Loading...
06/14/2000 - Packet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area W", Wednesday, June 14, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order Motion to call meeting to order 2. Roll Call and Introductions Staff to take roll call 3. Approval of Minutes—May 10, 2000 Motion from Board for minute approval 4. CH2M Hill Water Study —Mike Miller/Art Griffith (20 minutes) Presentation on System Development Charge. Recommendation from Board on acceptance of new SDC charges. 5. Water Conservation Update—Kim Swan(10 minutes) Presentation and update on water conservation. 6. Leak policy discussion—Mike Miller(IS minutes) Distribute information on current leak policy—discussion on process and procedures 7. Adoption of Water Master Plan—Mike Miller(10 minutes) Recommendation of Board on adoption of the Water Master Plan 8. Informational Items Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed • News articles (3)Tigard Times, Oregonian • Letter from TVWD regarding renewal of letter of agreement for sale of water to Tigard • 2000 Seasonal Water Supply Contingency Plan—City of Portland • Resolution 00-27—Water rate increase 9. Public Comments Call for any comments from public 10. Non Agenda Items Call for any non-agenda items from Board Members. Next meeting date July 12th 11. Adjournment—Approximate time 7.00 p.m. Motion for adjournment • Light dinner will be served at 5:15 p.m. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d), (e),(f)&(h)to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,current and pending litigation issues and to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential;therefore nothing frown this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session,but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. r Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes May 10 2000 Members Present- Jan Drangsholt, Patrick Carroll, Gretchen Buehner, and Paul Hunt SLaffPresent- Ed Wegner, Kathy Kaatz, Mike Miller Visitors: Chris Uber, Phil Smith, Norm Penner, David Strauss, Beverly Froude, Henrietta Cochrun, Emily(Oregonian), Brian Moore 1, Ca//to Order 2, Roll Call and rnowductions 3. Approval ofminufes This was skipped over as minutes were not finished. Ed Wegner announced that at 6:30 p.m. the Joint Water Commission would be making their presentation. Others may be coming to attend that portion of the meeting. 4w Murray,Smith&Associates—Mike Mi/lerlMns Uber Mike Miller introduced Chris Uber of MSA, who was there to present the final draft of the Hydraulic Study and CIP for the water system. Some adjustments have been made to the CIP because of project scheduling and funding. Mr. Uber gave a detailed presentation on the master plan and reviewed the technical points at the April IWB meeting; he would not be going over those points again. He wanted rather to talk about the questions and comments that came up at that meeting as well as review the changes and. additional analyses that have been completed since that meeting. He also wanted to cover water conservation in more detail. He expressed appreciation for staff assistance. At the last meeting a question about water loss was raised. This enables comparison of the water purchased with the water sold to find out what water is leaving the system unmetered. In the water industry it becomes a problem when that water loss goes over 15°x6. The money lost from uncollected revenues begins to add up to a substantial amount and would justify a leak protection program. The water service area losses have been anywhere from 3% to 14°x6, with recent maintained levels of approximately 4%, with an overall average of 7%, which is very good. Therefore, no recommendation was being made for a leak protection program. Intergovernmental Water Board 1 May 10,2000 The CIP table has been updated. This information is in the Executive Summary Table, as well as Section 6. Urban Reserves was also an issue that came up previously. In order to enhance the document, there is a conceptual plan of Urban Areas 47 and 49. Tigard's participation in water conservation on regional and local levels is included in the text. Recommendations are at the end of the Executive Summary. One suggestion would be to implement water rate modifications and financial incentives to further water conservation efforts. Final recommendations in the plan: Formally adopt the water study Adopt the prioritized recommended Capital Improvement Plan • Develop and adopt the financial-plan Review and update this plan within five to seven years (Things change, i.e., urban reserve areas, development patterns, long-term water supply) Mr. Uber concluded his summary of the study and opened the meeting for questions. Commissioner Jan Drangsholt questioned whether the $1.5 million average was within the budget. Mr. Wegner stated that it was within the proposed budget financial package if we would go with a 10% increase. We have delayed until after Ballot Initiative 47 goes into effect It is not close to coming within the 3%. In order to make the 3%, it would be necessary to go into reserves for about $500,000 per year. There are a number of improvements to the water system that are related to roadway improvements. Some will depend on elections and bond measures. Should those not happen,then you will not need to expend those funds to improve the water system, so there may be some flexibility there. Nothing further will be known until November. November will have the road bond, as well as Initiative 47, and the recreation district on the ballot. Commissioner Gretchen Buehner questioned whether alternative analyses have been completed should Initiative 47 pass. Mr. Uber stated that specific analysis has not been completed. A lot of flexibility. however, has been incorporated in how to make improvements. The ability to move projects around is there. Commissioner Buehner stated that campaigning to educate the voters was necessary. She requested an analysis of perhaps the next three years as it applies specifically with the water district showing both scenarios that most voters would be able to relate to and, therefore, better educate them in their decision making about which way they would vote? Mr. Uber indicated that could easily be accomplished. Mike Miller added that the water rate model CH2M Hill was doing could be presented showing scenarios and what impact different revenues will have. Intergovernmental Water Board 2 May 10,2000 Councilman Hunt cautioned that care should be taken in how it is presented. It could easily leave the impression with the uneducated voter that if Initiative 47 does not pass there are other means where we can get by and it won't effect us that much. Commissioner Buehner stated it is clear in presentations that it is necessary to build the two reservoirs within the timeline indicated. Under the guidelines of Initiative 47 that would restrict us and leave insufficient revenue. Mr. Miller stated that the reservoirs would be SDC funded. It's too soon to predict how the Initiative would effect everything. It could mean rates could only be raised 3% without going to a vote. If a vote failed,then we would have to look at public/private partnerships to do the constructions. There would also have to be some sort of restriction on the growth on Bull Mountain because we will not have fire-fighting capability. Mr. Wegner said that SDC's might be the easiest to pass in an election because residents want growth paid for by developers and growth movements. The school has purchased the reservoir site property and perhaps we will have to pay over 20 years to the school district. We will have to learn to do business in a different way. We have been fortunate in the past to have sufficient funds and be able to move money around. to cover projects_. That may not be possible in the future. Mr. Wegner suggested adoption of the plan within the next two months. The IGA states the CIP decision needs to be approved by each of the four entities individually and then the Master Plan needs to be approved by the IWB. Ed Wegner, Mike Miller and Chris Uber can attend meetings if wanted. The Executive Summary is a brief encapsulation of the report; the spreadsheet is included as Table B3 of the Executive Summary. Tigard Public Works will provide copies of this information for their Council meetings. Mr. Wegner will contact Roel Lundquist regarding the City of Durham's agenda. (Agenda Item 5 will be skipped over at this time.) 6. Infonpati ona/Items • News Articles— Kathy Kaatz briefly explained the various newspaper articles included in the member's packets. • Portland Water Bureau Water Quality Advisory Committee Minutes covering the Thanksgiving Turbidity issue at Bull Run. • Brief discussion of article in today's paper about pumping Bull Run water into wellfields for additional storage. David Strauss reported that in the article, the engineer for the Portland Water Bureau states it would not be a substitute for a third Bull Run Dam or another source such as a filtration plant on the Willamette. Mr. Wegner stated he would fax the article out tomorrow. Intergovernmental Water Board 3 May 10;2000 a 7. Meeting Meals Paul Hunt reported on the Tigard City Council Meering that the City Manager, Bill Monahan,announced they would not be serving meals to the staff at future meetings. Meals would continue to be served to the council members. Mr. Hunt felt the staff should be provided meals as well. The Council felt that if staff would not be allowed to take meals,they would not eat either. A brief discussion about the meal issue took place. Commissioner Patrick Carroll motioned that IWB relay to the City Council that it is the opinion that meals should continue to be provided to both staff and members. Commissioner Buehner seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously voted in favor. A brief recess was taken to allow set up time for EES's presentation. 5. Joint Water Commission Presentation Mr. Wegner gave introductions on the council members from the involved city entities; he then introduced EES (Economic Engineering Services)who is the consulting firm for the Joint Water Commission. In December the IWB commissioned through Hillsboro to be included in a Facilities Plan and Cost Allocation Study to see about the potential of becoming a perspective member of the JWC. Joe Thompson, PW Director in Hillsboro, wanted to be excused from the meeting. He had an emergency come up and was unable to attend. His absence was in no means any indication of them not wanting us to become a member. Randy Goff, Vice President of EES, introduced himself and others of his staff before beginning his presentation on the status of the project. He began by giving a brief outline of the topics he wanted to cover in the presentation. • Overview of the JWC, including background and facilities in the JWC • Draft Capital Improvement Plan • Options with regards to purchasing into the JWC • Water sales agreements • Basic CIP for JWC augmented with adding Tigard Water System • Financial options • Ownership • Direction of purchasing with commitment to move the process toward ownership providing for additional stored water History— In 1976 Hillsboro and Forest Grove formed the JWC. In 1979 Beaverton became a member and in 1994 TVWD joined the JWC. The JWC is an ORS.190 organization operating under several agreements, i.e., water treatment plan agreement, reservoir agreement,transmission agreement, etc. JWCFaci/ides—status was pointed out on display map. Projected water demands were also presented. Intergovernmental Water Board 4 May 10,2000 CIP Plan -Options Indicate with and without Tigard, gravity only,and pumping/gravity combination (Handout). The addition of raw water pipeline and water treatment plant to keep up with demands was presented. Environmental issues are expected in raising Scoggins Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation and Mining has said they are out of the business of raising and building dams, but they would support us doing that in the political process. The real issue will be whether they will have agreements in place to serve cheap"irrigation water to that area. The protected nature of the Bull Run makes it more restrictive than Scoggins Dam. Scoggins presently has access to it for boaters. There are other benefits to Scoggins other than a drinking water supply. Arguments about benefits to recreational users and fish passage can be made that are very beneficial to the overall idea of raising Scoggins, in addition to being able to serve a number of agencies that are in the need a water supply. Commissioner Buehner asked if an analysis had been made of the impact the extensions to various UGB areas would have and how It would effect the irrigation portion of the money. That analysis has not been made. Mr. Goff stated that the water managers support the concept of raising Scoggins Dam, but detailed analysis has not been made. He thinks that would have to be part of an update of the Regional Water Supply Plan. Discussion of water storage continued with references to the displayed maps and graphs. A summary of what the private development would entail was then presented. The fiat round of enhancements will include the water treatment plant along with building the Cooper Mountain Reservoir. Both these enhancements will happen regardless of what Tigard Water System does. The next phase of enhancements would focus on the raw water side and the development of the Scoggins Reservoir(7-10 years) in combination with a second round of enhancements to the water treatment plant. Mr. Wegner reported that he and Bill Monahan have met with the City Manager and Public Works Director of Hillsboro who also act as General Manager and Staff person for the]WC and discussed the need for a more severe time line. EES continued with the last part of their summary, which is raw water including the pipeline. The intake would have to be enhanced. Commissioner Buehner questioned whether the current transmission line could handle the increase of water. Commissioner Drangshoit asked what happened to the water that is not used by the irrigators. EES explained that there is an exemption protecting water rights; they have to show use for a five year period, otherwise they lose a portion of their own protecting. Intergovernmental Water Board 5 May 10,2000 Paul Hunt asked when the JWC would need to know which way Tigard Wafter System will go so that they could proceed with their plans. It was explained that the JWC has their own intemal needs in order to meet the needs of their current partners. Tigard's addition would accelerate those plans somewhat. Tigard would only represent 1/8 of the overall demand. The CIP will happen with or without Tigard's participation. Commissioner Carroll stated it seemed that the most critical item on the entire list is the raw water issue. It is also one item the JWC cannot guarantee. Commissioner Buehner said she thought the JWCs bureaucratic entity was quite cumbersome because of all the different partners and because of the multiple partnerships it makes it more difficult to move efficiently. She questioned how much longer they would be in the process of decision making. It is critical that before you can do the technical part,the administrative portion needs to be in process. Mr. Goff stated that if the City of Tigard comes in,there would need to be certain conditions. The JWC is currently looking at this as a surplus water sales agreement. JWC wants to have Tigard as a long term owner but cannot commit to that without the raw water issue. Another option would be to put cash up front into the process with the option to become a longterm owner or accept the buy back provision. Surplus water sales are just a utility base rate setting process. His opinion is that JWC operates an efficient operation. In Mr. Goffs opinion the conditional issue is raw water. The agreement requires ownership interest if raw water is obtained. One of the conditions on JWC's part has to be a commitment to move the process forward in an accelerated basis. One major partner already does not have enough raw water storage. Commissioner Buehner asked about the expansion of the UGB. She wanted to know how their expansions are feeding into the planning in terms of what the JWC needs are going to be. Mr. Goff stated he believed they were part of the demand forecast numbers for the City of Hillsboro and incorporated into the demand forecast master plan. Commissioner Carroll asked what it would take to get the Scoggins Reservoir upgrade to become an on-the-table, staff directed project. Mr. Goff responded that the permitting process needed to be started: Mr. Wegner indicated there was a need to make a move soon. It should be made a conditional part of any water sales agreement that was entered into with between Tigard Water System and JWC. If there was to be cash up front,there would be no peaking and the buy back provisions would be part of the agreement. Mr. Wegner summarized the presentation in a directional way. It was his opinion that there should be a continued effort to pursue the JWC, put Scoggins Dam raising high on the list,and look at purchasing water with a buy back agreement. There will be a need for two contracts to purchase water until the dam is raised. Intergovemmenter Water Board 6 May 10,2000 Mr. Goff will begin to put some numbers together and bring that information back to report to the Commission for further direction. Mr. Wegner also indicated that he and Mr. Monahan have been invited to attend the JWC meetings on a regular basis. There was a discussion as to whether the Board needed to attend. 8. Public Comments—None 9. Non Agenda Items Commissioner Buehner referred to the last IWB meeting where several rate payers requested amendments to their bills due to leaks. Since than meeting she had a similar experience with a geyser coming from her water meter. She called the Water Department and they were out within 20 minutes. The service she received was excellent and she wanted to make a commendation to the Department. She said there has been much criticism about the system and she wanted it to be known that she got great service and wanted to say"Thank you". Next meeting scheduled for June 14, 2000. Mr. Wegner wanted it to be known that the rete increase was presented to the City Council. It will be on the agenda for the May 23 meeting. The effective date will be changed from June 1 to July 1. USA will also have a small (2.5°x6) increase. All billings will go out with the new rates July 1. It will be advertised in the OREGONIAN and TIGARD TIMES through the City Recorders Office as a public input before the resolution is done. 10. Adjournment Commissioner Drangsholt motioned for adjournment of the meeting; Paul Hunt seconded the motion. Unanimous approval for dismissal was at 7:50 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board 7 May 10,2000 MEMORANDUM T0: Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Informational Items DATE: June 14, 2000 Attached are some informational items that will be distributed or discussed at the meeting on June 14th if time allows. • News articles Oregonian— May 15;'2000 Brochure on drinking water violates rules, complaint says Oregonian— May 17, 2000 Tualatin voters say no to drinking from Willamette Tigard Times—May 18, 2000 Tigard weighs its water options • Resolution 00-27 —Water rate increase • TVWD Letter dated May 24, 2000 regarding the renewal of letter of agreement regarding sale of water to the City of Tigard. Our ten-year contract with TVWD has a five- (5) year clause with the City of Portland approval. After five years, Portland stated they would agree to a review and evaluate the last five-year extension. Also attached is the response letter from the Portland Water Bureau. • 2000 seasonal water supply contingency plan —attached is the draft seasonal supply contingency plan from the City of Portland Water Bureau. This is a draft and will be presented to the Portland City Council in June. Again, this year they propose using the Columbia Southshore Wellfields. It will be interesting how the Portland City Council handles this, with pressure from the Bull Run Advocates. • City of Portland — Peaking Factor Information for Summer 2000 Kathy\info items 6-14 Brochure.on.drinkinq water violates rules, complaint says TUALATIN—Citizens for Safe Water sent a complaint last Fri- day to the secretary of state's of- fice concerning a brochure about drinking water produced by the Willamette Water Supply Agency. The brochure was sent about a week ago to Tualatin residents - who are being asked to decide by Tuesday whether to support as much as$5.5 million in bonds to help finance a water treatment plant along the Willamette River in Wilsonville. The citizen's group says the brochure's timing,content and audience make it political in na- ture and violate a state statute prohibiting political activity by public employees during their work time. The Willamette Water Supply Agency is a coalition of seven mu- nicipal water suppliers,including Tigard,Tualatin,Sherwood and the Tualatin Valley Water District. "The Willamette Water Supply Agency and its executive director used public funds—taxpayer dollars—to influence the out- c,me of the Tualatin election," :o d the letter written by residents Kathleen and Robert Newcomb. Project engineers say that troated Willamette River water ex- ct:ads federal drinking standards. Members of Citizens for Safe Water contend that Willamette x�iter is unsafe to drink and that federal standards are too lax. Tualatin voters say no to drinking from Willamette participation,with a slight majority West Linn library measure of voters favoring the expansion. has a slight edge but In Sherwood, partial returns showed 70 percent of voters ap- Perhaps not enough turnout proving Measure 34-12 to expand the City Council from five mem- By JANET GOETZE bets to seven. AND AIMEE GREEN THE OREGONIAN In Yamhill County,Lo 62, of McMinnville has been Tualatin residents roundly said county commissioner for 24 of their!"