discussed with providers who are interested in being a
part of the Portland system. I am returning to the Consortium to indicate conceptually what
we have found so far in proceeding further to resolve the issues of how best to meet the short
term water needs of west side entities in a manner which considers the broader regional
interests. My direction at this point includes the following conceptual themes:
Portland System Can Be Expanded - The Portland water system currently
meets the needs of about 800, 000 people in the region, which are about
60% of the Portland metro area. The Bull Run is a premier water supply
system and it can be expanded over time to meet new needs in a variety of
different ways. Some of these include treatment dam raises, new storage
projects, and aquifer storage and recovery.
Water for .People and for Fish - There is the potential to create and
manage storage in the Bull Run in such a manner that the needs offish in
the overall Sandy watershed are met while obtaining supplies of water for
the region. I want to explore these options at the highest levels available
and I would like the assistance of the region in this effort.
I am encouraged by the desire of many of the region's water providers to make decisions
within the regional context. The next few months will present challenges for the Consortium
and the region's water providers who are facing important decisions about future source and
program development. I remain convinced that the Portland water system offers much to the
region as a system of high quality water at a cost which is reasonable and which doesn't
sacrifice the resources of the watershed. Although individual entities will work together to
make decisions, it is incumbent on the City of Portland to provide leadership and vision about
the future of the Portland water system and how it fits into a regional system that is reliable
and efficient. I look forward to further discussions and the opportunity to assess the best
means of making my vision a reality. a
Next Steps
Where we are now in the region, and each of us individually, is moving from planning to
implementation.
At the planning level we have done excellent work as a region, culminating in the Regional
Water Supply Plan, as well as the Consortium as the cooperative mechanism needed for the
Plan to become a reality. The Consortium Board of elected officials, and its technical
Committee and Subcommittee of utility professionals, are the vehicles we will need to make
administrative and policy decisions to implement the Plan.
Portland needs to move forward now to determine who its future partners and contractors are.
In order to do that, the region needs to make some decisions about transmission and storage
projects necessary to interconnect the region and achieve our goals for supply reliability,
water quality, environmental protection, and water use efficiency.
I think we need a multiple track strategy consisting of (at least) the following components:
PORTLAND needs to engage directly its current and potential contractors/partners and
work through issues of pricing, governance, ownership, reliability, etc.
➢ At the same time, the REGION needs to engage in analysis and decision-making related
to development of transmission and storage.
I recommend that the Board task its Technical Committee of our utility professionals
with the job of analyzing and preparing recommendations for us related to developing
and implementing a regional transmission and storage program.
This work needs to get underway now. None of us can make solid long-term decisions
about our future relationships until we resolve the fundamental issue of how the region is
going to interconnect its water systems for both efficiency and for emergency backup.
➢ Those ENTITIES that NEED TO MAKE MORE IMMEDIATE SUPPLY DECISIONS
will continue to analyze their options.
I want to stress that this proposal is NOT meant to delay or impede decisions that need to
be made soon regarding the more immediate water needs of Wilsonville and Tigard.
Those evaluations and decisions need to press on as planned.
Y The proposed discussion of regional transmission and storage opportunities will
FACILITATE LONG-TERM SUPPLY DECISIONS. While immediate supply needs
must be addressed, I am suggesting, however, that decisions on long-term regional water
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF _Sotember 15. 1998.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Government Standards anal Practices TechnologyQp+tions
PREPARED BY: William Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A recent Advisory Opinion of the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission has provided
guidance to local governments on the appropriate use of city owned telephones, cellular phones, computers,
Internet, and other technology. Staff would like to brief the council on the elements of the opinion and seek
guidance on the City's local policy regarding some language of the opinion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council review the Technology Advisory Opinion issued by the State of Oregon and
discuss with staff those areas which are open to local discretion. Staff will then prepare draft policy language
for city use.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Government Standards and Practices Commission issued a Technology Advisory Opinion in July. The
Opinion answered several questions that have arisen as local governments continue to purchase and make
available to employees computers, cellular phones and other technological advances. At issue is when it is
appropriate for employees to use government owned resources for personal use. The Opinion answers some
questions and leaves some issues open for local policy.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Take no action. Interpret the Opinion without reviewing those areas that allow for local policy interpretation.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
NA
FISCAL NOTES
NA
:\citywidc\sum.dot
A~k
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor an City Council
FROM: Bill Monahan V
DATE: September 10, 1998
SUBJECT: Government Standards and Practices Commission - Advisory Opinion 98A-
1003 - Technology
The Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission provides direrstion to
public officials on those actions which are appropriate given a persons role as a public
official. The Commission in the past has provided guidance on conflict-of-interest,
acceptance of gifts, the use of an official position or office to obtain financial gain, and
other issues. Recently the Commission has developed guidelines on the evolving area of
the use of publicly owned technology by public officials. Specifically, now that cellular
telephones, computers, Internet access and other publicly owned equipment and
resources are available for the conduct of public business, questions have arisen to what
extent public officials may use the technology for personal use.
In November of 1997, the Commission distributed a draft advisory opinion dealing with
these matters. The original draft opinion had several "loose ends" which caused us some
concerns.
On July 9 of this year, the Commission, after several months of debate and discussion of
language, adopted the Technology Advisory Opinion. This opinion is now a guideline that
Council members as well as staff can rely upon. Page 6 of the Technology Advisory
Opinion notes that the opinion is issued pursuant to ORS 244.280 and that a public official
or business with which a public official is associated shall not be liable under ORS chapter
244 for any action or transaction carried out in accordance with this opinion. Thus, if we
follow the guidelines we will be consistent with the law.
I have discussed this opinion with City staff and attempted to fully interpret the opinion.
Even though the opinion is much improved over the November draft, there are some areas
that are open to discussion. The purpose of this memorandum and discussion is to bring
these issues to Council's attention and to advise Council of the interpretations that I am
presently making.
Memo to Honorable Mayor and City Council
September 10, 1998
Page 2
Following are the key points within the opinion:
Guiding principles - ORS 244.040 (1) (a) prohibits all public officials from using
their official position to obtain financial benefit or avoid financial detriment, if the
opportunity to do so arises only because of the holding of the position. The
interpretation includes all publicly owned property or other resources of a
government body such as photocopiers, fax machines, etc. The Commission
noted; however, that questions relating specifically to personal use of telephones,
cellular phones and computers are often posed to the Commission staff thus an
opinion on personal use of those items was necessary.
2. Telephones - The Commission has determined that public officials (including
employees') may on occasion use their employer's telephones for personal
purposes without the use of the phone being a violation of the law. As page 2 and
3 of the opinion indicate, there are benefits for the public agency if an employee is
allowed to use the telephone to talk to family members, make medical
appointments and take care of other such matters when those matters can only be
accomplished during "regular" working hours. The Commission goes on to say that
personal telephone calls made during working hours from a public employers
telephones should be brief, infrequent, and otherwise comply with the specific rules
or policies of the agency. No personal long distance calls (may be made on public
agency telephones) even if the employee promises to reimburse the public agency.
3. Cellular Telephones - The rules here are the same as regular phones; however,
because the public agency must pay for "air time costs" the use of a cellular phone
for personal use is much more limited. The commission has determined that it is
allowable for a public official to use a cellular phone to contact a spouse or
childcare giver to advise that the employee is going to be late getting home or
picking up children for a reason which is "directly" related to official duties such as a
meeting which ran later than expected or a last minute change of schedule. It is
also allowable for a public official to receive an incoming call regarding a family
emergency. The Commission determined that such limited use of an agency
cellular phone would not constitute personal gain within the meaning of ORS
244.004 (1) (a). Therefore, a policy on reimbursing the employing agency for the
cost of the cellular phone under these circumstances is a local option.
I recommend that our policy be that cellular phone use be limited in accordance
with the Advisory Opinion and that any personal calls be reimbursed to the City at
the business rate. That way, the employee would not be receiving the benefit of
paying the government rate for cellular phone use.
Memo to Honorable Mayor and City Council
September 10, 1998
Page 3
4. Computers - The governing principle here is publicly owned equipment is intended
to be used for government business purposes. Therefore, generally computers
cannot be used for personal purposes.
The Commission has determined; however, that it is allowable for public equipment
to be used occasionally for social letters on the employees' own time. In addition,
the Commission determined that it is appropriate for an employee to use public
equipment to prepare an employment application for a different position within the
agency. Finally, the Commission determined that it is allowable for an employee to
use a public computer for playing computer games during break periods. The
rationale here is that the use of the computer for this purpose would enhance the
employee's skill at using the equipment.
The Commission specifically excluded the use of public computers for business
related uses. That is, on page 4 of the opinion the Commission states that a
prohibited use is when a public official uses an agency computer "to maintain
financial records or otherwise facilitate an outside business operator for the officials
personal financial gain." The overall theory is that a public official cannot use a
public agency computer if the use would result in the avoidance of a financial
detriment for the public official. The official cannot continually use the computer to
avoid buying a personal computer.
5. Internet Access - Most of our employees' in the City Hall, Water Building, and the
Library have access to the Internet. The Commission has determined that personal
use of the Internet is subject to the same considerations as use of the computer
itself. The issue again is that employees' cannot use the City Internet to the extent
that it is being used to avoid financial expense of subscribing to an Internet service
at personal expense.
QUESTIONS RAISED
As noted earlier, the opinion has answered several questions that public officials have had
for quite some time regarding the use of new technology now available to public agencies.
Some questions do remain which require further discussion. Specifically, while it is clear
that public officials cannot use public equipment to obtain financial gain or avoid financial
determent, it is not clear when the threshold is met. For instance, in the use of computers
and the Internet the opinion states that occasional use of the computer or Internet is
allowed "on the employees' own time." I have inquired of the Government Standards and
Practices Commission staff to determine what limits are placed on the phrase "on the
employees' own time." I was told by Jim Pons of the staff that that interpretation is to be
made locally.
Memo to Honorable Mayor and City Council
September 10, 1998
Page 4
I asked Mr. Pons if "the employees' own time" is limited to the break periods and lunch
periods between an employee starting time and ending time of work. Mr. Pons advised
me that the employer can make a determination that of the time beyond the normal
working hour can constitute that time.
I have had a discussion with the Executive Staff to explore what the Executive Staff would
feel comfortable advocating as a reasonable interpretation of this language. Options
include the following:
1. Restricting the term "the employees' own time" to mean only the break and lunch
time between an employees' starting time and ending time of work.
2. Any time that that employee is not devoted to City work while the employee is at a
City facility or has access to either the City's computer or Internet service.
3. The time between the employees' arrival at work and starting time, break periods,
lunch periods and the time between the employees' end of workday and departure
from the work site. This could include the time between the end of the workday and
the beginning of an evening meeting.
4. A set period of time before the employees' start of work and after the employees'
end of workday. A pre-determined time such as 1 hour or 30 minutes could be set
as the City's policy.
5. The question of whether weekend hours are available for personal use of
computers or Internet is open for discussion.
My recommendation is that the personal use of computers and Internet be restricted to the
employees' break periods, lunch period, 1 hour before the normal work hours and 1 hour
after the normal work hour. I suggest that no weekend use of computer or Internet be
allowed unless the use is related to an educational purpose which is consistent with the
City's policies.
I look forward to discussing these issues with you during the Workshop Meeting next
week. Attached is a copy of the signed July 9, 1998, opinion. You have been provided
with a copy of the Guide for Public Officials distributed by the Oregon Government
Standards and Practices Commission at an earlier date. If you need another copy of that,
please contact my office.
I have also attached a copy of a recent article issued by the Associated Press which
quotes Patrick Hearn, Executive Director of the Government Standards and Practices
Commission.
\\tig333\usr\depts\admyo\govtstnd.doc
AGENDA ITEM # 5
FOR AGENDA OF 9-15-98
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Council Discussion: Widening of 92nd Avenue - Near Cook Park
PREPARED BY: C. Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Council discussion item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and give direction to staff.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
During the August 18, 1998, Council discussion on the Cook Park Master Plan Bid Award to Kampe &
Associates, Inc., Councilor Hunt requested further Council discussion on whether the City should pursue the
idea of widening 92nd Avenue at the entrance of Cook Park. Public Works staff will be available to discuss or
answer questions on this matter.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
\\tig333\usr\depts\adm\cathy\council\92ndave.doc
Sept, 15, 1998
To: Tigard City Council
From: Jim Hansen - Citizens for Safe Water
-'c-PSp (\~e c~
)\-v, ~-A o, v\ S .rn
gi~"5 1cl
Subject: Request for a future date and agenda inclusion for the Tigard City Council to
address the issue of the City of Tigard's non-compliance with the stated operating
policies of the Willamette Water Supply Agency, and the City's non consistency
with the Regional Water Supply Plan.
Summary: Tigard City manager Bill Monahan has stated on numerous occasions that a binding public vote
of the citizens is not required for the city to build the Willamette River filtration plant. If the City of Tigard
builds the filtration plant, the city will obtain its water rights thru the Willamette Water Supply Agency
(WWSA) of which Tigard is a member. On Feb. 20, 1998 Mr. Kevin Hanway (director of the WWSA)
submitted an "Information Report" to the Regional Water Providers Consortium. In order to remain
consistent with the Regional Water Supply Plan, the report summarized the WWSA's operational policies,
and clearly stated that if any WWSA member (such as Tigard) should intend to build a filtration plant, that,
plant could not be built unless there is a binding vote of approval by the residents of the district.
This is stated on page 7 of the report, under the paragraph titled PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT,
part of which reads:
Because the development of this local supply source on the Willamette is consistent with the RWSP, the
decisions to be made by the WWSA members will not eliminate or short-cut the Consortium's eventual
public process to select the ultimate regional supply sources. In addition, the public will also be involved
in WWSA's final decisions on this project. Ultimately, the residents of the participating WWSA entities
will have the final say over whether this treatment plant will be built. Municipal bonds will need to be
sold to finance the construction of the facilities. The public has a right to vote on whether it approves of
using tax revenues or rate revenues to support payment of those bonds. If the public withholds that
approval, the facilities could not be built.
There is further reference to the requirement for public involvement in the last paragraph of page 6 of
the report, under the heading SUMMARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AGREEMENT, part of which reads as follows:
A treatment plant is proposed to be built on the Willamette which would supply water to DOC while also
supplying the larger needs of the water providers participating in the project. Tigard has already
committed to participating in the development of the plant, subject only to voter approval as required
Either the City of Tigard shall allow a binding public vote on this issue, as is required; or the Willamette
Water Supply Agency shall have to change its stated*policy requiring a public vote - and submit a new
report to the Regional Water Providers Consortium stating that they and their members are no longer
operating in a manner consistent with the RWPC policies, and become a rogue agency without the safety
and backup of the RWPC. It is my hope that the council will carefully weigh the consequences of its
decision, which will affect not only Tigard, but other communities in the area.
WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY
INFORMATION REPORT
To the
Regional Water Providers Consortium
On a
Potential Willamette River Water Treatment Facility
And its
Consistency with the Regional Water Supply Plan
Exhibit 1: WWSA Chronology
Exhibit 2: South Sub-Regional Water Providers
February 20, 1998
WWSA INFORMATION REPORT
The Willamette Water Supply Agency (WWSA) is considering the development
of a water treatment plant on the Willamette River at Wilsonville. Throughout 1997, the
Consortium's Technical Committee and Technical Subcommittee received regular reports
on the progress toward formation of the WWSA and the types of projects it was
considering. However, because the Agency was not officially formed until late 1997
(when the first six members signed the intergovernmental agreement forming the agency)
the Consortium Policy Board has not received a briefing on the new agency's formation
and plans. The initial members of WWSA are the cities of Tigard, Gladstone and
Tualatin, as well as Tualatin Valley Water District, Clackamas River Water, and the
Canby Utility Board. The city of Sherwood joined WWSA in January 1998.
