03/10/2004 - Packet Intergovernmental
. W I ater oar
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
NOTICEMEETING
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
5:30 p.m.
City of Tigard
Water Auditorium
8777 SW Burnham
Tigard, Oregon 97223
FILE COPY
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
AGENDA
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order Moll Call and Introductions
Motion to call meeting to order,staff to take roll call.
2. Approval of Minutes—December 10,2003 and February 11,2004
Motion from Board for minute approval.
3. Vulnerability Assessment Briefing—CHX Hill(20 minutes) .
4. Proposed FY'04-05 Budget, Water CIP(10 minutes)
5. Acting PW Director's Report—Dennis Koellermeier(20 minutes)
6. Informational Items—Dennis Koellermeier
Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed.
7. Public Comments
Call for any comments from public.
8. Non Agenda Items
Call for non-agenda items from Board.
7v
9. Next Meeting-Joint Meeting with City Council- ,Apri1,20, 2004, 6:30 p.m.—Town Hall
10. Adjournment—Approxi' ate Time 7:00 p.m.
Motion for adjournment 71
A light dinner will be provided.
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1)(d), (e), (fl&(h)to discuss labor relations,real property transactions,current andpending litigation issues and
to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential;
therefore nothing from this meeting maybe disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media-are allowed to
attend this session,but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
Intergovernmental Water Board
Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2003
Members Present: Patrick Carroll, Norm Penner, Dick Winn,
Members Absent: Brian Moore and Bill Scheiderich
Staff Present. Dennis Koellermeier, Richard Sattler, Tom lmdieke and Sally
Mills
Visitors: Tom Ramish, Dave Winship (City of Beaverton), Paul Owen,
Joanne Criscione and son
1. Call to Order/Roll Call and Introductions
Commissioner Patrick Carroll called the meeting together at 5:35 p.m.
Roll was called and Commissioners Brian Moore and Bill Scheiderich were excused.
2. Approval of Minutes—November 12, 2003
Commissioner Norm Penner motioned to approve the minutes, Commissioner Dick Winn
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to accept the minutes as presented.
3. Request for Credit from Leak for Joanne Criscione— Tom Imdieke
Ms. Criscione addressed the board. Tom Imdieke answered a question from the Board
regarding how much water was used and he further explained City procedures including the
number of notices sent, etc. Ms. Criscione said she did not receive a notice.
Commissioner Penner motioned to adjust the request for credit and split half of the remaining
balance to be extended as credit over time. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion and
the board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The board asked staff to review the city's
procedures and determine if additional notification procedures should be implemented.
4. Discussion on Fluoride Issue—Beaverton Intertie
Tom Ramish, Engineering Director of the City of Beaverton and Dave Winship addressed the
board and gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy coming). Discussion and presentation
included the following items of interest:
• use of sodium fluoride and material grade
• explained on-line monitoring
• estimated dosage at .06— 1 ppm (parts per million)
• 66% of United States population receives fluoridated water.
• Forest Grove also fluoridates
intergovernmental Water Board 1 December 10,2003
DRAFT COPY
• built-in automatic shut down to prevent overdosing.
• naturally occurring fluoride
• Oregon Drinking Water Program Director and Health Division would like to`see entire
state go to fluoridation
• CDC, US Dept of Health & Human Services are all proponents of fluoridated water
• effects of fluoride on ASR wells
• ASR permits allow fluoridated water to be injected/stored
•
Beaverton 9s schedule currently starts the full injection process in late March 2004
• types of complaints
• Beaverton relieved in the decision process
• About 1/3 of concerned citizens were in service area
• 53%-46% vote in favor
• staff adjusted data collection and informed public
• IWB requested updates on fluoride information program and monitoring
5. Assistant PW Director's Report—Dennis Koel/ermeler
Richard Sattler presented the Utility Report.
• 4.5 mgd current daily demand
• intend to start loading ASR#1 next week
6. Informational Items
Informational packet items were distributed to the board members for review.
7. Public Comments-None
8. Non Agenda Items -None
9. Next meeting date— Wednesday,(January 14, 2004, at 5:30 p.m.
Commissioner Penner will not be able to attend this meeting.
10.Adjournment
Commissioner Penner motioned to adjourn the meeting, Commissioner Winn.seconded the
motion, and the meeting was closed at 7:11 p.m.
Intergovernmental Water Board 2 December 10,2003
DRAFT COPY
Intergovernmental Water Board
Meeting Minutes/Notes
February 11, 2004
Members Present: Dick Winn, Brian Moore, Bill Scheiderich, and Mark Delphine
(alternate)
Members Absent: Patrick Carroll, Norm Penner,
Staff Present. Dennis Koellermeier, Richard Sattler, Sara Danz
Visitors: Phil Smith (MSA), Jeanette Hahn (FCSG),
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Scheiderich called the meeting together at 5:31 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes—December 10, 2003
No revisions noted, but due to a lack of Quorum at this time of the meeting these minutes
need to be added to the March agenda for approval.
3. Water Supply Options,Analysis Report-Financial Consulting Solutions Group
Jeanette Hahn, of FCSG presented an overview of the analysis done to compare the total
costs of our three supply options (JWC, Portland , and Willamette). Janet explained that the
Willamette continues to be the overall least expensive option, and the Portland option is the
most expensive in terms of future water rates, due to the fact that no ownership equity is
possible thus none of the cost can be included into the SDC calculation. Jeanette went on to
state that additional financial analysis is needed to develop a court defensible analysis, but the
relative ranking of each option would probably not change.
4. Appointment of Board Member At-Large Position
Discussion regarding term limits, authority to appoint an interim, and any other IWB charter
based rule that may govern this were raised. It is the consensus of the Board to solicit
nominations for this position, and Bill Scheiderich was encouraged to apply. Staff was directed
to research these issues and if allowable, begin the solicitation process. If questions develop,
staff will telephone poll the members for direction.
5, Water Conservation Program Analysis—Sara Danz
Sara presented a-PowerPoint presentation, explaining Tigard's conservation
program and our recent cost/benefit analysis of its components. Sara is predicting
that in 2004, Tigard's conservation program will reduce source purchases by 126
mg at a cost of$126,200. Overall Tigard has reduced consumption by 6% over the
past 5 years, while our customer account base grew by 11%. Tigard's conservation
program cost benefit ratio is 3.24
I.ntergoverrimental Water Board 1 February 11,2004
DRAFT COPY
6. Acting PW Director's Report- Dennis Koellermeier
FY 2004/5 budget submitted, will present to IWB at their March meeting Portland
negotiations are continuing but not progressing. A meeting has been scheduled with
Commissioner Saltzman for next week to try to resolve some issues.
JWC membership is on track, Tigard City Council will approve ordinance in March.
ASR#1 is loading well, no turbidity issues
ASR#2 & 3, drilling to start next month on ASR#2.
7. Informational Items—Dennis Koellermeier
8. Public Comments- None
9. Non Agenda Items
Staff distributed a packet of information that has been developed for public handout on
the fluoride issue. This information is currently available on the Tigard website.
Staff also explained that a panel of local dentists was being developed to assist in the
questions.anticipated pertaining to the fluoride issue.
10. Next meeting date—Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 5:30 p.m. — Water
Auditorium
11. Adjournment— 7:00 p.m.
intergovernmental Water Board 2 February 11,2004
DRAFT COPY
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
Questions on the 5-Year Strategic Plan Update
(These questions will be used at the March Consortium Board meeting and for the
individual Board members to take back to their own councils, boards, or commissions for
response by end of April so that we can incorporate any issues into a revised version of
the S-Year Strategic Plan scheduled for adoption by the Board in June 2004).
1. Does the draft Strategic Plan reflect your current vision of the changing role of the
Consortium and if not,what specific changes need to be made? (Please try to be
as specific as you can about the type of language that you would like to see
included in the Plan)
2. Would you recommend any other action items that you would like to see listed
under the possible approaches sections of each of the key strategic goals? (Please
try to be as specific as you can about the type of language that you would like to
see included in the Plan.)
3. Are there any other comments that you would like-to provide to the Regional
Water Providers Consortium?
The Consortium Board will consider these questions at the March 3, 2004 meeting. Each
member has the opportunity to take this same set of questions back to their individual
decision making body to provide an entity response. The decision whether and. how
provide feedback on these questions will be left up to each Board member. The questions
and the draft Strategic Plan versions will be sent to all of the Consortium members and
the opportunity to provide comment will be available until the end of April.
Please provide responses by May 3,2004. E-mail to
lstickelgwater.ci.portland.or.us or Fax(503) 8234500 or send hard copy to Lorna
Stickel,Regional Water Providers Consortium, 1001 S.W. 5tb,Rm. 600,Portland,
Oregon 97204
a
it Sit,
I C.
R
W Fl,ii1illin.;
ILI
WIN
Hill
T1
F W. 4i
M!
...... ...... IVT
it
w%-t444
'gl;m
W:i;
gq!
Wll
fislhglq�
M MH
H
HP i
41
go...
l[IT.N ir
!I Ryg �r
HE
It'll
li!Pilligim
igfi-g---.
N;t
lit!
ijjj
im __n 1-15
..N.It'll!
no, ...........
.il Lji
mit
W 0 1
Ill, Ell
Pil
K.
T.f:ut&
SM.-HEN L;
_ip 'Er'llfli R`1111,111lit �R-:r lig-NO
B-2TI
RRH �fNiiii-11111"T"ll lilm
HiNd 11iiiii"114 I NP
A-11"N:11,151!ii"i2i:;
..........
qil ir.I-!
il!ii 1l!zrA!l.3 1jillilliggp.. —""I I
Togi a 1.1.1 is Ill
R-1 i HEr
Y
ij,
n.ml,1
opril K ".1
...........
E
MITH i;
m:.li: !iAllii EPEE i�: JA."ill. 51:1.-Ol
'Hiflu lF.H1 1H
W:2FlVe,.!l
10..W.
fT.. kA
!4;v� R,
_T4 i4U.j;y
&NO N
'i i:,: Klql.
5
14-�4;2.l;§1-1::iy�
ME iL;:,:
42!
lk
"VIIi.-�v il. y4
P..l'.I-. 5illil 4
E4
jvg.l,
Ts'. H
...........
Q-11HP11PHET
-4;1,
Z-11
MR
Mill!
R
A
;.m:Ell L.*
R
iili!jT ill
1j,
ilo rill
liM.1
ti
-lip'o
.ti
:nm
F5
E
.1
I
15 q..,
Ulm Nl
... .........
Nb P
it
fl
JT.
1;-
IN
jq
Update Markup Draft#4 February.2004
Update Draft #1
5-Year Strategic Plan
The Regional Water Providers Consortium
The Consortium is a group of 23.5 water providers in the Portland metropolitan area that
directly provide water service to approximately 90-95% of the urban area. These water
providers represent esent imr-Juds 164 cities, 89,water,districts, and 1 public utility district. The
regional government Metro, which is not a direct water provider,is also a member
making up a total membership of 246 dues paying governmental entities and the City of
Newberg-as a partner for conservation program implementation. This organization was .
formed in 1996 through an Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) and is operated by harsh
ea a set of bodies which meet periodically. The intent of this organization is to
collaboratively discuss, study, adopt'policy,and facilitate partnerships to provide
municipal drinking water supplies. At the same time that the IGA was signed to form the
Consortium,the water provider members also endorsed the Regional Water Supply Plan
(RWSP)which was prepared through a jointly managed effort from 1993-1996. The
Consortium is the caretaker and manager of the RWSP including any major revisions
recommended to the participant entities. An update of the RWSP is scheduled to be
endorsed by the members in Summer 2004. One of the basic tenets of the Consortium is
that no-individual member gives up their ability to act as they see fit to provide water
services to their customers.
Portland Regional Water Providers Consortium Mission
Statement
,.ir!.�.. ri:'u3;:!!::i''fi!r:r::..ir'•u,.,.:li..;t..:. ....:.+..�.:....:�-!!-'.!,;'!.�.!..::.:.-:�,.:,Yi.i irX,•'x:ix.:l:�,.:.
.,•..+. .+x.,._. ._:...:..i ,Y.., x..rii.I xi.v6 ...- :.. i r•'u'+J!i!!u,!'n!'. ..!.r ,'+.
,,. CK.6x.�_.,. .. .:E......x r,.x., N.,I!' � .I } .. r�i_...,,.-,,. r., 5 v.,�':3. ,!l ri�i" ..., r-,::..x,,i..,.:.::. .A:I!E";��,`.;.:. •::a:+rr,!!�;•:_: ,a,.
N.
�•
fa6 L.-, .. - •,!. .�.,t�,,.-...: .>�',,., ._,:_..�:"::!•," ,,.r':
'ub,
n o
}L..�r...-,,. .4
1? y
j
, !
jn�I.,,.
!,.,..!,,.,,r.-.:;.,;::,-,::,,-:!x,!,.„!:,r.,L,.h.,.�,”,x',:,. .I, �y r. .. ,, :. .r.::-,::: .:=:4r_,::c,x,..;,!r.,+•:G!!!,:.:.:,t ;r,!.-,�°�::a,.,�. .,,:._ ..:,:.,..,.: q�r,!r, - :,,,,
r�r:...r.�.....,.,,.f..-,. .-_... .. .. �S..I� +':....I.t..,I..i.. rrlr_,..... .!, .....!,.,. r I ..r,.... ,:.M:i::,..":_.....r.�..y.,.:,... ''{:.;Ll::�l?�lr•
„r,,f!,:i,rx.-.. I .� .IL .!....::•,!. '4:r ..rl.i. .....i..l:L:-r.!.'I'':1 ,::r,...,....r:,:.-•,r,:r - - ..,,'.K+4;r.�i!
..,�_ ... ,.;.,,....!!x...,.d:'I:+:.:F.x!,rre,,,,.af.,.!x......�1._I. r,",,,!1;..:•�'.�,.!,.:i:,.{1.,::...�:r..n-„!,,_,-........:...
..N.xr ..I.t L.. Iq..l. ,.....,.y...! -.r.....a.......!,.,�+!., ,.. ,..!. ......... ......:.:. <.::!,-,.
.� :. i 1. , !..:i n+�..,.___-r.,v 19_ ...,.-i-r ,,,a .. ,.}...r. .r.,,P�I.x,p.'-- .:''N-
. n:i I :., i , ..!.'i .... -F.. r ,.r It�r , ,,: ..ir �:i, :.`I .I.r. :
! x,� I,�I n 1:6. td.:,..,�! „6t- r:hr L.!.�s...4,r!,x!,-,:.,;:,�_:,,.r'!.,•..,..,,.:.r:;"::!.,,,....!:_:;.._ .iii'.. .,¢+:'_.!:" i '. ..u,,,'!x
r Hlr In� .I :N',II'S4i'r l,i ,r.5,;!r_,,,, ..r. i4u it .�! I...}.. r�A., :..6. :.!.,r. ,5.
4h.!:L;' ..�.1 .,1.. .. I .1-'1 .!�, ,,..rr.r .,.., ,4q!+n... .I... �„�...rrnrr-!.:.>p..� x,4�.. ...1.1::',..' _I!:' -
I” a-,..x..hw--.,:r. .I. .. 1�p1 4,I.,:. x:,.-c �_ ,. r.a 7 .,r.a.,r.,,
.. "..._...,_.:......... .. ..,,,.r,a Lx.�l r „_. „ � u I'. r n!.r., 1�....n. .. ..,.L..,....r,r;"':,r„: „!:.,.... ';i!":F•:h.`..p.::!:r '[!-ra!=��:E"'�!!,,,i!p,d!rr!:":!!.
.„ ,....,,.._...., .,-.,�:... !,. I�I r...'!,.....-.I,h..I.i(I r..a..,..ry R! ,.. !1.14 �I.N!�!y:,��.,r:.'!,�;:,,!:i!�".,.,::,.,.. !.,;_,....._.!:,;.�•yr .,1! x!, i,..:;;.;
... .,.i a .!qx:l,. .. r:,Y+� �,r!,:, h l.. r,.,..._....... .. ......_. .. :'4i?:,' ;.:";:; -i't.
P>•ai.,.::-dl ili�lr!4� ,,:: ,I,:uu I�� � Inx. ..r,l t���r: n,.�.i.i...:lll. !... ': ii_..._..:.,!.',_,: .x:6,:u1:;!r.,.. �;:fx-xi!=6_ '!