- no Tuesday to a proposal to tap the past 26 years and was unopposW,,I�:_� Willamette River for d6nldng in the Democratic primary. L water,and in Yarnhill Couty,voters 46,of Newberg led the Republican,,,, picked Republican Leslie Lewisof If P slate by a 5-1 ratio over second-'... Newberg to face incumbent Dem- place Marjie Ehrey,58,of Dundee, ocrat Ted Lopuszynski for county with Deborah Bartolotti Sumner, commissioner in November. 47, of Newberg running a distant The Tualatin City Council initial- third. ly voted to approve using the Wil- lamette River. Measure 34-11 Yarnhill County voters retained. three-term limitations for the sher.17 would have allowed the city - 7' to Put iff,treasurer,surveyor and clerk ai�' $5.5 million in bonds toward a well as the county commissioners, water-treatment Plant that W11son- defeating a measure to change the ville is building. limits by a ratio of 10-to-7. Partial returns showed the mea- sure failing 3-to-I.Citizens for Safe Incumbent Treasurer Nancy Water,a group opposing the mea- Reed of McMinnville was leading sure, contended the water challenger Roger Heller, 51, of wouldn't be safe for human use. McMinnville by a 5-1 ratio with Jim "It v',ias an awful burden to fight Schmauder,58,of Dayton,trailing. against the whole City Council," Newberg voters were defeating a 1 said Kathy Newcomb of Citizens four-year, local-option tax of$1.4 for Safe Water. "It was an uphill million to pay for more firefighters battle for us, but it was clear that by about an 8-7 ratio.They also ap- people are just totally opposed to peared to be turning down a four- drinking from the Willamette." year,local-option tax of nearly$1.8 In West Linn, Measure 3-73, a million for police officers by fewer $3.9 million expansion of the U- than 100 votes. brary was struggling to get the 50 In Lafayette, voters defeated a percent turnout required by the $1.06 million,five-year levy for ad- state double-majority law. Incom- ditional police service by a 2-1 ra-,;-z plete returns showed 49 percent tio. TT ■ The Times Tigardweighs its water options BY JENNIFER BENT water board is made up of representa- the same thing" interest that raising the darn is likely, Of the Times fives from Tigard,King City,Durham If Tigard were serious about join- but getting everybody to commit to it '• and the Tigard Water District. ing the commission, the. Seoggins is a whole other story. If they don't TIGARD— Since public contro- The board is also considering a Reservoir would have to be raised for raise the dam we won't become a versy muddied the Willamette River second option of partnering with the additional storage of raw water.With partner." as a future drinking water option for South Fork Water Board, which now Tigard's participation in the project, Tigard has also commissioned an Tigard, two other choices have sur- brings drinking water from the Engineering Services consultants engineering study along with the faced–-ho:h of which would brin iv Clackamas River to West Linn and estimate a ballpark cost of$320 rnil- South Fork board to determine w:cat water from other area rivers. Oregon City. Tigard, Lake Oswego lion over the next 40 years, with plant expansions and pipeline One is a possible partnership with and the North Clackamas County Tigard being responsible for approxi- improvements would be needed,how the Joint Water Commission, which Water Commission would become mately$60 million of that. much they would cost and how to get draws water from the Trask and ' the three new partners in the South The intergovernmental water the water to Tieard. It is expected to Tualatin rivers and from the Scoggin Fork agency if they join. board members directed staff to send be finished in December. Reservoir at Hagg Lake. It serves "After our election failed or how- a letter to the joint water commission If Lake Oswego decided not to Beaverton, Hillsboro, Forest Grove ever you want to look at it, the conn- manager outlining what the city of join the South Fork partnership, and the Tualatin Valley Water District, cil took that vote to heart and decided Tigard"would like to see"in order to Tigard would not be able to use the which in tum serves Tigard residents to not put the Willamette option on participate. transmission lines already in place north of Greenburg Road and the ballot in the immediate future;' "The IWB said they're willing to there. Highway 217. said Tigard Public Utility Manager look at it, but the question is,what is "The direction of our council has Last week. Joint Water Mike Miller. "We postponed a deci- the likelihood of expanding always been ownership (of a water Commission consultants presented sion to look at other options because Scoggin?"said Miller."If they started source)," said Miller. "They want the the Intergovernmental Water Board the joint commission said this would today they'd be finished in 2007, but ability to actually have control so with a potential plan of how to pro- be great time for Tigard to join there. they don't know when they want to we're not having the big city telling vide service and what it would take So, they included us in their planning start or if they want to start.The con- us what we'll be paying. Both of for Tigard to become a member. The effort. The South Fork board is doing sultants are saying there's enough these options would give us that" L=-D TIGARD, OR QON RESOLUTION NO. .77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, INCREASING RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES FOR WATER AND WATER RELATED SERVICES. WHEREAS, Section 12.10.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides that fees and charges for water and water related services be established by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the current water rates are those established by Resolution No. 93-67 as amended , by Resolution Nos. 96-02, 96-55 and 96-58; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the existing water rates are insufficient to pay all capital, operations, maintenance and administrative costs of the water system and that a rate increase is therefore needed;now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD RESOLVES THAT: SECTION l: The customer charge established by Section 2 of Resolution No. 96-58 is increased to $3.66 per bimonthly period per account for all customer classes and meter sizes. SECTION 2: The booster charge for areas served by booster pumps established by Section 3 of Resolution No. 96-58 is increased to $3.22 per bimonthly period per account. SECTION 3: Water usage charges established by Section 4 of Resolution No. 96-58 are increased as set forth in this section. Water usage charges shall be charged for each 100 cubic feet of water and are established for the various customer classes as follows: Residential $1.35 Multi-Family $1.33 Commercial $1.57 Industrial $1.30 Irrigation $1.67 vo- RESOLUTION NO. Page 1 SECTION 4: The installation fees applicable to the Size of Meter Charge schedule and Bull Mountain Meter Rates established in Section 1 of Resolution No. 96-55 for meters 2" and under are increased to the amount set forth on the following table. Installation fees for meters 3" or greater are not changed: The total charges shall be increased to include the SDC amount plus the installation fees. Size of Meter Charge Schedule: Meter Size Installation Fees 5/8" x 3/4" $334.15 1;1 $587.10 $854.90 291 $1,014.55 SECTION 5: The Fire Service Connection fee established by Section 1(a)(H) of Resolution No. 93-67 is increased to: Fee$1,287.50 per Fire Service Tap+ 12% Fee based on Construction Costs. SECTION 6: The Fire Rates (Sprinklers) established by Section 1(b)(H) of Resolution No. 93- 67 are increased to the amounts set forth in this Section. The Fire Rates (Sprinklers) will be based on the size of the service going into the building or vault: $15.45 per month—6" or smaller; $20.60 per month—8" or larger. SECTION 7: The charge for turning water off and on when water service is discontinued for non-payment of bill established by Section lof Resolution No. 96-02 is increased to: $25.75 during business hours; $36.05 after hours and on Holidays and Weekends. DO RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 SECTION 8: The rate for temporary use of a Fire Hydrant established by Section 2 of Resolution No. 93-67 is increased to $25.75 for hook-up service, plus $25.75 per month for continued use, in addition to the rates established by Section 4 of this resolution. SECTION 9: All rate changes included in this resolution will be effective beginning July 1, 2000. PASSED: By UnQni micas vote of all Council members .present after being read number and title only, this day of , 2000. Catherine Wheatley, City Record APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day o , 2000. yor—City of Ti rd Approved as to form: V 4iiiy Attorney `�Q,ca �3 acx�a Date RESOLUTION NO. 27 Page 3 1 TualatznValley Water District i850 SW 170th Ave.•P.O.Box 745•Beaverton,Oregon 97075.503/642-1511 -FAX:503/649-2733 May 24, 2000 Mike Rosenberger, Administrator City of Portland Bureau of Waterworks 1120 SW 5h Ave-. Portland, OR 97204 97204-1926 Re: Renewal of Letter of Agreement Regarding the Sale of Water to the City of Tigard Dear Mike, On August 25, 1995,the City of Portland, via letter, approved the sale of water from the Bull Run System via the Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD) to the City of Tigard. Condition No. 3 of that letter stated that the agreement was for only five years with Portland agreeing to review and evaluate a second five-year period. If your review were positive the agreement would be extended. The City of Tigard and TVWD respectively request that the City of Portland undertake this review for the purposes of allowing an additional five-year term. All other conditions remain the same. Tigard and TVWD understand that this letter may be modified based on the current negotiations of our 25-year contract. We appreciate your review of this matter. Should you have any questions, please call either Ed or myself. Sincerel , ZgZry E. DiLoreto Ed Wegner, City of Tigard General Manager Director of Public Works Letter to Rosenberger Sale of water to ?-t.'U(i o�T1.wo Erik Sten, Commissioner 44 00 CITY OF Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator 1120 S.W. 5th Avenue _ z PORTLAND! OREG0N Portland, Oregon 97204-1974 Information(503) 823-7404 =—= Fax(503) 823-6133 BUREAU OF WATER WORKS TDD (503) 823-6868 1861 June 1, 2000 Mr. Greg DiLoreto Administrator Tualatin Valley Water District PO Box 745 Beaverton OR 97075 Mr. Ed Wegner Maintenance Services Director City of Tigard 12800 SW Ash Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Dear Greg and Ed, In August 1995 Portland approved the sale of water by TVWD to Tigard. The terms agreed upon then will continue except the end date will be December 2004 (end of TVWD Water sales contract) or when new contracts are signed. Portland, TVWD and Tigard continue to agree to the following: 1. The interests of other parties to the Washington County Supply Line (WCSL) agreement are not addressed in the TVWD/Tigard agreement, but TVWD has informed Raleigh Water District and the City of Tualatin of the details of the agreement. Contacts at both Raleigh Water District and the City of Tualatin say that they,have no concerns about the agreement as long as TVWD insures that water flows and pressure to them are not materially effected. If sales to Tigard have a negative impact on the operations, pressure, or capacity of these entities Portland will be held harmless. 2. By approving this agreement Portland is in no way approving any deviations from the terms of either the.25 year Agreements or the WCSL Agreement. Portland intends to protect its rights under both of those agreements despite contrary terms, if any, in the TVWD/Tigard agreement. . 3, Approval of this agreement does not set a precedent for either TVWD or.other 25 year contract holders to sell water without prior written approval from Portland. June 1, 2000 Page 2 4. Water that is metered/sold by Portland to TVWD will be considered TVWD water. There will be no adjustments to reflect actual use by Tigard. This is particularly important concerning peak day/hour demand. Peak read data will not be changed in consideration of Tigard use. Portland recommends that Tigard continue demand management activities and participate in regional groups such as the Conservation Coalition. 5. The maximum day demand sold to Tigard is six(6) mgd. TVWD will report to Portland the amount of water sold to Tigard. This will be reported monthly and recorded on a daily basis if possible. Sincerely, Michael F. Rosenberger, Administrator Cc: Jeanne LeJeune Bob Rieck Anne Conway DRAFT 2000 SEASONAL WATER SUPPLY AUGMENTATION AND CONTINGENCY PLAN CITY OF PORTLAND BUREAU OF WATER WORKS 1. OVERVIEW The Portland Bureau of Water Works(Bureau)has prepared seasonal water supply augmentation and contingency plans each year since the 1992 water shortage. The plans provide a comprehensive strategy for augmenting the City of Portland's baseline resources if needed during the peak demand season(summer and early fall). An interdisciplinary team of Bureau star,with input from wholesale customer representatives,have prepared the plans based on up-to-date supply and demand information, analysis of resource options, and policy direction from the Portland City Council. The following report outlines the Bureau's proposed plan for managing water supplies during the 2000 peak season. The Bureau is circulating this draft plan report to a set of internal and'external stakeholders for review and comment. Stakeholders include the City Council, Water Managers,regulatory agencies, large water users(including landscape and nursery representatives),and environmental organizations. The report will be revised and then submitted to the City Council for consideration in June 2000. 2. ASSESSMENT OF PEAK SEASON DEMAND AND SUPPLY RESOURCES Statistical Assessment of Needs In late winter and early spring of each year,the Bureau evaluates the potential need for Bull Run supply during the upcoming summer peak demand season. The Bureau monitors precipitation, snowpack,and streamflow,and assesses current and projected demands on the system. The population supplied by the City's water system during the peak season(June, July, August and September)of 2000 is estimated at about 838,500 (including retail and wholesale customers and accounting for Tualatin Valley Water District off-loads). In the average weather year,the Bureau estimates that peak season daily average water demand would be about 140 million gallons per day(MGD). (Note: For 2000,the Bureau used an econometric demand model rather than the Artificial Neural Network(ANN) model used in previous years. The econometric model,also used recently for infrastructure. master planning purposes, indicates a lower average demand(140 MGD)compared to the Draft: 05/09/00 1 average demand (153 MGD)provided in the 1999 plan. This difference in estimates of ' the average demand is most likely caused by a difference in the model characteristics rather than a trend in demand. Actual 1999 average peak season demand was 144 MGD.) The Water Bureau uses statistical models to estimate the likelihood that in any given year Bull Run supply might need to be supplemented to meet peak season demand. Figure 1 depicts this type of analysis, and indicates that there is about a 10 percent chance that 0-6 billion gallons (BG)could be needed to augment streamflow and usable reservoir storage in the Bull Run water system. Figure 1—Likelihood that Bull Run Storage Will Need to be Supplemented to Meet - Peak Demand(based on historical supply conditions and projected 2000 demands) Storage Required(BG) 16 14 12 10. Max(numUsable Storage(102 SQ 8 6 4 2 0 .. ..... . .. ...... ..... . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6xceedence Probability(Perces Figure 1 provides an indication of potential need generally,but should not be viewed as a supply/demand forecast for the upcoming summer. The supply components are based on an analysis of the range of historical supply conditions and do not reflect weather forecasts for the 2000 summer season. In addition,the demand component, although updated,represents a range of possible historical weather conditions and does not attempt to project how demand might respond to actual weather as it occurs. Drawdown Scenario Analysis To evaluate the potential supply needs for a specific year,the Bureau uses a modeling tool that generates graphs like those depicted in Figure 2. This tool combines a physically based precipitation-runoff model(that projects reservoir inflows)with an econometric regression model(that projects system demands). This analysis takes into account weather forecasts,population estimates and historical information on supply, Draft: 05/09/00 2 Figure.2:2000 Drawdown Projection As of May.2 Usable Storage In Bull Run Reservoirs(Wal) 11 10 - 9 - Cod-M Forecast: 8 - Actual Storage(bold) DrawdcAn Ends 28 Aug 7 - 6 - Incorporates do nst wn releases 5 - Does not include any groundwater use 4 . Does not include any release from Bull Run Lake Median Forecast: Drawdown Ends 11-W 3 - 2 - USABLE STORAGE(10.2 Bgal in Bull Run Reservoirs) 1 0 Normal Supply Depletion Line -1 Mm-Dry Forte -2 Drawdavm Eads 13-Kbv -3 NEED FOR CONTINGENCY RESOURCES(See Table 1) -5 -6 -7 - 1-Apr 1-May i-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Od 1-Nov 1-Dec Wan ,Draft: 05109/00 3 climate, and demand. With this model the Bureau also incorporates 30-and 90-day weather forecasts starting in the spring season. Figure 2 incorporates a 90-day weather forecast(to July 30,2000), but relies on historic climatological information to predict when reservoir refill might occur. As the summer season proceeds;actual weather and water supply/demand information is collected and new weather forecast information becomes available. This information is used to update the drawdown graph depicted in Figure 2 throughout the peak season. The Bureau uses updated versions of Figure 2 to make operation decisions(e.g., when and how to add supply from baseline or contingency resources). The vertical axis in Figure 2 is the volume of supply. The horizontal axis is time(by month over the course of the calendar year). The Normal Supply Depletion Line shows the point at which usable storage in the two reservoirs equals zero. The distance of a plotted line above the Depletion Line indicates the amount of routine usable storage.in the Bull Run reservoirs(10.2 billion gallons when the reservoirs are full). This routine usable storage is currently defined as the amount available in the reservoirs above elevations of 960 feet for Reservoir 1 and 843 feet for Reservoir 2. The distance of a plotted line below the Depletion Line represents the amount of water(or demand reduction including curtailment)that would be needed to augment the Bull Run supply to meet peak season demand. By showing three possible scenarios,Figure 2 illustrates the uncertainty of the various forecasts. The middle line shows the"median"or most likely water supply use situation based on current information. The Cool-Wet scenario line depicts how much water would be needed if the summer were unusually wet and cool. The Warm-Dry scenario shows water needs if the summer is unusually dry and hot. Both of the extreme scenarios have about a 7.5 percent chance of being either wetter/cooler or hotter/drier than indicated by their respective graph lines. The most likely scenario indicates that the Bull Run reservoirs are likely to begin drawing down in early to mid-July. This forecast is based on historical supply and preliminary weather information(through July 30). It is also likely that about 4.5 billion gallons of Bull Run storage will be remaining when the reservoirs begin to refill in the fall. The Warm-Dry.line indicates that if the summer turns out to be long,hot,and dry,there would there would be a need to provide a small amount of additional supply(about 1 billion gallons)to augment reservoir storage and streamflows in Bull Run. Resources available to meet this need are described in Section 3. The Bureau's reservoir drawdown forecasts(as shown in Figure 2) include experimental releases of water from the Bull Run reservoirs into the lower Bull Run River. Information collected during these releases will be used to help identify and evaluate the Bureau's long-term Endangered Species Act and Clean.Water Act compliance options. The total volume of the releases during the drawdown period is anticipated to be about 1.5 BG. Draft: 05/09/00 4 3. 2000 BASELINE AND SEASONAL CONTINGENCY RESOURCES The following section of this report outlines the baseline and contingency resources the Bureau will use, or could use,to meet peak season demand in 2000. Available resources are shown in Table 1. This table reflects conservative assumptions to ensure that the Bureau can manage even extreme supply shortage situations. For example,the hypothetical duration of the drawdown period shown in Table 1 is 151 days. Based on historic information,the drawdown period should be shorter than 151 days in about 95 percent of the years. In addition,the hypothetical drawdown date shown in the table is June 1. Early modeling efforts project that drawdown this year is likely to start in early to mid-July,which is fairly typical. The Bureau's summer strategy incorporates the use of"baseline resources,"namely,the Bull Run water system(primary),the Columbia South Shore Wellfield(supplemental), seasonal wholesale demand offloads,and ongoing water conservation.The Bureau will manage these.resources to meet water demand and provide multiple benefits as described in Section 4 of this report. Based on current demand and supply projections, available baseline resources should be more than sufficient to meet peak season demand,even in a hot,dry summer. In a more extreme supply shortfall situation, contingency resources provide an added"cushion"of reliability for Portland water customers. The resource options are described below. With the exception of Columbia South Shore wells and Bull Run Lake (Increment 41), all of the baseline resources are incorporated into the forecast shown in Figure 2. A. Baseline Resources Demand Management/Conservation Water savings from"naturally occurring conservation"and current conservation programs are embedded in the demand forecasts. (Naturally occurring conservation is the reduction in water use resulting from water efficient plumbing fixture regulations.) To date,the Bureau has determined that per capita water demand is about eight percent lower than it would have been without conservation,based on pre-1992 demand trends(a savings of approx.12 MGD or 1.8 BG over a 151 day drawdown season). Draft: 05/09/00 5 Table 1. Portland Water System Baseline and Seasonal Contingency Resource Availability for Peak Season 2000 I.