This is an appropriate point, therefore, to explain to the Policy Board how and
why WWSA came to be formed. It is also appropriate to address how the treatment plant
being considered by WWSA is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Regional
Water Supply Plan .(RWSP).
Formation of WWSA
A thorough explanation of the events and issues which led to the formation of
WWSA is contained in the chronology attached to this report. In summary, the
cooperative effort began with a shared concern among water providers in the southern
metropolitan area that processing of their pending applications for new water rights
should be coordinated. Over time, the coordination expanded to consideration of the
possibilities for pooling both pending applications and existing water rights. This would
allow for a coordinated approach to the identification of alternative sources of water
supply for providers having immediate and short-term needs for additional supply. It
would also allow for the possibility of scaling back the quantities requested in
applications for new water rights to better match RWSP need projections.
After reviewing the costs and availability of numerous alternative supply
sources % several providers (now WWSA members) concluded that the most feasible and
economical source of supply to satisfy their immediate subregional need is through
development of a water treatment plant on the Willamette River at Wilsonville. Expected
to invest in the treatment facility are Tigard, which has an immediate need for additional
long-term supplies, and Tualatin Valley Water District, which has a 1973 water right on
the Willamette. Other cities with near-term needs (Tualatin and Sherwood, which are
WWSA members, and Wilsonville, which is not a member) are also considering if they
should join in the project. Because of the uncertainty over the potential participants, no
final decisions have been made about the location or capacity of the proposed plant.
Consistency with the RWSP
The region's water providers have invested heavily, both in terms of dollars and
time, in the development of the Regional Water Supply Plan. The formation of the
Consortium demonstrates the commitment of all of those providers to ensure that those
investments are not wasted, and that the objectives and policies of the Plan are carried
out. WWSA and its members share that commitment. Its plans are consistent with both
the spirit and the letter of the RWSP.
See Exhibit 1, "Chronology," pages 1-2.
Page 2 of 8
2/20/98
WWSA INFORMATION REPORT
• The RWSP acknowledged that this part of the region has immediate needs that will
need to be met by the year 2000, possibly through development of a Willamette River
source.
• The improvements being considered are local, not regional, in scope, and do not
commit the region to development of the Willamette as its sole or primary
incremental supply source.
• Development of a Willamette River source can assist in the promotion of source
protection strategies to be developed to implement the RWSP.
These three points summarize the basis for our conclusion that the proposed plant
is consistent with the RWSP. In addition, WWSA and the members participating in this
project are committed to a thorough and open public information process. In at process
we will communicate not only with residents of participating WWSA members but also
at forums in other parts of the region where other citizens outside the WWSA area who
are interested in issues related to the Willamette can participate.
The following discussion expands on each of those points.
The RWSP Acknowledged an Immediate Need for Subreglonal Water Supply Developments
Although the primary emphasis of the RWSP was on projecting the amount and
timing of the need for additional water supplies to meet the needs of the region as a
whole, it clearly acknowledges the need for immediate local source developments.
At page 252, the plan document summarizes comments on the draft plan
demonstrating the consensus of the plan participants on this point: .
"[I]t was felt the revised plan should provide more specific direction
for near-term implementation and less specificity in terms of long-
term actions and decisions. For example, the revised plan must
recognize that some parts of the region have imminent water
demands which need to be met through conservation, new
transmission, and/or additional supply from one or more of the
sources under consideration (including the Willamette)." [emphasis
added]
These concerns were addressed in the revised plan document (page 271), which
acknowledges the possible need for development of a new supply on the Willamette,
prior to 2000, to meet the needs of communities in the south metropolitan area.
"The Regional Water Supply Plan process has focused primarily
on regionally significant demands and resource options. The
process did not address in detail the fact that certain localities in the
region are facing more imminent needs than others. Examples of
those entities which are likely to need new resource capacityprior
to 2000 include the cities of Wilsonville, Tigard, Sherwood, Canby,
and possibly the Damascus Water District.
This plan recognizes that steps must be taken in the near-term to
meet these demands. Addressing these needs is identified in the
next section of this chapter as a high priority implementation item
Page 3 of 8
2/20/98
WWSA INFORMATION REPORT
for the proposed regional water provider consortium. It is not
known at this time which resource options will be selected to meet
near-term local needs. Conservation would be expected to help
manage demand in these areas. Non-potable options such as direct
use of river or groundwater could also contribute. On the supply
side, seemingly plausible source options (due to availability of
existing systems, proximity to alternative sources, and water rights
availability) include connection and contracted purchase of water
from existing systems (e.g., Bull Run, Clackamas), ASR, or
construction offirst phase supply facilities on the Willamette River.
These near-term needs should be met, to the extent possible, in a
manner consistent with the policies and long-term strategies set forth
in this plan." [emphasis added]
The Plan's policy objectives also identify the need for operational flexibility in
implementing the plan to satisfy local short-term needs.
"Operational Flexibility: Ensure that the plan includes flexible
strategies for meeting both sub-regional and regional water demands
in the year 2000 and beyond."
[page 256, Table XII-1]
Further demonstration that the Plan anticipates a development such as that being
proposed by WWSA is given in several statements in the document that the region's
providers intend to rely on information gathered from the project to guide their future
planning. The Plan anticipates that these new source developments will assist the
Consortium in making future decisions on such matters as the selection of source options
and the need for and location of transmission and intertie facilities. The possibility of a
local supply development on the Willamette to meet imminent needs is specifically
mentioned. The following two excerpts from the Plan illustrate this point.
The region's providers may obtain important information on
the viability of conservation, transmission, and source options based
on the results of anticipated near-term projects. New information
gained in bringing new local resources on-line will be integrated
into the RWSP to help guide future decisions in the region (e.g.,
transmission needs and location)." [page 271, emphasis added]
"Implementation actions specific to each source option are as
follows:
Willamette River Option
[bullet 71 Monitor the performance of any local source development
which may occur to meet imminent needs in parts of the region."
[pages 269-70, emphasis added]
Page 4 of 8
2/20/98
WWSA INFORMATION REPORT
This Local Supply Development Does Not Commit the Region to the Willamette
The RWSP identified the need for development of new regional supply sources to
meet the long-term needs of the region. However, it projected that the need for that
increment would not occur until 2035 or later. The Plan deferred a decision on selecting
from among the three identified sources for additional regional capacity (the Willamette
River, the Columbia River, and/or additional storage in the Bull Run watershed). The
Plan also clearly recognized that several communities in the south metropolitan area need
to develop new water sources immediately, and anticipated that development of a
Willamette River supply was a likely candidate for meeting that need.
It is clear from the Plan, then, that immediate development of a local supply
source in this area is not inconsistent with the decision to defer selection of new sources
to meet long-term regional needs. This combination of strategies recognizes that
development of a local supply on the Willamette to meet immediate subregional needs
does not necessarily commit the region as a whole to select the Willamette as the region's
ultimate or primary source increment. The scale of the project being considered by
WWSA is consistent with that philosophy.
a. Project Scale
First, the size of the plant being proposed is only large enough to meet the
immediate and short-term local needs of the communities participating in the plant.
Design capacity for the planned water treatment plant will most likely be between 20 and
40 mgd. The final design capacity will depend on how many of the interested
communities choose finally to participate in this plant.
Only Tigard has made a definite commitment to pursue the Willamette option. It
has contracted with a team of engineering consultants to do preliminary engineering work
on the potential treatment plant. Tigard is planning for a 20 mgd plant to meet its needs.
It currently has no permanent source of supply, and experiences peak demand days of 12
to 13 mgd. (The additional capacity beyond current peaking levels is being planned for
as a fiscally resporisible measure. The city recognizes that it would not be responsible to
build a plant that it can project would need to be expanded in 5 to 10 years to meet its
own needs. Much of the extra costs associated with that delay could be avoided by
building that capacity now.)
Wilsonville is evaluating scenarios for as much as 10 mgd of treatment capacity.
This would allow the city to shift its water demand away from its overburdened wells so
they can be "rested" and, hopefully, replenished. Its peak demand is currently in the
range of 7 mgd.
Up to 5 mgd of plant capacity each is being considered for Tualatin and/or
Sherwood, if they decide to address their immediate needs by becoming either partners or
wholesale customers of the plant.
There are no plans to oversize the treatment plant to provide excess capacity to
other communities that do not have immediate needs for additional supply. The
availability of the plant will provide some needed redundancy of supply for adjacent
systems. For example, the Metzger service area of the Tualatin Valley Water District
(TVWD) currently can be served only from Portland supplies. In the event of an
emergency Bull Run shortage, TVWD could easily use its connections to the Tigard
system to take advantage of the new Willamette supply.
Page 5 of 8
2/20/98
WWSA INFORMATION REPORT
Second, a 20 - 40 mgd plant is a small increment in relation to the total projected
new demand and to the region's overall current supplies. Peak day demands for the
region are projected by the RWSP to increase by up to 415 mgd by the year 2050. [page
66, Table V-4, high average annual growth rates] The proposed plant will provide less
than 10% of that projected demand, hardly a level that could address regional needs. The
proposed 20 - 40 mgd plant is also only 4% to 8% of the region's existing delivery
capacity of 493.3 mgd. [page 69, Table VI-1 ]
b. Oversizing Considerations
As a responsible fiscal measure, WWSA is planning to oversize the raw water
intake and the finished water transmission lines. It is anticipated that the intake will be
sized at 80 to 100 mgd, rather than merely the 20 to 40 mgd needed to supply the plant.
Transmission lines would also be oversized, probably to approximately 60 or 70 mgd
capacity. Several factors favor oversizing of these facilities to preserve the option of
taking advantage of these potential supply sources in the future.
First, construction of an intake obviously involves work in the river itself. If at all
possible it is better, from a resource and habitat protection standpoint, to disturb that
environment only once. In addition, restrictions on riverbed construction continue to
become increasingly strict. Limiting the intake size at this time to the proposed treatment
plant capacity risks the possibility, if the Willamette is eventually chosen as a regional
source increment element, of having to spend much more on new intake capacity when
the plant is then expanded. By that time increased costs or regulatory restrictions could
make it impossible to upsize the intake.
Second, the incremental cost of upsizing the intake now favor that action. Current
cost estimates for a 45 mgd intake are approximately $4.39 million*. The estimated cost
of a 100 mgd intake is $8 million. That translates to a 122% increase in intake capacity
(from 45 to 100 mgd) for an additional $3.61 million, only a 82% increase.
The arguments for oversizing the finished water transmission lines are similar.
Construction of transmission lines from a riverfront treatment plant site to Tigard will
involve a significant investment in right of way as well as substantial disruption of traffic
as trenches are dug and pipe laid along and across roadways. For a relatively small
increase in current costs, the need to lay additional transmission lines in the future, and
the disruptions that come with that work, can be reduced or eliminated. For example, a
45 mgd pump station and transmission line is estimated to cost $15 million, while a 100
mgd capacity transmission system is estimated at $23.9 million, only a 59% cost increase
to achieve a 122% transmission capacity increase.
Building oversized intake and transmission lines under these conditions does not
commit the region to the Willamette as part of its ultimate source of supply. Instead, it is
a small current investment, a wise fiscal decision, to preserve the option for future
expansion of this source if the Willamette is ultimately chosen by the region.
' The current set of cost estimates evaluates a number of different treatment and transmission capacity
scenarios. Although a smaller initial treatment plant is being planned, a 45 mgd plant is the smallest
capacity for which ultimate build-out costs are identified. The cost estimates referenced here are based on
a riverfiont treatment plant location, Montgomery Watson scenarios 4c and 6a.
Page 6 of 8
2/20/98
WWSA INFORMATION REPORT
Source Protection Advantages
Finally, development of a Willamette treatment plant can assist the region in the
promotion of its source protection objectives. The Consortium's Source Water Protection
Stakeholders Advisory Committee is preparing recommended strategies, for
consideration by the Consortium, which would maintain the viability of all of the sources
being considered for the regional source increment. Having a new water treatment plant
on the Willamette, in addition to the plant already serving the city of Corvallis, will
create additional urgency for the state to work with upstream users and dischargers to
reduce contaminant levels in the Willamette River.
The Consortium's Stakeholders Committee is also considering strategies for
promoting the efficient use of all water supplies. One potential strategy to achieve this
objective is to reduce the load on drinking water supplies by encouraging the use of raw
water where possible as well as exploring the possibilities for water reuse. Both of these
strategies have been identified by the Consortium as well as the Governor's Willamette
Basin Task Force. Preliminary design work on the potential WWSA project includes an
evaluation of the potential for including a dual piping system as part of the initial facility
construction. This system could provide raw water for irrigation use at large industrial or
municipal sites. It could also include interties to allow reuse of treated wastewater in this
area.
Public Involvement
Because the development of this local supply source on the Willamette is
consistent with the RWSP, the decisions to be made by the WWSA members will not
eliminate or short-cut the Consortium's eventual public process to select the ultimate
regional supply sources. In addition, the public will also be involved in WWSA's final
decisions on this project. Ultimately, the residents of the participating WWSA entities
will have the final say over whether this treatment plant will be built. Municipal bonds
will need to be sold to finance the construction of the facilities. The public has a right to
vote on whether it"approves of using tax revenues or rate revenues to support payment of
those bonds. If the public withholds that approval, the facilities could not be built.
In addition, WWSA is preparing an extensive public information program to
in a the public about its plans. Information will be delivered to citizens and ratepayers
through utility newsletters and mailings, as well as through public meetings and
electronic and print media. We anticipate that this effort will not be limited to citizens of
the participating utilities. The program will also include meetings in other parts of the
region, so that persons not directly affected by the proposal but with a general interest in
the Willamette and the RWSP can also have an opportunity to learn about the project.
Extensive testing of raw water quality in the Willamette has already been
conducted, and a new round of sampling programs will begin soon. The results of these
tests, along with the results of our pilot plant project and research on other water sources,
will be available during this process.
CONCLUSION
The treatment plant being considered by WWSA addresses immediate needs in
the south metropolitan area. This option is being pursued only after the participating
entities evaluated the cost and availability of other supply alternatives and found that they
were either not available in a timely manner or were cost-prohibitive. The Regional
Page 7 of 8
2/20/98
WWSA INFORMATION REPORT
Water Supply Plan recognized that this sub-area of the region would need to address
immediate water needs before 2000, and that one of the probable options would be
development of a Willamette River source. The small treatment plant being considered
by WWSA is being sized to serve only the local immediate needs, including some
fiscally responsible oversizing of intake, treatment and transmission facilities only to
preserve the option to further develop this source for the region if that is the decision
made on the region's source increment.
The WWSA proposal is consistent with the RWSP's conclusions and policies, and
will promote the achievement of the Plan's objectives.
Page 8 of 8
2/20/98
WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY
Exhibit 1
Chronology
This Chronology is intended to provide the reader with a context in which to
understand the circumstances and concerns leading to the formation of WWSA, and to
the proposal for WWSA to develop a water treatment plant on the Willamette River.