.:,. as:...:. .. ,,...- .h.!�.,..._ µ ..41 ::. !:.r..:.. .. x. ... !!r. ,..�1,.x.x:!I!;. .I!P lf...r•.,.,,.,Lu„+ ..- ,Y:!;:r:..,
..,��4.......... ....._!:::::.,...,. ....,m. x,. ., i �. .I�.,,,!,..�.r.r...4 I x...: r u f.1 ! E!'�..1. ,..I!.., .;. ..;;;�. ,.'hu: - �•rI fi !!�iirh�
.a. r..I ;�, I Itl 'i' d:....:... .l ., r... II a'.r!a'L:17�;!;":':;.��':'„'..tx --- .6�:!.4...
161�r ��il IIrr hl(tI� ...m, .,-r..,.!.-e!. �.r,.4r-r;!L,!54:1_I•,.r.,..4:�.a:.,1.!..,. } ;":;Ix:3aitF,la�i.l,
,!ry,�_,.0..
,.... '::+' !L,14!hr.„4,: r,,,.�.,.:I!':,41.. ,:h, „i I;xii It,Ix:�r4q :II !. !il: r�.�.rrl,.f .!.!. .,;,.. ... _,.- ....:L.1 L•I!:�. :,,L,,,:z4"f�=.."-::. ,::,t:,.. ty�J..;;d,y
r::r i r..l,r.x.x..s �.,�+:,:I!'.,i '.i?S,!:i.;.;
,.i..l...rr.... r ,,.
Ixr,lr.:+:.., 'i �: 1,
II '
,:.;;,;::!:,n,:!;;,.:' ,III i
: q
I
. I I.:
Lr.h .L....r.har.-x1��5�' 4�, ,/��,,y�,!!rjr .
411.i...li .I", ,I.IL!m�xi;.11:V.( i, .,.1'i,'.Yi .: � 1:��
x�r i,-..I'=iui'•.6:..1,.!;L,u•'.
1.;,t,;,Ix:r Pr, �' !+Id!:gr441 Mf I'!� r '�r•�! � 1 .U'dhi,,11N'pr!i.l 'I lir !!i:T� I!II�!Ihalll+. � '!IIIY!!q,.,hw .,[y,..!r.... x.rAi`P:1'!y,;;'::,tx:,r,;lr.�:44,�'�+''-r','.},�';''��,',
1 ": Ei !,.It::'Ft'N!.�il^; ri.l �:!:,..
IIL•Ni;ti'i''"!I I I'�' ;a1 ':!4;:1 +4.#! 1 r li; :'ii 'il 'i;!
!
b''
tills, W.
,.d��..:..�
ui r..: ;.,..... ,tl'1: 1I
Iii,;,•!..ru.:r.l,',"4{:, ..1 '
-,:,9 !,.11'.I�i 1
.r.�x, e_ �..;!: + i ,f1;:xl•!�++�I;.,'+"Il! ,Iu' Ii ILII !d !q .,I.;I���l�;I!r!�I�•d!-r.9+�:.,yr�!:P':!•O:. .:r+ 11!�(I+,'
11,1'
_.t rhl�.
.. ., h I I!ILI_.,iI:IhV.L�:�!L 4. .:!,1.(�q?,.I{,.,!�f�il•.i.!'.u�dr.,r:+1.w:k��!1.�:5�:':a.-.,,:,.!::;sy;::.,.,:�!,:��6 ::,!.'-.��tt r•:!....!,;.,1��,,,
"..0I,,,......F'�i�ii ,, ..m::�.q:.!I xl :. ,,. ,n—rL,ni,u:.tl .0.i�u�'�L. 4i „ u.r u .. ,.:,i'.,L,...+;;r:..;�1'::::1:!5,�::vi• I i..l.. 1. .iy:.'�,4N::,1,
I. ..�!. .! � :. r .�! 1 J. .!,1:,x.:4 '1 I:x?'r..1 r�lr r.�qhl..15. n .. E,,,It 4,..1 � ,r„lur.:xr..i� ..}...,::�:,. ..i dt{i•, 1 .�i:,,,1;,,.:
�...,,.!.....!.. ,.,,. .�.?!. , !I .� h...ii ..n'4P as ..LP il!.. I<♦� �,.L. ;;:, , .......,_�a!__. .......�rJ!thl:,:.!,ra!:.:�::L., �''` u .;I!!a,e.. ,i.h ...,d:
...:E I...:;. ,,::V-c::.x,u..1,.-,• ,,.,.(:!.k ,r!a :�!: f -, 4r .I u... �;, II: RNA
.xr..'•!",yp�,,,p��,.
:.. q,!...N!-.::i., .x.._::,,..!:.!,:...�!,.u.,.,.il!rll�.,,x5!.,r,m,�. urr_...x..x.x :..4� i_ ,r..!...,.A....�!!.�,� }!.�,�.....� .._-x.. :r....,.....x.,.....vx:!::,ii�, �::x..1::1�y i,•ik.r., ,..y r, .-.r..,,:.._:h!:•ra,
Y,?;,:+,.... ;,....,�,� ..;, x r5,,.,...r. ,:41ra,,:.},;, -- ,�::,.�!+... :.r _ -.�xx. f+ ,;..;, r 1;a,�� s' d 4,paq:al!GI
�._ }x- .!:!', .:.... .r. .. „Ir ... _ ,!„!,,,•. 111,,,., _ �.p:4�.,,:,
,rx „•
;
r:
....,...:....,_ ��.._,...._..._:..._rv:.x.x_:'urr...,o•,....,, .r,r r. l,.. ...�::.hr, nil!x,!�„.x::r•'x A.:: „x.ru..,..,,..:�.�.. .".�.�—"��.�. ;=_4�: '..•:: --
.,..i.....:..,V..:._...._.._.. .._,._ri......r..... .1...Ilr Itt. !....:.,.,.:1f.,..,.v.-.-..}.:5.,....-..._. . �!i'
:.:,!;r.;,,;!,d;.;:q.5.1.:R4,r ..r.3....i...,,a... r.d.. -._}.!I.h1''!5•riY
.::e•_,;.+:rr_r::..:,r:.:-..-;,a;.F,..r}r• :,._-..nf.ihl!�li..�r 4!�,x,r:,,Irl ur:rx..-:_�4r_. ...x.l..,�::.h.,
.1 .!.._..ry I....r..... r .._�4r._.. I: ..,........ , ++-::: �. _.,_.6!a:,�:::5...,:';":r:,,...•..r.,,.,s�::4.'.- �-;="!4i:;::r,;!e:i;!,;;,;'r�::r�;=L!mix.
.._.....-
..:� .".:�"..' .:: � .... a'�,r'!;u:;d.:;r.:!�-;_,.x,...qr n=ray:�ir-,rrM:.I�u.:,l. x.::l:5'r•„r!q:l.dh!:.” 'r:!A'! - �.:v_z::r:xr,r,,..-::.-..,_,.. ,::!,.
r:!.
�aehc `deee
.!L4
:7 'rrv,q,. Mill
!.. a, ! „r .��frx-:-.:.. .. .. .......,�i, ..r.,..J _!
,u..
:...r„ ... -d}'Si..r i...�r...r,..,,.,.i,::T.,.,,. r.:.. !..,.,.It, �.. ..� r! ,:.5 L....:::.::.
..,.. ,.q.r -. .,,.h .......x. fi.,_...!. ! xr.,. .....i 5...'r .!,1,. ...uL,r...
.... .r,.... _. .,. ..r......._. .:.,.... .!h.,il�1 r.,.x...:, ,,..r..,,.. .:.:.,-.,.....Ix,.,,�!.., ,F.I„!.,.A.,I,,...�' .,,.I.t,x!x.i".,.,!.1.....,..r..•",:::=:.._.. ...-. ,..:;;x,.:;;t .::!!r.!:::�'!4�::r_!.{...�: !..I: .!
......a....: , y,,.,a: .r:!!r! ,..•,I{,y!-,r : +:m..L.S!,!„ ..,.: "r:r4,lu:.?lu::, !I..:
';cq .j;ji' ;Irl
1
x:•:'! 4h�:.x :h :An.. v!...I xa.
v _... ry ......,.n... ..,..er�. ,.r.t r.....r... x.:,.,..., ,:.. , .. ... .... .41.... :I„:. ::r.—'..•.'..'....;,.",._."..''.::,.LW,.:'r'r,.:.
.!..LL .r ;r-
.rr:.:.... I.:.r..r✓:'.,., .ra.,::r,r-...,r.V_:_:-b..,... l.n - ai'�... 1,e _ ,...�.,
.i.. I�3,.- ..:: .�-r I..b..! L...r .!!+:: ;:...J.- �p•”'��4�+'=-..,'"`.:'i!:},._.
a _
Hit
r i!:.
.,w AY]M:.f�..�. •.o :,.'hixM '''x x.. 'll...�.
n!'�,!."-� _,....... .. .... ....... ..!T ....... ..;..r. ..' ,._.:;:_.. �! '' .��:��I'•#� r4A7A�4Y1�IJ!!iii...:
u!
,.,.,:
,...
,:.,t:�'.,:�i< ......:.. ....L...... ....!,+'n.i4�,i .:r.�c._..r..,,r.r!!:! �r..x!,5;:.:rr..... �rll•�rr„r,:+lir!}.!x.r i!.,..rr!!i:,;:,h_.:- .-., ..._::” � r!:.: ..,.., ';::i -'r:'h:i!I
ir......,.:..x,.,..: .. ir.. ..I :....Ee.,.....,M.Mr...._.x:61..}1!1,.,.I..II........xx:... .............«.;,.,,h..•:::':�,::'.'SL
,;...x'!!5:.:.a ,r ,. !. ....{;,,,..,;,,...r:.:P!::xm,.�!..,.I.,;i,�:',,�;I.;.....4.,.,,;t'.:..P.!!;,:!.a!,::,:'.,:,!.;.F,,,:!!;,;:..,IM..::::r;i;'.: ..�!..t•su!��::,,.,,•x:.::-:�.:r,:".;.,1. ,
.Ltxx.,,�.l.�x_,r.;..,::..�.�u,._, �,.:1 .,:,��..:.....: ...:.._.:,:,:R. ,. ....0 .x..l.rxh• r,exN d,' t-�n:!..
.r
Update Markup Draft#4 February 2004
Strategic Planning
M}@ R02-1 adoptedn ;A Ggk P;08rnm 4"k 46 40*010++ n 5 ysi r C4ntagi6 1214 -A-m- the
(S12G)made,up of c.a� an mam�are Tl�a CD(` Aa� alnr,arl n nnrL,�rnrrrnm Jnr
pur, ; g twr,4nnL a++r1 el�nred Ubie-m.4- tha 12nnra*.rh nlh a4en p;G;,idad e n�ar-ge to
a�ere�Tsrre�:geese aeee:e�:o a::eaevee meas m.4- eae�e�e �rsava mane-Zs:e rzesvae w vaesSv ev
the SR ' Tha S12C bac csrnrLad ;A;itb the GGase4im m TanbTinn] SubGomm144ae nrd r.4.ff
Tl„e mia;k wa
�$Psa PeFSPeBTg$j a �e$t Id3�'s ;mwuts the rG;arw t;,,m r., ir�Fnr��narl by
rr;nr�;nnn[+c.;nvf :n4�•r 4�a D ++ •�++ �'n7dar oi�rc�a�t tl�et
;r-io dicrussion A4th m a Riaaxd-about pgkg,�e��s and a st
Qj1tQidQ Qt2kQ QjdQre (nnar�n;ae m-nips .aril ;"Wrluak)I The Boar_d adopted its first
Strategic Plan in September 2000. The 5-Year Strategic Plan was developed by a
subcommittee of the Board and recommended to the Board by this committee along with
the water provider staff from the member agencies. The revision of the Strategic Plan
was assigned to the Board Executive Committee(EC)which was created in early 2001.
The Board was consulted at meetings in September and December 2003 about changes in
the Consortium role and activities. (Note: will add more detail in the-final plan about
the process used in 2003/4) The EC revisited the Strength/Wealmess and
Threats/Opportunities developed in 1999 for the purposes of revising the Key Strategic
Challenges contained in the Strategic Plan.. The.Board should review the Strategic Plan_
prior to formulating the annual budget and work program each year and should review
and update the Strategic Plan at least every five years.
External Threats
• Government by initiative
• Low public awareness of the Consortium
• State and#federal rRegulation I
• Growth.
• Turf protection by Consortium members
• Economic conditions and rate concerns by customers I
External Opportunities
The diagram illustrated in Figure 12,shows the external opportunities that are'taking
place that could be favorable to the organization. I
Internal Weaknesses
• Apathy,lack of participation
• Turf protection
• Competition between providers
• Sheer size being cumbersome
• .Lack of shared expectations
Update Markup Draft#4 February 2004
• Vulnerability to losing members
• Communication could be better both internally and externally
• Competition for scarce fiscal-resources to pay for Consortium programs
• Scope and scale of regional Wanning is less than that done at the local level
which creates potential conflicts with individual agency plans
Intemal Strengths
• Have an institutional history since about 1990 of working together and since
1997 as a water provider consortium with a track record
• Visibility has increased with State and Federal rep
�Iaiga agencies
• Trust is building over time
• Strong, active, focused, concerned, energetic participants
• Have had good staff support .
• There is power in numbers
• Economies of scale to conduct programs that.mutually benefit all members .I
• Based on collaboration riot coercion
• Involvementd by elected decision makers increases the;"iI45
c,apability the ability to act and plan collaboratively in the region
• Diversity in membership (from small to large entities and.types of entities)
• Multiple and abundant water resources in the region
• Integration of regional conservation programs by the Consortium has both
increased the"value of the Consortium to members and increased the
awareness of the work of the Consortium and the water providers by
customers
Utilities are able to jointly and collaboratively address Metro water supply
planning issues
The Key Strategic Challenges
The key strategic challenges that were identified based on the above analysis of the
environmental scan,-and-stakeholder surveys, and Consortium work sessions held during
revisions and updates are ww4 grouped into three specific areas: I
1. How do we facilitate the provision of adequate water supplies as a region?
2. How do we deal with emergencies on a regional basis?
3. How do we build the Consortium into a valued organization that helps water
providers meet water needs and meet emergencies?
Update Markup Draft#4 February 2004
Strategy:
Me,P,tunq.-W atew Neem
THE CHALLENGE:
HOW DO WE FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLIES AS A REGION?
CONTEXT:
The Regional Water Providers Consortium was formed by an intergovernmental agreement initially
signed by 26 water providers and Metro in 1996-1997.Due to consolidations,departures,and
additions the size of the Consortium in 2004 was 24 entities that represent 25 different water provider
entities(who also.wholesale water to other entities)that are responsible for providing water supplies
to about 90-95% of the Portland metropolitan area in Oregon. The primary purposes of the
Consortium are listed in the intergovernmental agreement as follows:
A,. Promote the voluntary coordination of individual and collective action of Participants
implementing the Plan; .
B. Serve-as the central custodian for Plan documents,including computer models;
C. Review and recommend revisions to the Plan,as appropriate;
D. -Provide a forum for the study and discussion of water supply issues of mutual interest to
Participants and to coordinate the responses of Participants to such issues; . .
E. Provide a forum for review and discussion of water resource r-al ated issues pw1imisai5c to
which related to
the development and application of the statewide land use goals,comprehensive plans,regional
plans,or land use regulations;
F. Establish an avenue for public participation in water supply issues in addition to public
participation activities of the individual Participants.
The entities signing the Intergovernmental Agreement also agreed to endorse the Regional Water
Supply Plan developed in 1996.
Since the first year of the Consortium operation beginning on July 1, 1997 there have been work
tasks adopted annually that adopted WW have focused on issues associated
with public involvement; source water protection,emergency preparedness,transmission and storage,
and regional conservation program implementation,and-updating the Regional Water Supply Plan.