� ate "Sn �ap�e'�li ofIJse ",r'~�., .:ofe` tia�l�Peak'Season ::. ;Pi�fential;iJse�1'eriod`= <Seasona W li lyra'; ] •,:, .+i,'-:� ^:s.aA..fga,.;:�,-s-F•s'--"..J4,.-ra•.x,: _�>. . mss.," m'' " ":. .:. 00esourceN ;•.: oiiiin $G. Duration :1',:tlays; A ;�, .;,:�.• =: -� .� _ <r e:1;-;.June�l O.ct:29) Baseline_ Resources ■ Conservation Incorporated into NA Duration demand forecast ■ Bull Run -streamflow 35-125 MGD 7.5 BG(median) Duration -Res. 1 and 2 NA 10.2 BG(usable strg.) Duration BR Lake Incr.91 to 30 MGD 0.3—0.7 BG 10-23 days elev.3,165' (depending on starting (permit does not allow lake surface elevation) releases before July 15) ■ Seasonal wholesale Incorporated into NA Duration demand offloads demand forecast (TVWD,PVRWD, Lake Oswego) ■ Columbia South Shore wells Grp A:1,3,5,6, 35.5-47.5 MGD(90 days) 3.2-4.3 BG(90 days) See rate and volume 10,11,13,16,19 11.5-17.5 MGD(61 add'I 0.7-1.0 BG(61 add'I specifications days) days) -Grp B: 12,18,26,29 18.5 MGD 2.8 BG Duration Contingency-Tier 1 ■ Clack.River offload 1.0 MGD 0.15 BG Duration via Lake Oswego (less 20 hottest days) ■ Clack.River intertie 4.5.MGD 0.7 BG Duration w/CRW • Voluntary Curtail. 11 MGD 1.0 BG 8/1-10/29(90 days) (5 MGD after Nov. I) ■ BR Lake Increment #2—to elev.3,152' 30 MGD 1.8 BG 60 days ■ TVWD wells offload 2.5 MGD 0.4 BG Duration • Sherwood wells 02 MGD 0.03 BG Duration offload (less 20 hottest days) Contingency—Tier 2 ■ Col.S.Shore wells- 17.6 MGD 2.6 BG 'Duration Grp C:Pkrose 2&3; 7,8,14,32(17 offline) ■ BR Lake Increment 30 MGD 1.1 BG 37 days. #3—to elev.3,143' ■ Mandatory Curtail. 36 MGD(18 MGD after 2.1 BG 9/1-10/29 Nov. 1) ■ BR Res.2(bel. 843') unspecified unspecified late season Draft: 05/09/00 6 The Water Bureau sponsors many conservation activities as an individual utility and as an active member of the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition. (Note: In March 2000 the Regional Water Providers Consortium voted to merge with the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition. The merger will officially take place on July 1,2000. Hereafter, in this report,the Coalition is referred to as the Consortium) Bureau programs include a radio campaign and retrofit of the Benson Bubbler fountains. The Bureau's BIG program(Business,Industry and Government) also continues to work with large non-residential customers to reduce their overall water use. Highlights of Bureau- and Consortium-sponsored conservation programs in place for this spring and summer 2000 include: ■ Water-wise landscape workshops with local nurseries: topics include soil preparation;right plant,right place;native plants;and turf care. (March through October) ■ Low water use plant identification pilot project with a local nursery (year- round) ■ Summer media campaign targeting wise summer water use(multi-media) (July and August) ■ Landscape audits for high water use residential customers(continued and enhanced from 1997- 1999)(April through July) ■ Education/outreach(e.g.,Madison High School service learning project, Metro Zoo Roar Faire,Earth Day Celebration) ■ Pilot large landscape audits for institutional,commercial and industrial customers(April—June) ■ Cooling tower workshops(May) Water Supply Bull Run ■ Bull Run streamflow—median 7.5 BG over the course of a drawdown season ■ Bull Run Reservoirs'1 and 2 — 10.2 BG usable storage Dam 2 Construction Projects The Bureau has scheduled several maintenance/construction projects at Dam 2 during the 2000 summer season.These projects include lining the spillway approach canal.to reduce leakage through the adjacent hillside, upgrading the Headworks intake,and overhauling mechanical equipment in the Powerhouse. These projects will temporarily complicate operation of facilities at Dam 2, Draft: 05/09/00 7 but they-have been scheduled to avoid impacts on supply storage. The likelihood is very low that the Bureau would need to release watdr out of Reservoir 2(other than what would already occur to deliver water to the conduits to meet customer demand)to provide the reservoir water levels needed to accomplish the construction projects. ■ Bull Run Lake Increment#1 (to 3,165' elevation)—0.3-0.7 BG Use of this increment retains an 85% likelihood that the lake will refill to full pool(at least 3,174') in time for cutthroat trout spawning season in the subsequent spring. Permit conditions prohibit any releases from the lake before July 15. Bull Run Lake Use During 1999 The Bureau released 0.4 BG of water from Bull Run Lake during summer 1999. The release was not for supply purposes;rather it was used to simulate flow and temperature conditions that could result from a hypothetical third dam in the upper watershed. Water temperature data was collected and will be used to evaluate long-term ESA and CWA compliance options. As predicted, the lake refilled to 3,174 feet elevation(full pool)by mid-December. Seasonal Wholesale Demand Offloads Seasonal wholesale demand offloads in baseline water supply resources include Powell Valley Road Water District wells (2.0 MGD),Tualatin Valley Water District connection to the Joint Water Commission(9-12 MGD), and Tigard offloads to Lake Oswego (1.5 MGD). These offloads are accounted for in the Bureau's demand forecasts. Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD)off-loads this year are influenced by completing construction of a pipeline that will allow water from the Joint Water Commission(JWC)to feed TVWD's terminal storage. When the connection is activated in mid-July 2000,TVWD will increase the amount they normally take from JWC from 4 to 6 MGD (summer 1999)to 9 to.12 MGD (summer 2000). Construction is underway(but will not be completed this season) on another pipeline that will further increase the flows that TVWD can,take from the JWC. Columbia South Shore Wellfield The Group A and B wells available during the 2000 peak season provide 6.7- 8.1 BG total capacity(less if the 20%blend ratio is maintained over the drawdown period). Draft: 05/09/00 8 Offline Wells Approximately 11.5 MGD of capacity in the wellfield will not be available from May to October 2000. Wells 2,4, 9 and 15 will be offline for maintenance. Given the current supply and demand forecasts,this.short-term loss of capacity is not expected to cause any supply constraints during the 2000 summer season. B. Seasonal Contingency Resources Two categories of contingency resources are presented in Table 1 and described below. Tier 1 contingency resources are simpler and less costly to use than Tier 2 contingency resources,and are tbus assigned a higher priority for use. In an actual situation,the Bureau will consider"real-time" issues, constraints,and opportunities in selecting the appropriate combination of resources to meet identified needs. Tier 1 Contingency Resources "Tier 1"resources include using system interconnections with other water utilities to add water to,or"off-load"demand from,the water system. Up to about 0.85 BG of offset supply would be available from the Clackamas River through existing interconnections with Clackamas River Water and the City of Lake Oswego. Several wells(TVWD/Sherwood)might also be available to provide water(0.43 BG) in a shortage situation. Another important Tier 1 contingency resource is Bull Run Lake Increment#2. The Bureau can obtain about 1.8 BG by releasing water from the lake to a surface elevation of 3,152'. Limiting the drawdown to 3,152' provides 90-95%chance that the lake will refill to 3,165' the following spring,which ensures that resident fish can access certain lake tributaries for spawning. In a very hot and dry summer, it may be necessary and appropriate to ask customers to voluntarily reduce or"curtail"their water use. Issuing voluntary curtailment messages informs customers of a water short situation and provides them the opportunity to avoid higher water bills and help protect the environment. The Bureau can intensify its"wise water use"message to fit the circumstances. The Bureau estimates that about 1 BG of water savings could be obtained through voluntary curtailment,however the amount of savings would vary depending on the timing and intensity of the messages. Because media messages are not limited by utility service area boundaries, it is important to coordinate the delivery of curtailment messages with other Portland area water providers and stakeholders. Draft: 05/09/00 9 Tier 2 Contingency Resources The "menu"of Tier 2 Contingency Resources includes the following options: pumping specified wells in the Columbia South Shore, using Bull Run Lake Increment#3,imposing mandatory curtailment measures, and drawing Bull Run Reservoir#2 down below established water quality related elevation targets. Although Tier 2 resources are more complex and costly to use than Tier 1 resources,they provide critical flexibility to respond to an extreme supply shortage or emergency situation. Group C wells could provide up to about 2.6 BG during the peak season. Using these wells poses water quality challenges that complicate system operation. The Bureau has,however, successfully pumped these wells when recent winter flooding and landslide events temporarily limited the availability of Bull Run water.The Water Bureau is exploring various capital and operational improvements-to address water quality issues and allow these wells to be moved into the baseline resource category. Using Bull Run Lake Increment#3 would involve drawing the lake down to an elevation of 3,143' to provide up to about 1 BG of additional supply. Use of the lake to this level would trigger federal permit conditions requiring expensive mitigation measures to protect fish and wildlife habitat. In an extreme water shortage,the City could require water use curtailment by establishing an emergency ordinance. The City would prohibit certain water use practices(e.g.,lawn watering,car washing)as specified by the ordinance. The City established such an ordinance in the summer of 1992 (when use of the Columbia South Shore Wellfield was restricted). Mandatory curtailment can cause substantial inconvenience for a broad range of customers. For certain business sectors (e.g., landscape and nursery),mandatory curtailment can also cause significant economic hardship. If necessary,the Water Bureau could draw Bull Run reservoirs 1 and 2 down below target elevations. However,because the Bull Run system is not filtered, extensive reservoir drawdown poses a risk of exceeding federal.turbidity standards. Draft: 05/09/00 10 4. MEETING MUL'T'IPLE OBJECTIVES The Water Bureau has designed this strategy to meet key objectives including: Promoting water use efficiency ■ Maintaining high water supply reliability ■ Optimizing water quality.in the water system and in the Bull Run River ■ Contributing to threatened and endangered fish species recovery efforts ■ Managing costs Promoting Water Use Efficiency This year,in addition to the peak season wise water use campaign(described above)and ongoing conservation programs,the Bureau is continuing work on tracking and measuring conservation water savings. As an active member of the Regional Water Providers Consortium,the Bureau has helped develop a conservation program tracking and measurement strategy for the region. Seven Consortium members have provided production and consumption data so far.This project will allow the city and the region to track demand trends,assess the effectiveness of individual programs, and estimate future demand reductions associated.with naturally occurring or programmatic conservation. A regional water conservation workplan was also adopted recently and will be implemented this summer.Programs are consistent with past Coalition programs and focus on education and awareness,including landscaping workshops,property manager workshops and trade ally workshops.The 2000 work program is a regional step toward meeting the conservation water savings targets in the Regional Water Supply Plan. Maintaining High Water Supply Reliability and Optimizing Water Quality in the System Preliminary supply forecasts indicate an adequate supply of water this year to meet projected peak season demand. The Bureau is prepared to supplement Bull Run supply, if needed,by pumping groundwater and blending it with Bull Run supply at low to moderate levels (10 to 30 MGD)during July and August. Pumping groundwater early in the drawdown season would contribute to supply reliability(including peak days or multi-day events)while helping the Bureau to maintain a blend ratio target of up to 20% groundwater to 80%or more of surface water. Maintaining this blend ratio would minimize impacts on water quality sensitive customers, aesthetic effects, and other customer inconveniences associated with water quality fluctuations in the system. (Note: The Bureau will consider actual supply conditions and weather forecasts in determining if and when to begin blending groundwater.) Draft: 05/09/00 11 + e Environmental Stewardship-Fish Recovery and Water Quality in the Bull Run River Just as the Bull Run River is a tributaryof the larger Sandy River Basin, so too is the Water Bureau one entity in a larger system of entities with ESA responsibilities and interests in the basin. The Bureau will continue working to develop productive partnerships with regulatory agencies and others including National Marine Fisheries Service,Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,Portland General Electric,the U.S. Forest Service,Metro,and the Sandy.River Basin Watershed Council. The Bureau's goal is to work collaboratively to recover ESA-listed fish species and to reduce summer season water temperatures in the lower Bull Run River. The Bureau anticipates a three phase process: Phase 1 (currently in progress)involves collection and compilation of technical information and work with agency staff and stakeholders to identify and evaluate the range of compliance options. Phase 2 will involve negotiation of the measures to be included in the Bureau's proposed compliance package. Phase 3 will involve procedural/documentation steps (e.g.,preparation of an environmental impact statement,any necessary implementation plans, and legal documentation)and decision-making by the City Couneil and by the regulatory agencies. These three phases will take about 3-5 years to complete. We anticipate the Bureau's compliance package will include both"on-site" (in the Bull Run Basin)and"off-site" (elsewhere in.the Sandy Basin)components. Measures to protect fish and to lower river water temperatures will be considered in the context of the range of objectives the water system must meet. The Bureau has helped to convene a technical committee and a policy committee under the auspices of the Sandy River Basin.Agreement. The Bureau's goal for these committees is to define the Bureau's ESA/CWA responsibilities in the context of what others(e.g., Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,U.S. Forest Service,Portland General Electric)plan to be doing in the Sandy Basin during the same time period. These discussions will help the Bureau anticipate the implications for summer season water supply in future years. For the year 2000,the Bureau will release approximately 1.5 BG of water into the lower river duringthe peak season. Releases during 2000 include a 100 cfs release until June 15"that the Bureau pledged in the Steelhead Supplement to the Oregon Plan. This release provides flow during the steelhead spawning season. Because this release ends prior to the probable mid July drawdown date, it will have little or no effect on summer season supply availability(and is not included in the 1.5 BG estimate). Experimental releases of 30 cfs and 60 cfs will occur in late July, and will provide data to supplement similar data collected during the 1999 summer season. If water is available, experimental releases will continue at up to 30 cfs until refill. Temperature and wetted habitat data collected during this time will be used to identify and evaluate longer-term habitat improvement and temperature management options. The Bureau is also continuing work on a flow and temperature model for the Bull Run system. Draft: 05/09/00 12 Managing Costs As described.in Section 3,the Bureau has assigned priorities to the seasonal supply-side and demand-side resource options that are available for use during the peak season. These priorities, in part,reflect the objective to manage the potential public and private. costs associated with meeting peak season demand in both typical and extreme supply circumstances. In general,the City's baseline water supply resources(Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield)cost less than potential contingency items shown in Table 1. For example,purchasing Clackamas River water costs about$0.65 per 100 cubic feet(CCF),while using the Columbia South Shore Wellfield cost about $0.20 - $0.25 per CCF. Using Bull Run Lake Increment#2 may trigger environmental mitigation costs (approximately$150,000)if the lake does not refill to full pool (i.e., at least 3,174')the following spring. Voluntary curtailment messages can yield significant reductions in water use,but also result in decreased revenues to the Bureau and additional costs for media advertisements. The Bureau must factor in these costs when designing and implementing routine summer supply operating strategies as well as when dealing with water supply shortages.. 5. SUMMARY In closing,there is sufficient water available to meet the range of potential supply and demand conditions that could occur on the Portland water system during the 2000 summer season. The Portland Water Bureau summer supply strategy is designed to make best use of existing resources to meet multiple objectives. Key objectives focus on water use efficiency, supply reliability,water quality, environmental stewardship and cost management. The Bureau will be continuing to focus on water conservation, and conjunctive use of the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield supply systems to meet water peak season demands. The Bureau will continue flow release tests to measure how different flow regimes can enhance fish habitat and lower water temperatures in the lower Bull Run River. The Bureau will continue to coordinate with key stakeholders and customers as the summer proceeds-to ensure that interested parties can stay apprised of supply and demand conditions as they unfold. Draft: 05/09/00 13 L-A N� CITY OF Erik 3ien, Commissioner oMichael F. Rosenberger, Administrator o x PORTLAND, ORE`j01 1 1 lar SN. 5th Avenue _�. Portland, Oregon 97204 Information(503) 823-7404 r BUREAU OF WATER WORKS Fax(503)823-6133 1851 _ TDD(503) 823-6868 Date: June 2, 2000 To: Operations Staff-Wholesale Customers From: Anne Conway kvvr--� Re: Peaking Factor Information for Summer 2000 GENERAL OVERVIEW- 10%VARIATION ALLOWED Peak season operations under the "10% method"during the summers of 1998 and 1999 was successful from a system wide view. The system problems, caused in prior years by heavy draws on the weekends as districts quickly filled tanks, were eliminated. The Bureau operations staff was pleased because the chemical balancing problems associated with the drastic flow shifts of prior summers did not happen. District operators also were pleased with the added operational flexibility the new method offered. WHAT IF I DO NOT HAVE TELEMETRY? Small districts that are not connected to the control center will have an hour peaking factor of 1. The day,peaking factor for districts not on telemetry(or if telemetry is not working) is the average of the day factors for districts on telemetry. l expect the districts on telemetry will have peaking factors of 1 this summer, so all districts would then have peaking factors of 1. If that happens all districts in the same service area have the same rates. HOW DOES THE 10% METHOD WORK? The 10% method offers districts more system flexibility. In 1998 and 1999 molt districts were abielo buy water from Portland in an even pattern from drawdown to the end of the peak season. During the last 2 summers peak season operations lasted from about mid July to the end of August. A week for start up and testing was not included. I expect the 2000 peak season will be July and August but the weather is of course an unknown: The aim of the 10% method is that districts draw water from Portland in a smooth pattern all day every day. This method requires districts use storage carefully and be very familiar with both the operation of their system and their customers usage patterns. The basic premise of this operational method is that districts maintain a smooth flow pattern, with an allowance of 10% (i.e., flows of 1,000 G.P.M. could vary between 900 and 1,100 G.P.M.). Flows can only vary by 1.0% on an hourly and daily basis. The hourly pattern worked well for districts in 1999. 1 expect all districts will have peaking factors Of 1 for the hour component of the peak charge. An Equal Opportunity Employer Peak Season 2000 June 2, 2000 With the 10% method districts are not constrained to buying only their average annual day in order to achieve a peaking factor of 1 as was the case under the"old" peaking factor calculation. Rather, smooth flows all day all week are rewarded. Districts that maintain flows that d`6 not vary more than 10% from day to day receive a peaking factor of. 1. Example of the Calculation — To stay within the 10% limit, a district buying 1,000 CCF (about 520 G.P.M.) could vary the next day between 900 and 1,100 CCF. So if on day 1 a, district uses 1,000 CCF the peaking factor for the following day will be 1 if the next days consumption is between 900 and 1,100 CCF. The calculation for a period when flows changed more than 10% is as follows -- On day 1 a district buys 1,000 CCF. The following day the district purchases 1,500 CCF. The 1,500 is 400 units different from the maximum allowable of 1,100. The ratio then is 400 units (DIFF.) compared to 1,100 (MAX) _ 400/1,100 =0. 