1973
TVWD is granted a municipal water right on the Willamette River at Wilsonville, in the
amount of 202 cfs.
1992 - 96
TVWD conducts a study, partly funded by American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, which includes, among other tasks, a pilot plant project on the Willamette
River at Wilsonville.
1993
A subregional group water suppliers starts meeting to discuss coordination strategies on
pending water right applications. The group includes TVWD, Canby Utility Board,
Gladstone, Lake Oswego, and Clackamas River Water. Others, including Tigard and
Newberg were invited as they also applied for water rights or as their need for additional
water supply became known. Coordination was deemed important because a ruling by
Water Resources Department on the public interest issues and water availability
determinations for any one of the applications would impact all of the others. The
group's discussions centered on trying for a joint contested case proceeding.
Tigard completes a water master plan evaluating options for new or additional water
supply. Tigard had historically depended on "spot" short term contracts with other
municipalities for its water supply. By 1993 it had decided to seek longer term
arrangements, either long term contracts or ownership position. The master plan
recommended several options, including purchasing water from Lake Oswego, Portland,
TVWD, Tualatin, South Fork Water Board, or the Joint Water Commission, as well as
developing a source on the Willamette.
• The city pursued the potential for long-term agreements to continue purchases from
Lake Oswego, but, after two years, Lake Oswego, facing opposition to expansion of
its plant in West Linn, ruled out any long term arrangements to supply water to
Tigard.
2/20/98
Tigard joined with Clackamas River Water, Canby Utility Board, and Wilsonville to
evaluate construction of a transmission line from the CRW treatment plant to serve
these other communities. This option was rejected when construction costs
(transmission lines alone were estimated at $60 to $110 million) were determined to
be too high to be economically feasible. The South Fork and JWC options were also
eliminated due to excessive transmission costs.
The city joined with TV-WD, Tualatin, and Wilsonville on a study of the Washington
County Supply Line. The study concluded in 1997 that an additional 5 = 7 mgd could
be made available from the supply line. However, Portland has not yet committed
that this surplus water would be available after the expiration of the current wholesale
water contracts.
Tigard also submitted an application to the state for a water right of 40 cfs on the
Willamette, with a priority date of 3/28/95.
1995
By 1995 the subregional group becomes the "South Subregional" water suppliers group.
Other providers join the discussions, including Wilsonville, Tualatin and Sherwood. The
group starts discussing the possibility of pooling their water rights and pending
applications, rather than pursuing them independently. This is triggered in part by
discussions with WRD, which had expressed concern that the group members' water
rights and applications, when combined, exceeded what appeared, in the Regional Water
Supply Plan, to be the projected need for these communities. The suppliers recognized
that WRD would look more favorably on both extension requests for existing permits, as
well as on pending applications, if the requests were combined and reduced. This would
allow for each supplier to have adequate supplies into the future and would also bring
applications more in line with projected needs.
1996
DEQ releases its Willamette River water quality study, documenting the presence of
multiple contaminants in and discharges into the river. One of the more significant
findings was an extremely high occurrence of fish skeletal abnormalities in the Newberg
pool. The study was unable to determine the cause of these deformities.
The Regional Water Supply Plan is completed and sent out for approval by all of the
RWSP participants. Recognizing, among other factors, the imminent need for new
supplies in the south metro area, the proximity to the Willamette, favorable water quality,
and the need for diversifying sources, the initial recommendation to members regarding
potential future supply increment options was an option including, development of a
Willamette source. In the face of strong opposition from Portland and Metro, the final
plan was adopted with that decision deferred, to allow further evaluation of the needs and
for comparison of the options. The plan retained language recognizing the imminent
need for additional supplies in Wilsonville and Tigard.
Page 2 of 7
2/20/98
Sherwood drills its last well. As rapid population growth continues, the city seeks to
diversify from its exclusive reliance on its groundwater supply, which has reached its
limits. Construction begins on an intertie to the Tualatin system to add a Bull Run supply
for the city.
Tualatin begins exploring its long term options to supplement its water supply. Its
analysis shows that, using aggressive growth projections, the city could be using its full
Washington County Supply Line transmission capacity by the expiration of its contract in
2005. By the following year, it is clear from the Washington County Supply Line study
that the line cannot meet the long term peak day needs (beyond the potential renewal of
the wholesale contracts in 2005) of all the existing contract holders, as well as the new
customers (Tigard, Sherwood and, potentially, Wilsonville) that have been added since
the line was built.
1997
By March, negotiations have begun on the formation of a Willamette Water Supply
Agency, an agency formed by an intergovernmental agreement among several
municipalities. Under the agreement, each member would contribute its water rights and
its pending applications to the WWSA. As projects were approved or as coordinated
need projections were developed, some of the pending applications would be withdrawn.
This would be a show of good faith to WRD that the water rights picture was being
cleaned up to match actual needs.
As proposed, the WWSA agency would consider potential projects, including
development of a water treatment plant using TVWD's water right. (These development
activities would protect TVWD's interest in its current permit in the event WRD
amended its rules, as it is considering, to restrict extensions of municipal permits to those
that are developed or expect to be realistically developed in a set period.) Members
would have the option to participate in individual projects, or to buy in at a later date.
The organization would also allow for other members to join in the future. Members
would retain the option to withdraw front WWSA, and to take with it its proportionate
share in a water right or a pending applicaiic so that no member would lose the ability
to serve its customers by contributing those assets to the agency.
The final reports on the Willamette Pilot Plant study are released. An earlier report
(1994) had concluded, based on the data gathered in the pilot plant study, that the
Willamette is a high quality raw water source, and that the water can be treated to levels
better than required by current or project Safe Drinking Water Act standards, by using an
optimized water treatment process including ozone disinfection and granular activated
carbon (GAC) filtration. The 1997 report on continued water quality monitoring
confirmed those conclusions. The pilot plant and water quality sampling was conducted
over a period which overlapped substantially with the testing performed for the DEQ
Willamette River study.
Page 3 of 7
2/20/98
In September, anticipating that the agency will approve development of a treatment plant,
potential WWSA members contract with a team led by Rockey Bowler, Inc., for public
information and polling services.
Wilsonville, in September, notified the WWSA formation group that it would not join
WWSA. Wilsonville has its own water right on the Willamette. With its immediate need
for a new water supply, it preferred not to contribute that asset to a group, but rather to
retain sole control over it. Wilsonville continues to cooperate with the agency in
planning efforts.
Lake Oswego also chose not to join WWSA. In recognition of the ongoing coordinated
subregional water supply planning, however, the city withdraws its application pending
before the Water Resources Department for a new 60 cfs water right.
Later in September, the Oregon Department of Corrections begins discussions with
TVWD and Tigard about the possibilities for provision of short- and long-term water
supplies to the proposed prison in Wilsonville.
Between October and late December, 6 suppliers vote to join WWSA: TVWD, Tigard,
Gladstone, Canby Utility Board, Clackamas River Water, and Tualatin. Sherwood joined
the agency in January, 1998.
In December Tigard contracts with Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc., and Montgomery
Watson to begin preliminary design on a WTP and supply system. Numerous design
scenarios have been considered. The most likely are for a 20 - 30 mgd plant, to serve
Tigard and Wilsonville, as well as potential sales to Tualatin and /or Sherwood.
1998
Wilsonville adopts a moratorium on new development, based on the lack of adequate
water supplies. . The city had been notified by the Water Resources Department in 1989,
as part of the approval for its final wells, that it could not continue to rely on groundwater
for a long-term water supply. The city has imposed mandatory water use restrictions
annually since 1992. Continued strong growth, both in residential and industrial sectors,
had by 1998 pushed the city's groundwater supply to its limits.
In January, an agreement with DOC is reached and announced, in which DOC would
contribute $10 million towards meeting its water needs. Approximately $6 million of
that sum could go to construction of a new subregional water treatment plant and related
facilities. [A summary of the agreement is included at the end of this chronology.]
Today
WWSA is currently preparing to announce plans for a WTP and for a public information
program. The primary participants in the project are expected to be Tigard, along with
TVWD, which may oversize intake and transmission facilities to preserve the option for
future expansion of the plant to meet its needs. WWSA continues to cooperate with
Page 4 of 7
2/20/98
Wilsonville to preserve the option for the city to become a partner in the project, after the
city has completed its options analysis and public involvement process. Tigard has
already announced its general plans to its citizens and has begun to study potential project
costs an financing options. The city's schedule would allow or the treatment plant to e
completed in approximately 2004, just prior to the expiration of the Portland contracts.
Page 5 of 7
2/20/98
Summary of the Department of Corrections Agreement
TVWD and Tigard became involved in the prison's water supply concerns in
September, 1997. After confirming that Wilsonville has insufficient water supplies to
serve future growth until a new water supply is online, Department of Corrections (DOC)
staff approached TVWD to ask if it had the capability to make water available to the
prison. TVWD responded that it could supply them, by making available surplus water
from TVWD's Bull Run connection in the short run, and through the planned water
treatment plant for a permanent supply. The City of Tigard was brought into the
negotiations as the provider most immediately interested in construction of the potential
treatment plant. After several months of negotiations, agreement was reached by TVWD
and Tigard with DOC and the City of Wilsonville on the terms of the agreement. In
summary, it provides for the following:
e DOC had determined that its cost to develop its own on-site water supply for short-
term and long-term supply needs would be $10 million.
Rather than develop its own source, DOC would reallocate those funds to the local
governments to take care of the DOC needs. This approach has the added benefit to
the region of contributing to solving the immediate needs of nearby communities of
Tigard and Wilsonville. Under the contemplated split of the funds, Wilsonville
would receive $3.6 million, and TVWD and WWSA would receive $6.4 million.
These funds would be used for specific measures to provide for DOC's immediate
and permanent water needs. The funds will be held in escrow and released to the
appropriate agency as work is performed
The first responsibility under the agreement is for participating WWSA members to
construct a connection between the Tualatin water system and the Wilsonville system,
using funds from the $6.4 million allocation. This intertie would allow surplus water
from TVWD's contract with Portland to be delivered to Wilsonville. The water
would be delivered through, and sold to Wilsonville by, Tualatin. The City of
Portland has approved of these water transfers. This arrangement addresses the
DOC's short-term need for water when the prison opens in the year 2000. However,
the Portland contracts expire in 2005, and Portland has not yet committed to extend
those contracts. Therefore, to assure that permanent water needs are met, either
another source must be developed or a timely commitment must be obtained from
Portland for extension of the surplus wholesale contracts.
• A treatment plant is proposed to be built on the Willamette which would supply water
to DOC while also supplying the larger needs of the water providers participating in
the project. Tigard has already committed to participating in the development of the
plant, subject only to voter approval as required. Wilsonville is still considering
whether it will participate. To preserve the possibility for it to share in the DOC
funds, Wilsonville must commit by March to participate in the planning and public
Page 6 of 7
2/20/98
information programs for the project. TVWD plans to pay for oversizing the intake
and finished water lines to retain the ability later to expand the plant to meet its own
source needs without building new lines.
Starting on January 1, 1999, (to allow for a bond election in November 1998)
Wilsonville and WWSA participating members can agree to proceed with
construction of a treatment plant. If either one does not have adequate funding from
its own sources to participate in the project, the balance of the $10 million from DOC
will be distributed to the one ready to proceed. If Wilsonville is ready to proceed but
no WWSA members join it in developing the treatment plant, DOC will pay
$1,000,000 to TVWD (which will share it equally with Tigard) to reimburse it for
plant design and related costs incurred to that point.
If, by Jan. 1, 2001, neither Wilsonville nor participating WWSA members has
adequate funding to proceed with the treatment plant, then the balance of the $10
million will be distributed to TVWD to construct a permanent supply for the DOC
facility. TVWD may build a permanent small treatment plant on the DOC property to
serve only the prison. Most likely, this plant would be supplied by Willamette River
water under TVWD's 1973 water right. In addition, TVWD has committed to supply
the DOC through the Wilsonville - Tualatin intertie until the treatment plant is ready.
The effect of this agreement is to guarantee that DOC has water in the short term
(through 2005) and permanently thereafter.
Page 7 of 7
2/20/98
WILLAMETTE WATER. SUPPLY AGENCY
Exhibit 2
South Sub-Reaional Water Providers
Populatio Served/
s ,r Source &LCapaGtjr~
.it Y r.a 11~
atQr g ' iYC+r7:
.
Customers
Or Contra
Clackamas
52,000 plus sales to
Clackamas River
Clackamas 46.5 cfs
River
Gladstone, Oak
30 mgd,
Apps pending: 71.5 & 77.4
Water
Lodge (29,000) &
conventional treatment
cfs on Clackamas,
Mt. Scott (19,000)
22 cfs on Willamette
Canby
12,000
6 mgd
20 cfs water right on Molalla
Utility
conventional treatment
4 cfs other water rights
Board
App pending:
12.4 cfs on Willamette
Gladstone
11,000
Purchase from Clackamas
9.7 cfs on Clackamas, plus
River Water
4 cfs transferred to diversion
point for CRW plant;
App pending 12.4 cfs on
Willamette
Lake
35,000
16 mgd
Application withdrawn for
Oswego
conventional treatment
60 cfs on Willamette
Newberg
15,000
10.5 mgd WTP for
Groundwater and springs -
disinfection and iron
recently was denied a land
removal
use permit for new well
Sherwood
8,000
2.8 mgd
Groundwater, plus intertie to
000 accounts)
(3
Tualatin/Bull Run (under
,
construction)
Tigard
44,000
10 mgd from Portland and
40 cfs pending app. on
includes Tigard
TVWD, plus I mgd from
Willamette
Water District,
wells; To meet peaks of
King City, Durham
12 - 13 mgd, surplus is
purchased from Portland or
Lake Oswego
Tualatin
21,000
10.8 mgd from Washington
None
County Supply Line
(1997 peak 7.5 mgd)
Tualatin
153,000
Washington County
48 mgd Bull Run
Valley
Supply Line & JWC
18 mgd JWC
Water
conventional WTP
Willamette: 202 cfs water
District
right (undeveloped) and
487 cfs pending app.
Wilsonville
11,000 residents;
Groundwater
Water right (undeveloped)
plus commercial &
7 wells, 4.6 mgd
30 cfs on Willamette
industrial accounts
8a' well to be drilled will
add 0.7 mgd
WWSA Member - Total population represented: over 325,000
(For comparison, the city of Portland served 481,000 city residents in 1997.)
~ 1150
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Ed Wegner L~
RE: Davis & Hibbits Telepone Survey
DATE: September 18, 1998
Attached please find a complete copy of the Davis & Hibbits telephone survey
conducted during the month of August of 1998. The 305 respondents of the survey
were randomly drawn from among registered voters within the Tigard Water service
area.
Substantive areas of questions included:
• Water supply problems and knowledge of level
• Water supply evaluation criteria
• Advice to City Council
Results:
• Tap water quality stood by itself on top;
• Certainty (meeting future demands) stood alone in second place;
• On the whole, awareness of the potential future water supply problem was not high
which leads to the following factors of significance:
• Firstly, there is a relatively large unaware segment of the voting population that is
potentially subjected to influence on this subject;
• Secondly, local water supply is an important issue to those who know about it.
Happy Reading!!
Attachment: Davis & Hibbits report dated September 8, 1998
c: IWB Board Members
Davis Hibbiffs; Inc.