Issues associated with entities making decisions about how to meetiAg their near and long term
supply needs have arisen during this time. A number of significant subregional actions,evaluations
and efforts have taken place outside of the Consortium function,-including regionalizing the Bull Run
water system_ ,agreements to provide water from the Clackamas River between existing and potential
new-service areas,and planning for new water supplies in Washington County_associated with Bureau
of Reclamation project at Hagg Lake. '
.naA @4t1 @ a*g a Ginn me...l.a.1.ns.. sigaad 4..n..,the G_mrorliu;__a d4,840 ai44ff4Mner...,4.„,;�,;.,,, .,,,
. In addition,the Consortium added the implementation of regional
conservation programs to its function in 2000,and this function now involves over 60%of the fiscal
resources of the Consortium on a year to year basis. The Consortium Board and Technical
Committees discussed the nature of the planning role for the Consortium during 2003 and provided
direction for changes-in this role. The primary purpose of the Consortium should be to facihtate,_but
Update Markup Draft#4 February 2004
Vis, Obtain individual provider endorsement.adeptiea for any major plan revisions.
Reformat the RWSP to be a document that addresses changes in regional water supplies and programs
to reflect the decision making,of the individual_provider entities.. The RWSP will provide a clearing
house for how water demands.will be met over a 20 year period of time including conservation
programs and a list of opportunities for new source development. The function of the Consortium as
a decision support facilitator will be addressed-in the RWSP.
❑ Be a catalyst for participation as a group of water provider
entities in the legislative arena by continuing to
interact as a body to determine areas of mutual advantage and to represent adopted
Consortium policy. Continue to proactively participate in regional,state,and federal program
activities. Develop criteria for determining how the Consortium should communicate in a timely
manner intmet with the Legislature and
discuss with the Board prior to the 2005 Legislative Session.AmRear-d.2dept}e ,
❑ Continue to proactively implement the Source Water Protection Strategy adopted in 1998_y
continuing to provide budget resources to meet with the Source Water Advisory Committee
periodically to review the Strategy and activities of the Consortium and its members.
❑ Revisit the public involvement strategy for review and revision in 20053.
CRITERIA AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY MUST MEET:
An effective Water Needs strategy wflk
✓ Be based on a consensus approach to making decisions at the Board level.
to
✓ Be seen as valuable by all members collectively and individually by addressing both collective and
individual issues of interest.
✓ Stimulate and inspire proactivity.
✓ Be conducted in such a manner that no entity perceives a threat to their individual actions.
✓ Retain and build on the investment already made in regional collaboration and_coordination on water
supply issues of mutual interest.
✓ Retain the ability of water providers to plan and manage how municipal water supplies are provided
throughout the region.
✓ Frame supply issues in terms of how they affect everyone in the whole region and to use this
framework as a context in decision making.
✓ Use the tools related to demand forecasting,conservation program analysis,and integrated regional
supply modeling to support and inform local decision making and to.support better coordination
between.water providers and land use decision agencies.
✓ Take advantage of multiple abundant water sources throughout the region.
✓ Retain.the credibility of the Consortium with regulatory agencies and continue to fulfill the role of
providing regional water supply planning for the Metro Framework Plan.
✓ Base the amount of work done by the Consortium in any given year on the ability to justify the funds
requested and keep the Consortium budget focused on key issues arrived at through consensus.
✓ Provide opportunities for public involvement including at both the individual provider level and at the
Consortium level.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Update Markup Draft#4 February 2004 ,
E Prepare rw_4k
THE CHALLENGE:
HOW DO WE DEAL WITH EMERGENCIES ON A REGIONAL BASIS?
CONTEXT:
Vater is one of the-most important urban services for supporting residentialnewmal lifestyles as well I
as accommodating the needs of industrial/commercial, and institutional uses.
Examples of emergencies that can interrupt water service include•events such as
windstormshcestorms,earthquakes,heavy rainstorms and flooding,volcanic eruptions,
contamination,power outages,accidents,facility failures,and acts of terrorism.
The large number and variety of water providers in the region
poses challenges and opportunities for effective emergency
preparedness. For example,Ssome ef&esproviders are part of systems that are well interconnected
with one or more source waters,while others are isolated and have inadequate or lack" .
interconnections with other backup suppliesat thii time.
In
Another aspect of emergency management includes the ability of water providers to assist each other
in the event of an emergency.Emergency events can range from single system events.that only affect
part of or all of one provider's system,to events that would effect.a whole watershed basin with
several systems(e.g.Clackamas Basin or Bull Run watershed). The most devastating event could
potentially effect all water systems,both surface and groundwater(larger earthquakes;ice and wind
storms,terrorism or the threat of terrorism). In some cases regional water providers have responded
to emergencies that have affected entities outside of the Portland metropolitan area.Most water
providers have mutual aid agreements or IGAs with neighboring water providers or other agencies to
provide equipment and personnel.However,_some do not have IGAs in place and this can prevent
reimbursement of federal funds after an emergency.
The Consortium has been actively involved in Emergency Planning for the past five years.Efforts
were initiated with an Emergency Preparedness Assessment in 1998.This survey helped the
Consortium establish priorities for coordinating emergency planning and response activities. This
survey was followed up with an Emergency Preparedness and Planning(strategic planeing)workshop
in early 2001 which helped identify the steps needed to accomplish our strategic goals for Emergency'
Planning.An Emergency Planning Committee was established in December 2001 to develop and
cant'out a work plan.The main objectives identified were to improve coordination'and
communication among providers, offer training,explore fimding opportunities, explore ways to
improve interconnections between providers and offer relevant resources.
The Emergency Planning Committee has accomplished many tasks including; development of a
Resource Notebook.for water providers which includes an emergency contact list,recommendations
for IGAs among water providers who do not have one in place,and other resources.The EPC
monitored relevant legislation,brought together the provider's Public Information Officers,
developed a communication survey and set of recommendations; coordinated with the FBI,County
Emergency Managers and_Health.Departments,provided recommendations for data sharing; and
developed and facilitated ICS training and Table Top exercises.
Update Markup Draft.#4 February 2004-
. 1a
evaluate their individual systems and.to take actions or develop programs to reduce vulnerabilities.
But Complete elimination of all vulnerability is not likely. However,if the region's providers have I
the ability and framework in place to respond effectively,coordinate on a regional level and rely on
each other for assistance during either individual or multiple system emergency events,the,
emergency can bemore efficiently dealt with and there is a greater chance that water service can be
maintained with less disruption.Having appropriate plans in place also ensures eligibility for public
assistance for repairs after an emergency. Since the development of the original Strategic Plan,the
climate has changed surrounding emergency planning.Terrorism is more of a reality and tremendous
resources have been directed at identifying vulnerabilities and developing emergency response plans.
This has removed some of the barriers to regional emergency planning.However the region's ability
to Ths;egio 's abik+ ,to more effectively deal with emergencies is stillaffected by:
■ Outside drivers(eg. State or federal requirements to have emergency plans or agreements).
■ Lack of customer support and understanding of need for resources to be proactive,unless emergency
affects them directly.
■ . Concern about the ratepayer impacts of implementing programs to deal with events that have not yet
occurred
■ Maintaining basic services(e.k.water service,billing,customer service,etc.)while dealing with
emergency event.
■ Competition for resources to implement emergency response plans and make needed upgrades.
■ . Lack of needed interconnections to ensure that all providers have reliable back-up supplies.
■ Use of multiple types of communication systems.
■ Framework for allocatingexisting xisting resources where and when they are needed in the re ion.
■ Lack of coordination among-water providers and County Emergency Management.
Frequency and severity of events can impact our readiness among not only water provider staff but
customers as well.Also loss of experienced personnel through retirements and attrition impact our
reservoir of institutional knowledge.
STRATEGIC GOALS:
❑ Develop a Regional Emergency Rwpw ss-Response Plan for water utilities in coordination with
R- 0-Cr-RC 2ndother stakeholders.Complete plan by 20053.
❑ Continue to provide training and exercises to enhance water providers knowledge and experience in
responding and recovering from an emergency.
❑ Identify and test interconnections and their cgDacities to facilitate and support reliable back-up
supplies of water for all providers in the event of an emergency,building on the 1999 Regional
Transmission and Storage Strategy.
❑ Develop.update and enhance resources for water=viders.
Update Markup Draft#4 February 2004
✓ Foster cooperation and consensus among water providers to accomplish strategic goals
✓ Ensure that sensitive information generated by the Consortium to.support emergency preparedness is
protected from public disclosure in accordance with applicable state and federal law(e.g.ORS
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Additional resources may be required to achieve the strategic goals.This will involve Board approval
of annual work programs and budgets relating to emergency preparedness.The major items that
would need to be incorporated into a future work program would be the preparation of a Regional
Emergency Response Plan ba-m20Q-3.4 conjunrAien.,4,,tho implomontatim „f+1.n
and a professional services contract to identify and map
interconnections among providers in coordination with the Regional Transmission and Storage
Strategy.Additional resources may also be needed for annual training programs and exercises,
depending on frequency. Most of the other items could be worked into an average base budget.
BOARD ROLE
The role of the Consortium Board will be to support and approve the 5-Year Strategic Plan,annual
work plans and.budgets,recommend changes to the Consortium's IGA and to approve policyand any
emergency response pmpamdaaw plan.
n«rriai�d'1 by the Reagd aDd way..&w made]IG A n ag Gmagptr WaWd ba i;jtan ed F r i«iii444,21
POSSIBLE APPROACHES
.,1' ba Poa-a a y m4sh too eigt n Raf ty a r.int i« the aeweloo;Ac«t of ma 4tia e;1G A
raaamma«'1nt;o«c. f r-p! G@=mt n« tho lZonrrl . a«tln
b4a) The Emergency Planning Committee recommends continuing to utilize the committee to help
accomplish strategic goals;implement work tasks and make recommendations for review by the the
CTSC.X-be-.1Zonrrd amy;A sh to a lite n«:s standing Roar'1 nam..or'.Gem-M—itts0 fi r-thir,PW 0 g or to
e„etilrize is=T4 e^1miearse*nneTenrani:teathat
might la®iiffAiF1t®d t9a6{+'i8t the lR
o4hLThe region's water providers may want to consider more use of emergency tests or exercises to both
better understand the future needs and to provide for training opportunities.
4)EAPlore eY.itb- Ado+-..and the A40"4 9MGFRe« wA GFoup tho .1 at + Y
fig
c) _Research and share grant opportunities with providers.
Update Markup Draft#4 February2004
LP
And encourage more partnerships to accomplish meeting water needs and coordinating emergency
preparedness has not fullf lled.its potential,nor is it certain at this point that the members want an
institutional role for the Consortium over the longer term
In September 2003 the Consortium Board considered the activities that it would like the Consortium
to focus on,and the role in building partnerships was felt to still be valid. However,the role was felt
to more one of collaboration, speaking with-one voice on issues of mutual interest, and being a forum,
if desired,for solving problems of a regional or subregional nature.There also was support for an
increased education role to enhance knowledge of know water is supplied to the region,the sources, .
the suppliers,and programs to.encourage water use efficiency and protection of source waters. The
primary partnership that have gained support within the Consortium are conducting regional
conservation programs and emergency preparedness which should continue. Defining the issues of
mutual interest and concern to the individual members is probably the key challenge for the
continuation of the Consortium.Also being able to define the proper means of calculating respective
dues to support the Consortium is an issue that needs to be addressed as the role of the Consortium
shifts to program implementation in conservation and other areas,and away from planning.
AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS:
The key stakeholders are the water provider entities that make up the Consortium. These entities
include 165 cities, 89 water districts, 1 public utility district,.and 1 regional government. Other
stakeholders include the region's water customers,public interest groups,-environmental groups,and
other governmental agencies that either regulate water resources or have programs that are either
affected by or affect municipal water supply systems or programs.
CONSEQUENCES IF NOT ADDRESSED:
If this strategic challenge is not adequately addressed then the Consortium will not have fulfilled its
potential.and may even risk being disbanded. Disbanding the Consortium would also mean that the other
strategic goals would not be met. The ability of the Consortium members to define their expected
outcomes for the Consortium has been difficult due to a number of factors such as newness of the
organization,meeting logistics and formats, and adopting year by year work programs to focus most of
the effort on certain work tasks dominated by staff. The desire of the Board members is to discuss and.
establish policy and action items that are of value to individual members. A focus on key issues has been
a driven primarily by staff and certain events. The ability of the Consortium to define the issues of key
importance relative to each other has been clouded somewhat by a lack of
an willingness of.all individual members to agree on moving forward. The Consortium has
had some successes.over the seven years since its inception and the members would like to build-on those
successes and not focus on the aspects of planning that would be counter to the activities of the individual
members.There are also consequences of having members leave the Consortium if the issue of dues
equity and amounts are not dealt with.
1
STRATEGIC GOALS:
❑ Spend at least one Board meeting focusing on strategic planning issues in each year prior to budget
process. st-am-«;,,.,im 200 Aany;ic >,et to the 546a;su.>W ffi.Plan ghouls]ae comidwad
atrthe �time
Q Find.meeting formats that allow more dialogue with Board members and consider establishing
primary target agenda themes for meetings a year ahead of time including legislative themes prior to
the biennial sessions.
❑ Use communication methods that facilitate interaction at the individual participant level and
encourage Board members to link with each other between meetings. Board members are encouraged
Update Markup Draft#4 February 2004
l
f
✓ Allow for continuous assessment of the Consortium overtime and to make needed adjustrrients and
changes to improve performance and value.
✓ Not be bound by existing IGA limitations when and if the members are ready to propose changes or
to review the basic IGA.
✓ Increase attendance at the re ar Board and Technical Committee meetings.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS .
Addt-iea21 Rxesources will may be required to achieve the strategic goals as noted in the other goals
on meeting water needs and emergency preparedness.This will involve Board support and approval
of annual work-programs and budgets for each year that the Consortium remains in effect. The major
items that could Heald need additional resources are likely to be emergency preparedness and*Ag-ba
r-casa conservation program implementation_based on.the actions called for in this_Strategic
Plan. ', n:nw nFtl.e Dei.;n«n1 VITn4a.Q..+.,+l.r D7".». :.. "fnnl �i1 r.ror.n�n4iner rf_nDor►:nwnl
bar.@ 1..4,'1 got ri.nt at n lnf Opo ntion
BOARD ROLE
The role of the Consortium Board will be to approve the 5-bear Strategic Plan, annual work plans
and budgets, and to approve policy and any specific work plan action items or to make
recommendations to local entity governing bodies for such items as IGA amendments or major
revisions of the Regional Water Supply Plan. The Board also should devote time once per year to
consider strategic planning issues as a part of the annual budget and work program process_. Changes
to the Strategic Plan could also be considered on an annual basis.to kaspl
fid•
POSSIBLE APPROACHES
a) The Board or CTC may wish to appoint subcommittees to assist in the development of work plan
products and or recommendations for placement on the Board agenda
b) The Board may wish to consider different meeting setups,timing,or location to facilitate more
effective communication either between themselves or with the public.The Board has used breakout
sessions in past,years and considers this meeting format to be effective in fostering more
communication and would like to continue to use this meeting format
C) Any awwg surveys utilized to meet the strategic goals will be brief and easily analyzed and
objectives for the survey will be discussed the Technical Committees and any other Board
committees.
d) Communication about local agreements that build on partnership concepts should be reported on at
Board and Technical Committee meetings.
e) Model agreements,or outline drafts of model agreements%hould be considered by the Consortium
as noted in the other strategies.
f) Growing the Consortium into an implementation organization should be considered a part of its
potential.future role. Implementation of the conservation program was4s a first step I
. Exploring other implementation options should be included in
future work programs.
g) Continued development of the Dwmleping a.web page for the Consortium that links to the web sites I
for individual members and,that allows the public to directly communicate with the Consortium.
Update Markup Draft#4 February2004
a4°RTo o Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
° p CITY OF 1221 S.W.4th Avenue, Room 230
o Portland, Oregon 97204
PORTLAND, OREGON Telephone: (503)823-4151
Fax: (503)823-3036
3881 Internet: dsaltzman@ci.portiand.orus
March 4, 2004
To: Portland Wholes a Customers(via the Wholesalers Negotiation Team)
From: Dan Saltzman
Subject: Wholesale Water Rates
Thank you for your letter regarding water rates.You've raised good points that deserve careful
consideration. Since we have discussed many of these items at our recent meeting, I will first
respond to a few secondary points raised in your letter.
• The City of Portland does indeed value its wholesale customers. Portland has been a
reliable water supplier for some of its customers for nearly a century and the City shares
with the wholesalers a goal of establishing a fair and equitable new contract and of
continuing the long-standing relationships.