36. In order to set up a stream of numbers add 1.0 to 0.36 which becomes 1.36. (The hour calculation is done the same way.) This table is an example of a week's calculation. This is an extreme example— I think most districts will stay within the 10% pattern this summer. Date Demand Allowance MIN-MAX Absolute Difference Ratio 10% RANGE(allowance value (DIFF.) {(DIFF/MAX)+1) ../+prior day) differenc between e from absolute& prior day allowance July 1 1,000 July 2 1.500 100 900-1,100 500 490 1.36 July 3 1,000 150 1,350-1,650 500 350 1.21 July41,100 100 900-1,100 100 0 'fi00 July 5 1,200 110 1,090-1,210 . 100 (10) 1.00 July 6 1,200 120 1,080-1,320 0 (120) 1.00 July 7 1,000 120 1,080-1,320 200 80 1.06 AVER 1.11 HOW MUCH WATER CAN MY DISTRICT BUY EACH DAY? The decision is left to the districts. The short answer is -you can buy any amount you want— but to maintain,a peaking factor of 1.0 the restriction is that flows must not be more than 10% different from the day before. For example - if Sunday purchases frojn Portland are 1 .MGD then on Monday you can buy between .9 MGD and 1.1 MGD. The-smooth flow pattern-mast be maintained over the summer all day every day, there are no weekend quick fix or adjustment opportunities. r Peak Season 2000 June 2, 2000 WHY CAN'T MY DISTRICT JUST BUY WATER TO COVER DAILY DEMAND -WHY BOTHER USING STORAGE? The 10% restriction inhibits districts from buying exactly their daily demand from Portland - unless your daily demand does not vary by more than 10%. On hot days changes in custorffef'demand could well exceed the 10% allowance. This method still requires that districts use storage carefully. WHY CAN'T MY DISTRICT KEEP STORAGE FULL ALL THE TIME? Once again the 10% change from the day before comes into play. If demands in your district decrease more than 10%, you need to have some room in your storage to stay within the 10% purchase ratio. If you think that the near term weather is going to be hot then almost full storage might work for you. The decision is yours, but careful use of storage is the only way to stay within.the 10% change pattern giving your district the lowest possible rates. To make this pattern work requires a good understanding of both your system and your customer demand. WILL WE EVER BE ABLE TO CHANGE FLOWS MORE THAN 10%WITHOUT INCURRING A PEAKING PENALTY? The general consensus of operators is that ONLY SYSTEM EMERGENCIES, such as a large fire or main break, would be valid justification for a pattern change. So please call me at 823-7468 if you have any system emergencies Since the 10% control cannot be achieved without telemetry you need to make sure that your telemetry is up and running before the peak season. If your system has a brief telemetry malfunction please let me know so the peak calculation can be adjusted. In addition —you can request one day per month be excluded from the calculation. And if a sudden weather change causes serious demand reductions districts can decrease flows by 20%. Please call the Control Center at 823- 1660 to schedule the timing-of-the flow change. . WHAT ABOUT THE HOUR FACTOR? The calculation for hour is exactly the same as the calculation for the day-each hour is compared to the prior hour and average of all the hours becomes the hour peaking factor. The hour factor will be "1" if flows did not fluctuate by more than 10%from hour to hour. Again, don't hesitate to call me at 823-7468 if you have any questions. cc: Jim Doane Todd Humphrey Rich Perkel Bob Rieck Randy Hawley CITY OF TIGARD ��rn �%✓� �.1: ' ORDINANCE NO. 96- U�)- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD .AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE CHARGES. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard City Council deems it necessary to adopt provisions for the collection of delinquent charges for Utility Services provided by the City of Tigard; and, WHEREAS, the City of Tigard combined Water, Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water billings to cut costs and to increase the level of customer services, now, therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 12.08, Collection of Sewer User Fees, of the Tigard Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 2: Section 12.10.070, Credit for Water Leaks, is amended as follows: When a water leak occurs on the customer's side of the water meter resulting in an unusually high water bill, customers can apply for a credit to their water bill equal to 1/2 of the cost of the leak (above the normal bill), up to a maximum of $165. Customers must apply for the credit in writing, to the City, and forward proof of the leak being fixed in a timely manner. Any applications for credits over $165 will be considered by the Intergovernmental Water Board. Section 3: Section 12.10.120, Payment - Delinquency, of the Tigard Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 4: Chapter 12.03, Billing and Collection of Utility Charges, is added to the Tigard Municipal Code and attached hereto as, Exhibit "A". PASSED: By«411"`Tvote of all members present after being read by number and title'only,this Q&d day of .ucvl, , 1996. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This a3-3ay of (1 1 6. / James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: - � City A orney i/,23/S v Date f TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Council may permit a customer to supply others 12.10.070 Credit for Water Leaks. through customers' service connection in which event such customer will be charged an additional When a water leak occurs on the customer's monthly minimum for each additional customer side of the water meter resulting in an unusually supplied. Such permit may be revoked and high water bill, customers may apply for a credit. separate service connections required at any time. The credit is limited to the difference between the (Ord.93-34) average wholesale cost of water multiplied by the number of water units estimated to have leaked, 12.10.050 Furnishing Water. and the total amount of the water bill less normal usage. The average wholesale cost of water is the The City shall not be obligated to furnish and per unit average cost of water as established by install, at its expense, system facilities for all the Intergovernmental Water Board at the property within the City. The City shall, so far as beginning of each fiscal year. reasonable and practicable and within its financial means, however, provide adequate source of The application to the City for the credit supply, necessary primary feeder mains, storage must be in writing and must include proof of the facilities and other improvements necessary to leak being fixed within 10 days of discovery of the make water service generally available to all areas leak. within the City. Extensions to furnish water to areas not now served by the City will be made at Any applications for credits greater than this the expense of those persons requesting service. code section allows will be considered by the Such extensions will be made by the City or by Intergovernmental Water Board. (Ord. 96-39; those expressly authorized by the City. All Ord.96-02;Ord.93-34) applications for line extensions to provide new service are subject to review by the City Council. 12.10.080 Jurisdiction. Consideration will be given to the City's ability to serve and to eligibility for annexation to the City All service connections, meters; mains and of the property to be served. The City may parts of the system through which water is served, contract with other governmental entities for the except the pipes beyond the meter, are the provision of water. The terms of service will be property of the City, and under its exclusive defined by agreement and consistent with the control. No person other than the Public Works terms of this Chapter. (Ord. 93-34) Director or authorized person shall install any service, make any extension, turn the water on or 12.10.060 Private Service Pipes. off, or otherwise tamper or interfere with the water or the system. (Ord.93-34) All pipes from the meter to the premises must be installed in accordance with good 12.10.090 Waste-Plumbing-Inspection. engineering practice, and maintained in good order by the customer. Pipes must be laid 24 Water will not be furnished to premises inches deep provided with a stop and waste valve where it is allowed to run or waste to prevent for drainage, and all standpipes or fittings of any freezing, or through defective plumbing, or kind must be so located, anchored and installed as otherwise. Plumbing should be of high test and not to interfere with or endanger the meter. . All first class, and in conformance with the pipes must be well protected from freezing. (Ord. appropriate codes of the jurisdiction issuing the 93-34) building permit, and where pressures may . become high, on 5/8" x 3/4" and 1" meters, a pressure regulator may be installed at the meter by the City to control varying pressures. (On 12-10-2 Rev. 11/96 r Draft System Development. Charge Update June 14, 2000 Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Prepared by CH2M HILL ■ Summary of Existing and Proposed SDCs ■ Policy Considerations ■ Regulatory Background ■ Methodology June 14,2000 Draft dP- ■ Existing SDC 410 Zone: $986 for 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter Bull Mountain Area: $ 1 ,507 for 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter Higher SDC for larger meters ■ Proposed SDC 410 Zone: $2,041 for 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter Bull Mountain Area: $2,763 for 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter Higher SDC for larger meters 2 June 14,2000 Draft Revised capital improvement projects Existing SDCs do not fully recover growth-related improvement costs No water supply project component of existing SDC Redistribution of cost responsibilities across customers enhances equity Under-recovery of growth-related costs will have adverse rate impacts Capital. Improvement Plan must be adopted prior to- implementation of revised SDC 3 June 14,2000 Draft Definitions Use of revenues, review procedures Determination of fee amount, credits, limitations on contesting of fee and notification Authorized expenditures of fees Preparation of plan for capital improvements financed by system development charges • System Development Charge revenue accounting 4 June 14,2000 Draft SIP ■ Recovers costs associated with the growth-related (or available) capacity in the existing system • Determine the net plant investment Original cost less depreciation, plus capital reserves ■ Define system capacity Saturation population and demand forecast; peak day demand. Includes Urban Reserve areas. ■ Calculate the unit cost of existing infrastructure Divide net plant investment by capacity ■ Calculate reimbursement fee per EDU Claim on capacity = 645 gpd peak day demand fora 5/8 x 3/4" meter $561 per EDU June ,,,2000 Leh • Step 1 Determine Costs Capital of Growth-Related Financial Plans Improvement Plan Improvements Ste 2 Step 3 Additional Capacity p Calculate Debt for Growth Calculate Unit Cost of Service Credit Additional Capacity Step 4 User Capacity Requirements Determine Improvement Fee Schedules 6 June 14,2000 Draft MP ■ Sources of Information Distribution System CIP: Murray, Smith & Assoc. CIP is based on saturation development of service area. Allocation of CIP Between Existing and Future Capacity: Murray, Smith & Assoc. System Capacity: Murray, Smith & Assoc., based on zoning review Water Supply Project: placeholder of $40M, 20 mgd 7 June 14,2000 Draft Step 1 : Capacity Cost Allocation Project costs in 2000 dollars including bond issuance costs Excludes interest costs on debt financing and potential interest earnings on SDC revenues :Water Supply Project: applied system wide Distribution System: separate charges for 410 Zone and Bull Mountain area Step 2: Unit Cost of Capacity Unit costs by system component allow for recognition of differences iu use of facilities 8 June 14,2000 Draft Step 3: Debt Service Credit Recognizes new customers' prospective payments, through rates, of debt service principal for capital projects benefiting existing capacity Present value of future debt service payments Declines as debt service principal is paid No debt service for distribution system projects included Step 4: Improvement Fee Schedule Scaling fees via hydraulic capacities of water meters recognizes differences in potential demands of different customers Indexed for inflation 9 June 14,2000 Draft 410 Zone Bull Mountain Reimbursement Fee $561 $561 Improvement Fee Water Supply $1 ,432 $1 ,432 Debt Service Credit ($552) ($552) Distribution System $600 $1 ,322 Total $23041 $2,763 10 June 14,2000 Draft TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Tigard Water System Draft System Development Charge Update PREPARED FOR: Mike Miller,City of Tigard PREPARED BY: Art Griffith,CH2M HILL COPIES: Ed Wegner,City of Tigard Craig Prosser,City of Tigard Intergovernmental Water Board DATE: June 14,2000 Introduction The City of Tigard has authorized CH2M HILL to complete a System Development Charge (SDC)Update for the Tigard water system. The existing SDC was developed in 1996 and since that time,the City has continued planning for a long-term water source of supply project,has constructed additional storage facilities,and has completed a water system hydraulic analysis which has developed revised proposed capital improvements. The Tigard water system serves areas inside the Cities of Tigard,King City,and Durham, and also serves portions of unincorporated Washington County. Currently,the system serves approximately 15,000 customers.The majority of the system's water supply is currently purchased from the City of Portland,with additional production from the system wells and additional water purchase from the City of Lake Oswego and the Tualatin Valley Water District. For the definition of rates and SDCs the system is divided into the lower 410 pressure zone and the higher Bull Mountain area. The Bull Mountain area includes the 550 high pressure and gravity pressure zones,and the 713 high pressure and gravity pressure zones. Separate rates and SDCs are maintained for the Bull Mountain area because of the additional pumping expense and system facilities required to serve the higher elevations. Table 1 summarizes the existing System Development Charge,including the reimbursement fee and improvement fee,but not including any installation charge. SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 1 ' TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE TABLE 1 Tigard Water Service Area Existing System Development Charge Schedule Meter Size 410 Zone Bull Mountain Area 5/8—3/a Inch $986 $1,507 1 —Inch $1,972 $3,014 1 1/2- Inch $4,930 $7,535 2—Inch $7,888 $12,056 3—Inch $15,776 $24,112 4—Inch $24,650 $37,675 6—Inch $49,300 $75,350 8—Inch $78,880 $120,560 10—Inch $113,390 $173,305 Legislative Considerations In 1989, the State of Oregon enacted legislation that authorizes local governments to define and assess SDCs and the legislation also places limits on the ways revenues generated through SDCs can be used.A copy of ORS 223.297-314 is included in the Appendix of this Memorandum. A SDC is defined in ORS 223.299,and is an amount charged to a new user at the time of connection to the water system in excess of the cost of inspecting and installing the connection. The SDC does not include fees assessed or collected through local improvement districts.The statute further breaks down the SDC into an improvement fee and a reimbursement fee. The improvement fee is a fee for the cost of capital expansions to be constructed.The reimbursement fee is a fee for the costs of capital improvements already constructed or under construction. ORS Chapter 223 specifies that the reimbursement fee must be established by an ordinance or resolution that sets forth the methodology that will be used to calculate the charge. It further specifies that the methodology must consider the cost of existing facilities,prior contributions by existing users,the value of unused capacity,ratemaking principles employed to finance the capital improvements,and other relevant factors. The objective of the methodology must be that future system users contribute no more than an equitable share of the cost of existing facilities. The improvement fee methodology must also be specified in an ordinance or resolution that considers the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the system. ORS Chapter 223 further requires that a credit be provided for the construction of qualified public improvements(contributions). A qualified public improvement is one required as a condition of residential development approval,identified in the system's SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 2 TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE capital improvement program,and either (i) not located on or contiguous to the property being developed or (ii) located on or contiguous to the property being developed but required to be built larger than necessary to serve the property being developed. Revenues generated through the reimbursement fees must be spent only on capital improvements to the system or repayment of debt on those improvements. Revenues generated through the improvement fees are dedicated to capacity increasing capital improvements or repayment of debt on capacity increasing capital improvement. An increase in capacity is established if the improvements increase the level of performance or service provided by existing facilities or provide new facilities. The portion of such improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to current or projected development. Other provisions of ORS Chapter 223 require that: • A local government implementing an SDC must develop a capital improvement plan (CIP) or other comparable plan that lists the improvements that may be funded with improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing and cost for each improvement. Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with SDC revenues shall be included in the plan adopted by the local government. • SDC revenues must be deposited into dedicated accounts,and local government must provide an annual accounting of revenues and expenditures. • Local government must provide for an administrative appeal procedure whereby a citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. • No legal action challenging the methodology used to calculate SDCs may be filed after 60 days from the enactment of or revision to the SDC. • The provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 are not applicable if they impair the local government's bond obligations or the ability of the local government to issue new bonds or other financing. Proposed Capital Improvements Capital improvements are identified in the City of Tigard Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study(2000 Hydraulic Study)prepared by Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. All capital projects identified in the 2000 Hydraulic Study are incorporated into this SDC except demolition projects,Aquifer Storage and Recovery studies,and water main replacement projects. These three types of projects are not,for the purposes of this SDC analysis,defined as capacity-increasing projects. A$40 million water supply project has been identified by the City,which will provide a long-term water source owned by the City.This water supply project would provide an estimated 20.0 mgd of water on a maximum day basis to the Tigard water service area. Debt financing is projected,with three annual interest-only payments followed by levelized principal and interest payments over the subsequent 22 years at a 6%interest rate. Debt issuance costs include a capitalized bond reserve estimated at 8.7%of bond proceeds and other costs of issuance estimated at 2.0%of bond proceeds. SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 3 TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE Prior to adoption of this SDC,state law requires that the City adopt a Capital Improvement Plan that contains the proposed capital projects that form the basis of the SDC. Methodology Used To Calculate SDC The SDC is comprised of a reimbursement fee and improvement fee. 