Market and Public Opinion Research
921 S.W. Morrison, Suite 424, Portland, OR 97205
Phone (503) 220-0575, FAX 220-0576
e-mail: davishib®fta.com
September 8, 1998
TO: -Brian Bell, Rockey Bowler
FROM: Davis & Hibbitts, Inc.
RE: Tigard Water District Survey Results
L Introduction
Davis & Hibbitts, Inc. - (DHI) is pleased to present the results of a telephone survey conducted
during August to assist the City of Tigard in planning for its future water supply.. The sample size
for the survey was 305, and the respondents were randomly drawn from among registered voters
in the Tigard Water District:
Description of Sample. As will be noted in the accompanying tables, a substantial quantity of
demographic data was collected during the survey. This enabled various comparisons to be made
in each major, question area. Major characteristics of the sample were as follows:
(a) The sample was 50% female and 50% male.
(b) Age was grouped into three categories. Eleven percent (11%) fell in the 18-34 range, 43%
were ages 35-59, and 46% were age 60 and over.
(c) Forty-four percent (44%) lived in the Tigard Water District area for 10 years or less, 23% for
11 to 20 years, and 34% for more than 20 years.
(d) Income was grouped into four categories. Twenty-three percent (23%) reported incomes
under $30,000, 16% fell in the.$30-45,000 range, 33% fell in the $45-75,000 range, and 29%
earned $75,000 or more.
(e) Eighty-four percent (84%) of the sample were homeowners, and 16% were renters.
(f) Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the respondents had children under age 18 living at home,
while 72% were without children.
Questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is. attached as an Appendix. In gathering the
responses, DHI employed quality control measures which included questionnaire pretesting,
callbacks, and verification. The substantive areas of questioning included water supply problem
and knowledge level, water supply options, and advice to the city council. Each is discussed in a
separate section below. This report will highlight noteworthy outcomes. Numerical results were
analyzed by frequency of response for categorical-format data and by comparing means for
scaled-format data. Beyond this, only subgroup variations which appeared useful for planning and
policy-making purposes are discussed.
Statement of Limitations. Any sampling of opinions or attitudes is subject to a margin of error,
which represents the difference between a sample of a given population and the total population
(here, Tigard Water District area). For a sample size of 305, if the respondents answered a
particular question in the proportion of 90% one way and 10% the other, the margin of error
would be 3.37%. If they answered 50% each way, the margin would be 5.61%. The
reason for the difference lies in the fact that when response categories are relatively even in size,
each is numerically smaller and thus slightly less able - on a statistical basis - to approximate the
larger population.
These plus-minus error margins represent differences between the sample and total population at a
confidence interval, or probability, calculated to be 95%. This means that there is a 95%
probability that the sample taken for this study would fall within the stated margins of error if
compared with the results achieved from surveying the entire target population.
IL Water Supply Problem and Knowledge Level
Respondents were asked if they believed that Tigard currently has, or will have in the near future,
a water supply problem. Forty-six percent (46%) said yes, 14% said no, and 40% were unsure or
did not respond (Table 1). Respondents age 35 to 59 (45%) and 60+ (51%) said yes more than
respondents age 18 to 34 (27%). Homeowners, as compared to renters, were also more likely to
believe that Tigard had a water supply problem (49% to 34%).
The 140 respondents who believed Tigard had a water supply problem were asked to rate its
seriousness, and 19% chose very serious, 66% somewhat serious, 8% chose not very serious, 2%
said not at all serious, and 5% were unsure or did not respond (Table 2). When these results were
collapsed into the categories of "serious" or "not serious," the outcome was an 85% to 10%
leaning towards the former. On a scale where 1=not at all serious to 4--very serious, the mean of
3.07 reflects a somewhat serious orientation. There were no subgroup interactions.
All respondents were informed that Tigard does need a new water supply for the future and were
asked if they had heard or read about plans for Tigard's future water supply. Fifty-five percent
(55%) said yes, 44% chose no, and 2% were unsure or did not respond (Table 3). The older the
respondent, the more likely they knew of Tigard's water supply problem (39%, 49%, and 64% for
each ascending age group).
M. Water Supply Options - General
Respondents were read a list of eight items that have been suggested as considerations in
assessing options for Tigard's future water supply and were asked if the list is a good or poor one.
The list included:
• Environmental impact: Impacts on the general environment of using the water source.
• Diversification: Not relying on only one water supply source.
• Untreated water quality: Quality of the water before treatment.
• Tap water quality: Quality of the water after treatment.
• Ownership: Opportunities for Tigard to own or share in ownership of the water source.
• Construction costs: Costs to build new water facilities and pipes.
• Ongoing costs: Costs of the water to the customer, including operations and maintenance.
• Certainty: Likelihood that the water source will meet projected demands.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) said it was a very good list, 47% chose good, 6% said poor, 2%
said very poor, and 7 % were unsure or did not respond. These results amounted to an 85 % to
10% split in favor of the positive ratings. The mean of 3.30 (1 =very poor to 4=very good)
reflects a position between good and very good (Table 4). (Percentages exceed 100% due to
rounding.)
Respondents in the under-60 age groups rated the list more positively (3.48 and 3.41
respectively) than older respondents (3.14). Respondents with children also rated the list more
positively than those without (3.43 to 3.24).
The 259 respondents who gave a positive rating were asked why. Seventy-six percent (76%)
said the list covers a broad range of issues or that the list is comprehensive, and 9 % said that
another source of water is .a. good idea (Table 5).
The 25 respondents who gave a negative rating were also asked why. Five (5) respondents
said it sounds too expensive, while 4 respondents said the city should consider limiting water
usage (Table 6). The other responses were scattered over a wide variety of topics.
IV. Water Supply Options - Specifics
Respondents were then re-read the above list of items to be considered in assessing water
supply options and were asked to rate each on a 0=not at all important, 5=mid-point,
10 =very important scale. The table below summarizes these results. See Tables 7A to Table
7H for an item-by-item breakdown of the frequencies and Table 7 for the means.
Item
Tap Water Quality
Certainty
Diversification
Ongoing Costs
Construction Costs
Environmental Impact
Untreated Water Quality
Ownership
Mean
% Very Important
9.21
65%
8.07
33
7.52
26
7.48
25
7.27
26
7.23
27
7.20
27
5.81
11
Tap water quality stood by itself above all others, and certainty (in meeting future demands) stood
alone in second place. Diversification, ongoing costs, construction costs, environmental impact,
and untreated water quality filled a third tier, and ownership was alone in last place.
There were several significant interactions. By gender, females rated 6 of 8 items as more
important than did males (all except certainty and ongoing costs). By age, environmental impact
was rated as more important by ages 18 to 34 than older respondents, but construction costs were
rated as less important by this age group than by older respondents. Also by age, respondents age
60 and over rated the untreated water quality and ownership as more important than did
respondents age 35 to 59. By income, respondents earning under $45,000 rated the untreated
water quality as more important that respondents earning $75,000 and over. Respondents with
no children living in their household rated untreated water quality as more important.
Respondents who had heard or read about plans for Tigard's future water supply rated
environmental impact as more important.
' Along these same lines, respondents were asked what should be the one most important factor in
their decision about a future water supply. Fifty-two percent (52%) said water quality or safety,
15% said meeting demands, and 11% mentioned water prices or cost of new source (Table 8).
Respondents were then asked for their second most important factor, and 36% mentioned water
prices or cost of new source, 23% said water quality or safety, and 9% mentioned environmental
impact (Table 9).
When respondents mentioned water prices or cost of new source, they were referring primarily to
their water bill, but there was quite a lot of sophistication because most saw that construction and
maintenance costs would be passed on in the water bill. Taken as a whole, we can say that both
water quality/safety and cost were about equally important.
Respondents were asked unaided what options does Tigard have for solving the water supply
problem, and 16% mentioned the Willamette River as a source, 14% mentioned Bull Run as a
source, but 67% did not offer a comment (Table 10).
Finally, respondents were. asked for one piece of advice they would like to give the Tigard City
Council regarding making a decision about a future water supply. Sixteen percent (16%) said to
do sufficient research before deciding, 10% mentioned that the project must be kept to minimal
costs or at least be cost effective, and 10% also said to listen to the community and voters (Table
11).
V. Summary
A random sample of 305 registered voters in the Tigard Water District were asked a series of
service and supply-related questions regarding their water. On the whole, awareness of a
potential future water supply problem in Tigard was not high. A little less than half the sample
4
indicated awareness, while a little more than half had heard something about future plans to
increase their local water supply. However, by better than an 8 to 1 margin, those indicating
awareness believed it was a serious need
This highlights two factors of significance: there is a relatively large unaware segment of the
voting population that is potentially subject to influence on this subject. Secondly, local water
supply is an important issue to those who know about it.
In general, respondents viewed the list of 8 water supply considerations they were given during
their questioning to be full and complete. These included factors such as quality, costs, and
environmental protection. It was not surprising that they regarded finished water quality as the
most important factor, closely followed by certainty in meeting future needs. A DHI study done
for another local government in the metro area produced similar results earlier this year, even
though that jurisdiction is in the midst of a major conservation program while Tigard is not.
Thus, people want the water they get at home to be of high quality, and they-want there to be
enough water to comfortably meet local needs. The fact that construction and operating costs, as
well as environmental issues, fell below these two items may suggest a certain balance in the
public's perspective. The question of cost, as long as it appears reasonable, may not be as
important in this area as other considerations are. Too much should not be made of this
suggestion without fiuther study, since respondents were not given any cost information with
their questions, nor was it explained to them how the costs would be met.
It was also notable that the question of where additional water for Tigard should come from did
not generate a set ofpowerful responses. Indeed, about 2/3 of respondents offered no comment.
Apparently because of concerns over quality, the possible use of the Willamette River for drinking
water has become a fairly emotional issue in a couple of other jurisdictions that DHI has worked
with on this issue over the past several years. Depending on where the district proposes to get its
water, sensitivity to this subject in Tigard could develop in the same manner.
5
Davis & Ilibbitts, Inc. - Tigard Water Survey
N=305; August 1998
Ql. Do you believe that Tigard currently has a water supply problem or will have one in the near future?
If you don't know or aren't sure, just say so.
46% Yes
14% No
40% Don't know
Q2. (IF NO Ql) How serious do you consider Tigard's water supply problem to be. very serious,
somewhat serious, not very serious, or not at all serious?
(140 respondents)
19% Very serious
66% Somewhat serious
8% Not very serious
296 Not at all serious
5% Don't know
Q3. Tigard does need a new water supply for the future. Have you heard or read about plans for Tigards
future water supply?
55% Yes
44% No
2% Don't know
Q4. I'd like to read you a list of items people have suggested be considered in assessing options for
Tigard's future water supply. I'd like to read you the list twice and after I read you the list the second
time, please tell me if you think it is a very good, good, poor, or very poor list of items. (Rotate)
1. Environmental impaccimpacts on the general environment of using'the water source
2. Diversification: not relying on only one water supply source
3. Untreated water quality. quality of the water before treatment
4. Tap water quality. quality of the water after treatment
5. Ownership: opportunities for Tigard to own or share in ownership of the water source
6. Construction costs: costs to build new water facilities and pipes .
7. Ongoing costs: costs of the water to the customer, including operations and maintenance
8. Certainty, likelihood that the water source will meet projected demands
Again, how good a list of considerations do you feel this is for Tigard to use in assessing options for
Tigard's future water supply..
38% Very good
47% Good
6% Poor
2% Very poor
7% Don't know
Q5. (IF GOOD Q4) Why? (OPEN. PROBE FOR SPECIFICS.)
(259 respondents)
76% List covers broad range of issues
9% Another source of water is a good idea
5% List covers issues that I am concerned about
5% List addresses environmental issues
5% Don't know
Note: Additional responses found in computer tables.
Q6. (IF BAD Q4) Why? (OPEN. PROBE FOR SPECIFICS.)
(25 respondents)
20% Sounds too expensive
16% City should consider limiting the population's water usage
8% Water quality/safety should be priority
Note: Additional responses found in computer tables
Q7. I'd now like to read to you the list again. Using a 0-to-10 scale with 5 being the mid-point, 0 being not
at all important, and 10 being very important, how important do you think each item should be in Tigard's
decision about a future water supply?
Averages
7.23 Environmental impact: impacts on the general environment of using the water source
7.52 Diversification: not relying on only on water supply source
7.20 Untreated water quality. quality of the water before treatment
9.21 Tap water quality. quality of the water after treatment
5.81 Ownership: opportunities for Tigard to own or share in ownership of the water source
7.27 Construction costs: costs to build new water facilities and pipes
7.48 Ongoing costs: costs of the water to the customer, including operations and maintenance
8.07 Certainty. likelihood that the water source will meet projected demands
Q8. What should be the one most important factor in their decision? (OPEN)
52% Water quality/safety
15% If new source will meet demand
11% Water price/cost of new source
6% Environmental impact
Note: Additional responses found in computer tables.
Q9. What should be the second most important factor in their decision? (OPEN)
36% Water price/cost of new source
23% Water quality/safety
9% Environmental impacts
8% If new source will meet demand
Note: Additional responses found in computer tables.
Q10. What options does Tigard have for solving the water supply problem? Again, if you don't know or
aren't sure, just say so. (OPEN. PROBE FOR SPECIFICS.)
16% Willamette River as a source
14% Bull Run as a source
5% Drill wells
5% Buy the water from Portland
67% Don't know
Note: Additional responses found in computer tables.
Ql 1. What one piece of advice would you like to give the Tigard City Coucil regarding making a decision
about a future water supply for the area? (OPEN. PROBE FOR SPECIFICS.)
16% Do sufficient research before deciding
10% Project must be kept to minimal cost
10% Listen to community
9% Consider all of the options
7% Provide good quality water
20% Don't know
Note: Additional responses found in computer tables.
And now, a few questions for statistical purposes only.
Q13. How long have you lived in Tigard?
43% 0-10 years
23% 11-20 years
33% 21+ years
1% Don't know
Q14. Please stop me when I reach the category that includes your approximate annual household income
before taxes...
8% Less than $20,000
11% $20,000 to $30,000
13% $30,001 to $45,000
27% $45,001 to $75,000
12% $75,001 to $100,000
12% More than $100,000
19% (DO NOT READ) Don't know/Refused
Q15. Do you own or rent your home?
84% Own
16% Rent
Q16. Are there any children in your household under the age of 18?
28% Yes
72% No
Q17. Gender - DO NOT ASK
50% Female
50% Male
Q18. Party registration
38% Democrat
45% Republican
17% Other
Q19. Age
11% 18-34
43% 35-59
46% 60+
m
ao
as
CL
N
L1
a7
O
C
C
O
0
t
3
O
O
Q
a
s`
•
Q
t
T
O
7
v
v
a
F=
m
0
e
0
>
r O
CV
c
6
N
M
'o
ld
N
-
>11
1
2
19
1
O~
r
N
v
¢
N
N
g
N
po
~
cp
N
~
~
~
O
aD
!
~
XX
p
l'~
93
W
f
N
t~A
W
W
Y
K
(7
N
O
v
z
N
m
N
M
Y
~
7
y
iD
cc77
.
f
Y
co
N
~
N
N
W
X
a
N
Y
W
N
C
N
m
a~~~O
N
U.