• Both the City and the wholesalers have a common priority of providing customers with
adequate supplies of high quality water at a fair price. Fairness requires that all
customers cant'their share of fixed costs as well as variable costs. Determining that
share is, of course, a significant part of the current negotiations.
• To clarify a point raised at the meeting and referenced in your letter,water funds do not
pay for other City programs.The City's compliance with this City Charter requirement is
audited annually. The fixed and administrative charges included in your rates are the
cost_of service as it relates to the supply, treatment and transmission of water to
wholesale customers.
• The wholesalers do not currently pay$9 million of their aggregate contribution to the City
for administrative overhead and support activities.Total operations and maintenance
costs for the wholesalers will be about$8.7 million in 2004-05. Only$4.1 million of that
amount will be for general and administrative costs;the remainder is for direct supply
system facilities.The non-administrative general costs include ongoing system support
(carpentry,welding, maintenance,etc.)that is not specific to one portion of the water
system or a particular facility.
• While the expiring contract language describes the wholesale resources as"surplus," I
think all parties can agree that has been a flexible term. The"surplus"water in summer is
typically augmented with Portland's secondary source.The"surplus"water of the summer
of 1992 included unprecedented restrictions on Portland retail customers to help ensure
that all customers, including wholesale customers, received enough water to meet essential
needs. Moreover, at the request of the wholesalers, the entire concept of"surplus"water
has been removed from the proposed contract, so this issue is effectively moot.
The principal issue raised at our recent meeting and referenced in your letter is the wholesale
price of Portland's water. Portland's current pricing proposal is structured to maintain roughly
the same distribution of costs between its wholesale and retail customers as now. Contrary to
what was asserted at our meeting,this does not mean the City is seeking to obtain a constant
amount of revenue from the wholesale customers no matter how little water they buy. It merely
means that If the wholesalers continue to buy about the same amount of water from Portland,it
would cost about the same as it does now relative to the cost for retail customers.
If the wholesalers choose to develop additional supplies and reduce their demands on
Portland's system,water rates for both wholesale and retail customers will go up. There is no
way to avoid this fundamental economic principle when the costs for providing this particular
utility service are so inflexible. Over the last five years,the Water Bureau has taken numerous
steps to constrain expenditures—including the supply system costs for which the wholesalers
share responsibility.The major cause for rising wholesale rates in the past few years has been
reduced wholesale demand.
Portland has attempted to address this issue and ensure a smooth transition to the new contract
by proposing terms that would ensure that both retail and wholesale customers do not
experience a sharp spike in rates if and when wholesalers move to serve more of their demand
by other sources. The current proposal is structured to allow the wholesalers the flexibility over
time of reducing or increasing their use of Bull Run water within a reasonable timeframe to
maintain the rate shock protections for other wholesalers and retail ratepayers mentioned
above.There is even a provision allowing for an orderly ramping down and complete exit from
the Bull Run system.
This proposal seems fair and reasonable to me.Wholesalers who wish to can develop and bring
alternative sources online without penalty and without causing calamitous rate spikes for other
wholesalers and Portland's retail customers.
However,you have made it clear that you believe Portland should reduce the wholesalers'
share of the total water rates even though doing so will cause retail rates to go up.You balance
this point by demonstrating that if and when the wholesalers develop sufficient resources to
provide all of their water from other sources,the City would stand to lose 20%of its current
revenues.You argue that the City should regard receiving some revenues from the wholesalers
as better than receiving none, even if that means raising retail rates while providing the
wholesalers with more water than they currently consume. Portland's retail ratepayers may or
may not agree.
These are important points to consider,and since the implications would be directly bome by
Portland's retail customers I believe I need to consult with key stakeholders of the retail rate base
including the Mayor and my fellow commissioners on the general issues framed by your letter. I
intend to do this over the next two to three weeks to gain a better understanding of the interests I
represent in this relationship.Their feedback will be invaluable since any proposed agreement that
comes out of negotiations will require public scrutiny,input and ultimately buy-in from Portland's
retail customers and the Council. I will direct the feedback I receive to Portland's negotiations team
at that time.
In the meantime, I hope you will direct your negotiations team to continue to work with Portland's
to ensure there is clarity and a shared understanding of the City's interests and intent in the
current proposal and to explore options to meet the mutual needs of both parties. I remain
convinced that with additional discussion and effort on both of our parts to understand our
individual and mutual needs that we can reach agreement. I hope you will regard our discussion
last week and this response as helping in this regard.
a
City of Tigard, Oreg.on
Water Rate Study Report
Water Supply Source Financial Feasibility
Financial Consulting Solutions Group Inc. in association with
Galardi Consulting LLC.
FINAL REPORT
February 2004
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 1 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
• a
Table of Contents
Executive Summary pg 4
Table I. Summary of Key Scenario Results pg 4
Introduction pg 6
Tigard Water System pg 6
Table II. Summary of Customer Statistics - pg 6
Financial Plan Analysis pg 7
Assumptions pg 7
Revenue Requirements pg 8
operations&Maintenance Costs pg 9
Table III. Summary Operations & Maintenance Costs- JWC pg 9
Table IV. Summary Operations & Maintenance Costs- PDX pg 9
Capital Costs pg 10
Table V. Summary of Capital Costs- JWC pg 10
Table VI. Summary of Capital Costs- PDX pg 11
Revenue Analysis pg 11
Financial Plan Scenarios pg 12
Table VII. Key Scenario Results-JWC pg 13
Table VIII. Key Scenario Results-'PDX pg 13
System Development Charges pg 14
Introduction pg 14
Develop Cost Basis pg 14
System Valuation pg 14
Table IX. Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis pg 15
Book Value pg 15
Financial Consulting Solutions Group,Inc. 2 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Original Cost pg 16
Project Cost Allocations pg 16
Table X. Improvement Fee Basis with JWC Capital pg 17
Table XI. Improvement Fee Basis without JWC Capital pg 17
Adjustments to Cost Basis pg 17
Develop Unit Costs pg 19
Table XII. Capacity Analysis pg 19
Reimbursement Fee pg 20
Table XIII. Reimbursement Fee Unit Costs pg 20
Improvement Fee pg 20
Table XIV. Improvement Fee Unit Costs with JWC Capital pg 20
Table XV. Improvement Fee Unit Costs without JWC Capital pg 21
Develop SDC Schedule pg 21
Table XVI. Combined SDCs pg 21
Table XVII. SDC Schedule pg 22
Recommendations pg 22
Appendices
A. Model Assumptions and Inputs
B. Water Purchase Forecast
C. Financial Plan Tables
D. Rate Schedules and Bilis
E. SDC Debt Credit Analysis
Financial Consulting Solutions Group,Inc. 3 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Executive Summary
Alternative financial plan scenarios were developed for two water supply
scenarios: 1) Joint Water Commission (JWC) Partnership, and 2) Portland (PDX)
Wholesale. The analysis determined required rate increases under each scenario
to meet the projected annual operation and maintenance (0&M) and capital
needs. The following table illustrates a summary of key results,from the scenario
analysis.
Table I. Summary of Key Scenario Results
Scenario 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Summa 2003j„ 2004„ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
JWC 10.00% 6.00% 12.10% 12.16% 12.13% 12.12% 12.83% 3.95% 3.95% 3.84% 3.86%
.PDX 10.00%. 6.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.56% 7.48% 7.51% 7.73% 7.84% 3.79% 3.75%
JWC $ 2,960,469 $ 2,293,905 $ 2,149,823 $ 2,158,299 $ 2,090,417 $ 2,276,190 $ 2,453,078 $ 2,642,764 $ 1,889,155 $ 1,193,640 $ 1,259,774
PDX 2,960469 $ 2,850 579 2 7I1 695 2 748 457 2 706 009 $ 2,920.458 3125 400 3 344 506 $ 3 5904M 4 119 408 4,430,913
JWC $ 1,404,463 $ 5,524,465 $10,960,285 $ 7,620,547 $ 8.470,869 $25,033,995 $30,455,140 $29,032,793 $22012,296 $ 3,805,632 $ 7,905,228
PDX $ 1,15310 4 36 12 6,821,125 $ 1 586J13 $ J046,182 $ M97.386 $1 4110 $16 $16 118325 $16 396 936 $ 5 31285
JWC - - 16,000,000 - 21,000,000 - 43,000,000 - 20,000,000 -
PDX 8,000 000 15 0 000 25 000 000
JWC $ 5,783,786 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,00D,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
PDX 5 783i86 1 1 000 000 1 1,000000 1 000 000. $ 1000 ODO .$ 1 000 000 1 1,000 000 100040 1 000 000 $ 1 OQO 000 $ 1,000000
JWC $ 5,033,044 $ 7,008,524 $14,496,342 $10,500,340 $27,202,864 $ 7,989,633 $23,936,696 $ 308,000 $ 1,259,566 $ 2,785,526 $ 150,000
PDX $ 5 7296,540 8 659M3 $ 9843 691 11 197 48 $12 MQ $17 921 184 5.566267 27$16 7261 3699 33 $ 938 761
JWC $ 20.35 $ 21.57 $ 24.18 $ 27.12 $ 30.41 $ 34.09 $ 38.47 $ 39.99 $ 41.67 $ 43.20 $ 44.87
PDX $ .20.35 $ 21.57 $ 23.08 $ 24.69 $ 26.56 $ 28.55 $ 30.69 $ 33.07 $ 35.66 37.01 $ 38 39
(11 Increase-s for these yews have already been planned and-adopted.
Scenario 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Totals
Summa 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013 2020. _ 2021 2022 cumin.
EBNER
JWC 0.000/0 0.00016 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 142.59%
PDX 3.709/0 3.71% 3.68% 3.49% 3.64% 3.84% 3.75% 4.35% 4.38% 191.29%.
JWC $ 1,328,222 $ 1,402,979 $ 1,480,358 $ 1,560,439 $ 1,647,473 $ 1,741,802 $ 1,835,105 $ 1,936,070 $ 2,045,069 $ 38,345,030
PDX $ 4,764,001 $ 5 118 605 1 5 499 024 $ 5 907 080 $ 6 344 701 $ 6813,948 1 7,317 022 '$ 7 865 8Ma
3 594,429
JWC $ 1,961,279 $ 2,243,328 $ 2,476,543 $ 2,927,882 $ 2,111,903 $ 2,682,427 $ 1,737,313 $ 799,96,022,229
PDX $ 1961279 $ 2 243 328 $ 476,543 $ 2,9271882 $ 2111 903 $ 2,68Z427 $ 1 737 313 $ 799 9118,868.674
JWC - - - - - - 0,000,000
PDX 8,000,000
JWC $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,0OO $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000.000
PDX 1,037,170 $ 1,106,102 $ 1,179,285 $ 1257,421 $ 1 350 512 1 1,440 130 $ 1535,797 1 637 915 $ 1,760,4 51 $. 1,760,451
JWC $ 3,376,823 $ 6,461,644 $ 9,444,211 $11,988,777 $15,444,876 $18,431,456 $22,449,719 $27,362,100 $17,405,965 $ 17,405,965
PDX $ 1,,&69,563 $ 2,322,722 $ 2,976,688 $ 3 289,806 $ 4,621 644 $ 5,656,450 $ 7,902,750 $11,299,899 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
,I i MEMIMMEMMI M'
JWC $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87 $ 44.87
PDX 39.81 $ 41.29 $ 42.81 44.30 45.92 $ 47.68 $ 49.47 $ 51.62 $ 53.88 $ 53.88
[1]Increases for these years have already been planned and adopted.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 4 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
The two scenarios differ significantly in terms of the underlying cost structures
and resulting rate impacts. The 3WC option requires significant capital
investment in the first half of the planning period, but significant reductions in
annual O&M costs (due to a projected decrease in purchase water costs,
particularly after 2009/10). Debt expiration in future years (beyond the 20-year
period) lowers the 3WC option further. The Portland scenario, on the other
hand, includes limited capital investment in the first five years of the forecast,
followed by an increase in capital outlays between FY2008/09 and FY2011/12.
The Portland scenario also assumes significant increases in projected water
purchase costs throughout the forecast period.
The different cost structures are reflected in the rate increase strategies
presented in Table I. The aggressive capital program related to investment in
the 3WC results in annual rate increases of 12% to 13% between FY2004/05 and
FY2008/09, finishing with 4% increases to 2012/13. The PDX scenario results in
smaller increases spread over a longer planning horizon, as significant capital
investment is deferred by about five years, compared to the 3WC option. For the
PDX scenario, increases are about 7% annually through 2012/11 and are
followed by average annual increases of about 4% through the remainder of the
planning period to fund the projected requirements.
Beginning in the current year, the water purchase costs begin to diverge, as the
MC scenario assumes that the City is eligible for a reduced `lease'water rate.
The purchase costs diverge further beginning in 2010/11 when the JWC rate is
lowered further based on the ownership investment, and the PDX purchase costs
continue to increase reflecting additional projected rate increases (due in part to
additional operating costs related to planned facilities). By the end of the
planning period, water purchase costs under the PDX scenario are projected to
exceed the 3WC scenario by $55 million. However, the 3WC option requires
about $67 million more in capital investment. Debt financing spreads some of
these costs beyond the planning period (assuming 30 year debt instruments).
However, savings in purchase costs would also be expected to continue beyond
the planning period.
A typical residential bill, currently $21.57, is projected to increase to $44.87 in
FY2021/22 under the 3WC scenario, and $53.88 under the Portland scenario.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 5 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Introduction
The City of Tigard (the City) contracted.with FCS Group, in association with
Galardi Consulting, LLC in November 2002, to conduct a rate study for the water
system. The city is in the process of evaluating future water supply options to
meet projected future system needs. The City is also facing significant
improvements to the distribution system to meet growth and other needs.
.The scope of the rate study included the development of a 20-year water system
financial plan (beginning in the then current fiscal year 2002/03 through fiscal
year 2021/22) including projections of system operation and maintenance (0&M)
and capital costs, and revenues from rates and other sources. Alternative
financial plan scenarios were developed for two water supply scenarios: 1) Joint
Water Commission Partnership, and 2) Portland Wholesale. The financial plans
determined required rate increases under each scenario to meet the projected
annual 0&M and capital needs. System development charges were also
developed for each scenario, reflecting the projected growth-related capital costs
of the system.
Tigard Water System
The Tigard water system service area is comprised of customers from the cities
of Durham, King City, the majority of Tigard, and the unincorporated areas of
Washington County surrounding these areas (e.g., Bull Mountain area).
Tiigard's customer base is largely made up of residential customers, representing
about 91% of the total. Commercial and Multi-Family classes make up about 8%
and Industrial and Irrigation are together the remaining 1%. Though residential
customers make up over 90% of the customer base, their representative water
use is under 60%. Multi-Family makes up 22% of water use, recognizing that
the Multi-Family customers are based on landlord accounts instead of the
household units. Commercial customers represent about 15% of the remaining
water use with Industrial and Irrigation together representing about 4% of total
use. A summary table of these statistics follows:
Table II. Summary of Customer Statistics
2004-2002 Total Mnual
Data Customers Water Use
Residential 14,612 91.5% 1,634,985 58.5%
Commercial 620 3,9% 433,146 15.5%
Industrial 12 0.1% 26,314 0.9%
Irrigation 137 0.9% 83,524 3.00/6
Multi-Family §97 3.7% 617,086 22.1%
15,978 100.0% 2,795,055 10.0.0%_
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 6 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Financial Plan Analysis
The building blocks of the financial plans are the projections of costs or revenue
requirements (both O&M, and capital) that the City will incur during the 20-year
planning period (fiscal year 2002/03 through fiscal year 2021/22) and the
revenues which the City expects to generate during the same period.
Assumptions
The financial plans are based on a set of overall assumptions related to customer
growth, inflation, and other factors, as well as the specific phasing of the City's
capital program. Different types of costs escalate at different rates and a number
of cost escalation factors were used in the analysis. For example, labor costs
related to medical benefits have seen accelerated escalation in the recent years
while general office supplies tend to experience more level price inflation.
Because many assumptions are dynamic to analysis outcomes and change
annually, this information is detailed in Appendix A. Key assumptions include the
following:
o Customer growth will average about 2 percent per year, compared with 4-
5 percent in recent years. It is fiscally prudent to use a more conservative
growth rate (relative to recent experience) for revenue forecasting
purposes. Conversely, higher growth would tend to improve rate and
financial forecasts, especially for JWC capacity purchase.