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. Equivalent Dwelling Units Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)data was calculated from information contained in the City's May 2000 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study (2000 Hydraulic Study)and current meter size data provided by the City of Tigard. Table 2 summarizes March 2000 meter data provided by the City,showing 21,465 meter equivalents system wide. Table 5-1 of the May 2000 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study reports a projected 2000 peak day demand of 13.84 mgd. Dividing the 2000 maximum day demand by the existing 21,465 meter equivalents results in a maximum day demand of 645 gpd per meter equivalent. Throughout this analysis,an EDU is defined as a water system connection with a 5/8 x 3/-inch meter with a maximum day water consumption of 645 gpd. TABLE 2 Meter Equivalent Data as of March 2000 Meter Size March 2000 Number Meter Equivalent Number of Meter of Meters Factor Equivalents 5/8—%Inch 12,975 1.0 12,975 1 —Inch 1,190 2.5 2,975 1 1/2- Inch 365 3.6 1,314 2—Inch 314 8 2,512 3—Inch 19 15 285 4—Inch 6 25 150 6—Inch 5 50 250 8—Inch 6 80 480 10—Inch 1 140 144 12-Inch 1 380 380 Total Number of Meter Equivalents 21,465 SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 4 TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE System Capacity The 2000 Hydraulic Study estimated water system demands for each water system pressure zone at existing demands and at saturation for a water service area that encompasses the existing Tigard water service area and Urban Reserves 47,48, and 49. The saturation analysis was based on planning data provided by the City of Tigard,and projects an increase of service area population from a current estimate of 46,144 to a saturation estimate of 85,147. For the 410 Zone,the existing maximum day demand is an estimated 7.80 mgd, and the projected saturation maximum day demand is 16.17 mgd. The projected increase in system capacity in the 410 Zone,measured by maximum day demand,is 8.37 mgd. For the Bull Mountain area, the existing maximum day demand is an estimated 6.04 mgd,and the projected saturation maximum day demand is 11.93 mgd.The projected increase in system capacity in the Bull Mountain area,measured by maximum day demand,is 5.89mgd. Water system growth rates projected in the 2000 Hydraulic Study are based on population projections provided by Metro and include an annual 1.2%growth rate. Reimbursement Fee The general methodology used to develop the reimbursement fee includes the following four steps: 1. Determine the value of growth-related capacity 2. Define system capacity 3. Calculate the unit cost of growth—related capacity 4. Develop reimbursement fee per EDU The value of growth-related capacity in this analysis is based on the system's non- contributed depreciated plant investment. The existing plant investment used in the 1996 SDC calculation was used as the basis for the estimated current plant investment. Adjustments from the 1996 plant investment include estimated depreciation between 1996 and 2000,addition of facilities(i.e.the Menlor Reservoir)completed since 1996,and addition of existing capital reserves.Table 3 shows the derivation of the reimbursement fee, including the derivation of the net system investment of$24,370,445. The system capacity,described above,is the estimated saturation maximum day demand of 28.1 mgd.Dividing the net system investment by the system capacity results in the unit cost of growth-related capacity of$867,276 per mgd of system capacity. To determine the reimbursement fee per EDU, the net investment per unit of system capacity is multiplied by the estimated capacity requirements,645 gpd,of ari EDU.The resulting improvement fee is$561 per EDU. Improvement Fee The general methodology used to develop the improvement fee is similar to that for the reimbursement fee,and includes the following four steps: SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 5 Table 3 Reimbursement Fee Calculation Item Total 1996 Rate Study Fixed Asset Value(as of 6/30/95) $14,261,700 Less Estimated Depreciation(1996-2000) ($1,457,359) Plus Assets Constructed Since 6/30/95 Menlor Reservoir,Original Cost Less Deprec. $3,616,104 Subtotal $16,420,445 Less:Current Outstanding Debt Principal(a) $0 Plus:Current Cash Reserves(a) $7,950,000 Net System Investment $24,370,445 Saturation System Wide System Capacity,mgd 28.1 Net Investment per mgd $867,276 Net Investment per gpd $0.87 Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(c) 645 Reimbursement SDC per EDU $561 Notes: (a)Projected 6/30/00 reserve balance in water funds (b) Estimated saturated system wide maximum day demand (c) Estimated 2000 max day demand divided by the number of 2000 system-wide meter equivalents Draft June 14,2000 CH2M HILL Inc. TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE 1. Determine the costs of growth-related improvements 2. Calculate the unit cost of additional capacity 3. Calculate debt service credit 4. Develop reimbursement fee per EDU Cost of Growth-Related Improvements Capacity-increasing project costs were identified in a Draft City of Tigard Distribution System Hydraulic Study Financial Plan Technical Assistance memorandum(2000 Technical Memorandum)prepared by Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc,a copy of which is included in the Appendix. The 2000 Technical Memorandum identifies allocations of project costs to the 410 Zone and the Bull Mountain area and allocations of project costs to existing capacity and future capacity. The allocations between existing capacity and future capacity are generally based on the ratio of existing to saturation maximum day demand in the area benefiting from the project. Projects required to serve the Urban Reserves are allocated entirely to growth. The City's water main oversizing program was allocated between existing and future capacity by CH2M HILL based on the ration of system wide existing and saturation maximum day demand.T able 4 shows,for each distribution system project included in the SDC,the project cost in 2000 dollars and the allocations of project costs between 410 and Bull Mountain areas and between existing and future capacity. The City is pursuing the feasibility of a number of potential options for securing a guaranteed long-term water supply. For the water supply project,the derivation of the capacity increasing project cost is defined by the following series of calculations. • Define the project cost,estimated at$40,000,000 and the amount($3,900,000) expected to be funded from existing Tigard water system capital reserves. The remaining $36,100,000 would be funded by debt issuance. • Estimate the costs of debt financing,including the capitalized bond reserve and costs of debt issuance for the bond issue that would supply$36,100,000 of bond proceeds for the water supply project. The estimated financing costs are$4,325,500,for a total project cost of$44,325,500. • Calculate the proportion of the water supply project to be allocated to future capacity The 20.0 mgd water supply project would supply the existing maximum day demand of 13.84 mgd plus an additional 6.16 mgd.30.8%of the water supply project is allocated to growth(30.8%= 6.16/20). System Capacity and Unit Costs of Additional Capacity For the distribution system improvements,the increase in system capacity is the difference between existing saturation maximum day demand and estimated existing maximum day demand. This information is provided in the 2000 Hydraulic Study for the 410 Zone and Bull Mountain area. Table 5 shows the unit costs of capacity for the water supply component,the 410 Zone distribution system component,and the Bull Mountain area distribution component. The SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 6 Table 4 Distribution System Capital Improvements Incorporated Into SDC Percent Percent Project Cost Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to 410 Zone Bull Mtn. PROJECT TOTAL New Users Bull Mountain 410 Zone New Users New Users Reservoirs&Storage: 550 Zone Reservoir No.1 2,950,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 1,725,000 550 Zone Reservoir No.2 4,200,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 2,457,000 410 Zone Reservoir No.5 2,400,000 49.7% 0% 2,400,000 1,192,800 0 713 Zone Reservoir No.4 2,400,000 19.9% 100% 0 0 476,700 Reservoir Evaluation Program 130,000 50.0% 50% 65,000 32,500 32,500 Subtotal-Reservoirs&Storage $12,080,000 $2,465,000 $1,225,300 $4,691,200 Transmission,Distribution,&Pump Stations: Menlor Pump Station(550 Zone) 675,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 394,875 Transfer Pump Station(550!713 Zone) 2,100,000 44.0% 100% 0 0 924,000 High Tor Pump Station(713 Zone) 750,000 23.1% 100% 0 0 173,250 Pump Station No.2 Upgrade(410 and 510/713 Zones) 400,000 47.4% 41% 236,000 111,777 77,675 SW Walnut Street Improvements 681,000 49.7% 0% 681,000 338,457 0 24"Main: Walnut Street,121st to Barrows 1,368,000 49.7% 0% 1,368,000 679,896 0 Barrows Road Water Main 304,000 49.7% 0% 304,000 151,088 0 Site No.1 Piping Improvements 200,000 49.7% 0% 200,000 99,400 0 Site No.4 Piping Improvements 300,000 49.7% 0% 300,000 149,100 0 24"Main: Beef Bend Road and Pacific Highway 1,254,000 49.7% 0% 1,254,000 623,238 0 North 121st Avenue Upgrade 513,000 49.7% 0% 513,000 254,961 0 SW Lincoln Street 60,000 49.7% 0% 60,000 29,820 0 SW BumhamStreet 334,000 49.7% 0% 334,000 165,998 0 East 410 Zone Upgrade 1,109,600 49.7% 0% 1,109,600 551,471 0 SW Barrows Road 228,000 49.7% 0% 228,000 113,316 0 SW King Richard Drive 68,000 49.7% 0% 68,000 33,796 0 SW 93rd/SW 92nd Avenues 399,000 49.7% 0% 399,000 198,303 0 SW Fairhaven 421,800 49.7% 0% 421,800 209,635 0 SW Karen/SW 125th Avenue 127,500 49.7% 0% 127,500 63.368 0 410 Reservoir No.5 Supply 380,000 49.7% 0% 380,000 188,860 0 King City Urban Reserve 344,500 100% 0% 344,500 344,500 0 West Urban Reserve 1,748,000 100% 0% 1,748,000 1,748,000 0 West 550 Zone Reservoir Supply 342,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 200,070 East 550 Zone Reservoir Supply 608,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 355,680 Canterbury Supply 1,026,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 600,210 Northeast 550 Zone Transmission 636,500 58.5% 100% 0 0 372,353 South 550 Zone Transmission 1,054,500 58.5% 100% 0 0 616,883 Northwest 550 Zone Transmission 714,400 58.5% 100% 0 0 417,924 West Transmission 836,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 489,060 Walnut,132nd to 135th 304,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 177,840 SW Walnut Lane/SW Fern Street 342,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 200,070 Canterbury Loop 684,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 400,140 SW Creekshire Drive 85,000 58.5% 100% 0 0 49,725 Urban Reserve Area No.48 760,000 100.0% 100% 0 0 760,000 Bull Mountain Central Loop 285,000 22.6% 100% 0 0 64,410 West Transmission 456,000 22.6% 100% 0 0 103,056 150th Avenue 342,000 22.6% 100% 0 0 77,292 South Transmission 212,500 22.6% 100% 0 0 48,025 Starview Connection 42,500 22.6% 100% 0 0 9,605 Northeast Transmission 382,500 22.6% 100% 0 0 86,445 Southwest Transmission 85,000 22.6% 100% 0 0 19,210 Southeast Transmission 255,000 22.6% 100% 0 0 57,630 Northwest Transmission 238,000 22.6% 100% 0 0 53,788 North Transmission 85,000 22.6% 100% 0 0 19,210 SW 144th Avenue 142,500 23.1% 1001% 0 0 32,918 SW BenchviewTen-ace114,000 23.1% 100% 0 0 26,334 SW Bull Mountain Road 285,000 23.1% 100% 0 0 65,835 Northwest Transmission 191,250 23.1% 100% 0 0 44,179 SW 150th Avenue 85,000 23.1% 100% 0 0 19,635 Distribution System Oversizes 1,575,000 50.5% 44.8% 868,772 438,730 356,645 Telemetry System Improvements 300,000 50.5% 44.8% 165,480 83,568 67,932 Subtotal-Transmission,Distribution,and Pump Stations 26,234,050 11,110,653 6,577,281 7,361,903 TOTAL Distribution Project Costs $38,314,050 $13,575,653 $7,802,581 $12,053,103 Draft hxie 14 2= Cl12fv1 HLL Inc. Table 5 Improvement Fee Water Distribution System Item supply 410 Zone Bull Mountain Project Cost(a) $44,325,500 $13,575,653 $21,038,397 %Allocable to Growth(b) 30.8% 57.5% 57.3% Growth Related Cost(b) $13,652,254 $7,802,581 $12,053,103 Increase in Capacity Provided by Project,mgd(b) 6.16 8.37 5.89 Unit Cost of Additional Capacity,$/mgd $2,216,275 $932,208 $2,046,367 Unit Cost of Additional Capacity,$/gpd $2.22 $0.93 $2.05 Maximum Day Water Demand(gpd)(c) 645 645 645 Additional Capacity Cost Per EDU(d) $1,432 $600 $1,322 Less Debt Service Credit(e) ($552) $0 $0 Improvement Fee,$/EDU $880 $600 $1,322 Notes: (a) Water supply project cost: placeholder value to be incorporated into an adopted Capital Improvement Plan. Includes proceeds of$40M for project and Financing costs required to issue debt service Distribution System: Refer to Table 4 (b) Water supply:Based on water supply project with 20 mgd capacity and projected 2000 13.84 mgd peak day demand. Water supply growth percentage=(20- 13.84)/20=30.8% Distribution System: Refer to Table 4 (c) Projected 2000 peak day demand divided number of 2000 system-wide meter equivalents (d) Unit cost of capacity,in$/gpd,multiplied by maximum day water demand per EDU (e) Refer to Table 6 Draft June 14,2000 CH2M HILL Inc. TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE unit cost of future capacity is calculated by dividing the project cost allocable to growth by the increase in system capacity. Debt Service Credit A debt service credit is applied to the improvement fee in recognition that the water supply project will be debt financed,that the water supply project benefits existing as well as future customers,and that future customers will be repaying debt service for facilities that benefit existing customers. The debt service credit is detailed in Table 6,and includes a calculation, for each year where outstanding water supply project debt service exists,of the amount of debt service principal benefiting existing customers that paid per EDU. The debt service credit is the present value of these debt service payments calculated using a nominal interest rate of 5%. Table 6 shows that the debt service credit is$552 per EDU. Improvement Fee Per EDU The improvement fee per EDU is calculated by multiplying the unit cost of future capacity by the estimated capacity requirements,645 gpd,of an EDU,and applying the debt service credit. Table 5 shows that the improvement fee for the water supply project(not including the debt service credit discussed below) is$1,432 per EDU. This component of the improvement fee would be applied system wide.For the 410 Zone,an additional distribution system component of$600 per EDU would be applied,and for the Bull Mountain area,an additional distribution system component of$1,322 per EDU would be applied. Proposed System Development Charge The proposed SDC per EDU is the sum of the reimbursement fee and the improvement fee, and is summarized in Table 7.Table 8 presents the proposed SDC applied to each water meter size. Prior to adoption of the SDC,CH2M HILL recommends that the City's legal counsel review this memorandum and that a Capital Improvement Plan be adopted that contains the capital improvements upon which the improvement fee is based. TABLE 7 PROPOSED SDC PER EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT 410 Zone Bull Mountain Area Reimbursement Fee $561 $561 Improvement Fee Water Supply $1,432 $1,432 Debt Service Credit ($552) ($552) Distribution System $600 $1,322 Total $2,041 $2,763 SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 7 Table 6 Debt Service Credit Water Supply Project Cost $40,000,000 Less Existing Reserves Used to Finance Project ($3,900,000) Debt Proceeds Toward Project $36,100,000 Financing Costs(Bond Reserve and Cost of Issuance) $4,325,500 Total Debt Principal $40,425,500 Anticipated Debt Service Terms 3 Years Interest Only Payments Followed By Levelized Principal and Interest Payments Over 22 Year Period With Expected Interest Rate of 6% Present Value of Principal Repayment per EDU $552 Present Value Discount Rate 5.00% Repl Debt Replacement Replacement Principal Repayment Principal Percent Debt Service Paid With Number of Principal per Year Payment of Plant Principal SDCs EDUs EDU 2001 $0 69.2% $0 $0 21,723 $0.00 2002 $0 69.2% $0 $0 21,983 $0.00 2003 $0 69.2% $0 $0 22,247 $0.00 2004 $931,629 69.2% $644,687 $0 22,514 $28.63 2005 $987,526 69.2% $683,368 $0 22,784 $29.99 2006 $1,046,778 69.2% $724,370 $0 23,058 $31.42 2007 $1,109,585 69.2% $767,833 $0 23,334 $32.91 2008 $1,176,160 69.2% $813,903 $0 23,614 $34.47 2009 $1,246,729 69.2% $862,737 $0 23,898 $36.10 2010 $1,321,533 69.2% $914,501 $0 24,184 $37.81 2011 $1,400,825 69.2% $969,371 $0 24,301 $39.89 2012 $1,484,875 69.2% $1,027,533 $0 24,418 $42.08 2013 $1,573,967 69.2% $1,089,185 $0 24,536 $44.39 2014 $1,668,405 69.2% $1,154,536 $0 24,654 $46.83 2015 $1,768,509 69.2% $1,223,808 $0 24,773 $49.40 2016 $1,874,620 69.2% $1,297,237 $0 24,893 $52.11 2017 $1,987,097 69.2% $1,375,071 $0 25,013 $54.98 2018 $2,106,323 69.2% $1,457,575 $0 25,133 $57.99 2019 $2,232,702 69.2% $1,545,030' $0 25,254 $61.18 2020 $2,366,664 69.2% $1,637,732 $0 25,376 $64.54 2021 $2,508,664 69.2% $1,735,996 $0 25,476 $68.14 2022 $2,659,184 69.2% $1,840,155 $0 25,577 $71.95 2023 $2,818,735 69.2% $1,950,565 $0 25,678 $75.96 2024 $2,987,859 69.2% $2,067,599 $0 25,779 $80.20 2025 $3,167,131 69.2% $2,191,655 $0 25,881 $84.68 Draft June 14,2000 CH2M HILL Inc. TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE TABLE 8 Tigard Water Service Area Proposed System Development Charge Schedule Meter Size 410 Zone Bull Mountain Area 5/8—3/a Inch $2,041 $2,763 1 —Inch $5,013 $6,908 1 '/z- Inch $7,348 $9,947 2—Inch $16,328 $22,104 3—Inch $30,615 $41,445 4—Inch $51,025 $69,075 6—Inch $102,050 $138,150 8—Inch $163,280 $221,040 10—Inch $293,496 $397,319 12—Inch $775,907 $1,050,382 SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 8 TIGARD WATER SYSTEM DRAFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE APPENDIX SDC DRAFT MEMO.DOC 9 OREGON REVISED STATUTES, 1997 VERSION, CHAPTER 223 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 223.297 Policy.The purpose of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 is to provide a uniform framework for the imposition of system development charges by governmental units for specified purposes and to establish that the charges may be used only for capital improvements. [1989 c.449 s.1; 1991 c.902 s.251 Note:223.297 to 223.314 were added to and made a part of 223.205 to 223.295 by legislative action,but were not added to and made a part of the Bancroft Bonding Act. See section 10, chapter 449,Oregon Laws 1989. 223.299 Definitions for ORS 223.297 to 223.314.As used in ORS 223.297 to 223.314: (1)(a) "Capital improvement"means facilities or assets used for the following: (A)Water supply,treatment and distribution; (B)Waste water collection,transmission,treatment and disposal; (C)Drainage and flood control; (D) Transportation;or (E)Parks and recreation. (b) "Capital improvement"does not include costs of the operation or routine maintenance of capital improvements. (2) "Improvement fee"means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed. (3) 'Reimbursement fee"means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already constructed or under construction. (4)(a) "System development charge"means a reimbursement fee,an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit,building permit or connection to the capital improvement. System development charge includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the governmental unit for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities. (b) "System development charge"does not include any fees assessed or collected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment,or the cost of complying with requirements or conditions imposed upon a land use decision, expedited land division or limited land use decision. [1989 c.449 s.2; 1991 c.817 s.29;1991 c.902 s.26;1995 c.595 s.281 Note:See note under 223.297. 223.300 [Repealed by 1975 c.642 s.26] 223.302 System development charges;use of revenues;review procedures. (1) Governmental units are authorized to establish system development charges,but the revenues produced therefrom shall be expended only in accordance with ORS 223.297 to 223.314. If a governmental unit expends any such revenues in violation of the limitations described in ORS 223.307, the governmental unit shall replace the misspent amount with moneys derived from other sources. Replacement moneys shall be deposited in a fund designated for the system development charge revenues not later than one year following a determination that the funds were misspent. (2) Governmental units shall adopt administrative review procedures by which any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of system development charge revenues. Such procedures shall provide that such a challenge must be filed within two years of the expenditure of the system development charge revenues. The decision of the governmental unit shall be reviewed only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100,and not otherwise. [1989 c.449 s.3; 1991 c.902 s.271 Note:See note under 223.297. 223.304 Determination of amount of system development charges;ordinance;credit allowed against charge;limitation of action contesting ordinance imposing charge;notification request. (1) Reimbursement fees shall be established by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that considers the cost of the existing facility or facilities,prior contributions by existing users,the value of unused capacity,rate-making principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements and other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee. The methodology shall promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities.The methodology for establishing such fees shall be available for public inspection. (2) Improvement fees shall be established by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that considers the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related. The methodology for establishing such fees shall be available for public inspection. (3) The ordinance or resolution that establishes an improvement fee shall also provide for a credit against such fee for the construction of a qualified public improvement. A"qualified public improvement"means a capital improvement that is required as a condition of development approval,identified in the plan adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either: (a)Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval;or (b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related. (4)(a) The credit provided for in subsection(3) of this section shall be only for the improvement fee charged for the type of improvement being constructed,and credit for qualified public improvements under subsection(3)(b) of this section may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the government units minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular development project or property. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit under subsection (3)(b) of this section. (b)When the construction of a qualified public improvement gives rise to a credit amount greater than the improvement fee that would otherwise be levied against the project receiving development approval,the excess credit may be applied against improvement fees that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. This subsection shall not prohibit a unit of government from providing a greater credit,or from establishing a system providing for the transferability of credits,or from providing a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the plan adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309,or from providing a share of the cost of such improvement by other means,if a unit of government so chooses. (c) Credits shall be used in the time specified in the ordinance but not later than 10 years from the date the credit is given. (5)Any unit of local government that proposes to adopt a system development charge shall maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for notification prior to adoption or amendment of a methodology for any system development charge.Written notice shall be mailed to persons on the list at least 45 days prior to the first hearing to adopt or amend a system development charge,and the methodology supporting the adoption or amendment shall be available at least 30 days prior to the first hearing to adopt or amend. The failure of a person on the list to receive a notice that was mailed shall not invalidate the action of the local government. The unit of local government may periodically delete names from the list,but at least 30 days prior to removing a name from the list must notify the person whose name is to be deleted that a new written request for notification is required if the person wishes to remain on the notification list. No legal action intended to contest the methodology used for calculating a system development charge shall be filed after 60 days following adoption or modification of the system development charge ordinance or resolution by the local government. A person shall contest the methodology used for calculating a system development charge only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100,and not otherwise. [1989 c.449 s.4; 1991 c.902 s.28;1993 c.804 s.201 Note:See note under 223.297. 223.305 [Repealed by 1971 c.325 s.l] 223.307 Authorized expenditure of system development charges. (1)Reimbursement fees shall be spent only on capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness. (2)Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of debt for such improvements.An increase in system capacity may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities.The portion of such improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to current or projected development. (3)System development charges shall not be expended for costs associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements. (4)Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system development charge revenues shall be included in the plan adopted by a governmental unit pursuant to ORS 223.309. (5) Notwithstanding subsections (1)and (2)of this section,system development charge revenues may be expended on the direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures. [1989 c.449 s.5; 1991 c.902 s.291 Note:See note under 223.297. (2) A governmental unit that has prepared a plan described in subsection (1)of this section may modify such plan at any time. [1989 c.449 s.6;1991 c.902 s.301 Note:See note under 223.297. 223.310 [Amended by 1957 c.397 s.3;repealed by 1971 c.325 s.l] 223.311 Deposit of system development charge revenues;annual accounting.System development charge revenues shall be deposited in accounts designated for such moneys. The governmental unit shall provide an annual accounting for system development charges showing the total amount of system development charge revenues collected for each system and the projects that were funded. [1989 c.449 s.7;1991 c.902 s.311 Note:See note under 223.297. 223.312 [1957 c.95 s.4;repealed by 1971 c.325 s.l] 223.313 Application of ORS 223.297 to 223.314. (1) ORS 223.297 to 223.314 shall apply only to system development charges in effect on or after July 1, 1991. (2) The provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 shall not be applicable if they are construed to impair bond obligations for which system development charges have been pledged or to impair the ability of governmental units to issue new bonds or other financing as provided by law for improvements allowed under ORS 223.297 to 223.314. [1989 c.449 s.8;1991 c.902 s.32] Note:See note under 223.297. 223.314 Adoption of system development charge not a land use decision. The adoption of a system development charge,or a plan as provided for in ORS 223.309,or any modification thereto,is not a land use decision pursuant to ORS chapters 195 and 197. [1989 c.449 s.91 Note:See note under 223.297. Downloaded from www.leg.state.or.us/ors October 18, 1999. Murray Smith&ASsociw,Ing 121 S.W.Salmon,Sure 1020 . Posdand.,Oregon 91-204 ■ PKUG0 IM010 ■ FAR 50,;_225-9022 FACSEMME TRANSMITTAL Date: June 8,2000 Job No.: 99-0430.401 Time: 9:30 a.m. Re: _City of Tigard Distribution System Pages(including cover sheet): 6 Hydraulic Study Financial Plan Original to follow by mail: ❑Yes ®No Technical Assistance Attention: Art Griffith Company. CH2M Hili Fax Number: 425-462-5957 Comments: Art: Here is a draft copy of the technical memorandum for financial plan technical assistance_ If you have an questions or comments,21ease give us a call_ Thank you. cc: Mike Miller,City of Tigard From: Carie Peterson NOTE: Ifyou do not receive the material as descn7,ed above,pteaw contact our office immediruely. Z91-1 100'd Z91-1 ZZ089ZZ£09 V9sm-fload £Z:80 OOOZ-80-Nnr :-ME $1111th&�SSOpffiQS,IIID. E*ee'SIP we's 121 N Salmon,&k 1020 ■ Poftkp Onm 97204 PH0R j03 229010 FAX*225 022 DATE: June 8, 2000 PROJECT: 99-0430.401 DRAFT TO: Mr.Art Griffith CH2M Hill FROM: Chris Uber,P.E. Murray, Smith&Associates,Inc. RE: City of Tigard Distribution System Hydraulic Study Financial Plan Technical Assistance Introduction In accordance with your request and the City's authorization, this technical memorandum has been prepared to document a cost apportionment of recommended water distribution system improvements from the City of Tigard's recently completed Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study. The methodology used for the apportionment of costs is developed and applied in accordance with your direction. This methodology is used to apportion the project cost of each improvement between existing and future capacity needs of the system and presents tabulated summaries of this effort. Background In May 2000, a Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study was completed for the City of Tigard by Murray,Smith&Associates, Inc. As part of this study a detailed hydraulic analysis of the distribution system was performed. The analysis evaluated the performance of the existing system and identified system improvements necessary to correct existing deficiencies and to provide for future system expansion. Also included in this effort was the development of project cost estimates for all recommended improvements. These estimates are used in this memorandum as the basis for all cost data In conjunction with the hydraulic study, the City is also reviewing and updating its water service area system development charges (SDCs). In developing the SDCs, a methodology was established in accordance with our discussions for determining the proportion of each improvement needed to correct existing deficiencies and the proportion needed for system 99-0430.401 Page 1 Distribution System Hydraulic Study Junc 8.2000 Financial Plan Technical Assistance 1-1MtAfAr`Ytiiaavt„n Mi1PC4f1P'fS1T...ti--... City of Tigard ZS H Z00'd Z91-1 ZZ0OM609 VISPI-flodi PZ:60 OOOZ-80-Nnr expansion. In addition, all improvement project costs associated with the Bull Mountain service area are identified. The Bull Mountain service area includes the 550-foot zone, the 713-foot zone and the 713-foot high pressure zone covering areas on Bull Mountain and Canterbury Hill. Presented below is a description of the methodology developed to apportion the costs of recommended improvements and to identify improvements needed to serve the Bull Mountain service area. Methodology Work associated with the hydraulic study included identification of existing population and water demands, and development of anticipated ultimate population and water demands for the entire water service area. Based on projected water demand data and planning and analysis criteria developed for the hydraulic study, distribution system piping,pumping and storage improvements needed to correct existing system deficiencies and to support system expansion were identified for the water system service area. For use in development of SDCs,recommended improvements are grouped according to the pressure zone they will serve. The proportionate difference between the existing maximum day water demand and the projected ultimate maximum day water demand for each pressure zone is the basis for apportioning costs of improvements between existing capacities and future capacity-needs. Project costs for improvements recommended within the Urban Reserve areas are considered entirely for future development and are apportioned as such. Water demands and corresponding existing and future capacity percentages for each zone are shown in Table 1. Table X Project Cost Allocation by Pressure Zone Summary ;; ;° '; tri„��•' r, :< _ r.... -. ,. i'�'. •,,:�:r,?:, +i ,.0,•}+r ,' .:A.:;, - `A1`t..'J,�,�•' ,.: •,+!^�1J�II�g��.';,�'F�,��..- •.M' c��;, "5:�r r' /.+t::Y� �.:51t. �•;u4�n�� a...'•�n:�rl 'Y•�;5�'}'.'lr a` �'Vr�t.F' ' b+! ',�;hr��' '`•'n�H'"'"_.C'Aq. ,;.• ` '�•,•'ll'�I'A '!'FYt..n+ :�i�!! ;ir• F•Z• n�-. ',✓'ir?i!i1. %' L'd,i•.t'��'� :m 1 _i, 'C• y(dsl .na.. �'% 'n_ Y r,���r V� ., • ,dA 410-Foot 7.8 15.5 50.3% 49-7%0 550-Foot(gravity and highpressure) 2.7 6.5 41.5%'0 58.5% 713-Foot 2.4 3.1 77.4% 22.69o, �713-Foot High Pressure y•10 1.,3A �7y6�.47y%y 23.1% :7IL.Jn7CT.s Urban Reserve - 1-7 0% 100% Total Wates'Service Area 13.9 28.1 49.5 % Most improvements recommended in the hydraulic study will ultimately serve only one zone and are easily divided by the capacity percentages for that zone. A few projects will serve more than one zone when they are completed. For these improvements,a more detailed allocation calculation is required. A discussion of this allocation is presented below. 99-0430.401 Page 2 Distribution System Hydraulic Study June 8,2000 Financial Plan Technical Assistance F 1PRATtY'T.Q10afean rnnvvvr�rnruwM..,,,,..,,, City of Tigard Z9l-J £00•d 251-1 ZZ069ZZ£09 YISHIM VZ:60 OOOZ-80-Nnr Pumping and Storage Facilities for the 713 foot Zones The High Tor Reservoirs, and the pumping facilities serving thein, supply both the 713-foot zone and the 713-foot high pressure zone. Improvements recommended to these pumping and storage facilities are initially divided between the two zones based on their respective ultimate maximum day water demand. The project cost of each recommended improvement is then apportioned into existing and future costs using the method described above. Finally, the existing and future costs from each zone are added back together as listed in Table 2. Transfer Pump Station The Transfer Pump Station will ultimately serve the 550-foot zone and both 713-foot zones_ Improvement costs for the transfer pump station are appropriated based on proportionate ultimate pumping capacities to each zone. Under this condition, approximately 3,900 gpm will be pumped to the 550-foot zone, and approximately 3,300 gpm will be pumped to both of the 713-foot zones. The portion of the project cost allocated to the 550-foot zone is then divided into existing and future costs using the previously described method. The portion allocated jointly to the 713-foot zones is split between the two, and then divided into existing and future costs. The existing and future costs from each zone are then added back together as listed in Table 2. Pump Station No. 2 Pump Station No_ 2 will ultimately pump to the 10 MG Reservoir,which provides storage for the entire water service area. The project cost allocation of this improvement serving the Bull Mountain service area is determined by proportioning costs between the Bull Mountain service area and the entire service area under a maximum day water demand condition at saturation development. The project cost is then divided into existing and future costs using the method described above. This improvement is listed separately on Tables 2 and 3 to reflect the portions of its service to the 410-foot zone and to the Bull Mountain service area. Conclusion Cost breakdowns for all proposed facility and piping improvements are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 lists improvements that will serve the Bull Mountain service area, and Table 3 lists all other improvements. 99-0430.401 Page 3 Distribution System Hydraulic Study June$,2000 Financial Plan Technical Assistance City of Tigard Z51-d g00'd Z91-1 MUNCH YISH-410dd vz:60 oon-80-or Table 2 Brill Mountain Service Area Improvements Project Cost Estimate Summary Y.. Y �, Fr acility Im mvements Pump Station No-2(41%) $ 164,000 $ 91.840 S 72.160 enlor Station $ 675,000 S 280.125 S 394,875 ransfer PuLup Station S 2^100,000 $ 1,176.000 $ 924,000 High Tor Pump Station $ 750,000 $ 576,750 $ 173,250 50-Foot Reservoir No. 1 (2.0 MG) $ 2.950.00-0 -$ 1,224,250 $ 1,725,750 50-Foot Reservoir No.2(3.0 MG) $ 4,200,000 $ 1,743.000 $ 2,457,000 713-Foot Reservoir No.4 0.8 MG $ 2^100.000 $ 1,623,300 $ 476.700 VQ.G,11111�71 PIMA J4.1 ZMIMLM 50-Foot Zone Pi Im rovements West 550-FL Reservoir Supply $ 342.000 1 $ 141,930 S 200,070 t 550-Ft.Reservoir Supply S 6081000 $ 252320 $ 355,680 Cantefbury Su 1 $ 1.026,000 $ 425,790 $ 600,210 Northeast 550-FL Zone Transmission $ 636.500 $ 264,148 $ 372,353 outh 550-Ft.Zone Transmission S 1^054,500 $ 437,618 $ 616.883 Northwest 550-FL Zone Transmission $ 714.400 S 296,476 $ 417,924 West Transmission $ 836,000 $ 346,940 $ 489,060 Walnut. 132nd to 135th $ 304,000 $ 126,160 $ 177,840 SW Walnut Lane/SW Fern Street $ 342,000 $ 141,930 S 200,070 Canterbury loo $ 684,000 $ 283,860 $ 400,140 SW Creekshire Drive $ 85,000 $ 35,275 $ 49,725 rban Reserve Area gaA No.4$ $ 760,000 $ _ S 7f0,000 w 13-Foot Zone Piping Improvements Bull Mountain Central L002 S 285.000 $ 220,590 $ 64,410 West Transmission $ 456,000 S 352^944 $ 103,056 150th Ave. _ IS 342,000 $ 264,708 S 77,292 South Transmission - _ $ 212,500 $ 164,475 $ 48.025 Starview Connection $ 42,500 $ 32,895 $ 9.605 Northeast Transmission _ $ 382,500 $ 296,055 $ 86.445 Southwest Transmission _ $ 85,000 $ 65,790 $ 19,210 Southeast Transmission $ 255^000 $ 197.370 S 57,630 Northwest Transmission _ $ 238,000 _$ 1$4,212 $ 53,788 North Transmission $ 85.000 $ 65,790 $ 19.210 +p,�juY•.fn+o�C:+'"Na:`41x ;MSR�;'tb:I. 't! di'�s+ i1/?�.^7 ^'�,c ,,, ks�.r�d� yH� ,w _ 13-Foot High Pressure Zone Piping Improvements_ _ W 144th Ave_ $ 142.500 $ 109,583 $ 32.918 W Benchview Terrace_ $ 114,000 S 87,666 $ 26,334 W Bull Mt_Road _ S 285,000 $ 219,165 $ 65,835 Northwest Transtnlssion $ 19t,250 $ 147.071 $ 44,179 SW 150th Ave. $ $5.000 $ 65.365 S 19.635 Total $ 2M32,690 650 $ 11,941 90 $ 11,591,2M OM%2= F_+PYgec OtlO p•ao7Vwaenrcoata+a�ysG�+s &"AM Z9 1-d 900"d 291-1 ZZ069Z2£09 VVM-iHodd kZ:60 OOOZ-80-Nnr Table 3 410-Foot Zone Improvements Project Cost Estimate Summary r O acility Im rovements Pum Station No.2(59%) S 236.000 $ 118,708 $ 117,292 10-Foot Reservoir No.5(1.0 MG $ 2,400,000 $ 1,207,200 S 1,192,800 SW Gaarde Street PRV Station $ 150,000 $ 75.450 S 74,550 SW 121st Ave.and Fonner Street&Vgtation &�28 �01S;�i ,840 $ 139,160 10-Foot Zone Piping Iztt rovements SW Walnut Street S 681,720 $ 342,905 1 $ 338,815 Walnut Sweet 121 st to Barrows .} S 1,368,000 $ 688,104 $ 679,896 Barrows Road S 304,000 S 152,912 $ 151,088 Site No. 1 Pi ing Irri rovements $ 200,000 $ 100,600 $ 99,400 Site No_4 Piping Improvements $ 300,000 $ 150,900 $ 149,100 Beef Bend Road&Pacific Fii hwa S 1,254,000 $ 630,762 $ 623.238 North 121 st Ave.Up Ymde $ 513,000 $ 258.039 $ 254,961 SW Lincoln Street S 60.000 $ 30,180 $ 29,820 SW Burnham Street $ 334,400 $ 168,203 $ 166,197 East 410-Ft.Zone Upgrade $ 1,109,600 5 558.129 $ 551.471 SW Barrows Road $ 228,000 $ 114,684 $ 113.316 W King Richard Drive $ 68.000 $ 34,204 $ 33,796 W 93rd AveJSW 92nd Ave. $ 399,000 $ 200,697 $ 198,303 W Fairhaven $ 421.800 $ 212,165 $ 209,635 SW Karen/SW 125th Ave. $ 127,500 $ 64,133 $ 63,368 10 Reservoir No.5 Su l $ 380.000 $ 191,140 $ 188,860 King City Urban Reserve(URA No.47) $ 344-5001 $ - $ .344.500 estJ Urbane Reserve URA No-42 1_ IS y�(1�,fM748�6M,�0.00 �$yr Cp - $ 1.748,000 't7!cIR�T,.�I.r'%.t R...�...� ,,.�u.`.yh, C`��y�•Y'��Y:�:�� A'. � '.�'t�3'.�JVV.. 1�I'W`C'� �', � Total S 12,907,520 $ 5L439,955 $ 7,467,565 F:1Prp�gpa�89�Od30.�D1�$D�BhlCOS!Ms�yst�d'a 8.4a 0818,44 A D AM Z91-J 900'd Z91-1 ZZOONZ809 VISH-flodi SNO OOOZ-80-Nnr MEMORANDUM pi TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Informational Items DATE: June 14, 2000 Attached are some informational items that will be distributed or discussed at the meeting on June 14th if time allows. • News articles Oregonian— May 15, 2000 Brochure on drinking water violates rules, complaint says Oregonian— May 17, 2000 Tualatin voters say no to drinking from Willamette Tigard Times— May 18, 2000 Tigard weighs its water options • Resolution 00-27 —Water rate increase • TVWD Letter dated May 24, 2000 regarding the renewal of letter of agreement regarding sale of water to the City of Tigard. Our ten-year contract with TVWD has a five- (5) year clause with the City of Portland approval. After five years, Portland stated they would agree to a review and evaluate the last five-year extension. Also attached is the response letter from the Portland Water Bureau. • 2000 seasonal water supply contingency plan — attached is the draft seasonal supply contingency plan from the City of Portland Water Bureau. This is a draft and will be presented to the Portland City Council in June. Again, this year they propose using the Columbia Southshore Wellfields. It will be interesting how the Portland City Council handles this, with pressure from the Bull Run Advocates. • City of Portland — Peaking Factor Information for Summer 2000 Kathy\info items 6-14 Brochure.on drinking water violates rules, complaint says TUALATIN—Citizens for Safe Water sent a complaint last Fri- day to the secretary of state's of- fice concerning a brochure about drinking water produced by the Willamette Water Supply Agency. The brochure was sent about a week ago to Tualatin residents / who are being asked to decide by Tuesday whether to support as much as$5.5 million in bonds to help finance a water treatment plant along the Willamette River in Wilsonville. The citizen's group says the J brochure's timing,content and audience make it political in na- ture and violate a state statute prohibiting political activity by public employees during their work time. The Willamette Water Supply Agency is a coalition of seven mu- nicipal water suppliers,including Tigard,Tualatin,Sherwood and the Tualatin Valley Water District. "The Willamette Water Supply Agency and its executive director used public funds—taxpayer dollars—to influence the out- c,-,me of the Tualatin election," d the letter written by residents Kathleen and Robert Newcomb. Project engineers say that tr:ated Willamette River water ex- c(:ads federal drinking standards. Members of Citizens for Safe Water contend that Willamette x�iter is unsafe to drink and that tederal standards are too lax. Tualatin voters say no to . drinking from Willamette '7 participation,with a slight majority West Linn library measure of voters favoring the expansion. has a slight edge but In Sherwood, partial returns g �' showed 70 percent of voters ap- perhaps not enough turnout proving Measure 34-12 to expand the City Council from five mem- By JANET GOETZE bers to seven. AND AIMEE GREEN In Yarrlllill County,Lopus s THEOREGONIAN ty p kaf-IL* 62, of McMinnville has been a Tualatin residents roundly said county commissioner for 24 of the`'_. no Tuesday to a proposal to tap the past 26 years and was unopposed Willamette River for drinking in the Democratic primary. Lewis, water,and in Yamhill Couty,voters 46, of Newberg led the Republican picked Republican Leslie Lewis of slate by a 5-1 ratio over second- ;Y Newberg to face incumbent Dem- place Marjie Ehrey,58,of Dundee, ocrat Ted Lopuszynski for county with Deborah Bartolotti Sumner, commissioner in November. 