OU
C7
N
N
C7
C7
t1 Z
¢
O
o
~
co
M
c7
N
iV~
N
~2
N
2
2
2C
Q
W W
LL
l
N
R
N
N
c
~pp
C7
N ,
}
¢
o
Y
1~
b
X
~
d
v
v
a
~
v
v
v
m
•P
m
La
W
LO
<
W
LO LO
N
W
co
Y
f
r
V
N
N
N
p
~D
~
Q
I
)
N
K
K
LO
~
~p,p
C7
~f
b
m
v
G
N
N
co
T
co
¢
m
o
Y
a.
cli
oe
'N
n
ye
Y
a°
Q
7
W
~
~QC
tO
C,
LO
a~
C.
O
m
b
~
b
.
r
a
~
~
O O
~
CJ
v V
I
U U
¢
z
O
C
}
Z
N
m
03
Qi
a
«
0
E
a
•
•
E
a
F-
a
•
C
M O
O O
v ~
Q T0
C O
O a
M
v ~
O
N ~
O
M
f =
19
Y
1
L
b
N
8
Ol
x
N
9
14
^
1
r
I
N
N
G
1~
~p
b
b
Q
t0
N
W
h
oo
Y
Op
N
b
x
N
N
x
b
p
N
Y
h
l7
~
N
Z
~@ m
~
`
~
N
x
Y
N
~
x
dD
W
¢
~
,
ap
~
«00
0000
Y cgi
~
c7
c2~e
21
~
21
N
n
2C
2!
r"
=t
M
~C
N
l7
N
~
S3
N
N
m
o3
N
b
w
C13
N
m
O
b
w
~
O
Z
yy
QS N
^
X
m
x
N
b
Y
w
N
N
~
N
^
~
u+
N
~
N
~
~
~
^
~
N
N~~y
N
mX
f7
N b
N
<
b
N
G
N
~
N
LL w
t7
C
c7
O
N
N
m
m
<
Q
IL W
N
N
C-3
W
~
to
w
d
'p
N
~
N
pp
^
to
N
m
o
w
v
b
a
°
b
3e
O
D
to
iD
c
b
f0
'f
N
p
p
pp
~O
n
0
w
~
w
N
ae
N
3e
93
b
ae
b
ae
<
;r
3e
m
de
e
de
^
gp2
N
2°
co
a2
Q f
7
th
N
m
~
~
m
~
~
v
F
cr
U,
~p
N
C7
p
W
b
00
q
co
`p
w
O
Y
l7
Y
m
V
N
n
Z
w
0
:1
T
F;
N
ti
ae
m
de
le
2e
N
ae
;e
N
ae
ae
b
w
In
^
LO
Y
N
N
J
C
<
N
N
co
N
n
t
to
m
m
c
c
~
c
d U
CL
L
a U
ffi
Q.
Q,
L
p
O
E
c d
O
c
E
c
c CE
c
CE g
c
~ CE
C
°
C
¢
8
_
J
_
N
•
•
A
Q
O
o
o ~r
p~
O
m
Z
w
Z ao
O
]
7
4
7
O
c o`
o •
a ~
t7
p
E~
O «
a •
c ~
S 0
N e
O O
•
C O
•
N
e
m Y
f r
C
atl
A
S
m
=a
Q
T
m
Z
m
3
'Q
F
Cl)
m
rn
m
a
T.
7
•
O
3
w
W
O
w
C
7
O
a
O
O
'3
L
7
T
O
m
.~C
O
L..
O
T
CL
i
`o
8
c
w
a
F F
~
g
9
~
Q
O
~
}
N
~
~
N
Y
Z
A
C
~C
~Q
'
P
N
Q
N
W
W
O
2 l
cS M
N
ipp
W
pp
4
co
N
co
N
~2
O
U,
N
V
N
Y
N
~bO
N
O
~
c7
b
~vp~
U. W
N
CD
c7
N
,
U
O
Z
N
N
Q
~
N
W
m
N
W~
r
N
<
N
N
} Q
O_
N
~
m
m
d
V
''f
t0
7
Y
co
Y
~
~
N
co
n
u
r
W
~
N
3e
e
aE
OV
v
ITi
a2
v
N
2e
N
G
N
a
b
cn
m
w
w
r0
n
<
e
Y
^
9
V
'
co
of
N
o
Z
Q
a`
b
ie
N
e
a°
LO
C.
F
V
lb
O
C
c bS
c
aS
c ffi
c E a
a
E
a
E
Cg n~
.2 31
C~
g ¢
g
~ ¢
.2
8 8 m
C
C
t
¢
z
O
C
ffi
Z
c
~
a
A
C
7
v
m
rn
CL
5
U
7
T
V
Z
r
>Y
'O
L
a
6
O.
7 M
•
•c
v T
b S
F• 0
~ O
e
c y
O
ao
O 8
Im C!
C
•
In
w
w O
C >
O r
~ Y
e
C C
O
U ~
O
.G O
o e
o E
•o
e ~
e o
r a
e O
nE
~c
E
O e
~ O
e-_
V q -
c 0
t TO
O e T
v ~ 'II
f 'O"
•
Y -
U,
IN
co
S
g
^
x
-C?
b
f
N
~
¢
f
LM
W
x
0
~
w
Zz
x
~y
n
^
N
N
f
~
N
N
~
N
~
~
,r
~
~
N
f
x
c7
N
N
l~7
c7
b
m
~
c7
~
b
Y
c7
cN7
~
Q
C~
2e
0
~
2
N
a2
70
N
~
c~~
N
t~0
b
N
~
~
'
~
2e
N
~
c7
~p
b
N
N
N
f
N
f
b
N
l0
N
7D
b
f
b
CV
t9
f
NNV
Y
lLw
U
N
C
10
f
f
p
f
N
e
p
W I
Z
W
N
co
C,
N
f
N
"
f
N
N
ce~pp
J
2~
N
t~(~~
i
ow
}
C
t9
¢
G
d
r
f
f
N
N
IU
M
co
<
co
~rn
N
(7
Q
f
'7
Y
N
f
f
<
co
m
ca(~~°
a°
$
^
a°
W
n
V
C9
l
7
r
OD
(w
a
O)
t11
(7
r
^
R
f
co
N
N
'm
Y
LO
f
Y
f
f
2e co
'
N
N
co
v
?
N
f
1
F
$
co
N
~
p
O1
~
n
~
~
w
~
~
co
~
a
f
rn
co
0
z
w
j
'7
M
m
N
Y
W
f
W
f
M
Iq
^
LO
f~7
l7
0
N
<
^
N
1
-
E
e
p~
C
~
p> OE L
C O
QE a
p>p
.2 3t
~ E a
.2
p O p O
Epo p E CL
3 .2 3r
O
E a
m .2
~pp
[
¢
U cC
8
Q
¢
U
pp
V U
OI
Q
a
c
O
a
~qoc~
9e
aJ Y
v
C C
q
•
0
f ~
m tl
F .N~.
W
V
Q
3
F
m
v
v
a
M
pC
a
C
O
C
a
e
E
r
0
v
ti o
~ u
e
e°
O
~O a
e
Z
G
dD
^
^
f
N
N
bi
O
m
N
co
Y
'
to
N
}
^
77O
b
^
N
N
Q
Q
C4
N
7
0
E
E
r
H
CD
a
D
N
x
b
Y
x
70
Y
x
ZG
N
x
~C
I~
N
n
~
p
N
l7
x
N
N
lx7
N
Z7
N
f~'J
b
m
N
1~
v
co
cn
n
n
m
N
Y
b
m
N
L9)
N
N
co
W
~
O
Q
Z
N
'r
I
o
il
co
N
'
C9
-
N
-
0
-
M
o
N
N
m
W
'f
m
N
O7
N
t
N
c0
l9
n
Y
0
~
N
0
~
N
co
~
LO
cc
LL
0
CV
N
v-
r-
a
N
n
N
bD
N
co
N
N
co
Z~
c~
O
co
cc
0
r,
0
C.
co
w
o
to
+
0
aD
O
°
<
n
h
^7
LO
r
h
N
N
r
a°
O
a°
N
N
a°
N
a°
m
co
co
v
Q
m
N
t0
W
N
V
w
N
~
N
'
O
co
co
w
N
a°
~
a°
Q
N
N
co
N
t0
t9
~
'a
N
0
<
M
I
M
N
N
m
~
N
cc
W
O
N
N
LO
P.-
.pp
^
<
N
La
<
n
m
N
N
m
v
'C
m
cm
co
LL
C7
O
3e
o
ae
2e
m
a°
m
ID
N
N
e
o
a°
Ln
a°
Q
N
W
n
N
Ch
b
N
to
Y
c~
N
a1
M
L
F
CD
CD
a 9 "
C
ID
c
CD
CL
G
ID
C
a
C
a
C
C
0
_
a.
a
U
E CL
2
U
~
E CL
.2 3p
U
g
E CL
.2
8 3
A
l
E a
3
E o_
S
m E o_
.2
8
h E a
`
E a
C
OC
C
c
U
c
~ C4
a C3
~
~mz
a
~i°
~E
~8
m~
g~
o
$
9m
m
oa
SS
a
L~~
m
`
a
~
ZS°1
~E
AL°c
i
d
32
mat
~8~
~a
C
L
S
-d
m
O
co
r
n
PM
T
3
P
F
O
r
G
O
n
me
0
r
P
E
0
v
0
0
u
c
0
n
ul< oa
mme
F G¢
b o
N
N
N
N
O
r
Cl.
Z
Z
N
b
N
Y
01
N
~b
W
C1
O
~
8
N
m
Z
~
¢ m ~
N
~
N
~
~
~
~
N
Z
b
W
LO
to
Y
N
n
'
N
L
93 PJ
b
N
b
N
~
N
W
QY
tr ^
O
Q
N
III~I
~
O
W
Y
US
O
O.
Z
a`
LO
N
f7
N
N
~
N
Ya
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
~C
N
Z
b O
N
N
~E
O
co
n
b
co
m
y(
j
O
N co
N
j
o
1'A
~
_
a
LL
^
N
N
N
N
N
tO
N
O
O
~
O_ m o
O
22
O
a°
N
a°
M
~
2~
O
to
d
N ~ b
1~
~Q
b
~~~jpQ t
O
h
C7
LO o
O
N
~
N
N
~
O
~
N M
Q
N
m
co
N
U,
m
W
<
O
2
('3
N
LO
U
co
in
m
m
$
b
b
co
t
N
J
O
9
N
C
~~pp
a
~~pp
js
Q
m
C
C
C
V
s
a
9j , j EE n.
U a U
~
$ E o_
U
g
g E a
.2
U
g
E a
.2
~ 8
n E a
8
m EC
a
G
h E a
C
m
C
C
C
U c4
cg
2
`m
s
-ci
Z
,E
m g
n
°
2S
Cs
8
3
n
Z^
nm
E E
m
C- JQ
9.s
ll
IS
S3
r
~8
3g
E
g
o
S
~
c
i
8
00 CD
D
tD
m
tM
0
CL
rm
t7
Qf
a
Y
c
0
a
O
'O
E
L
AC
L
E
O/
_C
S
O
V
C
a
pC
Lp
d
E
4
a
0
c
O
.ea
O
s
C
0
O
~ w
e o
e
A
C e
S ~ O1
3 w~
O
V Sc
O _
~.o
-p
43
a e
C O
C O Ol
p-
.Y
~v o
•v u
. Ol Cc,
O 'H
C
c i o
e-0a a
~SvE
g~zj
••o
mc~-y
15 9 sw
Z
Z
N
x
^
l7
x
N
x
m
$
^
O
m
N
N
LLLL11
Q
II~~
n
N
x
Y
N
N
O
N
W
b
N
}
N
N
N
W
~
Y
Z
Zr
X
A
e
e
m
CO
a
x
7»
m
v
b
C
po
N
co
n
0)
m
b
_
~r
Y
CD
ii
O
co
N
X
r
W
Y
N
fi
(
Y
~Zf
b
<
]V2
/7
~7
N
N
1!S
n
W
N
N
b
t~
x
1~
Y
XO
c~7
C7
O
N
~N
N
N
N
V
W
yy
RS
0
Z
-
Y
Q
S
N
M
o
N
O
N
N
b
n
N
m
l
Y~
b
O
cm
I
l
o
N
V
93
N
N
b
m
N
N
V
b
N
N
co
N
+
N
N
n
b
W
m
N
N
N
O
O
N
N
W
LL
V
W
Z
fn W
f
Z p
N
m
32
N
32
a°
v
N
a°
co
a°
9
d~
v
N
Y
Cs
2~
c7
m
'
M_
a
i~
t~
l°
cv
v
o
N
2~
v_
n
a
W
_
1 -
1
N
Cc
co
off'
N
de
O
a'
3e
N
N
2~
N
2'
N
N
2e
N
N
2t
°
a
2°
N
c2~e
N
2e
r
o
N
o
d
`
V
V
l7
Y
t0
t0
~
m
t0
p
N
m
m
$
N
N
►
N
co
t0
W
a£
N
a?
N
aE
N
O
a°
N
2t
to
"
a°
f7
N
a!
N
N
T
Y
N
M
m
a°
3e
<
N
`C
~E
1$O
N
'e
o
l~9
m
N
N
~1f
M
n
N
m
V
'
co
cc
~
N
le
t~0
co
~
V
N
~
K
a
~
~p
C~D
n
O
Y
~
m
N
<
N
V
N
~~y
<O
W
~
S
O
10
N
O
Y
~
N
to
O
m
Y
N
^
O
<
N
~
N
~
~
N
1
0
^
O
~
p
O
O
N
5
Y
p
5
N
*
Q
~
N
~
p
O
f-
r-
L•
Z E a
L E a
E a
E a
3
Z` E a
3
E o_
3 8
E o
3
3
E n
8
E a
S 8
3
8 3
8 8
3 3
3 4
c
'
C.
0
C
0
Z Fs
N
l7
♦
s
f0
n
co
OD
m
C
co
a
Y
C
T
O
9
E
3
O
t
C
E
r
OI
C
O
v
c
4
♦T'
9
O
O.
E
n
O
O
C
m
J2
O
J
C
O
0
E o
a
0 0
m 3
c p
N
I
IM
1O '&.E
9
3 w~
e ~ o
V ; O
a
O i C
aae
c~'o
O
.7 O O
C m
C O o
~ V
S 0 c
e ~ O
M a
• ~ u
01 1E
o
c .2 o m
ova n
v
Q Y a O
C O
mcc
~-9 sm
C-
m
C
C
)
xb
m
Q
8
CO
W
10
Oxo
Z~
W
a
24
m
2e
2e
N
at
a2
b
t~-
N
l7
CY
~
~
~
Q
n
N
1~
b
~
^
x
n
N
N
CM
Fy
~
A
Q
b
W
Y
~
N
W
Y
Y
~
O
v
Z
N
9
N
~
U)
c
N
c
7
c~
6
t"1
O
N
N
O)
M
C.2
m
+
W
LO
N
(y
g
m
N
e -
N
LL W
O
W
7
C
v
O
O
N
m
N
~gp
N
Q
N
N
S.