❑ O&M costs, with the exception of water purchases, will increase annually
between 2.5 and 6.0 percent (depending on the expenditure category).
In addition, 0&M costs have been adjusted for one-time and ongoing
"extra-ordinary" costs, as provided by the City.
❑ Capital construction cost estimates in today's dollars will increase 3
percent per year, based on inflation until time of construction.
❑ Annual water sales are forecast based.on the projected number of
customers in each year, and current water use patterns (adjusted for
future conservation/price elasticity of 0.5 percent per year for the first five
years of the forecast.)
❑ Future debt will be in the form of revenue bonds, with a 30 year term,
5.25 percent interest, 2 percent issuance costs, a 10 percent reserve
requirement, and a minimum coverage requirement of 1.20 (without SDC
revenue).
Financial Consulting Solutions Group,Inc. 7 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
❑ The City will implement the full SDCs calculated for each scenario in
FY2006/07, and adjust annually based on a construction cost index
(assumed to average about 1.5 percent per year.)
❑ Fund balances will be maintained as follows:
o Water Fund: minimum balance set equal to $1 million or 15 percent
of 0&M costs
o SDC Fund: minimum balance $100,000
o Capital Fund: minimum balance $50,000
Revenue Requirements
The annual costs to be funded from water rates and other revenues are referred
to as`revenue requirements'for utility financial planning purposes. Annual
revenue requirements are composed of:
• Operation and maintenance costs
Annual capital improvement projects funded through current revenues
• Debt service expenditures
• Transfers to the City's general and other funds for indirect and direct services
provided to the utility
In addition, annual requirements include operating contingencies of a minimum
of $1.0 million or 15 percent.of 0&M costs. However, 100 percent of annual.
contingencies are assumed to be unspent and roll forward to subsequent year
beginning balances.
Revenue requirements were projected based on data provided by the CAty,
including the following:
❑ 2002/2003 budget
❑ Five year (FY2003/04 through FY2007/08) financial plan
❑ Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study,
❑ Revised Capital Improvement Program Summary (with updates from staff
for project timing and cost).
In addition, the capital improvement and operating cost projections associated
with water supply options were based on recent work completed by the City, in
conjunction with other regional wholesale water agencies.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group,Inc. 8 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Operations and Maintenance Costs
A summary of annual 0&M costs is provided in table III and IV. Water purchase
costs are shown separate from other Materials and Services costs due to the
magnitude of these costs and the significant differences between scenarios. The
City has historically purchased the majority of its water from the city of Portland.
Beginning in the current year (FY2003/04), the City began purchasing 4 million
gallons per day (mgd) from the JWC. Although the City owns groundwater wells,
it lacks ownership of a water source that is capable of meeting the community's
current and. future water demand. In an effort to address the problem the City
has been investigating options for a future long-term water supply.
Table III. Summary Operations and Maintenance Costs- ]WC
Operations&Maintenance 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Costs Summary 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Personnel $1,068,281 $1,195,649 $1,264,520 $ 1,337,359 $ 1,414,393 $ 1,516,456 $ 1,603,806 $ 1,696,189 $ 1,793,892 $ 1,948,745
Portland Purchases 1,246,551 878,853 721,313 589,121 733,643 866,234 1,010,500
JWC and other costs(ASR) 1,047,3.53 1,270,970 1,436,986 1,501,296 1,542,547 1,586,844 1,632,264 1,889,155 1,193,640 1,259,774
Materials&Services 442,316 451,083 464,134 474,982 474,449 486,510 498,873 511,544 524,533 537,846
Capital Outlay 55,000 5,000 191000 19,475 19,962 20,461 20,972 21,497 22,034 22,585
Operating Transfers 1,076,607 1,135,839 1,201,802 1,259.677 1.312,619 1,391,441 1.460,362 1,532,965 1,609,454 1.725,475
$4,938109 $4,937,393 $_5,107,754 $ 5;181,909 $ 5,497613 $ 5,867,946 $ 6,226,777 $ 5,651,350 $ 5,143,553 $ 5,494,425
Table IV. Summary Operations and Maintenance Costs- PDX
Operations&Maintenance 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Costs Summ 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Personnel $1,068,281 $1,195,649 $1,264,520 $ 1,337,359 $ 1,414,393 $ 1,516,456 $ 1,603,806 $ 1,696,189 $ 1,793,892 $ 1,948,745
Portland Purchases 1;246,551 878,853 721,313 589,121 733,643 866,234 1,010,500 1,174,478 1,520,977 1,740,374
JWC and other costs(ASR) 1,604,027 1,833,043 2,027,144 2,116.888 2,186,815 2,259.166 2,334,006 2.416.025 2.598,430 2,690.539
Materials&Services 442,316 451,083 464,134 474,982 474,449 486.510 498.873 511,544 524,533 537.846
Capital Outlay 55,000 5,000 19,000 19,475 19,962 20,461 20.972 21,497 22,034 22,565
Operating Transfers 1,076,607 1,13549 1,201.862 1;259,677 1.312,619 1,391,441 1,460,362 1,532,965 1,609,454 1,725,475
$5,492,783 $5,499,465 $5,697,912 $ 5,797,501 $. 6,141,881 $ 6,540,267 $ 6,928,520 $ 7,352,698 $ 8,069,321 $ 8,665,564
The following key assumptions relate to the water purchase forecast:
• Beginning in FY2010/11, the City will no longer pay both the base and lease
rate for JWC water but will only pay the base rate reflecting ownership in the
water source.
• JWC rates will escalate at an average of 3% annually.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group,Inc. 9 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Y Annual water purchase rates from the City of Portland will escalate at an
average of just over 4% throughout the forecast with additional increases
related to Tigard-allocated 0&M costs and rate structure changes reflecting
the City's peaking characteristics.
• The City's 0&M costs per unit for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) will
increase at an average annual rate of 5%.
The City will continue to be eligible for a 50% discount on PDX water
purchases for ASR.
The detailed water purchase assumptions and forecasts for each scenario are
provided in Appendix B.
Capital Costs
Capital Costs for the two scenarios are summarized in tables V and VI. Again,
the JWC option requires a significant capital investment in order to`buy in'to the
JWC system. This buy-in will then allow the City to be eligible for significantly
lower water purchase costs as shown in the 0&M tables above. A list of each
capital project is available in Appendix section C.(see"Forecast Capital"
worksheet.)
Table V. Summary of Capital Costs- ]WC
_ Total
Beginning Fund Balance $4,062,226
System Development Charges 22,019,968
Bond/Loan Proceeds(a) 100,000,000
Grants&Contributions -
Rates/Operating Reserves 73,065,615
Other Revenue 9,921,200
Total Sources $209,069,009
Capital Improvements
Supply $134,949,817
Other $59,001,635
Ending Balance 15,117,557
Total uses $209,069,009
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 10 of 23.
Phone: 425-867-1802
Table VI. Summary of Capital Costs- PDX
i 'IFF viding,sources, ;
Total
Beginning Fund Balance $4,062,226
System Development Charges 19,871,600
Bond/Loan Proceeds(a) 46,000,000
Grants&Contributions -
Rates/Operating Reserves 49,258,437
Other Revenue 5,103,600
Total Sources $124295,863
Capital Improvements
Portland Transmission $60,155,769
Other $59,001,635
Ending Balance 5,138,459
Total Uses $124,295,863
Revenue Analysis
The utility must collect enough revenue annually to meet the 0&M needs of the
system. As water system capital investment is"lumpy", long-term financial
planning includes development of a strategy to levelize these costs_ through
accumulation/use of reserve funds and debt financing.
As capital costs are generally the main driver of revenue needs, a capital funding
analysis is conducted to evaluate all available resources to fund capital projects.
A priority of funding sources is set-up so that the lowest cost funding options are
used first. For example, if the City were to acquire grant funding for a project
that would be the first funding source used followed by anticipated low cost state
loans. However, with limited federal and state assistance available, the City
must rely predominantly on local revenues — in the form of water rates and SDCs
-- to fund the projected system costs over the planning period. Debt funding is
used to levelize large capital expenditures over the period that the facilities will
provide service. Rates and SDCs are then used to pay annual debt service costs.
Two tests are run to determine the need for annual rate increases, the cash test
and the coverage test. The cash test compares annual cash resources such as
revenue from existing water rates and miscellaneous revenues with annual cash
needs, including 0&M and debt service. A deficit signals a need to raise rates or
revisit capital phasing.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 11 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
The second test, the coverage test, is only required for utilities that carry
revenue bond debt. The City currently does not have any outstanding revenue
bond debt; however, significant debt funding is anticipated in the financial plan
to meet the projected capital needs. Under the coverage test, annual revenues
at existing rates are compared with standard minimum.coverage requirements.
Bond buyers generally require that system revenues be set to generate a
minimum of 125 percent of annual debt service costs, after 0&M costs have
been paid. This additional revenue, above annual 0&M and debt service is
intended to protect bondholders in the event that revenues/expenses are
less/more than projected. Depending on the local requirements, SDC revenue
may count as revenues for purposes of meeting coverage requirements. For the
purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that the minimum coverage
requirement will be 1.20 (excluding SDCs). As SDCs are a potentially significant
revenue source in both scenarios, coverage ratios with SDCs are well in excess of
1.25. Annual coverage revenue may be set aside to contribute to future debt
service or reduce future debt requirements by cash-funding capital projects.
The utility's fiscal policies also affect the need to raise rates. The City currently
maintains minimum balance policies on the operating and capital funds.
Minimum balances are typically a percentage of the O&M budget or a defined
dollar amount. The Water Fund minimum balance has been set equal to 15% of
O&M with a minimum of$1,000,000. The SDC fund target balance is $100,000
and the CIP fund is set to $50,000. The City does not yet have a bond reserve
but should it issue revenue bonds it will be required to maintain a bond reserve
and the reserve minimum is often tied to the level of annual debt service or a
percentage of the total principal issued. In this analysis we have assumed the
requirement to be 10% of the principal issued. Minimum balances affect the test
calculations in that rates must fund additions to the reserves. Additions may be
required by the reserve being drawn down due to unexpected financial
circumstances or with increasing 0&M, the operating minimum reserve will
increase.
Financial Plan Scenarios Summary
The following tables VII and VIII summarize the key results of each scenario.
The JWC scenario is characterized by reduced water purchase costs and.higher
capital investment resulting in a significant level of debt funding throughout the
planning period. An extension of this analysis through the end of 2021/2022 is
part of the executive summary at the beginning of this document. It shows that
the PDX option water rate increases extend to 2021/2022 making the cumulative
rate need by that fiscal year about 20% higher than the cumulative need in the
JWC option.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 12 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Table VII. Key Scenario Results-MC
Scenario 2002 .2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Summa 2603111 2004[,] 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010. 2011 2012 2013
JWC 10.00% 6.00 12.10% 12.16% 12.13%. 12.12% 12.83% 3.95% 3.95% 3.94% 3.86%
JWC $2.960.469 $213905 149 8233 2158 99 $ Z09OA17 $ 2.276.190 3 2.453,078 S 2.11764 1,889.165 $1 1 640 1259,774
JWC 1404 463 $5.524.465 1D.960.286 7.820.547 .8.470.869 $25.033.996 $30.455.140 $29.032.793 S 22.912.296 3.805.632 $7 905 228
JWC -
16.000.000 21000 000 43.000.000 20.000,000
JWC S 5.783.786 1 000 00$ 1 0 000 1000 000 1000,000 $ 1.000 000 1 000 1.000.000 $ 1000 000 $1000 000 . 1000 000 ijimm --
"
ENVEM
JWC $5.033,044 7 008 524 $14.496.342 100 127.202864 Z 633 $23.936.696 $ 308.000 1289 686 -$2.785.526 150 000
JWC 20.35 21.57 24.18 27.12 30.41 34.09 38.47 39.99 41.57 4320 .44.87
(11 Increases for these years have already been planned and adopted.
Table VIII. Key Scenario Results-PDX
Scenario 2002 2003 2004 2005 2.006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Summa 20031il 2004113 .. 2005 2006 20D7 2008 2009. . 2010 2011 2012 2013
PDX 1 10.00% 6.00% 7.00% 7.0D% .7.56% 7.48% 7.51% 7.73% 7.84% 3.79% 3.76%
PDX 2 980 469 $ 2 650.579 $ Z 711,895 S 2.748.457 $ 2 706 009 $ 2 920.458 3125 00 13 344 506 3 0 503 $4 119 408 1 4,430.913
PDX $ 1 153 000 $ 4,93f 12 $ B 821 125 $ 1.586.393 2.046.1a2
$ Z997.386 $12 24 110 $16.6 a
16 583 204 $16-116-325 1 B 96 36 2 5331 85
PDX -
6.000.000 15 000 000 25 000 000
PDX 5,783j86 $ 1.000,000 1.000.0()o 1.000.000 $ 1 000 D00 $ 1000 000 § 1,000,000 1. 1000 000 $ 1000 000 1
1.000 000 1000 000
PDX 6 284 508 $ 7.296.54 0 $ 8 659 293 $ 9 843 691 11 197,246 $12.026.476 $17.921.194 3 6566,267 16 728127 $ 3 699 933ffilm! $ 938 761.
PDX $ 20.35 $ 21.57 23.08 24.69 26.56 $ 28.55 . 30.69 33.07 35.66 $ 37.01 $ 38.39
III Increases for these years have already been planned and adopted.
Appendix C provides detailed information on each scenario.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 13 of 2.3.
Phone: 425-867-1802
System Development Charges
Introduction
In the 1989 Oregon State legislative session, a bill was passed (ORS
223.297-223.314) that created a uniform framework for the imposition of SDCs
statewide. This legislation, which became effective on July 1, 1991 (with
subsequent amendments), authorizes local governments to assess SDCs for the
following types of capital improvements:
• Drainage and flood control
• Water supply, treatment, and distribution
• Wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal
• Transportation.
• Parks and recreation
Within the framework of the legislative requirements, local governments have
latitude in selecting specific methodological approaches related to the calculation
of SDCs. The general process used to develop SDCs includes the following four
steps:
1. Develop cost basis
2. Calculate cost basis adjustments
s. Develop unit costs
4. Develop SDC rate schedule
Each step is discussed below:
Develop Cost Basis
In Tigard, as in most communities, a portion of the distribution system capacity
needed to serve new development will be met through a combination of existing
available capacity, and additional capacity added by planned system
improvements. For the water supply system the majority of growth capacity will
be met through planned improvements, as the City's current facilities are limited
to groundwater wells.
The reimbursement fee is intended to recover the costs associated with the
growth-related (or available) capacity in the existing system, and the
improvement fee is based on the costs of capacity-increasing future
improvements needed to meet the demands of growth.
System Valuation
Calculation of the reimbursementfee begins with a review of utility fixed asset
records to determine the value of the existing system. The system maybe
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 14 of 23
Phone:425-867-1802
valued based on original cost, book value (original cost less depreciation),
replacement cost, replacement cost less depreciation, or full carrying cost. For
this study, SDCs were calculated under two different valuation options: Book
Value and Original Cost. Each option is described below and presented in Table
IX for major asset categories and by geographic area (for reservoirs and pump
stations.) However, the financial plans presented earlier in this report are based
on implementation of the book value SDCs. The values shown in Table D( are
also net of contributed capital.
Table IX. Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
C.ost`i3asis <: .
Total System Zone 410 Bull Mountain
Original Cost $31,172,501 $4-- ,644,036 $3,175,686
Water Lines 21,054,488 $0 $0
Pump stations 492,624 73,657 418,967
Reservoirs 7,327,100 4,570,379 2,756,721
Supply(Wells/ASR) 480,063 -
Land and Improvements' 623,906 _
Buildings` 79,521
Vehicles&Equipment 1,114,800 -
Book Value $17,323,425 $3,707,349 $1,754,091
Water Lines 10,599,342 $0 $0
Pump stations 202,907 - 202,907
Reservoirs 5,258,533 3,707,349 1,551,184
Supply(Wells/ASR) 459,537 - _
Land and Improvements` 525,588
Buildings` 35,276
Vehicles&Equipment 242,241
*Buildings and land are net of Administration Building
*Water lines are net of contributed capital
Book Value
Book value is defined as the original cost of system assets less accumulated
depreciation; it is an accounting value typically shown in audited financial
statements that follow generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Original
costs are nominal dollar values paid for the assets, and as such do not reflect
changes over time in the value of the dollar. Moreover, book value does not
reflect any change in the value of the asset that may be realized by differences
in construction market conditions, nor does it reflect interest costs (on bonded
debt or in the form of opportunity costs of cash investments). Book value does
reflect the estimated loss in value of assets since construction.