47, of Newberg running a distant The Tualatin City Council initial- third. ly voted to approve using the Wil- Yell County voters retained lamette River. Measure 34-11 three-term limitations for the sher would have allowed the city to put iff, treasurer, surveyor and clerk as'- $5.5 million in bonds toward a well as the county commissioners, water-treatment plant that Wilson- defeating a measure to change the ville is building. limits by a ratio of 10-to-7. Partial returns showed the mea- sure failing 3-to-1.Citizens for Safe Incumbent Treasurer Nancy Water, a group opposing the mea- Reed of McMinnville was leading sure contended the water challenger Roger Heller, 51, of wouldn't be safe for human use. McMinnville by a 5-1 ratio with Jim I "It was an awful burden to fight Schmauder,58,of Dayton,trailing. against die whole City Council," Newberg voters were defeating a said Kathy Newcomb of Citizens four-year, local-option tax of $1.4 for Safe Water. "It was an uphill million to pay for more firefighters battle for us, but it was clear that by about an 8-7 ratio.They also ap- people are just totally opposed to peared to be turning down a four- drinking from the Willamette." year,local-option tax of nearly$1.8 In West Linn, Measure 3-73, a million for police officers by fewer $3.9 million expansion of the li- titan 100 votes. brary was struggling to get the 50 In Lafayette, voters defeated a percent turnout required by the $1.06 million, five-year levy for ad- state double-majority law. Incom- ditional police service by a 2-1 ra-: plete returns showed 49 percent do. TT ■ The Times Tigardp wei hs its water o tions g BY JENNIFER BENT water board is made up of representa- the same thing" interest that raising the dam is likely, Of the Times tives from Tigard,King City, Durham If Tigard were serious about join- but getting everybody to commit to it and the Tigard Water District. ing the commission, the Scoggins is a whole other story. If they don't TIGARD — Since public contro- The board is also considering a Reservoir would have to be raised for raise the dam we won't become a versy muddied the Willamette River second option of partnering with the additional storage of raw water. With partner." as a future drinking water option for South Fork Water Board, which now Tigard's participation in the project, Tigard has also commissioned an Tigard, two other choices have sur- brings drinking water from the Engineering Services consultants engineering study along with the faced– h-.h of which .vou!d br,n ir. . ckamas River to Wes: Linn and estimate a ballpark cyst of$320 mil- South Fork board to uctennine \v,:a! water from other area rivers. Oregon City. Tigard, Lake Oswego lion over the next 40 years, with plant expansions and pipeline One is a possible partnership with and the North Clackamas County Tigard being responsible for approxi- improvements would be needed, how the Joint Water Commission, which Water Commission would become mately$60 million of that. much they would cost and how to get draws water from the Trask and the three new partners in the South The intergovernmental water the water to Tigard. It is expected to Tualatin rivers and from the Scoggin Fork agency if they join. board members directed staff to send be finished in December. Reservoir at Hagg Lake. It serves `After our election failed or how- a letter to the joint water commission If Lake Oswego decided not to Beaverton, Hillsboro, Forest Grove ever you want to look at it, the coun- manager outlining what the city of join the South Fork partnership. and the Tualatin Valley Water District. cil took that vote to heart and decided Tigard"would like to see"in order to Tigard would not be able to use the which in turn serves Tigard residents to not put the Willamette option on participate. transmission lines already in place north of Grecnburg, Road and the ballot in the immediate future;' "The IWB said they're willing to there. I lighway 217. said Tigard Public Utility Manager look at it, but the question is, what is "The direction of our council has Last week. Joint Watcr Mike Miller. "We postponed a deci- the likelihood of expanding always been ownership (of a water Commission consultants presented sion to look at other options because Scoggin?"said Miller."If they started source)," said Miller. "They want the the Intergovernmental Water Board the joint commission said this would today they'd be finished in 2007, but ability to actually have control so �%Ith a potential plan of how to pro- be great time for Tigard to join them. they don't know when they want to we're not having the big city telling g ide >crvicc and what it would take So, they included us in their planning start or if they want to start. The con- us what we'll be paying. Both of for Tii�ard to become a member The effort. The South Fork board is doing= sultants are saying there's enough these options would give us that" TIGARD, OREQON RESOLUTION NO. D-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, INCREASING RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES FOR WATER AND WATER RELATED SERVICES. WHEREAS, Section 12.10.130 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides that fees and charges for water and water related services be established by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the current water rates are those established by Resolution No. 93-67 as amended by Resolution Nos. 96-02, 96-55 and 96-58; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the existing water rates are insufficient to pay all capital, operations, maintenance and administrative costs of the water system and that a rate increase is therefore needed; now,therefore; THE CITY OF TIGARD RESOLVES THAT: SECTION 1: The customer charge established by Section 2 of Resolution No. 96-58 is increased to $3.66 per bimonthly period per account for all customer classes and meter sizes. SECTION 2: The booster charge for areas served by booster pumps established by Section 3 of Resolution No. 96-58 is increased to $3.22 per bimonthly period per account. SECTION 3: Water usage charges established by Section 4 of Resolution No. 96-58 are increased as set forth in this section. Water usage charges shall be charged for each 100 cubic feet of water and are established for the various customer classes as follows: Residential $1.35 Multi-Family $1.33 Commercial $1.57 Industrial $1.30 Irrigation $1.67 vo- RESOLUTION NO. Page 1 SECTION 4: The installation fees applicable to the Size of Meter Charge schedule and Bull Mountain Meter Rates established in Section 1 of Resolution No. 96-55 for meters 2" and under are increased to the amount set forth on the following table. Installation fees for meters 3" or greater are not changed. The total charges shall be increased to include the SDC amount plus the installation fees. Size of Meter Charge Schedule: Meter Size Installation Fees 5/8" x 3/4" $334.75 F, _ $587.10 1 1%2" $854.90 2" $1,014.55 SECTION 5: The Fire Service Connection fee established by Section 1(a)(II) of Resolution No. 93-67 is increased to: Fee $1,287.50 per Fire Service Tap + 12% Fee based on Construction Costs. SECTION 6: The Fire Rates (Sprinklers) established by Section 1(b)(II) of Resolution No. 93- 67 are increased to the amounts set forth in this Section. The Fire Rates (Sprinklers) will be based on the size of the service going into the building or vault: $15.45 per month —6" or smaller; $20.60 per month— 8" or larger. SECTION 7: The charge for turning water off and on when water service is discontinued for non-payment of bill established by Section lof Resolution No. 96-02 is increased to: $25.75 during business hours; $36.05 after hours and on Holidays and Weekends. (DO RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 1 SECTION S: The rate for temporary use of a Fire Hydrant established by Section 2 of Resolution No. 93-67 is increased to $25.75 for hook-up service, plus $25.75 per month for continued use, in addition to the rates established by Section 4 of this resolution. SECTION 9: All rate changes included in this resolution will be effective beginning July 1, 2000. PASSED: By Ur)CMI mUuS vote of all Council members present after being read number and title only, this a 2)r day of , 2000. Catherine Wheatley, City Record APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this �3'-� day o 2000. yor—City of Ti rd Approved as to form: ity Attorney V\I `0Q 1-13 a W Date u0� RESOLUTION NO. 27 Page 3 TualatinValley Water District 1850 SW 170th Ave.•P.O.Box 745 Beaverton,Oregon 97075.503/642-1511 •FAX:503/649-2733 May 24, 2000 Mike Rosenberger, Administrator City of Portland Bureau of Waterworks 1120 SW 5"' Ave. Portland. OR 97204 97204-1926 Re: Renewal of Letter of Agreement Regarding the Sale of Water to the City of Tigard Dear Mike, On August 25, 1995, the City of Portland, via letter, approved the sale of water from the Bull Run System via the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) to the City of Tigard. Condition No. 3 of that letter stated that the agreement was for only five years with Portland agreeing to review and evaluate a second five-year period. If your review were positive the agreement would be extended. The City of Tigard and TVWD respectively request that the City of Portland undertake this review for the purposes of allowing an additional five-year term. All other conditions remain the same. Tigard and TVWD understand that this letter may be modified based on the current negotiations of our 25-year contract. We appreciate your review of this matter. Should you have any questions, please call either Ed or myself. Sincerel , reg6ry E. DiLoreto Ed Wegner, City of Tigard General Manager Director of Public Works Letter to kosenherLer )ajc of \ atel to 1"Ial "L'I-CP. I111- QQXy,'1'I..SI,D o Erik Sten, Commissioner o4 �� CITY OF Michael F. Rosenberger, Administrator 4 0 1120 S.W. 5th Avenue x PORTLAND, OREGON Portland, Oregon 97204-1974 Information (503) 823-7404 Fax(503) 823-6133 BCIREACI OF WATER WORKS TDD ) 823-6868 1861 June 1, 2000 Mr. Greg DiLoreto Administrator Tualatin Valley:Nater District PO Box 745 Beaverton OR 97075 Mr. Ed Wegner Maintenance Services Director City of Tigard 12800 SW Ash Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Dear Greg and Ed, In August 1995 Portland approved the sale of water by TVWD to Tigard. The terms agreed upon then will continue except the end date will be December 2004 (end of TVWD Water sales contract) or when new contracts are signed. Portland, TVWD and Tigard continue to agree to the following: 1. The interests of other parties to the Washington County Supply Line (WCSL) agreement are not addressed in the TVWD/Tigard agreement, but TVWD has informed Raleigh Water District and the City of Tualatin of the details of the agreement. Contacts at both Raleigh Water District and the City of Tualatin say that they have no concerns about the agreement as long as TVWD insures that water flows and pressure to them are not materially effected. If sales to Tigard have a negative impact on the operations, pressure, or capacity of these entities Portland will be held harmless. µ 2. By approving this agreement Portland is in no way approving any deviations from the terms of either the 25 year Agreements or the WCSL Agreement. Portland intends to protect its rights under both of those agreements despite contrary terms, if any, in the TVWD/Tigard agreement. 3, Approval of this agreement does not set a precedent for either TVWD or other 25 year contract holders to sell water without prior written approval from Portland. June 1, 2000 Page 2- 4. 4. Water that is metered/sold by Portland to TVWD will be considered TVWD water. There will be no adjustments to reflect actual use by Tigard. This is particularly important concerning peak day/hour demand. Peak read data will not be changed in consideration of Tigard use. Portland recommends that Tigard continue demand management activities and participate in regional groups such as the Conservation Coalition. 5. The maximum day demand sold to Tigard is six (6) mgd. TVWD will report to Portland the amount of water sold to Tigard. This will be reported monthly and recorded on a daily basis if'possible. Sincerely, Michael F. Rosenberger, Administrator Cc: Jeanne LeJeune Bob Rieck Anne Conway DRAFT 2000 SEASONAL WATER SUPPLY AUGMENTATION AND CONTINGENCY PLAN CITY OF PORTLAND BUREAU OF WATER WORKS 1. OVERVIEW The Portland Bureau of Water Works (Bureau)has prepared seasonal water supply augmentation and contingency plans each year since the 1992 water shortage. The plans provide a comprehensive strategy for augmenting the City of Portland's baseline resources if needed during the peak demand season(summer and early fall). An interdisciplinary team of Bureau staff,with input from wholesale customer representatives,have prepared the plans based on up-to-date supply and demand information,analysis of resource options, and policy direction from the Portland City Council. The following report outlines the Bureau's proposed plan for managing water supplies during the 2000 peak season. The Bureau is circulating this draft plan report to a set of internal and external stakeholders for review and comment. Stakeholders include the City Council, Water Managers,regulatory agencies, large water users (including landscape and nursery representatives), and environmental organizations. The report will be revised and then submitted to the City Council for consideration in June 2000. 2. ASSESSMENT OF PEAK SEASON DEMAND AND SUPPLY RESOURCES Statistical Assessment of Needs In late winter and early spring of each year,the Bureau evaluates the potential need for Bull Run supply during the upcoming summer peak demand season. The Bureau monitors precipitation, snowpack, and streamflow, and assesses current and projected demands on the system. The population supplied by the City's water system during the peak season(June, July, August and September) of 2000 is estimated at about 838,500 (including retail and wholesale customers and accounting for Tualatin Valley Water District off-loads). In the average weather year, the Bureau estimates that peak season daily average water demand would be about 140 million gallons per day (MGD). (Note: For 2000, the Bureau used an econometric demand model rather than the Artificial Neural Network(ANN) model used in previous years. The econometric model, also used recently for infrastructure. master planning purposes, indicates a lower average demand (140 MGD) compared to the Draft: 05/09/00 1 average demand (1 53 MGD)provided in the 1999 plan. This difference in estimates of ' the average demand is most likely caused by a difference in the model characteristics rather than a trend in demand. Actual 1999 average peak season demand was 144 MGD.) The Water Bureau uses statistical models to estimate the likelihood that in any given year Bull Run supply might need to be supplemented to meet peak season demand. Figure 1 depicts this type of analysis, and indicates that there is about a 10 percent chance that 0-6 billion gallons (BG) could be needed to augment streamflow and usable reservoir storage in the Bull Run water system. Figure 1 —Likelihood that Bull Run Storage Will Need to be Supplemented to Meet Peak Demand (based on historical supply conditions and projected 2000 demands) Storage Required(13G) 16 14 - 12 10 Maxir um Usable Storage(10.2 13G) I i 8 I I 6 E 4- 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100 Exceedence Probability(Percent) Figure 1 provides an indication of potential need generally, but should not be viewed as a supply/demand forecast for the upcoming summer. The supply components are based on an analysis of the range of historical supply conditions and do not reflect weather forecasts for the 2000 summer season. In addition, the demand component, although updated, represents a range of possible historical weather conditions and does not attempt to project how demand might respond to actual weather as it occurs. Drawdown Scenario Analysis To evaluate the potential supply needs for a specific year, the Bureau uses a modeling tool that generates graphs like those depicted in Figure 2. This tool combines a physically based precipitation-runoff model (that projects reservoir inflows) with an econometric regression model (that projects system demands). This analysis takes into account weather forecasts, population estimates and historical information on supply, Draft: 05/09/00 2 Figure 2: 2000 Drawdown Projection As of May 2 Usable Storage in Bull Run Reservoirs(BGal) 11 10 9 . Cool V1bt Forecast: 8 Actual Storage(bold) Drawdown Ends 28-Aug 7 - 6 - Incorporates downstream releases 5 Does not include any groundwater use 4 Does not include any release from Bull Run Lake Median Forecast Drawdown Ends 11-Oct 3 - 2 USABLE STORAGE(10.2 Bgal in Bull Run Reservoirs) 1 0 Normal Supply Depletion Line -1 V\brrn-Dry Forecast: 2 Drawdawn Ends 13-Nov -3 NEED FOR CONTINGENCY RESOURCES(See Table 1) A -5 -6 -7 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 14OCt 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan .Draft: 05/09/00 3 climate, and demand. With this model the Bureau also incorporates 30-and 90-day Y weather forecasts starting in the spring season. Figure 2 incorporates a 90-day weather forecast (to July 30, 2000), but relies on historic climatological information to predict when reservoir refill might occur. As the summer season proceeds, actual weather and water supply/demand information is collected and new weather forecast information becomes available. This information is used to update the drawdown graph depicted in Figure 2 throughout the peak season. The Bureau uses updated versions of Figure 2 to make operation decisions (e.g., when and how to add supply from baseline or contingency resources). The vertical axis in Figure 2 is the volume of supply. The horizontal axis is time (by month over the course of the calendar year). The Normal Supply Depletion Line shows the point at which usable storage in the two reservoirs equals zero. The distance of a plotted line above the Depletion Line indicates the amount of routine usable storage in the Bull Run reservoirs (10.2 billion gallons when the reservoirs are full). This routine usable storage is currently defined as the amount available in the reservoirs above elevations of 960 feet for Reservoir 1 and 843 feet for Reservoir 2. The distance of a plotted line below the Depletion Line represents the amount of water(or demand reduction including curtailment)that would be needed to augment the Bull Run supply to meet peak season demand. By showing three possible scenarios,Figure 2 illustrates the uncertainty of the various forecasts. The middle line shows the"median"or most likely water supply use situation based on current information. The Cool-Wet scenario line depicts how much water would be needed if the summer were unusually wet and cool. The Warm-Dry scenario shows water needs if the summer is unusually dry and hot. Both of the extreme scenarios have about a 7.5 percent chance of being either wetter/cooler or hotter/drier than indicated by their respective graph lines. The most likely scenario indicates that the Bull Run reservoirs are likely to begin drawing down in early to mid-July. This forecast is based on historical supply and preliminary weather information(through July 30). It is also likely that about 4.5 billion gallons of Bull Run storage will be remaining when the reservoirs begin to refill in the fall. The Warm-Dryline indicates that if the summer turns out to be long, hot, and dry, there would there would be a need to provide a small amount of additional supply (about 1 billion gallons)to augment reservoir storage and streamflows in Bull Run. Resources available to meet this need are described in Section 3. The Bureau's reservoir drawdown forecasts (as shown in Figure 2) include experimental releases of water from the Bull Run reservoirs into the lower Bull Run River. Information collected during these releases will be used to help identify and evaluate the Bureau's long-term Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act compliance options. The total volume of the releases during the drawdown period is anticipated to be about 1.5 BG- Draft: 05/09/00 4 3. 2000 BASELINE AND SEASONAL CONTINGENCY RESOURCES The following section of this report outlines the baseline and contingency resources the Bureau will use, or could use, to meet peak season demand in 2000. Available resources are shown in Table 1. This table reflects conservative assumptions to ensure that the Bureau can manage even extreme supply shortage situations. For example, the hypothetical duration of the drawdown period shown in Table 1 is 151 days. Based on historic information, the drawdown period should be shorter than 151 days in about 95 percent of the years. In addition, the hypothetical drawdown date shown in the table is June 1. Early modeling efforts project that drawdown this year is likely to start in early to mid-July, which is fairly typical. The Bureau's summer strategy incorporates the use of"baseline resources," namely,the Bull Run water system (primary), the Columbia South Shore Wellfield (supplemental), seasonal wholesale demand offloads, and ongoing water conservation. The Bureau will manage these resources to meet water demand and provide multiple benefits as described in Section 4 of this report. Based on current demand and supply projections, available baseline resources should be more than sufficient to meet peak season demand, even in a hot, dry summer. In a more extreme supply shortfall situation, contingency resources provide an added"cushion" of reliability for Portland water customers. The resource options are described below. With the exception of Columbia South Shore wells and Bull Run Lake (Increment#1), all of the baseline resources are incorporated into the forecast shown in Figure 2. A. Baseline Resources Demand Management/Conservation Water savings from"naturally occurring conservation" and current conservation programs are embedded in the demand forecasts. (Naturally occurring conservation is the reduction in water use resulting from water efficient plumbing fixture regulations.) To date, the Bureau has determined that per capita water demand is about eight percent lower than it would have been without conservation, based on pre-1992 demand trends (a savings of approx.12 MGD or 1.8 BG over a 151 day drawdown season). Draft: 05/09/00 5 Table 1. Portland Water System Baseline and Seasonal Contingency Resource Availability for Peak Season 2000 Seasonal,Water,Supply Poten I I Rate of-Use Potenttal Peak Season Potential Use Period MGD) Volume($G) ('Duration=151 days, Resources x e.g.,June 1 Oct X29) Baseline Resources ■ Conservation Incorporated into NA Duration demand forecast ■ Bull Run -streamflow 35-125 MGD 7.5 BG(median) Duration -Res. 1 and 2 NA 10.2 BG(usable strg.) Duration -BR Lake Incr. #I to 30 MGD 0.3—0.7 BG 10-23 days elev.3,165' (depending on starting (permit does not allow lake surface elevation) releases before July 15) ■ Seasonal wholesale Incorporated into NA Duration demand offloads demand forecast (TVWD,PVRWD, Lake Oswego) ■ Columbia South Shore wells -Grp A:1,3,5,6, 35.547.5 MGD(90 days) 3.2-4.3 BG(90 days) See rate and volume 10,11,13,16,19 11.5-17.5 MGD(61 add'1 0.7-1.0 BG(61 add'1 specifications days) days) -Grp B: 12,18,26,29 18.5 MGD 2.8 BG Duration Contingency-Tier 1 ■ Clack.River offload 1.0 MGD 0.15 BG Duration via Lake Oswego (less 20 hottest days) ■ Clack.River intertie 4.5 MGD 0.7 BG Duration w/CRW ■ Voluntary Curtail. I 1 MGD 1.0 BG 8/1-10/29(90 days) (5 MGD after Nov. 1) ■ BR Lake Increment 60 days #2—to elev.3,152' 30 MGD 1.8 BG Y ■ TVWD wells offload 2.5 MGD 0.4 BG Duration■ Sherwood wells 0.2 MGD 0.03 BG Duration offload (less 20 hottest days) Contingency—Tier 2 ■ Col. S.Shore wells- 17.6 MGD 2.6 BG Duration Grp C: Pkrose 2&3; 7,8,14,32(17 offline) ■ BR Lake Increment 30 MGD 1.1 BG 37 days #3—to elev.3,143' • Mandatory Curtail. 