¢
O
^
O
d
to
co
~
N
m
N
N
c
co
W
w
N
n
N
Y
N
t{
01
.P
cb
N
v
O
m
O)
~
a°
1[j
a°
a°
N
a°
~
z
LL
~
~
n
~
N
n
~
N
N
O
IQ
N
n
^
t4
N
O
F
O
N
C
c
~
`c
D
c o
c d
c o
p
U 3
3 8
U 8
Q
m
> E
7
m
O
PM
Q
Z
E
0
C
rn
m
Q7
al
a
Y
C
7
T
9
E
r
~p
d
E
•
9
tT
C
O
0
m
C
O
qC
L
4
4
to
C
O
O
s
L
E
0
C
aN
b T
7
o y ~
•30
O ` q
b L~ ~
d s' a
~ • a
c o e 1.
oY~
° • O
• ~ C
p G
7
u g m E
e a ~ p
o ~
c
«t
m • eo
t` - e
Q 9 uU j
F- . o G
-
-
-
IZS
-
-
-
-
-
~
m
C
D
f
~
b
' e-
^
-
-
ZZ
W
Z
N
~C
07
x
d~
O
j
^
a
x
Z~j
N
X
x f~
r 11DD
p
Oj v
,r
N
O ]C
CV
9
l
V
TA
g
N
N
N
t7
N
Y
O
x
b
p
N
N
N
Y
Q
N
b
Y
N
Ol
N
l0
N Y
co
Z
o
N
N
N
N
^ "DD
" V
b
R
N N
co
m
O
f•
N
Z7
O)
r
co
01
N
y
b N
K
N
~ O
O)
Y
~•S
V
1
b
Q
U.1
M V
A
t l
O
N
Le) '
b
p
O
Z Y
C',
N
e
p
~i
W
to
y
Lf)
N
Y
' c7
m
W
b
'
b
P35
c
J
N
C
CM
It C)
Q
co
g
4
C9
N
N ^ co
'
U +
ie
N
Y
O N
c 4c"
O V
W
N N N
O
b to V
N O 9_ 2e
^
N
N C',
c~ co
CV
Q
N
CD
N
N N
T
b N
m W co ^
Mg O b
O
N
O p
2e b ae - n
N Q ^ 8 't b N N b < b v O O co om at v N o_ N 2e
0
(0 e `f to v l7 ^ N b v v e a° N a` 2e 2e 2e
< N pbj N L O CO
_ Q
N m
Cl) ~ M -T
LO b Y N 2e N a° C.
N 3e a°, ae
CJ ^w to to f` N
N l7
a= c~7 ce7 ce) b h v N N 10 9 e n 2e o m C ;
N N
cli
N
b ~ e N O e e m x e b O ~
N N N < c7 V l7 03 W 1e. ae
N <
m
'i3 ae LO 2e m v ~ b ae ae c ae m a, in
LO ^ '7 b co
a, 2e
N ' bo b m N ° at~. N eC o V)i
to t` b t. lO b CO
b
p ~9p~ ~e ~.pp
C-3 co o
C3 P, cli
CC b N OD Ob
m m m 0 _ C C C C
a a a a a L
° a ~ a a
t = a CS CL E a'ff E a E CL E CL LT E IL ~ E a E a
1,% Ic. Ill IY
co I r` 1 co
C
r
C
2
CL
Y
c
0
0
a
yc
LQ
a
E
3
0
C
E
Z
e
C
.II
O
4
J
C
O
O_
E
O
e
O
c
o. '
n
0
.r
6
L
E
O
o ~
a
t a
3 s
a ~ e
v 0 ~
e 3 ~
o £ 4
d ~ a
C
~ e O
C 3
C O O
O O
Y T
O
M
O or
, O
0 t= r
c.2 e..
ova O
os~Z
c
L =
lG eX O O
ncE"
s
u 'o
m C o
Z
a
.r
2
~
~
~
N
x
~
Q
9
~
m
~
x
N
^
W
¢
c3
t~-
C
0
LO
N
~
m
Y
b
n
c'
N
N
O
Z
Y
i15
r
N
_
~
N
LO
Y
a
M
N
N
~
in
N
N
U
W
+
C,
a°
3°
v
N
Y.
N
O
N
0
E3
O
N
t0
3-
c
O
Q
O
Cl)
N
Y
ri)
CC.
O
N
a°
p2p°
2°
d
N
(J
}
+
O
N
r
m
O
w
N
CO
o
ae
N
N
R
cli
of
v
co
Q
Lo
M
w
O
2
w
LU
Q
A
cm
N
<
N
N
~
n
m
n
N
0
N
C
CD _
C
a
a
c
c
a
a
CC
Q QQ2
U U ~
Q
U
R
C
m
r
j E
j
co
O)
Q
m
Z
R
3
E
F
m
CL
C
{
O
9
L
_E
9
G
c
C
E
Q
C
O
a
c
.r
L
E
B
Q
O
G
A
-
a .
O
J'
E
C
O
a
1D a
L 6
J
~ a E
O
O t►
=b
d ~ O
A r O
O ~ a
_C O Y
`O
:v
$ a ~
0 OQ
O TC
ova ~
~ v
g«oe
n. E$
m°cuc
la-~ =7
Z
;3
*
N
9
9
N
9
9
N
9
11,
Y
A
~
a
N
_
$
N
N
x
x
10
O
Y
O
W
N
W
N
t0
co
Z'
I
co
N
N
x
Cl
Y
O
x
7D
t0
N
.r
r
g
N
N
ZV
g
ch
g
N
~y[~
'D
m
W
^
10
FO
N
<
N
N
.
N
W
N
N
Y
Y
^
t0
Q
m
m
¢
G
o
N
V
N
N
g
to
N
r
l7
N
N
N
W
aD
tD
co
C*
Y
~
w
tD
~
<
10
N
c7
r
~
2~
(ic~~~
Ze
~
~
N
~
~
N
3e
~
~
i~
t2t►~►
~
i~
~
e
2e
~E
^
~2
~
~
a°
l7
(
(
f7
~f
N
N
r
c0
b
co
m
0
W
0
N
Q
Z
co
CO
2e
N
N
i°
t0
N
ee
N
2°
b
r
m
a
V
N
r
r
M
N
N
V
n
t0
co
b
c~~
to
~V
N
'~Qt
co
u~]
e
e
+
N
p
W
th
n
N
N
m
t7
3°
co
W
t2
W_
t0
t0
N
co
W
Y
N
W
LL
O ( W
CC O
CD,
CV
C*
fD
N
de
C7
a°.
Y
CV
3e
O
m
b
r
a°
m
°
co
2°
v
2e
tD
t0
CA
m
W
~
N
~
~
N
N
N
}
2
O
N
V
N
N
b
A
N
N
r
t
cwo
9
r
9
W
*
$2
m
N
m
z
v
m
N
<
o
9
to
<
<
N
v
+
C>
3e
Q
N
a°
c3~°
N
2?
i°
r
a°
tn
e2
m
m
aQ
2e
eD
m
iE
CD
'o
2E
N
W
CD
2°
93
N
2~
2°
c
7
tq
7
O
U,
us
~•1
~7
yy
n
9
,
0
A
n
m
to
N
m
b
W
m
~
e-
N
A
CO
N
n
6
N
O
m
N
I
co
to
V
to
v
t~f
N
W
N
co
co
b
7
co
co
7
N
v
N
m
a
v
fI7
N
N
N
W
IV
%2
N
N
N
C7
N
r
LO
N
Ca
m
N
co
N
W
r
m
N
N
<
0
LL
9
'
0
.
N
N
N
N
LO
N
C'3
co
e,
m
N
m
^
W
N
2
^
b
t~
r
v
c
o
CD
LO
N
~
~
O
~
~
~
b
~
r
~
~aQ
N
W
~
b
W
O
O
f-
gc
~
~gg
gcg
~gg
~gg
c
~gg
Eg
m
E a
~
E E
E E a
0
g ~
~ E a
~ A
S
E a
3 A
3
E E a
a 8 §
E a
S 8 ~
E a
8 8
E E a
8 8
8 a
CS 8
8 3 ¢
3 ) c
C
C
C
(
C
oc
2
N
Co
Y
m
r
CO
N
T
m
a
CL
x
S
0
r
0
v
E
3
0
r
J
c
E
r
•
a
c
0
0
v
c
w
J
qC
L
E
4
4
O
t
a
C
O
J
C
8
E
m
c
o ~
a a
rj 6
3 w ~.7
O C C
a e
3
w w
O O e
fS ~ O
w .w. O
017 ~
C ~ e
O q
C 3
C O e
w = rr.
a
w `o
e "v 'a
orc~
o v ~ Q
g ~ `o
« ~ a
U Y • 3
tG c 13
c
co
N
7
Q
3
E
CW7
O
N
a°
O
°
N
in
N
co
N
N
Q
r
CL
CL
Qp pQ
U 8
alb
fL
p p
C7 C7
n.
)
Ep
U
a
m
r~
Q
c
rn
j E
~
Y
_C
0
T
O
qC
L
E
O
L
J
C
E
A
C
O
V
J
AC
Lp
6
E
O
4
O
C
O
a
0
J
R
v
E
O)
C
o ~
L
_3;
3 •
O
O ~
C
b I: J
w r a
c$~
~p O
C Z"
C O O
0I $ O
4
~ V O
e
• 1D 'r1•
~ O O
0
~ ~ c o
~iva°o
~ a
v« L ~
~ • c
o
~ -3
m c c
Ig
Z
x
b
Y
C'1
N
R
b
N
N
O
9
_
a
}
N
OD
X
~C
W
~C
/7
x
TO
~C
t7
m
_
W
co
N
10
N
FZ
W
@
¢ P,
to
X
'
W
x
7~
N
le
X
i C~
X
N
b
~
"
rZ2
0
^
O
O
N
~p
_
"
b
N
0
N
N
C9
IR
r
1
co
b ^
h
X
N
co
N
:t
~f
f0
N
y
N
co
~
N
N
IA
r--
~
'
~
W
yy
US
N
M
~
O
v
Z
y
QS
N
N
N
W
N
m
b
N
c
~
N
N
N
~V
th
to
1~
N
R
^
M
g-
:t
11111111
<
N
N
P
D
N O
N
~
O
co
N
N
to
K
C9
Y!
m
Q
N m
r
N
O
O
N
47
co
~
°p1
m
S
N
m
W
C~p
N
N
0
O
CV
W
a
m
a
'Ir
1O
to
v
U)
co
°
$
N
N
N
O
W
<
N
Q
co
O
^
N
Y
a
N
~7
N
n
d00
W
Q
N
O
f`
co
N
N
m
ae
~O
t
m
3°
<
ae
C.
N
co
Q
o
Q
°
O
N
O)
N
co
m
co
i
N
d
N
22
de
CO
ie
N
~
a
i2
W
t~tp~C
W
N
2e
O
~C
lN7
$
caO
t7
b
f`
1b
N
v
~O
ae
co
N
~e
Y
a'
W
N
co
N
ae
a~
;e
N
m
N
O
C
Ob
'f
N
Y
^
H
to
m
~
c
'E
E
.
~
`c
L
•E
se
L'
c
a
>
a
> a
a
E o
E a
E a
E°
E
E
E
cg ~E
>
8 3 ~
>
8 8 ~
3 8 ~
4 3 ~
~ 3 ~
~ S ~
~
~
~
c
c
3 8
c~ 3
8
s
o
N
f7
co
n
co
co
a~
Q
m
z
e
LM
ch
T
m
CL
v
m
tm
cis
O.
Y
C
O
}
O
9
E
3
O
t
r
d
E
e
c
S
O
C
aqP
Lp
a
E
O
O
C
O
O
cC
p
6 ~
~ w
r=
o
~ o
c =
o «
a `o
1O a a
3 «
O ~ C
. 3
M 3 O
O = C
b ~ v
e
e e w
C ~ O
C
w
c o
.
c o 0
Q ~ «
00- 'Q
9 O)
w ~
e "v
~ ra M
A ~ r a
•~+c c
:va
gg;s
li DLO
W Y E
Er
~ 0 w
°c
~9 S$
1166
ll'"'1)
c177
0
CO
=
g
^
f0
^
xx
^
x
~
b
^
x
^
co
K
m
N
~
b
y(
x
y~
n
Q
N
a7
1~
m
10
N
h
I~
tb
~
j~
X
W
~
^f
N
Y
N
N
tD
m
Y
N
'
Z~j
CD
'
1x0
N
Y
N
N
~
c~~
Q
^
8D
b
A
tx0
7D
^
~
N
N
w
N
O
0
N
j
aa00
n
W
n
n
W
N
b
^
b
N
~
!
TO
N
Y
M
N
l7
1~
N
„xt
N
j
b
b
b
m
N
b
xV
*
^
~
N
Z
N
a°
~~oo
a°.
C)
c~
o
x
(O
x
O!
N
x
b
x
C9
N
a!
l0
N
m
a°
t0
x
Ol
b
2t
CO
x
N
b
N
e
b
x
m
ya
~J
Y
b
~
N
~
~
v
N
N
N
N
~
~
j
N
C7
O
p
N
N
c7
N
~
2
l7
CO
b
(0
N
N
ch
Y
~t
N
~
E
N
C
m
CD
N
W
N
l7
c7
v
N
N
-W
co
O
U9
R
g
ae
co
x
x
-
ae
<
x
ae
coo
x
$e
co
a°
a
e
ae
co
x
~e
e.
°
ae
ae
O
cNy
~j
r
m
N
N
O)
l
N
N
N
N
¢QQ
o_
^
2e
N
2°
N
c7
2°
N
2°
°D
2°
CO
3°
°
x
b
a°
m
m
x
t0
a°
C°
N
T°
IT
co
f0
W
O)
x
W
x
n
x
N
W
}
d
Y
+
m
a°
b
a°
N
a°
a°
N
a°
b
l
o
co
a°
N
b
a°
a°
N
;
N
ae
a°
x
N
a°
Ol
a°
'f
m
a°
Ch
a°
K
10
C
)
N
^
3
n
a0
a°
b
m
p
2°
co
2°
O
2~
CO
t0
O
N
Q
co
.p
tlI
b.
C7
N
N
N
m
Y
N
N
W
x
n
N
t~0
N
N
' W
m
x
N
c7
2e
a°
Y
2e
N
n
x
N
N
C
a°
„r
x
N
x
Y
~
x
x
R
m
C
b
x
N
~
10
11b0
c9
e
-
t0
Q
LL
W
C7
m
10
~
f0
~
~
tD
~
~
~
~C
Z
a
~
a°
x
1~
3~
b
x
0
~
d~
x
mob..
x
~
x
~
~
x
~
~j
cp
~
~
c
7
fD
b
n
c
7
N
b
~
~f
<
O
N
n
N
m
m
b
m
m
m
N
O)
N
O)
N
F
tll
N
C
a
c
a
a
c
a
a
-
E a
¢
c
E n
E n
~
E a
~
E E a
1
E E a
~
E a
~
E 0.
~
E a
3
8 CT
V V
8 V m
8 8
G7 V
43 U
U V
3 3
V V
V
~ O
O
H
O
a
Z
N
C7
<
co
n
co
Lo
m
rn
as
a
s
7
T
O
9
E
0
0
i
J
pc
O.
E
N
O
a
0
v
r
Lp
O.