Book value, along with the Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation method, is
recommended by the American Water.Works Association (AWWA) as standard
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 15 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
practice for developing SDCs.l Book value will generally result in the lowest SDC,
compared to the other valuation methods, as it does not recover from new
development the costs associated with depreciation, inflation, or interest. Book
value is the approach currently used in the City's water SDC
methodology to value the existing system. It is also the basis for the
SDCs used in the financial plans presented previously,
Based on the current analysis, the total value of the existing system under the
book value approach is $17,323,425.
Original Cost
Original cost valuation assigns to an asset the nominal dollar value paid at the
time of construction. This valuation does not recognize any depreciation in
system assets since construction; therefore SDCs based on original cost are
higher than SDCs based on book value. The original cost approach does not
recognize any increase in nominal value resulting from inflation or changes in
market conditions, or interest costs. Based on the current analysis, the total
value of the existing system under the book value approach is $31,172,501.
Project Cost Allocations
Calculation of the improvementfee begins with a review of the capital
improvement plan to determine the costs of providing additional capacity to meet
the needs of growth. Some planned projects may provide new facilities that are
needed entirely for growth. In this case, the entire project cost may be eligible
for inclusion in the improvement fee cost basis. Other projects may provide
shared benefits — remedy existing deficiencies and provide additional capacity for
growth. In this second case, the costs may be allocated between existing and
future customers.
For this analysis, improvement costs are allocated between existing and future
customers in proportion to capacity requirements relative to future capacity
needs. Table X shows a summary of the total and growth-related capital
improvements for the system by component (and zone for distribution system
improvements), in 2003 dollars.
' Water Rates and Related Charges,AWWA Manual M26.2nd Edition, Denver 1996.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 16 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Table X. Improvement Fee Basis with ,WC Capital
Capital.ImprovementPlan
Total S tem Zone 410 Bull Mountain
Water Lines (1) 22,890,179 11,151920 11,738,259
Pump stations 4,415 250 541,800 3,873,450
Reservoirs (2) 12,232 500 .2,520,= 9,712,500
Supply(Wells/ASR) 108,085,335
Land and Improvements*
Buildings"
Vehicles&Equipmen(3) 315,000
Total 147,938,264 14,213,720 25;324,209
(1)Includes portion of Water Main Oversizing Program;Excludes Water Main Replacement Program
(2)Does not include Reservoir Evaluation Program or Reservoir#3 abondonment costs
(3)Telemetry system
Table XI. Improvement Fee Basis with PDX Capital
a 4,
,pl a1.Impeoye merltFPdan
Total System tone 410 Bull Mountain
Water Lines (1) 22,8901.79 11,151,920 11738,259
Pump stations 4415,260 541 800 3,873,466
Reservoirs (2) 12 232,500 2,520,000 .9JI1,600
Supply(Wells/ASR) 48,901 850
Land and Improvements"
Buildings'
Vehicles&Equipmen(3) 315 000
Total 89,754,779 14,213,720 25,324,209
(1)Includes portion of Water Main Oversizing Program;Excludes Water Main Replacement Program
(2)Does not include Reservoir Evaluation Program or Reservoir#3 abondonment costs
(3)Telemetry system
For the water supply improvements, for example, the total capacity of the
projects is estimated to be 20 mgd, with existing customers requiring about 14
mgd, and new customers utilizing the remaining 6 mgd. Based on the capacity
requirements, new customers are allocated 30 percent of the costs (6/20).
Under the capacity utilization approach, both existing and future customers pay
for capacity at the same average cost per unit— economies of scale are shared
among all customers.
Adjustments to Cost Basis
According to Oregon law (223.304 (1)):
Reimbursement fees shall be established or modified by an ordinance or
resolution setting forth a methodology that considers:
• The cost of the existing facility or facilities,
• Prior contributions by existing users,
Financial Consulting Solutions Group,Inc. 17 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
• Gifts or grants from federal or state govemment or private persons,
• The value of unused capacity available to future system users,
• Ratemaking principles employed to finance the capital improvements, and
• Other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the
fee.
The objective of the methodology must be that future system users contribute
no more than an "equitable share' of the capital costs of existing facilities.
Although the law relates the above factors specifically to the calculation of the
reimbursement fee, many of the factors may also be applicable to the
determination of the improvement fee. For example, if a future capacity-
increasing improvement is to be grant funded, the methodology should allow for
adjustment of the cost basis.
The reimbursement fee cost basis has been adjusted for developer contributions
totaling about $10 million for waterlines. No grant funds were received for the
existing system; nor are any future grant funds anticipated.
Future water supply investments are likely to be debt funded. When debt
financing is used, it is important to consider how the debt will be repaid -- and to
avoid charging future utility users for the debt- financed facilities both through
SDCs and again through other means (e.g., user charges). The financial plans
developed in this analysis include annual transfers from the SDC fund to the
Water Fund, equal to growth's share of the bond principal. Because SDCs will be
used to retire growth's share of the debt principal (through the life of the bond),
the debt principal costs do not become part of user charge revenue
requirements, and no double-charge occurs. Because the improvement fee cost
basis is limited to facility costs (excluding financing costs), both new and existing
users will pay a portion of financing costs through their rates.
Rates pay for debt service for capital for existing customers. Both existing and
new customers pay for this through rates. As stated above, SDCs pay debt
service principal for expansion. New growth pays the SDCs and therefore the
debt service principal for expansion. Rates pay debt service interest for both
expansion and capital needs for existing customers. Both existing and future
customers pay for this. An evaluation was made as to the net effect of this in
order to consider whether a credit to the SDC was warranted. The comparison
found that existing customers subsidize future customers slightly and that no
SDC credit is warranted.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group,Inc. 18 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Develop Unit Costs
Once the adjusted cost bases have been developed for the reimbursement and
improvement fees, it is necessary to develop the system-wide unit costs of
capacity for use in developing the SDC schedule. The development of the unit
costs requires an analysis of existing and future system capacity/demand. Table
XII shows the capacity assumptions used in the analysis.
Table XII. Capacity Analysis
Ga�aci#y..Aipaly ., .
Total System Zone 410 Bull Mountain
Current Demand(mgd) 13.9 7.8 6.1
Future Demand 28.1 16.17 11.93
Growth Demand 14.2 8:37 5.84
Future Supply Capacity 20,0
Growth Capacity(4k)
Water Unes 51%
Pump stations 52% 49%
Reservoirs 52% 49%
Supply(Wells/ASR) 31%
Land and Improvements' 51%
Buildings' 51%
Vehicles&Equipment 51%
Growth Demand(mgd) 14.2 8.37 584
Growth Supply Capacity 6.1
The integrated nature of water systems complicates the precise estimation of
existing capacity to be utilized by growth, particularly in the distribution system
(as mentioned previously, supply capacity will generally come from future
improvements). The distribution analysis is further complicated by the fact that,
as improvements are made, capacity will shift (e.g., a reservoir currently without
excess capacity may actually serve growth ultimately if part of the existing load
is transferred to a new reservoir). Therefore, in this analysis, both existing
system and future system distribution capacity (and associated costs) are
allocated in proportion to growth's share of the total future system demand. The
basic premise is that both existing and future planned facilities are required to
meet total future system demand, and for reasons stated above, it is difficult to
determine exactly which individual facilities will serve each group (and this will
change some over time based on the reservoir example above). Therefore, an
equitable approach is to allocate total future costs (including existing facilities
and planned improvements) in proportion to each group's share of future
demand.
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 19 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Reimbursement Fee
Unit costs of capacity for the reimbursement fee (under both valuation methods)
are shown in Table XIII.
Table,XIII. Reimbursement Fee Unit Costs
AM
Original Cost Total System Zone 410 Bull Mountain
Water Lines 749,270 na na
Pump stations na 4,555 35,119
Reservoirs na 282,646 231,075
Supply(Wells/ASR) 24,003 na na
Land and Improvements* 22,203 na na
Buildings* 2,830 na na
Vehicles&Equipment 39,673 na na
Net investment per mgd 837,979 281,201 266,193
Net-,Investment per gpd $ 0.84 $ 0.29 $ 0.27
Book Value
Water Lines 377,201 na na
Pump stations na 17,008
Reservoirs na 229,273 130,024
Supply(Wella/ASR) 22,977 na na
Land and Improvements* 18,704 na na
Buildings* 1,255 na na
Vehicles&Equipment 8,621 na na
Net Investment per mgd 428,758 229,273 147,032
Net Investment per gpd $ 0.43 $ 0.23 $ 0.15
The unit costs are developed by multiplying the total cost basis for each
component (from Tables X and XI) by growth's share of capacity, (from Table
XII), and then, dividing by projected growth capacity (also from Table XII).
Improvement Fee
Similarly, for the improvement fee, the improvement costs related to growth are
spread over growth capacity units, to determine the improvement fee unit costs,
as shown in Tables XIV and XV.
Table XIV. Improvement Fee Unit-Costs with ]WC Capital
Total System Zone 410 Bull Mountain
Water Lines 795,140 1.018,299
Pump stations 32,171 281,250
Reservoirs - 149,634 837,744
Supply(Wells/ASR) 5,404,267
Land and Improvements* -
Buildings` -
Vehicles&Equipment 11,210
Net Investment per mgd 5,415,477 976,946 2,137,293
Net Investment per gpd $ 5.42 $ 0.98 $ 2.14
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 20 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Table XV. Improvement Fee Unit Costs with PDX Capital
UnitZosts-.lmro.*I ent
Total System Zone 410 Buil Mountain
Water Lines - 795,140 1,018,299
Pump stations - 32,171 281,250
Reservoirs - 149,634 837,744
Supply(Wells/ASR) 2,495,093
Land and Improvements` -
Buildings' -
Vehicles.&Equipment 11,210
Net Investment per mgd 2,506,302 976,946 2,137,293
Net Investment per gpd $ 2.51 $ 0.98 $ 2.14
Develop SDC Schedule
Water system capacity is generally stated in terms of millions of gallons per day
(mgd). The cost per mgd is then multiplied by the capacity requirements of
typical users based on a standard and uniform schedule. All single family
residential customers may be treated the same, with each dwelling unit charged
based on the capacity requirements of a typical dwelling unit, or differential fees
may be charged based on some attribute of the development (e.g., lot size or
square feet of living space). For nonresidential customers, fees are typically
assessed based on water meter size, or an equivalent dwelling unit basis, where
variables like building size, employees, etc are used to equate potential capacity
demands to that of a typical dwelling unit.
Based on the existing maximum day demands and the number of equivalent 5/8"
X 3/4" meters in the system, the capacity requirement per equivalent meter is 637
gallons per day. Applying the capacity requirements per equivalent meter to the
unit costs of capacity yields the reimbursement and improvement fees. This
analysis is summarized in Table XVI.
Table XVI. Combined SDCs
System-wide Zone 410 Bull Mountain
Reimbursement Fee per ERU
Original Cost $534 $183 $170
Book Value $273 $146 $94
Improvement Fee per ERU
JWC. $3,449 $622 $1,361
PDX $1,596 $622 $1,361
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 21 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
Zone 410 Buil Mountain
JWC PDX JWC PDX
Original Cast $4,788 $2,935 $5,514 $3,681
Book Value $4,490 $2,637 $5,177 $3,324
Current SDC $2,041 $2,763.
Table XVII. SDC Schedule
original Cost
JWC PDX JWC PDX
Meter Size Flow Factor
5/8"x3/4" 1 $4,788 $2,935 $5,514 $3,661
1" 2.5 $11,970 $7,338 $13,785 $9,153
1.5" 5 $23,940 $14,675 $27,570 $18,305
2" 8 $38,304 $23,480 $44,112 $29,288
3" 16 $76,608 $46,960 $88,224 $58,576
4" 25 $119,700 $73,375 $137,850 $91,525
6" 50 $239,400 $146,750 $275,700 $183,050
V. 80 $383,040 $234,800 $441,120 $292,880
10" 115 $550,620 $337,525 $634,110 $421,015
12" 225 $1,077,300 $660,375 $1,240,650 $823,725
Book Value Zone 410 Bull Mountain
JWC PDX JWC PDX
Meter Size Flow Factor
5/8"x3/4" 1 $4,490 $2,637 $5,177 $3,324
1" 2.5 $11,225 $6,593 $12,943 $8,310
1.5" 5 $22,450 $13,185 $25,885 $16,620
2" 8 $35,920 $21,096 $41,416 $26,592
3" 16 $71,840 $42,192 $82,832 $53,184
4" 25 $112,250 $65,925 $129,425 $83,100
6" 50 $224,500 $131,850 $258,850 $166,200
8" 80 $359,200 $210,960 $414,160 $265,920
10" 115 $516,350 $303,255 $595,355 $382,260
12" 225 $1,010,250 $593,325 $1,164,825 $747,900
Recommendations
The two water supply scenarios considered in this analysis differ significantly in
terms of the underlying cost structures. The financial plans developed and
presented in this report are intended to provide the City with a general estimate
of the rate and SDC impacts associated with the different scenarios, to use in
further evaluating the long-term supply options. Once a particular supply option
is selected, the City should refine the financial plan to reflect current available
resources, objectives, and project phasing. In particular there are a number of
financing alternatives the City may want to explore due to the significant capacity
investment anticipated. These include use of multiple debt instruments (e.g.,
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 22 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
general obligation bonds and revenue bonds), and debt structuring, as well as
pursuit of low-interest loans.
In addition, the projected rate increases shown in this report are based on the
best available data and assumptions developed by the City and FCS Group as of
September 2003, with more recent projections of water supply related costs
(capital and 0&M). The City should review the financial plan annually and adjust
the rates as needed to reflect current conditions and assumptions.
Appendices
A. Model Assumptions and Inputs
B. Water Purchase Forecast
C. Financial Plan Tables
D. Rate Schedules and Bills
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. 23 of 23
Phone: 425-867-1802
PROPOSED FY 2004-05 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
December 24,2003
Updates 1-9-04,1-15-04,1-22-04,1-26-04,1-29-04,2-24-04
Project Funding Source Amount
Pavement Major Maintenance Program(PMMP) Street Maintenance Fee $800,000
One of the City's missions is to properly maintain all streets in a perpetual good to excellent condition.
Streets in good to excellent condition are characterized as having good riding quality, drainage, and
appearance. The total annual maintenance cost is four to five time less following a preventative
maintenance strategy than if streets were allowed to deteriorate to poor and failed conditions that would
require major rehabilitation.
To accomplish this task, a variety of minor and major maintenance techniques including pothole repair,
crack sealing, slurry sealing and resurfacing have been applied by the City to provide additional service
life to the streets and to keep them safe and serviceable. Each year, the City monitors the existing street
conditions, identifies streets with minor defects, and recommends maintenance techniques to correct the
problems. Below is the list of streets scheduled to be included in the program-
- 72nd Avenue(Fir to Hunziker Street)
- 72nd Avenue(Spruce to Oak Street)
- 121St Avenue(Ann Street to Springwood Drive)
- Pine Street(69th Avenue to cul-de-sac)
- Park Street(110th to Watkins Avenue)
- Burnham Street(Main Street to Hall Boulevard)
Mapleleaf Street(72nd to 71"Avenue)
Derry Dell Court(Park Street to Watkins Avenue)
James Court(Howard Drive to end)
- Ventura Court(Barbara Lane.to Ventura Drive)
The project list is subject to change due to actual bid proposals submitted at the time the project is
advertised for construction. The lowest submittal bid price could exceed the proposed budget that
requires the City to move some streets from this year's to next year's list.