E
a
O
O
C
N
O
pC m
d g
7
~ M
E
e a
{ 3
W O
oC
N ~ O
na
L ELM
3 w •
e o o`
c
0
a ; o
oLec
b ~ e
~
cs 2
e w
O ~ O
C C
~ O
e 4 9
C O O
O Y V
e O m
z 9 W
• 9 F
to:
:oFa
e r c -
eva 0
v $ =0
• a
m c ~ c
z
a
n
~
°
co
c3
p
W
Z
M
9
N
9
9
V
9
X
m
9
a
7
e
X
a
O)
U)
Q
+
-
N
N
3
g
-e
Lo
N
O
mn
r-
N
N
*
N
m
1
~
N
co
Yl
S
b
N
a°
~
N
N
m
f~
O
i
N
c
~
l7
W
O
v
N
~
O
~
~
N
~
m
Z
-
m
iA
Q
N
c
7
l7
t
0
ya
t0
N
N
W
n
N
N
W
W
N
rn
W
K
M
a
N
W
v
co
a
cc
O
N
Q
O
ar
^
'o
m
W
}
d
p+
tD
o'
o
'O
ap
~O
N
a°
a°
N
^
2°
n
n
O
~
Q
L
W
co
p
ch
c7
IA
N
Q
co
A
N
a°
N
co
aE
a°
m
a°
co
e
a
2
LL
W
m
to
o
o
n
o
o
N
~
cg
CO
N
N
Lo
T
1
m
t0
1
1
LO
19
0
,
,
r
C
O
s
CL
a
a
c
E
c
E
E
E
p
p
Q
pp
pp
2
po
3
U V
U U
U
m
m ~
c
o
E
9
x
cr,
=h
Q
t
3
e
co
Y
I..
9
}E
L
S
pC
O.
E
c
B
0
v
.ar
c
S
O
d
O
C
P
C
O
pJ
Q.
V
E
{
P
C
a~
W Q
CL,
3=v
a ~ a
w e
O ~ -
d ~ 'u
P 7
C O r
~ 4 e
c 3
C O
- w C
.1
75
a
evV
P r
- O O
e T c U
eva::
s°c
I, -
m~p~pp
1- V • U
N
x
N
Y
m
0
x
-
11
N
f
N
.p
t0
Z
N
~
N
N
Y ~
~
~
P
P
]2
~
N
~
~
~
~ n
_
b
}
m
~y
j
N
x b
b
V
CO
x
N
Y
?
r cQ
K
Tw
C
D
co
n
N
N
N
N
w
~
e ~ o
~
v
N
~
~
~
«
~
2e
N
ie ie
b
w
c
O
U
?
~v
co
~
coo
~
~ X m
h
v
X
co
~
v
~
~
m
~
e
~t ~
.r
O
j
C7
N
N
~
N
~
~
b
w
m
^
C7
co
~f
~
N
(V
N
W
Z
~yp~
~p=p
P
Ol
O
m
co
N
W
LL
N
m
N
N
n
2e
~
m
m
N
2e
P
m
O
r
N
R
lJ
N
co
W
d
a
N
N
N
N
O
N
Ln
Y~
O
LO
.1
M
0
N
C
co
N
N
e•~~
N
N
N
•N-
co
CO
'
N
N
~E M
E
~O 1~
ID
j
N
c
Q
to
N
'NV
a
N
'p
N
~
T
N
N
N
1~
W
<
N
10
Y
c~
c~1
T°
a°
N
de
2°
O)
2°
Ol
2e
a2
N
h
2e
i°
v
of
N
co
aE
W
d
N
f7
N
N
N
o
t0
E
'
p
W
N
c~7
a: N
N
CD
CD
0
00
N
C
C"
N
N
O
W
O
LL
c7
`r
v
co
W
Q
a
b
co
'
m
N
D
N
N
N
b
N
`
m
n
GGGD
D
w
m
J
101
~QC
0
CL
C c
CL
c
~
> > o
3c~
2 n
33~
? n
8
3~
o
33
a o_
33
°
c
o
c
E a
c
3
c4
c c~Ccc
c
m m
.s
r'
Z•
N
co
V
co
P
co
m
rn
ca
a
T
CD
tm
CL
CL
Y
C
O
T
O
9
~o
d
E
t
J
pC
L
8
E
Z
a
c
0
r
v
C
4
Cq
L
O
O.
E
O
O
O
C
p
O
.O
O
J
Cp
1
v
E
p
c
o~
s
tJ 6
3 . n
e ~ a
a"v
X $ c
a
o Z »
1aa9
v ~ U
O F
us=
C O ~
. 3
C
C O 3
45
-~J2
ev«
.
p
:'off
e c V
mss:
0-
~sr c
.o
u.Y_Ea
u, 3=Fa'
mS5'c
rte- zu_ I
9
.
2
R1
.
O)
7
T
Z
m
m
3
m
F
Go
r-
m
rn
m
a
Y
C
7
T
9
E
O
i
Al
Lo
6
E
Z
•
Co
B
0
V
C
r
L
E
O
O
O
C .
O)
C
O
a
O e
C' C
4
O o
O.
V C
O
Im C
O 6
C O
C
O
to
E
3ioo
O ~ N
C
Q
• 3 7
O t C
a.o
•1 E
. O
0
C O
e .0..
oY
v
-•3
. "v
e
~ 03
0
e T C O
oP~a~
LL o O
(7Y • n
h i ~ o
-c
m G o 0
C
W
co
N
~
~
N
~
aD
WW
NN
x
4
1 a
}
x
N
N
N
l7
TO
N
N
N
Y
N
g
ZV
x
N
.
-
NN
c~
~
^
N
c~.~
^
XY
N
f
^
~~QQ
~O
b
x
TO
n-
j
W
N
Ol
V
oo
N
N
x
N
x
~
~E
N
Y
x
ZV
~
x
~y
N
x0
Y
~C
flf
m
p
0
W
m
to
^
N
x
g
N
X
co
x
cxc~~
N
N
~E
1~
a
t~
h
N
O
W
N
N
N
W
Yy
i15
f
N
N
C7
~
O
v
U
c7
N
N
co
2C
O
X
N
b
vE
O
m
3e
b
aC
N
X
b
Y
a
N
N
N
!e
S7
CD
LO
N
N
N
N
N
W
cam)
O
Co.
Ol
N
m
X
N
N
N
N
N
O
2
e
m
9
N
o
N
h
^
X
LL U
(n W
CL O
N
-
m
N
crj
N
e
t~0
b
W
h
LO
~s
g_
~
c
i
m
C
m
W
.
N
ap
.p
N
N
N
u
N
_
N
_
¢
c
N
2e
N
co
0
2e
b
de
tD
c0
N
to
N
b
N
2e
N
C
7
v
<
O
(O
N
N
g
^
N
N
N
w
N
m
w
O
W
CD
ie
c~
c7
N
e~
W
4m
m
1t
d
~
N
N
N
N
~
CO
N
FO
O
9
P.
N
N
c0
C,
b
N
<
co
N
v
chi
co
co
y
m
N
h
m
v
n
2t
2e
N
N
N
N
N
N
Oi
N
Q
E
b
N
N
N
Y
N
~~cpp
b
N
m
~N
M
b
2e
c~~
c7
g
N
N
a~0
G~D
W
Q
~
~
N
~
N
N
O
0
b
V
m
N
f
<
^
GXD
N
N
~
n
N
~
CD
~
-M
~f
D
co
f
b
N
c0
~f
00
cpb7
~p
N
aC
a4
8
N
a°
Cb
10
N
~p
8
1~
N
,p
~Ra'~
O
~O
N
co
N
N
~
gg
~
~g
g~
~
~
~ a
C
a
4
C
a
E L
?
E O
? a
C
> > a
C
3
C aS
CL
C
EE
C
E a
C
c
c~
cg cg
c3 8
3 S
3 3
8 3 og
8 8
$ 8
8 8 c~
~
O
r.
G
Z G
N
co
v
m
cD
h
m
O)
rn
CD
aj
ca
a
Y
C
O
r
~p
6
E
O
J
C
~o
6
r
•
O)
S
O
p•
L
O
O
O
O
O
a
0 e
J O
C C
C0
O
C. O
~ C
E E
•
C
im e
c s
O C
O
b Q E
C a
3 • o
oo~
•a~
O = U
~ a o
c e
c
-.R !S
I w Y
~ `o
• m
• • 'v 3
~ a$
w o ~
o a.c`o
a
ov.o ~
~ ~vtg
75
. ii
S
.LL... 0
Y t •
n • Y
c
02-5
c o c
F9 =O
W
'
PM
~
~
N
x
oo
~
a
N
1
1
N
$
N
1
o
N
n
N
co
0
`
Y
N
m
O
4
lN7
N
N
+
N
co
N
N
UJ
LL
O 2
O
N
v
~C
Q o
~
a
5. LLJ
2
d
~
V
c7
W
-N
Y
N
1
{L
°
'o
C',
(o
N
7
a
to
Cb
co
to
N
w
o
~
z
o
~
N
<
a°
H
0
g
gg
a ~
a
7 ~ a
7 ~ a
Q
c3 c4
c4 c~
r
O
N
m
07
As
a
Y
C
yC
L
E
t
..T
L
E
Z
cm
0
a
0
M
C
O
J
Cq
L
8
E
a
4
O
C
m
.°n
0
6
E
{
m
C M
O ~
y~C
O
3 7 'q
O 'd U
m ~ O
o s a
ago
a t E
C O 3
~ O
OC
C C
~ e •
m-p
O • O
~ V Q
s -2 e
`a $
_ O
e
v O ~
~~vr
v~C•,tY
t,+ 3 z c
m c
b
z
N
N
X
Y
9 LO
I
O^
1
1
a
~
N
Q
9
N
W
N
N
Y
C
N
p~~
}
r
'~P
7
N
Ch
W
~
2s
S
p
N
~V
N
N
~E
O
O
b
<
0,
~
C
b
C
co
cm
Y
rD
CO
'm
N
N
t~~
l7
N
N
cif
N
n
N
~
C
A
O
N
N
t0
Y
0
W
:
t6
a
G
D
l
N
O
z
~
rmi
m
~
~
~
~
m
~
v
N
co
~
m
m
chi
o
v
co
r
C
~
C
O
0
N
c
N
N
CJ
<
+
o
3e
a°
to
N
CD
W
M
V
~
d~
N
r
2C
T7
CZOO
N
b
N
a°•
ao
N
LL
1
0
N
N
Q
N
t00
0
(e\7
o
Cp
e
C~
e
N
l0
o
O
Y
app;
O
N
N
LL
O
N
N
aQ
O
M
a°.
N
IN
N
a°
n
N
a°
N
CO
c7
°
o
v
3°
co
m
;e
N
o
v
3°
cm
e
It
W
}
CS
m
O
$
N
N
W
<
m
R
^
W
N
V
'
V
I
A
W
Q
Loo,
Lb
M
w
O
~A
N
N
N
W
Q
^
b
O~
~tI
N
N
N
N
N
v
co
°
O
O
~
~
~
m
m
N
c7
t0
Q
W
0
LL
lq
N
Cq
N
<
<
A
O
N
b
N
m
O
N
Y
co
O
t7
N
0
O
O
O
F
~
m
c~
~
E
E
E
E
a
a
a
a
a
a
CL
a
a
E a
E a
E a
¢
t• E a
g ¢
E a
8
E a
4
8
E a
4
E a
8
g
E a
c
8 3
3 3
3 3
c c
c
0
c
a
c c
c
t3 c
m c
a
TT
5
yC
Z.9
N
C7
v
O
1~
aq
N
m
a
cts
0-
C
T
0
0
C
O
E
3
O
i
J
AC
L
E
Z
C
O
.G
O
V
C
r
pC
L
E
a
4
O
co
•
.O
O
c
d
ti
E
m
r
v
T O
3 7 a
0-0
• ~ r
a U
O ~ 6
aao
~ ,Z o
• a E
C p~
O C
a a •
o
•Yo
;9a
=+a
a
4
g=fir
r O Y
v 'C
~YE•
m cr~
u
W
Z
N
Q
^
b
W
^
m
W
C
PC
-
N
~C
~
xi1
n
e~
CD
C!
aD
Y
m
m
~
G
N
~
~
n
N
N
N
Yi
O
N
W
Y
Y
O
2
Y
Y
N
M
0
co
Cj
W
N
p
R
~
M
ca
ca
Z
W
CO
t
pO
M
c
W
CJ
N
M
W
CL
O
N
co
~
N
N
(L
O
~
t
D
N
M
N
CC
~
m
2e
M
a°
W
_
CS
N
v
co
't
cm
N
p
C>
OD
vt
M
`ID'
Lo
M
W
lU
n
M
n
N
N
Q
<
co
<
er
M
~
co
0
0
W
a0
W
co
N
a
W
C]
lL
N
M
N
V
N
M
~
~
a
c
~
~
~
~
Cg Cg
C~
C~
a
cc
O,
>
C
S
co
Q
Q
CD
Z
3
N
N
W
t:yi
ca
a
Y
v
g.
E
3
J
c
E
O
C
O
p4
L
E
O
g'
W
C
a
O
of
d
E
0
3 w
C O
V O
. 3
~A
, 4
O w 7
C
C C .7 .
orto
e a w
> ~ O V
1.J
ai o.P
c
v E Q ~
w=vim
a o 0
M Z •
h a E
mac°O~
Ia- 9 s
g
p
Z
(y
n
~y
N
~
N
n
pp
N
N
co
'
O
~
N
W
O
~
O
m
~
b
pqp
N
A
N
Cf
N
~
h
,
^
Cd
_
n
`
Y
,
m
c
7
N
N
P
I
:
c
R {
c
y
cy
9
g
is
m
N
h
N
h
N
W
t0
N
h
N
h
N
Cp
1:4
Z
t
QQ
tR
N
W
V
_N
N
N
Y
~R l
,
N
p
N
N
U,
Q
l
C
l
y
a~3
N
'
n
0
p
Q
9
n
N
h
C
1:
N
W
r
b
N
h
N
h
N
N
CNV
8
}
rh
a
ro
I le
i$'
CY
o
m
N
h
N
1D
N
W
b
N
h
^
h
N
h-
10~,
t1~~
~1
0
1
'hf
N
1~
m
NN
n
<
co
W
c7
m
N
N
h
Y
n
N
n
v
m
W
m
v
m
C
n
N
n
N
f:
cm
co
10
N
n
N
n
N
1~
N
Z
3
n
N
N
N
N
Y'y
c
v
N
m
tff
C~
c
COy
co
F
V
O
N
n
n
N
W
1A
N
N
h
N
N
h
N
N
co
N
t
Y
b
m
.r,
of
V
le
.nr
5~
2
m
N
n
$
N
v
c'
m
1.
R'j
P
cq
n
n
n
m
N
m
N
CD
N
W
b
N
w
N
h
m
.mr
m
N
ao
a
rn
n
o
w
m
n
a
°m
Wv
m
o,
°
m
W
f`
N
n
N
m
N
W
a
N
f:
n
f:
N
0
V
~
8
0
NO
Q
N
C5
R,
chi
N
s
V
f
N
w
N
1~
N
W
tG
fV
h
N
II.
N
co
N
:
Y
W
tb0
W
O
b
Q
O
r
~p
1A
CN'J
V
t0
W
(
b
N
N
N
b
1
CV
n
N
1:
N
W
co
N
P-
N
CO
W
4
N
r
^
`
co
r
W
W
`
W
Sm
O
n
N
<
m
W
O
v
v,
O
'
n
O
b
CD
co
W
O
CD
b
.p
n
W
b
O
lL U
f
N
f
N
f:
N
W
r
m
!V
f:
N
P.
N
tD
N
a~ p
N
N
N
CO
~
`aa
<
co
Ch
~
m
m
o
cy
sw
°
C!
m
N
h
n
N
Cd
N
a
16
(V
W
N
n
N
co
Q
n
~
p
fh
N
ry
CO7
r
O
b
o
q
Ch
1~~,
m
N
r
o
N
O
co
n
N
1:
N
W
to
(V
1:
N
h
m
pp~~
O
n
m
N
cn7
e~
aD
:
W
N
n
O
n
~
t0
N
N
N
f7
n
W
t7
CO
"
Ol
'R
W
N
14i,
W
C.3
l7
N
to
w
N
W
N
b
O
l7
1
1
N
W
Op
N
n
N
N
m
C4
(w.7
G
-1
N
H
co
n
1
~
crf
N
O
IA
co
p
I[)
N
O
N
p
C4i
p
cgJ
Q
N
f:
N
o
N
m
CV
W
b
N
t-
N
h
w
m
c~
c7
t
O
t~
c7
~
O
N
C4
2
r,
C4
11
m
N
m
N
co
(V
co
1
Q
W
O
CC
r
N
14i
rn
v
m
fN0
in
17i
c7,
t00,
r
v
m
c7
N
$
n
n
O
n
V
W
n
n
N
W
m
N
h
N
f:
m
CV
Z
N
R
W
m
O
8
;s
b
Q
$
W
f0
`t3
;s
A
to
O
9
$
8
$
tNn
c0
~
$
m
N
h
CV
m
CV
cD
td
N
h
CV
h
CV
n
Q
O
^
OD
N
O
co
N
f\
O
N
t9
N
O
C4
W
CV
C7
N
m
W
r
C7
C7
h
aD
N
W
N
n
n
t
N
cD
N
W
I.-
N_
N
n
co
8
C4
n
N
F
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-
L
a
n
C
O
'E co
-2
10
i
~
i
yc
a
n v
i
a
n
a in
a in
~ in
a in
a
in
a
v~
g
0
22
itl
E E
co
c 2R
m
E
Q"
~m
,
oy ,
9
C
2
L
gs :3
n
Z°'
m2S
E
to
`
3
`to
r0
as
s3
~
@
a7
y
c
4
2 ~
i
~'O
s
~
w8~
o€
~a
8
a
~'-m
a
Q
G
m
Z
`to
e
Cl)
N
CD
CJ
(a
EL
O
9
~ o
C pC
u P
c c
o
c
E _
0
E `e
c
0 o
~ o
E"
a
~c
o~
Fi:
Z
b
w
N
N
t
~
N
C2
. ZV
b
i"O
g
p
~
p
7
_
}
7p
b
N
x
~U
^
Y
N
x
l~~
N
~p
Z
S
x
G
i N
x
j
~
n
l
11
3b
i6d
i
N
d
0
i
Z
N
}~tp~
a
N
N
~y
\
^
7
~
^
40
N
y
~
Z7
Y
N
~
p
'o
x
OD
w
f~
CD
1
CO
a
8
2
~R
NCO
~y
%
~
N
m
K
g
l
-
1 g
W
N
g
'
X
e
~
Y
LO
N
~C
N
g
N
N
~
m
^
W
N
Y
'
^
N
MMM
o
C4
l
~
co
N
I I
N
n
c7
off,
*
'o
]E
F~
2e
~
2e
~t
co
2e
V
~
2C
-
N
aC
ie
~
2e
f~
N
N
N
le
cm
N
e
N
W
Y
N
N
0
?
7
~
Q
a
N
u~i
vii
b
chi
N
2e
b
j
aD
2e
CJ
$
N
to
N
2C
tO
V
0
8
N
1
i
N
co
N
N
d°
h
<O
N
to
D
co,
~Q
v
N
7
w
~
m
a~D
rn
O
O
t
co
N
~
N
~E
Z~
N
co
co
~C
Z~
N
N
b
A
U
b
m
LL U
N
0)
0
t~
~D
t
3
C
D
t
to
1G
0
y
C,
cm
W
U,
C.3
~y
p;
C*
to
~Q
el
9
~
°
Q
111
r
N
N
10
N
W
}
¢
O
N
n
m
Y
i
N
N
~E
N
N
~
b
d
Y
<
'7
to
t
n
to
M
O
N
c
7
l7
cTj
N
pj
l
p
O
m
^
N
~C
(O
N
m
n
N
cg
N
°e
$
N
S~
N
a°
^
aC
'p
W
Y
~f
<
N
N
<
N
n
a)
LO
N'
n
Lu
CS
Ih
^
K
N
m
r
!~O
f0
1~
`p
o
N
-
~p
O~
Q`
G
Q
f7
'a
Q
V
<
1
b
co
i
i
a►
M
t~
th
m
CO
a°
O
N
3°
co
2~
v
o
N
oe
to
2°
~tI
2e
N
3°
M
]e
b
c9
h
N
m
y
$
N
N e
C
F
W
i
LO
m
N
dC
N
a°
v
N
m
b
2Q
c7
~E
c~
a°
N
'
N
2°
a°
a°
a°
CO
V
O
Z
LL
to
c7
n
b
W
LO
:
vm
n
Q
Q
c7
~Nc~
N
b
co
W
CO
N
N
o'
aC
2e
N
2~
~
N
c~
a
-
In
N
~
N
c
m~
(J
N
LO
%2
~
W
g
O
M
g
$
N
r
g
Q
M
15
C
c
= o
0.
c
e
0.
c
a
c
a
n
a
E
E
c`3
$ a
c°~ cg
83
`3
4
? 3
g
~
$ z
~
4
z
i
g
E
a
¢
a
.9 3c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
c
c~ cg
v
c4 og
c~ c4
c`~ .9
a
A
I
-
m~
3
r'
L~
~
~
G
33
a
a
S
E
g
6
AS
v
N
m
07
cu
a
N
w
V
c
O
C
O O
w G.
qC
L ~
O
8.`
E c
0
e ~
O
E o
v E
C
~ o
• 'O
0
u
w
v~
ov°
r 6
e
F
N
;
9
^
x
p
,0
Y
i
^
~
j g
l
b
~f
Y
m
b
0
x
b
O
70
Z
N
^
cm
^
b
F]
ddd000
^
111000
^
co
~
O
r,
Q
N
l7
^
N
G
O
X
N
ax7
'f
0
~.Xj
m
^
X
x
a
^
b
10
N
N
Fz
{
may
~
Y
~
N
~f
a"f
~~f
F
~
u
77
x
TD
b
x
~
x
N
Y
~
~
W
^
~
y
R
^
~
~
~
~
Y
~
~
R
C
N
^
N
R
lV
C
f
Oi
y?
V
e
~
l9
CO
cy
bx
^
Y
N
N
~C
O
N
p~
co
GO
c
t
n
^
N
C-i
N
7
~p
~
_
N
Cp
b
x
1~
x
~7
b
~
tC
r
~
a
~
b
^
x
1~0
^
X
~
~
~ N
N
C
J
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
aD
'~•5
N
m
x
co
'
XS
b
O
N
Y
t~0
N
N
X
b
Y
X
b
2Ne
~
c7
(y
N
~
0
Y
co
0
N
~
N
X
b
g
b
"
g
ff
CO b
b
, c7
17
N
N
co
^
N
N
b
N
N
txO
Y
1~iI b b
F
N
A
N
ZUZ
W
+
N
O
~
QY9
N
Y
e
<
3°
N
N
~
N
2e
N
m
e
n
e
n
e
N
N
M
x
f7
W
W
C
7
ICN4
Y
Q
U
N
^
N
N
N
co
N
^
O
Y
m
1~
^
O
Y
t~O m
b
-
0
Y
_
N 1
d
W
d
Y
Y
Y
v
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
W
N
^
b
N
N N
N
co
v ,
}
to
b
Y
-
Y
co
v
CO
Y
~
CO b
< C,
N
'm
o~
N
t~~
C7
b
m
c7
^
b
<
Y
N
X
~p
b
co
x
N
X
Z~
N
b
N
Y
66
.
-
n
w
C7
G
C,
b
m
i7
Y
Y
7
e
Y
o
Po
N
o~
Y
,
a°
Y
3C
2C
m
m
co
N
v
c
o b
O
N
m
t0
Y
N
Y
CO
e
N
u
^
CO
N
N
f7
V
m
Cgo
N N
t~D
m F
W
cu
N
^
o
b
<
b(1
N
a°
b
N
Y
C
e-
Q
b
IA
g
g
m
e
b
Y
N
g
b
Q
b
U
z
Y
~7
C7
LO
w
2
7
e
'C',
a
N
co co
o
co
2e
b
ie
o+
,E
b
2°
C
D
co
2C
N
N
2e
m
2E 2
A
2e
co
W
^ C
co
co
Y
C
cb7
^
N
N
m
b
b
N
N
a
a
d
_
U c~
.
U cg 2
4
E a
v Cg cc
0.
E a
v
g
a
E
U
g
.
a E
g E o
U
4
a
c L
E a
a a
c c
n E a a E a
O
¢
o,
c
C
C
c
U
V
C
Y G~
C~ Cg
0
7a
c
32
m
J
o
~ -
'
E
ji
b8~
E
EE
~
C
C
38
3r
r
LU
g
X88
s
C- Z
^ b
Y
F7
X
N
M
M
r
M
~
N l7
N
N
y~
`
F
W °
m
~
~
~ ~
^
0
~
2r
N
9
C
co
_
~
p~p~ O N
t~7
^
x
N
X p
2
~
~ M ~ m M m ~
N '~Y
V
M ~
-
N ~
-
-
N co
M
m
b
po a N O
W
N LO
N
V co
M M
r-
t
n
^ M
co
M V b
N c~J
C
W ,rY'
M M N v N •N- czo
i° co
M c7
N
N
N
~ ~
to
N
Q
m M
Z US M CO Ar, M b
N b N
V M
Z~
f7 co
M
co
co W.
m m
b N O M
N
N M
N co
N M
N a°
v
O N O^ N v M M N m Co M v
l7
r N ~
a
M
,
~
v
N
~
M ap
d° O o
LL N co
N O N '~V do coo m M o a°
N N
O
N N
m?
a:
CIJ to
,N- Ln
"
N
N
^ cJ
'
co
r
co
M
m
^
N c0 N m {o CO
N
f~ N to N
b
- N
ms
O aE aE
N
^
'
e
-
m
co
o rp m
O co
lU to rM-
V,
N 2° Q a° O
LC"Oj t2
^
s m
CC
M
LO()
r=
M
Q
n
CO
co
c7
O~
c7
CO
a°
O
O
a
N
^
C
N N M
m N
l
M 3e
L
Z`
C
) t-
c) co
N
N
t~o N
CL
CL
Cr E
M 0) v
u,
e v
q co ~ C.)
°
o
2e
3 ~
W
N
C7
M CD
N
M
N
~f
'
co 03
^ W 2° N
n co
aC ^ N o
a°
C•
J
c0
m ^
m
g
co
n
0
0
v m
M M
2°
O
L E
9 O
V 0
g
O _
m U
~o
c
q
a
pv
°
v
E a a E a
>
,
U a U t~
U (3 ¢ U
-
E q c q c c
E E q
8
¢
q
E
a
E a
.
U
O 8
0i
8 C5 8
¢ U c~
o
as
~g
~
m
a
C
n
sp m
_A m 3
o
iq
~
gg
vL3~
8
C
Si '
mS2 0
c4E
i
i
a,
c
l
~
s
LO
N
CD
M
Qf
a
<O
N
m
cm
`
a
o-
E
0
.o
P
a
c
n
r
3
$ r
Ol P
C r
> C
O O
r c
a
a° E
r E
r
v
wa
H~
a'
O o
IL c
O
F 3 rro
to
rn
a
2
3
P
a
F
C-
a
E
O
O
a
CL
•
3
O
7
Q
7
C
0
•
O
O
a
C
Y
O
a
c
a
0
V
c
V
V
Q
• O
{ •
O C
Ww
E
0
Y G
7 C
T
~ o
S o`
o
• o`
V °
00
ao
Cc 'CO
o n°
3
Z Q m m m N m 'f' x m
N
r ^ ^ W ^ W
9 N O O O N X O X O x X co
j m 14 ro m dC X N x N
09 at be 0) at ~ N r N ~ Y " ~ ~ 7O N "xt Y N < ~ N ~
N J
~n W O N
N ,atp`,
C* -W
b ~ ~ O '~f gyp
l7 N (7jj "i ~ N co
* = g g N ^ ~p N
W N W raj y; 2~ 2e N aC apE~
N lA v ~7j ~O ZV N
2 v
O
O N m N h W ^ N O N N at
-c~_5{ ff77 N N
2° ^
Y 'qp; W ~O a` 2° N N
N N N Ql W CD N Y W l9 M '~t M
O at
N Y
+ ate{ O o n
101- ate
LL.
0'.2 O O^ f7 N N v N m N O Y b N m b N N
QO N O M ~ w ~ a4 a2 v b v
W W r N N CO to
N O m N N
W
Q O ^ ^ ^ < ^ r
ae 2e U) co
v
O to co O n N v b V t~0 3Q
v O co iy CO N
+ a° N c b e O O
v v N v ^ N m b v 2e
VC.) ae
a v in co 93
CW7 ~ `2 ae ao ~ 3_e ao
O O co N (o
U ^ b K ^ m
^ N v W M co
~ ` N to vv W
a°
ado N v ~ `y a° a° v
N W v N ~ ~ e
N N ~
O
W , ter- co r, a' N °0 3~ ° o C')
Lf) W m < O N b
Z t0 m
^
R m
W ~
N m m N m O ^ Cj O N O Y O co
b O b
TO
b M
N o pi bpp O V
0 N T N N
N O N W ~ r e I
a W ~ „t 8
CL c L
v a 1.3 c3 coc v c4 ¢ c`~ cg 3 s v cg v 8 v 3cr v 8 c3 8¢
Ea
2FE
E E~ -°E ~a 24v@ mE
EEel A 2~ 2 ~ ~ s ffic ms
CL E
co
N
m
CD
ca
a
N
•
Z
s
{
O
?
a
a
e
0
O
O
e
O
a
a
c
'O
Ol
C
Y
O
E
o,
S
v
e
O
C
7
U
V
`o
o
M
e C
• e
Y 0
~ C
T
v t
o
3 E
e `e
=0
va o
ea
`o 'o
e Y
a o
0 0
«a
US`
N
~
'C
r3
Z
N
N
cr
0A
}
n
N
N
N
N
-
N
b
2E
N
Go
N
a°
N
N
'
^
W
n
QS
~
~
~
V
N
W
~
Y
N
O
U
Z
~
N
N
N
~
N
co
N
e
N
o
OD
<
0
co
N
co
N
W
+
N
e
N
v
of
r
es
Q
CO
LL
N
N
~
h
~
~
~
b
D
Q W
LL
~
N
Oi
N
N
r
} Q
C
N
o
o
Or
o
a°
N
N
e
e
d
N
$
^
CN9
N
N
o
coV
p~j
o
N
in
N
~
N
Q
~
N
n
~
~
N
co
N
ta
n
N
m
c'
a°
o
'a
e
e
m
~
e
a°
W
O
~
N
n
~
Y
N
aD
LL
IA
N
N
LO
N
m
C,
c7
~p
N
O
a
a
!
0
c
c
-
c I
U 3
8 3 ag
U 3
m m
5
D
9
06
'm5
O
EO
r
m
7
Q
a
m
Z
0
9
P
ca
F