Traffic Calming Program Gas Tax $10,000
This program provides funding for traffic calming measures Citywide. In the last few years, much of the
funding was used to place speed humps on streets that clearly demonstrated the need for installation of
these traffic-calming devices. A portion of this fund is used on a 50-50 cost sharing basis with residents
for placement of speed humps on streets that do not make the year's list. This year's program includes
installation of
- 2 speed humps on Park Street(between 110th Avenue and Watkins Avenue)
- 1 speed hump on Hawksbeard Street(between 130th Avenue and Summer Lake Drive)
- 1 speed hump on Summerfield Drive(between Meadowbrook and 114th Court)
- 3 speed humps on 100th Avenue(between Kable and Murdock Street)
Other streets may be added to the program depending upon neighborhood interest and the street ranking
in the speed hump criteria rating system.
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 1 of 14
C
1 -
�� � �Amo�fft
ProjectFunding Source
Street Striping Program Gas Tax $20,000
This is an annual program that provides funding for installation of new striping on streets that
demonstrate the need for replacement of existing stripes, pavement markings and pavement markers.
This year's program includes permanent striping between the 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street intersection
and 68th Avenue, 68th Avenue between Hampton Street and Dartmouth Street and short-term striping on
various streets located throughout the City.
Mapleleaf Street(72nd to 716t Avenue) Gas Tax-$70,000
$70,000
This project installs AC pavement on the existing unpaved street and widens the street to a width of 25
feet to match with the existing width of the adjacent segment. New curbs and sidewalks will also be
installed to comply with improvement requirements for a local street Construction of the project
requires funding from two different sources: the State Gas Tax fund for the widening of the street and
the Street Maintenance Fee for placement AC pavement on the existing aggregate base. The total
construction cost is $115,000.
Crosswalk Lights(Hall Blvd at Fanno Creek Gas Tax $65,000
Pathway)
This project is the installation of crossing improvements on Hall Blvd to provide a safe crossing for
Fanno Creek Trail users. The crossing improvements will provide a safe mid-block crossing to a heavy
traveled, two-lane state route with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The lights can be activated by
pushing a button causing the flashing lights to illuminate the walkway.
Crosswalk Light Flashing Beacons(121st Avenue at Gas Tax $18,000
Lynn/Katherine Street)
A pilot program began in FY 1999-2000 to install four crosswalk lighting systems at existing marked
crosswalks in the City. This year's program provides funding to install a pole-mounted flashing light in
each direction of travel for the crosswalk lights that were previously installed at the 121 st Avenue/Lynn-
Katherine Street intersection. This safety enhancement to the existing lighted crosswalk is necessary to
provide more visibility and advance warning to vehicular traffic.
Tiedeman Avenue Railroad Crossings(south of North Gas Tax $28,000
Dakota Street)
This is another joint project between the City and Portland & Western Railroad, Inc. to repair
deteriorated railroad crossings at various locations Citywide. The crossings at Main Street, 72nd Avenue
and North Dakota have been previously repaired through joint efforts with the railroad company. This
project addresses the deteriorated crossings at Tiedeman Avenue. The project will reconstruct
approximately 275 feet of existing aggregate base and AC pavement and adjust the railroad tracks to
match the new pavement. The City will pay for the reconstruction of the roadway approaches. Portland
&Western will manage the project and will pay for all the work related to the adjustment of the tracks.
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 2 of 14
Project Funding�Sour�ce ���Amo�unt
Commercial Street(95th Avenue to Main Street) Gas Tax-$75,000 $166,300
CDBG-$91,300
This project involves a half-street improvement with pedestrian walkway in the Tigard Town Center to
support the commuter rail project. Sidewalks have been previously installed on 95'h Avenue and Lincoln
Avenue. The Troject scope is widening of Commercial Street on one side to provide a sidewalk
connecting 95 Avenue to Main Street at the planned commuter rail station. It includes the realignment
of Commercial Street underneath the Highway 99W over-crossing to provide space for the sidewalk.
This project has been submitted for CDBG funding. If the grant is not approved, the project will not be
implemented.
Sidewalk Improvements Gas Tax $100,000
This is a joint project between the City and Tri-Met to provide pedestrian connections between transit
amenities such as bus stops and key activity centers. It also includes extension of existing sidewalks at
various locations in the City to provide a safe path to school for children.
Main Street/Burnham Street Stop Signs Gas Tax $2,000
Improvements for southbound Main Street at the intersection with Burnham Street involve relocation of
an advanced warning stop sign, elimination of one parking spaceand placement of new pavement
markings. The improvements are necessary to catch public's attention of traffic regulation at the
intersection.
Main Street/Commercial Street Curb Return Gas Tax $8,000
The existing curb return radius at the southeast corner of the Main Street/Commercial Street Intersection
is too small to accommodate wide turn movements by Tri-Met buses from westbound Commercial
Street to northbound Main Street. This project constructs new curb and sidewalk at a larger radius at the
curb return.
McDonald Street(at Highway 99W) Traffic Impact Fee $150,000
This project widens McDonald Street at the intersection with Highway 99W to provide a westbound
right-tum lane into the state highway. The scope of work includes construction of approximately 250
feet of 12-foot wide travel lane, installation of curb, sidewalk and striping, improvements to the storm
drainage system and modification of the existing signal at the intersection to conform to ODOT design
requirements. Right-of-way acquisition at the northeast corner of the intersection is required for
construction of the project.
Hall Boulevard(at McDonald Street)—Right-of-Way Traffic Impact Fee $60,000
Acquisition
The first phase of this project is the project design and acquisition of right-of-way for construction of a
southbound right-tum lane on Hall Boulevard at McDonald Street. The design will be performed
inhouse. Hence, the bulk of the funding is for right-of-way acquisition. In addition to the street
widening, curb and sidewalk will be installed along the new segment of roadway to improve pedestrian
safety. The project is proposed for construction in FY 2005-06.
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 3 of 14
f
�Projle�ct ��������Fu�nding
�Sour�ce ���Amo�unht-'
Walnut Street/Ash Avenue/Scoffins Street Feasibility TIF $50,000
Study
Circulation and capacity deficiencies along Highway 99W require more than intersection improvements
or roadway widening. There are a few options identified in the Tigard Transportation System Plan to
improve intra-city circulation through construction of alternate routes to Highway 99W. The extension
of Walnut Street is one of several options recommended to help resolve the problem. This project
provides a feasibility study on the extension of Walnut Street over Fanno Creek to Ash Avenue then
north to intersect with Scoffins/Hunziker Street. The extension would allow traffic to proceed on
Hunziker Street east to the Tigard Triangle over the proposed future Highway 217 overcrossing to
connect to Hampton Street.
Gaarde Street-Phase 2 Traffic Impact Fee US $200,000
The second phase of the project is the widening of Gaarde Street between 121st Avenue and Highway
99W and the improvement of approximately 1,450 feet of 121st Avenue north of the Gaarde
Street/121st Avenue intersection. Construction of this project began in early 2003 and will be completed
by late summer of 2004. Work completed in FY 2003-04 includes relocation of existing utilities from
overhead to underground, relocation of existing water lines and gas line, installation of drainage and
sanitary sewer systems, construction of retaining walls,installation of curbs and sidewalks,placement of
aggregate base and 1St lift of AC pavement, and installation of a traffic signal and street lights. The
remaining work that includes installation of the final lift and traffic stripes will be completed in FY
2004-05.
121St Avenue(Quail Creek Lane to Tippitt Place) -Traffic Impact Fee-$200,000 $350,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Traffic Impact Fee US-$150,000
121 st Avenue between Quail Creek Lane and Tippitt Place is proposed for widening to the ultimate
width of 44 feet. The complete design identifies additional rights-of-way required for the improvements.
The City TIF Fund and the TTF-Urban Services Fund have been utilized to purchase a portion of the
land acquisition needed for the project. Construction and the remaining rights-of-way acquisition will be
programmed in future budgets.
Walnut Street(116th Avenue to Tiedeman/Fonner Traffic Impact Fee-$100,000
Traffic Impact Fee US-$150,000 $250,000
Street)Right-of-Way Acquisition
Walnut Street between 116th Avenue and the Tiedeman Avenue/Fonner Street intersection is proposed
for widening to its ultimate width of 44 feet. The complete project design identifies partial right-of-way
takings from 35 properties that need to be acquired for the project. The City TIF Fund and the TIF-
Urban Services Fund have been utilized to purchase the rights-of-way. This project is proposed for the
construction to begin in FY 2005-06.
Draft FY 200405 Capital Improvement Program
Page 4 of 14
Project Funding Source Amount
Walnut Street(135e'to 121st Avenue) TIF-$10,000
Underground Utility-$260,000 $1,120,000
Franchise Utilities-$170,000
Sewer Extension-$20,000
Water-$660,000(See Water
System Program)
This MSTIP-3 project prepared by Washington County for Walnut Street between 135th and 121st
Avenue is the last phase of the three-phase street improvement . The first two phases are the
improvement of the Walnut/121st Avenue intersection and the construction of the Walnut/Gaarde Street
intersection. The City agrees to reimburse Washington County for placing existing overhead utilities
underground, upgrading the water system and extending the existing sanitary sewer main as these items
are not included in the scope of work for the County's MSTIP-3 projects. Construction of the project is
scheduled to begin in late summer of 2004 and is expected to be completed by December 2005.
Greenburg Road(Washington Square Drive to TIF-$85,000
Tiedeman Avenue) Federal-$660,000 $745,000
This project improves Greenburg Road from Washington Square Drive to Tiedeman Avenue. The bulk
of the work will be to widen Greenburg Road between the Highway 217 over-crossing and Tiedeman
Avenue to a 5-lane facility. The completed improvements would enhance movement into and out of the
Washington Square Regional Center. The project design and land acquisition are funded through the
Priorities 2000 & 2002 MTIP funds of$660,000 with Tigard providing $85,000 in matching funds. The
total amount of$745,000 reflects the entire amount needed for the project (both federal funding and the
local matching funds). The federal funds for the preliminary engineering work have been obligated. The
City has entered an agreement with Washington County to perform engineering design and right-of-way
acquisition services for the project. This project was submitted for construction funding under the MTIP
Priorities 2004-07 project selection process but was not selected for construction:implementation.
Hall Blvd/Wall St Intersection and Approaches TIF $450,000
The intersection project widens Hall Boulevard along the Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums
frontages and constructs the first 425 feet of Wall Street to provide a common access to Hall Boulevard
for the two developments. To ensure that the intersection project would be designed and constructed
expeditiously, the project was divided into two phases: Phase 1 is the half street improvement of Hall
Boulevard and Phase 2 is the construction of 425 feet of Wall Street at the intersection with Hall
Boulevard. Construction of Phase 1 is nearing completion. Phase 2 is scheduled for construction in the
summer of 2004 after all environmental permits have been obtained.
Bull Mountain/Roshak Road Intersection Traffic Impact Fee-US $150,000
This project widens Bull Mountain Road to add turning lanes at that intersection. The project should
enhance safety by providing safer turning movements. The project includes minor drainage work and
requires some land acquisition to accommodate the widened road. Construction of the project begins in
the spring and should be completed in the summer of 2004.
Wall Street Local Improvement District LID None at this time
This project was initiated in FY 2002-03. The TIF Fund provides a total of$250,000 for engineering
design costs leading to completion of the Preliminary engineer's Report. $100,000 was allocated for FY
2002-03 and $150,000 for FY 2003-04. Any funding for work beyond the Preliminary Engineer's
Report will be provided primarily through the Local Improvement District, if it is formed.
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 5 of 14
. y
2
Project Funding Source Amount
Fanno Creek Trail(Grant to Main Street) Parks Capital Fund-$17,808 $70,000
Oregon Recreation 8t Park Dept
Grant-$52,192
This is part of the Fanno Creek Trail System. This segment connects Main Street to Grant Avenue.
Fanno Creek Trail(Hall Boulevard to proposed Wall Parks Capital Fund=$35,000 $86,486
Street) Regional Trail Program Grant
-$51,486
This project constructs a Fanno Creek Trail segment east of Hall Boulevard crossing Fanno Creek to the
new Library and Wall Street. A pre-fabricated timber bridge will be installed to cross Fanno Creek.
Tree Planting Tree Replacement $50,000
This continues the yearly program to plant neve trees in greenways and parks,remove old and hazardous
trees, and maintain and protect existing trees.
Fanno Creek Park Shelter Parks Capital Fund $50,000
This project installs a shelter and a small parking lot at Fanno Creek Park north of the new.library
building.
Park System Master Plan & System Development Parks Capital Fund $40,000
Charges(SDC)Updates
This project updates the current comprehensive plan and provides a feasibility study for future increase
of system development charges. The study will be performed by a consultant.
Skateboard Park Fundraising $405,000
This project constructs a 15,000 square foot, in-ground skateboard park in the area of City Hall parking
lot approved by the City Council.
Fanno Creek Trail Realignment(Tigard to Tiedeman Parks Capital Fund $10,000
Avenue)
A section of the Fanno Creek trail between Tigard and Tiedeman Avenue is under water for part of the
year and trail users walk through the adjacent wetland mitigation site in order to avoid the standing
water. This project provides an initial study to look into the design—related details and cost to possibly
replace a segment of the asphaltic concrete trail with boardwalk.
r.
4;
Es 3 fid:
ASM' n,
Project Funding Source Amount
Citywide Sewer Extension Program Sanitary Sewer $2,000,000
The Citywide Sewer Extension Program is a long-term program to extend sewers to all developed but
unserved residential areas Citywide. The City uses the formation of reimbursement districts to construct
the sewers. On the average, the City constructs five reimbursement districts a year to provide
Draft FY 200405 Capital Improvement Program
Page 6 of 14
approximately 120 to 130 connections to existing homes. The Commercial Area Sewer Extension
Program is also funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund and offers the same opportunity to commercial
entities that may wish to participate in a reimbursement district for extension of sewer service to a
commercial area. This year's program includes the following proposed districts: O'Mara/Edgewood
Street, 121 s Avenue, 100"/Murdock/Sattler.Street, 117th Avenue and Walnut Street.
Sanitary Sewer Major Maintenance Program Sanitary Sewer $100,000
These funds would be used to contract out sewer repair projects that are beyond the repair capabilities of
the Public Works Department. This program is expected to be a continuing program in future years. The
Sanitary Sewer Major Maintenance Program in FY 2004-05 will include sewer repair projects located at
various locations in the City.
Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Sanitary Sewer $30,000
This yearly program rehabilitates sanitary sewer pipes through installation of new pipes by the bursting
method or installation of cured-in-place pipes inside the existing pipes utilizing the trenchless
construction method.
Benchview Terrace Sanitary Sewer Access Road Sanitary Sewer $40,000
There is an existing maintenance access road that was constructed as a part of the Benchview Estates
project.The roadway is accessed from Greenfield Drive, just south of the intersection at Benchview
Terrace. Approximately 250 feet of this access roadway has been severely eroded by winter rainfall
over the last several years. This project will include repair and/or reconstruction of the roadway.
Project Funding Source Amount
Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program Storm Sewer $80,000
This program addresses minor storm drainage problems requiring more than normal maintenance effort.
The Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program in FY 2004-05 includes projects located at various
locations in the City.
Storm Drain Pipe Rehabilitation Storm Sewer $100,000
The Storm Drain Pipe Rehabilitation Program was initiated in FY 2001-02. Since then, approximately
1,500 feet of existing pipes have been rehabilitated using a trenchless construction method that prevents
damage to the existing pavement. The City's television inspection reports identify 5,000 feet of storm
drain pipes that are seriously damaged and need to be repaired or replaced. This project continues the
program by rehabilitating 1,000 feet of pipes through installation of new pipes by bursting method or
installation of cured-in-place pipes inside the existing pipes utilizing the trenchless construction method.
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 7 of 14
a
Gaarde Street Phase 2 Wetland Mitigation Storm Sewer $10,000
This, project provides mitigation measures that were required by the DSL, the Corps of Engineers and
CWS to offset the loss of 0.009 acres of wetland associated with the widening of Gaarde Street. The
offsite mitigation area is along the Fanno Creek Greenway immediately north of Tigard Street. The
vegetated enhancement area is located along the Fanno Creek trail south of the Burnham Business Park.
The project will provide initial vegetation management and plant installation during the summer and fall
of 2004.
Derry Dell Creek Wetland &Vegetated Corridor Storm Sewer $79000
Enhancement
This project enhances wetland areas and vegetated corridor approximately 750 feet along Derry Dell
Creek at 110 `Avenue. The enhancement is required by the DSL,the Corps of Engineers, and CWS due
to impacts created by the installation of a Sanitary Sewer pipe across the creek. This project also
includes first year monitoring and report in addition to mitigation plantings and invasive species control.
Summer Lake Culvert Storm Sewer $209000
Summer Lake Park is located along Winter Lake Drive, near Shore Drive. There is an existing
pedestrian pathway system that leads from the parking area into the park and also to a separate area of
the park. A natural stream crosses this area from Winter Lake Drive to Summer Lake. Where the
pathways cross this stream, either pedestrian bridges or culverts are used. The first set of culverts, east
of Winter Lake Drive, consists of three 12-inch culverts. However, these culverts are not sized large
enough to handle the winter runoff. Therefore, this project will include replacement of these culverts
with larger diameter culverts.
Bonanza Way—Erosion Control Storm Sewer $10,000
There are storm drainage lines in Bonanza Way and Riverwood Lane that converge into one pipe and
discharge into the Tualatin River. The common pipe crosses a pedestrian pathway that follows the river
greenway and then outfalls at the river bank. The outfall has severely eroded and is in need of repair
and/or reconstruction. It is anticipated that this project will be started in Fiscal Year 04/05 and will be
completed during FY 05-06.
Summer Lake Improvements Water Quality/Quantity $10,000
This continues the flow monitoring of Summer Lake. The City has a contract with the County
Watermaster to perform the flow-monitoring work.
Clean Water Services Master Plan Water Quality/Quantity $150,000
As a result of the master plan, individual plans were prepared to restore the beneficial uses of streams in
each watershed within the Tualatin Basin. The Fanno Creek Watershed Plan provides the plan for the
Tigard area. The beneficial uses the plan is expected to protect include: the survival of resident fish an
aquatic life, salmonid spawning and rearing, water-contact recreation, aesthetics, fishing, and water
supply. The plan accomplishes this by identifying prioritized projects and other management actions
that will improve water quality and flood management.
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 8 of 14
Water Quality Enhancement water Quality/Quantity $50,000
This project reconstructs the existing water quality pond to a new swale or extended dry pond on Steve
Street west of 81st Avenue. Also included in the project is the enhancement of the water quality facility
on Greensward Lane between. 88th Avenue and Hall Boulevard by planting the facility with native
grasses,trees and shrubs, and installation of a temporary irrigations system.
Fanno Creek Streambank Restoration water Quality/Quantity $50,000
Streambank stabilization at three sites along Fanno Creek including non-native vegetation removal, and
native vegetation plantings is proposed. Site areas include 8 acres at the new library site, 5 acres at
Bonita Park and 7 acres at Fanno Creek Park. These are degraded areas that will be restored to improve
water quality in the creek and reduce damage caused by flooding. The project will also include
additional funding for natural area restoration throughgrants from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement
Board, Metro and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
WQF 012 (88h & Greensward Lane Water QuaUri/Quantihy $20,000
WQF 030(815'& Steve St.
Two Water Quality Facility Enhancement Projects— This is a continuation of the City's Water Quality
Facility enhancement program as identified in the City's five-year plan.
Project Funding Source Amount
Water Service Installations water $30,000
This is another long-term program for the department. Each year the City adds new customers to the
system through individual building permits or additional water services. Customers apply for a new
water service, .and Public Works staff installs the service line and will set the meter (see Meter
Installations line item).
Defective Meter Replacements (11/2—inch&larger) Water $40,000
This has been one of the long-term projects for the Public Works department. The large meter
replacement program is for the systematic testing, repair and/or replacement of all 1 Y2-inch and larger
water meters. Meters of this size have developed problems where actual water flows are inaccurately
measured; most of the time, the volume of water is under-reported. The result is that water customers
could be using more water than they are being assessed. Testing and or replacement of these water
meters have proven to make financial sense in that the investment is recouped by the additional
revenues received due to accurate meters.
Defective Meter Replacements (Smaller sizes) water $15,000
This has been another one of the long-term projects for the Public Works department and is similar to
the program for 1 %z-inch meter replacements. But this program is for the smaller meters. Meters of this
size have also developed problems where actual water flows are inaccurately measured; most of the
time, the volume of water is under-reported. The result is that water customers could be using more
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 9of14
Project Funding Source Amount
water than they are being assessed. Testing and or replacement of these water meters have proven to
make financial sense in that the investment is recouped by the additional revenues received due to
accurate meters.
Meter Installations Water $60,000
This on-going program ties in with the Water Service Installations program. When new water
customers, or existing customers who need an additional water service, apply for a new service, Public
Works staff install the service line and will set the new meter.
Fire Hydrant Installations (Replacement/Upgrade) `'Fate' $25,000
The City is in the process of replacing older, two-port fire hydrants because it has been shown that
Tualatin Valley Fire &Rescue (TVFR) can not pull adequate flows from them in emergency situations.
TVFR equipment works best with 5 Y4-inch ports; these older hydrants have smaller ports. The'newer,
three-port models have 5 Y4-inch ports. FY 04/05 will be the last year of hydrant replacements. After
that, the City will budget approximately $10,000 per year to pay for repair or replacement of any
hydrants that are damaged in auto accidents,or to pay for new hydrants in infill situations.
2-inch Service Line Replacements Water $25,000
This on-going program replaces existing 2-inch galvanized service lines with new copper service lines.
There has been an observed increase in leaks on galvanized service lines, which results in an overall
water loss to the City's system. This program is vital in order to reduce the amount of lost water, and
therefore revenue, to the City. It is anticipated that this will be the last year where this program will be
needed.
Gaarde Street Phase 2 Water Relocate Water $50,000
This project is in coordination with the Gaarde Street Phase II roadway improvement project. Due to
vertical adjustments to the roadway,portions of existing water lines in the roadway had to be relocated.
Much of this work will be completed in FY 03-04,but work will continue into FY 04-05.
Water Main Installations Water $78,750
This on-going program is based on the needs identified in the "Water Distribution System Hydraulic
Study — May 2000", and is for the routine replacement of leaking, damaged and older water mains
throughout the water system. In most cases the existing mains have adequate capacity and will be
replaced with the same diameter water mains. This program is also for the completion of loops in the
system to maintain hydraulic efficiencies.
Security Vulnerability Evaluation and Upgrades Water $100,000
This is an EPA-mandated program to evaluate and mitigate security vulnerabilities in the City's water
system. Sensitive facilities would include reservoirs, pump stations, wells, and other facilities where
access is limited. The study has evaluated the City's current security measures and has recommended
certain improvements that should be implemented over the next two years. It is anticipated that this
project will be completed during FY 05-06.
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 10 of 14
Project Funding Source Amount
Telemetry Upgrade Water $87,500
The existing telemetry system is out of date and the software and hardware are no longer supported by
the manufacturer or local representatives. The City has also experienced failures of controllers at
various sites due to the aging of the overall system. Replacement of controllers can take up to three
weeks, which is not adequate for the City's need to have continuous monitoring ability of the water
system. The upgrade process will enable the City to have up to date technology that is more user
friendly, and to explore modes of communication other than the phone line system currently used.
Water Line Replacement—SW Walnut(135th to Water-$330,000 $660,000
121st Ave) Water SDC-$330,000
This project is in conjunction with the Walnut Street improvements to be jointly completed by
Washington County and the City over the next two fiscal years. The "Water Distribution Hydraulic
Study— May 2000" recommended that a new 24-inch water line be completed between 121" Avenue
and Barrows Road. In addition, a separate 16-inch water line is needed approximately between 132nd
Avenue and Walnut Lane. The roadway improvement project makes it timely for the installation of
these transmission.water lines. The funding of the water improvements will be roughly 50% from the
Water Fund and 50% from the Water SDC fund.
Reservoir Structural Repairs Water $70 000
The City has identified that certain repairs should be made to the following reservoirs: 10 MG reservoir
at Bull Mountain Road/125d' Avenue; Reservoir No. 4 (1.0 MG), north of Beef Bend Road on 122nd
Avenue; Reservoir No. 3 (2.5 MG), south of Walnut Street on 135d'Avenue; and the Hi-Tor reservoirs.
Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection: New 8-inch Water $50,000
Water Line
This project is in conjunction with the roadway CIP and will include installation of a new 12-inch water
line that will eventually be extended with Wall Street.
Water Main Line Oversizing Water SDC $200,000
During the course of the year the City may find the need to upsize a planned pipeline through a new
development, thus accomplishing an identified capital improvement as listed in the "Water Distribution
System Hydraulic Study—May 2000."
Secure 550-Foot Reservoir No.2 Site Water SDC $550,000
The City has been working with the Tigard Tualatin School District (TTSD) with regard to locating the
550-foot Reservoir No. 2 on their Alberta Rider school site. Part of the proposed agreement with TTSD
is to grant a credit against permit costs up to $200,000. It is anticipated that TTSD will use up
approximately$50,000 of the credit in FY 03/04, with the remainder to be used in FY 04/05.
550-Foot Service Zone Improvements Reservoir No.2 Water CIP $3,9109000
(Construction) '
This reservoir is proposed to be located on the Tigard Tualatin School District (TTSD) site for the
Alberta Rider Elementary School. Constructing this reservoir will eliminate some of the demand
currently supplied by the 713-Foot pressure zone. Supply to the reservoir will be provided through the
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 11 of 14
Project Funding Source Amount
transfer pump station upgrade and transmission piping projects separately listed.
IOMG Transfer Pump Station Upgrade Water CIP $2,1759000
The existing transfer pump station, located on the,10 MG reservoir site at Bull Mountain Road/125t'
Avenue, serves both the 550-foot and 713-foot service zones. The Water Distribution System Hydraulic
Study identified a need to replace this pump station with one that would provide a higher pumping
capacity to both service zones. Construction of this improvement increases pumping capacity from
2,000 gpm to 3,300 gpm for the 713-foot service zone. The pump station will also provide 3,900 gpm to
the 550-Foot Zone Reservoir No. 2 listed previously. Along with the piping improvements listed below,
the existing pump station at the Canterbury site(Pump Station No. 1)will be abandoned.
Canterbury Supply Lines Water CIP $1,047,300
Part of the overall improvements to the 550-foot service zone includes increased transmission capacity
to the Canterbury Hill area from the new reservoir and transfer pump station upgrade listed above. The
transmission line will be 18-inch diameter and is proposed to be extended from the transfer pump station
site easterly in Bull. Mountain Road, north along Highway 99W, across Highway 99W and easterly in
Canterbury Lane. This improvement will allow abandonment of Pump Station No. 1 at the City's
Canterbury, site.
Reservoir No.2 Supply Lines Water CIP $6089400
This improvement is needed for existing and future needs in both transmission and distribution to serve
the new reservoir and pump station upgrade projects listed above. A new line will be constructed
between the new transfer pump station and Reservoir No. 2, ranging in size from 18-inch to 24-inch.
The line will extend in 125th Avenue, Bull Mountain Road, and Terraview Drive (Arlington Ridge
subdivision). Coordination with existing residents in Arlington Ridge will be important, as Terraview
Drive is a fully-improved local residential street.
12-Inch Canterbury Loop Water CIP $688,200
The final component of the 550-foot service zone improvements is a looped system around the
Canterbury Hill area. This improvement will create better fire flow for. the area, provide for future
growth and remove dead end water quality problems. The 12-inch loop will be extended roughly as
follows: from the intersection at Canterbury Lane/109th, easterly in Canterbury Lane to 103'd Avenue;
north in 103`t Avenue to Inez Street; east in Inez Street to 100'b Avenue; south in 100th Avenue to
Murdock Street; west in Murdock Street to 109'b Avenue; north in 109th Avenue to Canterbury Lane.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery(ASR): COT- Water CIP $660,000
2R—(Production Well) & COT-3T(Test
well)
Tigard has been using ASR Well No. 1 for the last full year and has had positive results. That well is
capable of a distribution capacity of 1.0 MGD during the summer months. The City also completed an
ASR expansion study which indicated that the City could achieve a total of 5 to 6 MGD from ASR wells
placed around the City's aquifer. ASR provides the ability to inject water during the winter months in
the aquifer(when water is plentiful), store the water in the aquifer for a few months, and then withdraw
that same water in the summer months to help manage higher water demands. ASR Well No. 2 is
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital-Improvement Program
Page 12 of 14
Project Funding Source Amount
scheduled for this year and will be drilled at the 10 MG reservoir site at Bull Mountain Road/125th
Avenue. It will also have a pumping capacity of 1.0 MGD. The scope of work for this project will also
include the drilling of a test well for a proposed ASR Well No. 3.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery(ASR): Well Water CIP $900,000
No.3—Production Well
Assuming the test well for ASR Well No. 3 is positive, the City will expand the test well into a full
production well during FY 2004-05. The location of this well is yet to be determined, but is generally
targeted for the vicinity of the Eagles View subdivision,north of Beef Bend Road, near 141st Avenue. It
is anticipated that this well will also have a pumping capacity of 1.0 MGD.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery(ASR): Well Water CIP $210,000
No.4—Test Well
Each fiscal year, the ASR program will include the drilling of one production well and the drilling of
one test well. It is planned that the contractor who drills the production well for ASR No. 3 will also
drill the test well for ASR No. 4. The goal for each ASR well is to achieve a minimum pumping
capacity of 1.0 MGD.
Feasibility Report, Phase H—Scoggins Dam Water CIP $3899490
Raise
As part of obtaining a long-term water source for the Tigard service area, the City is partnering with
other Joint Water Commission (JWC) owners for the Scoggins Dam Raise feasibility report. Raising
the dam would increase the storage volume of Hagg Lake and would therefore provide more capacity
for JWC member cities.
JWC Raw Water Pipeline Pre-Design Water CIP $578,000
This project will include a pipe connection between the JWC treatment plant and the headwork at
Scoggins Dam. At present, water from Hagg Lake makes its way to the treatment plant via an open
channel waterway and the Tualatin River. There are two problems with the existing system. First, the
JWC treatment plant must submit a request to the Scoggins Dam control authority to release more water
into the open channel system as the demand rises. But the treatment plant can only handle a certain
volume of water at the intake; any extra water bypasses the plant and continues down the river.
Therefore, there is a loss in efficiency. Second, it is estimated that 20% of the water from Scoggins
Dam is lost to evaporation prior to reaching the treatment plant. This raw water pipeline will allow the
JWC to control how much water is released from the dam into the pipe so that only the flow rate needed
by the treatment plant will be released. In addition, the pipeline will eliminate the water loss due to
evaporation and will provide more capacity to the JWC system.
Sain Creek Tunnel Study: JWC Joint Project Water CIP $180,000
The Tualatin Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study(WSFS) outlined a number of projects that could be
constructed to increase the water supply capacity for Cities in Washington'County. The Sain Creek
Tunnel project is one that could be constructed in conjunction with the proposed Scoggins Dam raise at
Henry Hagg Lake. The tunnel would be constructed from the Tualatin River to the mouth of Sain Creek
at Hagg Lake, covering a distance of approximately three miles through the coast range. The tunnel
would take water from the Tualatin River during the heavy winter rains and divert it to Hagg Lake. It is
estimated that the tunnel will help fill Hagg Lake if the dam were raised, and would effectively increase
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 13 of 14
Project Funding Source Amount
the watershed by approximately two-thirds. This will help to reduce the number of years that the lake
may not fill,thereby increasing the reliability of this source.
Project Funding Source Amount
Library Construction Facility.Fund $1,650,000
This funding continues the new Library construction through FY 2004-05. The library project is
expected to be completed by August 2004.
Administration,Library& City Hall Building Facility Fund $100,000
Remodel
This project provides layout drawings for the remodel of the Administration, Library & City Hall
buildings.
HVAC Replacement Facility Fund $280,000
This sets aside funding for the replacement of the existing HVAC systems in the Water and the old
Library buildings. .
Seismic Upgrades Facility Fund $100,000
This project provides funding to upgrade the existing Library, the City Hall and the Senior Center
buildings to meet the seismological standard requirements.
Office Renovations Facility Fund $1,150,000
This provides funding for remodel construction of office spaces in the Administration,Library, and City
Hall buildings.
Water Building Remodel Facility Fund 1,000,000
This provides funding for remodel construction of office spaces for the Water Building.
iAenglvanniomposed ap12004-05Vy 2004.05 cip dec 24,2003.doc
Draft FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program
Page 14 of 14
ill j
I
I
i
uZff
I