36 MGD(18 MGD after 2.1 BG 9/1-10/29 Nov. l) • BR Res.2(bel. 843') unspecified unspecified late season Draft: 05/09/00 6 The Water Bureau sponsors many conservation activities as an individual utility and as an active member of the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition. (Note: In March 2000 the Regional Water Providers Consortium voted to merge with the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition. The merger will officially take place on July 1, 2000. Hereafter, in this report, the Coalition is referred to as the Consortium) Bureau programs include a radio campaign and retrofit of the Benson Bubbler fountains. The Bureau's BIG program(Business, Industry and Government) also continues to work with large non-residential customers to reduce their overall water use. Highlights of Bureau- and Consortium- sponsored conservation programs in place for this spring and summer 2000 include: ■ Water-wise landscape workshops with local nurseries: topics include soil preparation;right plant,right place; native plants; and turf care. (March through October) ■ Low water use plant identification pilot project with a local nursery (year- round) ■ Summer media campaign targeting wise summer water use (multi-media) (July and August) ■ Landscape audits for high water use residential customers (continued and enhanced from 1997 - 1999) (April through July) ■ Education/outreach(e.g., Madison High School service learning project, Metro Zoo Roar Faire, Earth Day Celebration) ■ Pilot large landscape audits for institutional, commercial and industrial customers(April—June) ■ Cooling tower workshops (May) Water Supply Bull Run • Bull Run streamflow—median 7.5 BG over the course of a drawdown season ■ Bull Run Reservoirs'l and 2 — 10.2 BG usable storage Dam 2 Construction Projects The Bureau has scheduled several maintenance/construction projects at Dam 2 during the 2000 summer season.These projects include lining the spillway approach canal to reduce leakage through the adjacent hillside, upgrading the Headworks intake, and overhauling mechanical equipment in the Powerhouse. These projects will temporarily complicate operation of facilities at Dam 2, Draft: 05/09/00 7 but they have been scheduled to avoid impacts on supply storage. The likelihood is very low that the Bureau would need to release water out of Reservoir 2 (other than what would already occur to deliver water to the conduits to meet customer demand) to provide the reservoir water levels needed to accomplish the construction projects. ■ Bull Run Lake Increment#1 (to 3,165' elevation)—0.3-0.7 BG Use of this increment retains an 85% likelihood that the lake will refill to full pool (at least 3,174') in time for cutthroat trout spawning season in the subsequent spring. Permit conditions prohibit any releases from the lake before July 15. Bull Run Lake Use During 1999 The Bureau released 0.4 BG of water from Bull Run Lake during summer 1999. The release was not for supply purposes;rather it was used to simulate flow and temperature conditions that could result from a hypothetical third dam in the upper watershed. Water temperature data was collected and will be used to evaluate long-term ESA and CWA compliance options. As predicted, the lake refilled to 3,174 feet elevation(full pool)by mid-December. Seasonal Wholesale Demand Offloads Seasonal wholesale demand offloads in baseline water supply resources include Powell Valley Road Water District wells (2.0 MGD), Tualatin Valley Water District connection to the Joint Water Commission(9-12 MGD), and Tigard offloads to Lake Oswego (1.5 MGD). These offloads are accounted for in the Bureau's demand forecasts. Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD) off-loads this year are influenced by completing construction of a pipeline that will allow water from the Joint Water Commission(JWC) to feed TVWD's terminal storage. When the connection is activated in mid-July 2000,TV WD will increase the amount they normally take from JWC from 4 to 6 MGD (summer 1999) to 9 to 12 MGD (summer 2000). Construction is underway (but will not be completed this season) on another pipeline that will further increase the flows that TVWD can take from the JWC. Columbia South Shore Wellfield The Group A and B wells available during the 2000 peak season provide 6.7 - 8.1 BG total capacity (less if the 20%blend ratio is maintained over the drawdown period). Draft: 05/09/00 8 Offline Wells Approximately 11.5 MGD of capacity in the wellfield will not be available from May to October 2000. Wells 2, 4, 9 and 15 will be offline for maintenance. Given the current supply and demand forecasts,this short-term loss of capacity is not expected to cause any supply constraints during the 2000 summer season. B. Seasonal Contingency Resources Two categories of contingency resources are presented in Table 1 and described below. Tier 1 contingency resources are simpler and less costly to use than Tier 2 contingency resources, and are thus assigned a higher priority for use. In an actual situation,the Bureau will consider"real-time" issues, constraints, and opportunities in selecting the appropriate combination of resources to meet identified needs. Tier 1 Contingency Resources "Tier 1"resources include using system interconnections with other water utilities to add water to,or"off-load" demand from, the water system. Up to about 0.85 BG of offset supply would be available from the Clackamas River through existing interconnections with Clackamas River Water and the City of Lake Oswego. Several wells(TVWD/Sherwood) might also be available to provide water(0.43 BG)in a shortage situation. Another important Tier 1 contingency resource is Bull Run Lake Increment#2. The Bureau can obtain about 1.8 BG by releasing water from the lake to a surface elevation of 3,152'. Limiting the drawdown to 3,152' provides 90-95% chance that the lake will refill to 3,165' the following spring, which ensures that resident fish can access certain lake tributaries for spawning. In a very hot and dry summer, it may be necessary and appropriate to ask customers to voluntarily reduce or"curtail"their water use. Issuing voluntary curtailment messages informs customers of a water short situation and provides them the opportunity to avoid higher water bills and help protect the environment. The Bureau can intensify its"wise water use" message to fit the circumstances. The Bureau estimates that about 1 BG of water savings could be obtained through voluntary curtailment,however the amount of savings would vary depending on the timing and intensity of the messages. Because media messages are not limited by utility service area boundaries, it is important to coordinate the delivery of curtailment messages with other Portland area water providers and stakeholders. Draft: 05/09/00 9 Tier 2 Contingency Resources The"menu" of Tier 2 Contingency Resources includes the following options: pumping specified wells in the Columbia South Shore, using Bull Run Lake Increment#3, imposing mandatory curtailment measures, and drawing Bull Run Reservoir#2 down below established water quality related elevation targets. Although Tier 2 resources are more complex and costly to use than Tier 1 resources, they provide critical flexibility to respond to an extreme supply shortage or emergency situation. Group C wells could provide up to about 2.6 BG during the peak season. Using these wells poses water quality challenges that complicate system operation. The Bureau has,however, successfully pumped these wells when recent winter flooding and landslide events temporarily limited the availability of Bull Run water. The Water Bureau is exploring various capital and operational improvements to address water quality issues and allow these wells to be moved into the baseline resource category. Using Bull Run Lake Increment#3 would involve drawing the lake down to an elevation of 3,143' to provide up to about 1 BG of additional supply. Use of the lake to this level would trigger federal permit conditions requiring expensive mitigation measures to protect fish and wildlife habitat. In an extreme water shortage, the City could require water use curtailment by establishing an emergency ordinance. The City would prohibit certain water use practices (e.g.,lawn watering, car washing) as specified by the ordinance. The City established such an ordinance in the summer of 1992 (when use of the Columbia South Shore Wellfield was restricted). Mandatory curtailment can cause substantial inconvenience for a broad range of customers. For certain business sectors (e.g., landscape and nursery), mandatory curtailment can also cause significant economic hardship. If necessary,the Water Bureau could draw Bull Run reservoirs 1 and 2 down below target elevations. However,because the Bull Run system is not filtered, extensive reservoir drawdown poses a risk of exceeding federal turbidity standards. Draft: 05/09/00 10 4. MEETING MUL'T'IPLE OBJECTIVES The Water Bureau has designed this strategy to meet key objectives including: ■ Promoting water use efficiency ■ Maintaining high water supply reliability ■ Optimizing water quality in the water system and in the Bull Run River ■ Contributing to threatened and endangered fish species recovery efforts • Managing costs Promoting Water Use Efficiency This year, in addition to the peak season wise water use campaign(described above) and ongoing conservation programs,the Bureau is continuing work on tracking and measuring conservation water savings. As an active member of the Regional Water Providers Consortium,the Bureau has helped develop a conservation program tracking and measurement strategy for the region. Seven Consortium members have provided production and consumption data so far. This project will allow the city and the region to track demand trends, assess the effectiveness of individual programs, and estimate future demand reductions associated.with naturally occurring or programmatic conservation. A regional water conservation workplan was also adopted recently and will be implemented this summer. Programs are consistent with past Coalition programs and focus on education and awareness, including landscaping workshops,property manager workshops and trade ally workshops. The 2000 work program is a regional step toward meeting the conservation water savings targets in the Regional Water Supply Plan. Maintaining High Water Supply Reliability and Optimizing Water Quality in the System Preliminary supply forecasts indicate an adequate supply of water this year to meet projected peak season demand. The Bureau is prepared to supplement Bull Run supply, if needed,by pumping groundwater and blending it with Bull Run supply at low to moderate levels (10 to 30 MGD) during July and August. Pumping groundwater early in the drawdown season would contribute to supply reliability (including peak days or multi-day events) while helping the Bureau to maintain a blend ratio target of up to 20% groundwater to 80%o or more of surface water. Maintaining this blend ratio would minimize impacts on water quality sensitive customers, aesthetic effects, and other customer inconveniences associated with water quality fluctuations in the system. (Note: The Bureau will consider actual supply conditions and weather forecasts in determining if and when to begin blending groundwater.) Draft: 05/09/00 11 Environmental Stewardship: Fish Recovery and Water Quality in the Bull Run River Just as the Bull Run River is a tributary of the larger Sandy River Basin, so too is the Water Bureau one entity in a larger system of entities with ESA responsibilities and interests in the basin. The Bureau will continue working to develop productive partnerships with regulatory agencies and others including National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland General Electric, the U.S. Forest Service, Metro, and the Sandy River Basin Watershed Council. The Bureau's goal is to work collaboratively to recover ESA-listed fish species and to reduce summer season water temperatures in the lower Bull Run River. The Bureau anticipates a three phase process: Phase 1 (currently in progress) involves collection and_ compilation of technical information and work with agency staff and stakeholders to identify and evaluate the range of compliance options. Phase 2 will involve negotiation of the measures to be included in the Bureau's proposed compliance package. Phase 3 will involve procedural/documentation steps(e.g.,preparation of an environmental impact statement,any necessary implementation plans, and legal documentation) and decision-making by the City Council and by the regulatory agencies. These three phases will take about 3-5 years to complete. We anticipate the Bureau's compliance package will include both"on-site" (in the Bull Run Basin) and"off-site" (elsewhere in.the Sandy Basin) components. Measures to protect fish and to lower river water temperatures will be considered in the context of the range of objectives the water system must meet. The Bureau has helped to convene a technical committee and a policy committee under the auspices of the Sandy River Basin Agreement. The Bureau's goal for these committees is to define the Bureau's ESA/CWA responsibilities in the context of what others (e.g., Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, Portland General Electric)plan to be doing in the Sandy Basin during the same time period. These discussions will help the Bureau anticipate the implications for summer season water supply in future years. For the year 2000,the Bureau will release approximately 1.5 BG of water into the lower river during the peak season. Releases during 2000 include a 100 cfs release until June 15`h that the Bureau pledged in the Steelhead Supplement to the Oregon Plan. This release provides flow during the steelhead spawning season. Because this release ends prior to the probable mid July drawdown date, it will have little or no effect on summer season supply availability(and is not included in the 1.5 BG estimate). Experimental releases of 30 efs and 60 cfs will occur in late July, and will provide data to supplement similar data collected during the 1999 summer season. If water is available, experimental releases will continue at up to 30 efs until refill. Temperature and wetted habitat data collected during this time will be used to identify and evaluate longer-term habitat improvement and temperature management options. The Bureau is also continuing work on a flow and temperature model for the Bull Run system. Draft: 05/09/00 12 Managing Costs As described.in Section 3, the Bureau has assigned priorities to the seasonal supply-side and demand-side resource options that are available for use during the peak season. These priorities, in part, reflect the objective to manage the potential public and private costs associated with meeting peak season demand in both typical and extreme supply circumstances. In general, the City's baseline water supply resources (Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield) cost less than potential contingency items shown in Table 1. For example, purchasing Clackamas River water costs about$0.65 per 100 cubic feet(CCF),while using the Columbia South Shore Wellfield cost about $0.20 - $0.25 per CCF. Using Bull Run Lake Increment#2 may trigger environmental mitigation costs (approximately $150,000) if the lake does not refill to full pool (i.e., at least 3,174')the following spring. Voluntary curtailment messages can yield significant reductions in water use,but also result in decreased revenues to the Bureau and additional costs for media advertisements. The Bureau must factor in these costs when designing and implementing routine summer supply operating strategies as well as when dealing with water supply shortages. 5. SUMMARY In closing,there is sufficient water available to meet the range of potential supply and demand conditions that could occur on the Portland water system during the 2000 summer season. The Portland Water Bureau summer supply strategy is designed to make best use of existing resources to meet multiple objectives. Key objectives focus on water use efficiency, supply reliability, water quality, environmental stewardship and cost management. The Bureau will be continuing to focus on water conservation, and conjunctive use of the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Wellfield supply systems to meet water peak season demands. The Bureau will continue flow release tests to measure how different flow regimes can enhance fish habitat and lower water temperatures in the lower Bull Run River. The Bureau will continue to coordinate with key stakeholders and customers as the summer proceeds to ensure that interested parties can stay apprised of supply and demand conditions as they unfold. Draft: 05/09/00 13 CITY OF =rik Sten, Commissioner o Michael F. Rosenberger, Administrator 1120 S. PORTLAND, OREGOREGONF , W. 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Information (503) 823-7404 BUREAU OF WATER WORKS Fax(503) 823-6133 1851 TDD (503) 823-6868 Date: June 2, 2000 To: Operations Staff- Wholesale Customers From: Anne Conway Nt'vV-c-� Re: Peaking Factor Information for Summer 2000 GENERAL OVERVIEW- 10% VARIATION ALLOWED Peak season operations under the "10% method" during the summers of 1998 and 1999 was successful from a system wide view. The system problems, caused in prior years by heavy draws on the weekends as districts quickly filled tanks, were eliminated. The Bureau operations staff was pleased because the chemical balancing problems associated with the drastic flow shifts of prior summers did not happen. District operators also were pleased with the added operational flexibility the new method offered. WHAT IF I DO NOT HAVE TELEMETRY? Small districts that are not connected to the control center will have an hour peaking factor of 1. The day,peaking factor for districts not on telemetry (or if telemetry is not working) is the average of the day factors for districts on telemetry. I expect the districts on telemetry will have peaking factors of 1 this summer, so all districts would then have peaking factors of 1. If that happens all districts in the same service area have the same rates. HOW DOES THE 10% METHOD WORK? The 10% method offers districts more system flexibility. In 1998 and 1999 most districts were abie�tv buy water from Portland in an even pattern from drawdown to the end of the peak season. During the last 2 summers peak season operations lasted from about mid July to the end of August. A week for start up and testing was not included. I expect the 2000 peak season will be July and August but the weather is of course an unknown. The aim of the 10% method is that districts draw water from Portland in a smooth pattern all day every day. This method requires districts use storage carefully and be very familiar with both the operation of their system and their customers usage patterns. The basic premise of this operational method is that districts maintain a smooth flow pattern, with an allowance of 10% (i.e., flows of 1,000 G.P.M. couk; vary between 900 and 1,100 G.P.M.). Flows can only vary by 10% on an hourly and daily basis. The hourly pattern worked well for districts in 1999. 1 expect all districts will have peaking factors of 1 for the hour component of the peak charge. An Equal Opportunity° Emplover Peak Season 2000 June 2, 2000 With the 10% method districts are not constrained to buying only their average annual day in order to achieve a peaking factor of 1 as was the case under the "old" peaking factor calculation. Rather, smooth flows all day all week are rewarded. Districts that maintain flows that do nbt vary more than 10% from day to day receive a peaking factor of 1. Example of the Calculation -- To stay within the 10% limit, a district buying 1,000 CCF (about 520 G.P.M.) could vary the next day between 900 and 1,100 CCF. So if on day 1 a district uses 1,000 CCF the peaking factor for the following day will be 1 if the next days consumption is between 900 and 1,100 CCF. The calculation for a period when flows changed more than 10% is as follows -- On day 1 a district buys 1,000 CCF. The following day the district purchases 1,500 CCF. The 1,500 is 400 units different from the maximum allowable of 1,100. The ratio then is 400 units (DIFF.) compared to 1,100 (MAX) _ 400/1,100 =0. 36. In order to setup a stream of numbers add 1.0 to 0.36 which becomes 1.36. (The hour calculation is done the same way.) This table is an example of a week's calculation. This is an extreme example — I think most districts will stay within the 10% pattern this summer. Date Demand Allowance MIN-MAX Absolute Difference Ratio 10% RANGE(allowance value (DIFF.) {(DIFF/MAX)+1} -/+prior day) differenc between e from absolute& prior day allowance July 1 1,000 July 2 1,500 100 900-1,100 500 490 1.36 July 3 1,000 150 1,350-1,650 500 350 1.21 July 4 1,100 100 900-1,100 100 0 'x'.00 July 5 1,200 110 1,090-1,210 100 (10) 1.00 July 6 1,200 120 1,080-1,320 0 (120) 1.00 July 7 1,000 120 1,080-1,320 200 80 1.06 AVER 1.11 HOW MUCH WATER CAN MY DISTRICT BUY EACH DAY? The decision is left to the districts. The snort answer is -you can buy any amount you want but to maintain a peaking factor of 1.0 the restriction is that flows must not be more than 10% different from the day before. For example - if Sunday purchases fro,Lrl Portland are 1 MGD then on Monday you can buy between .9 MGD and 1.1 MGD. The-smooth flow pattern-mast be maintained over the summer all day every day, there are no weekend quick fix or adjustment opportunities. 1 Peak Season 2000 June 2, 2000 WHY CAN'T MY DISTRICT JUST BUY WATER TO COVER DAILY DEMAND -WHY BOTHER USING STORAGE? The 10% restriction inhibits districts from buying exactly their daily demand from Portland - unless your daily demand does not vary by more than 10%. On hot days changes in customer demand could well exceed the 10% allowance. This method still requires that districts use storage carefully. WHY CAN'T MY DISTRICT KEEP STORAGE FULL ALL THE TIME? Once again the 10% change from the day before comes into play. If demands in your district decrease more.than 10%, you need to have some room in your storage to stay within the 10% purchase ratio. If you think that the near term weather is going to be hot then almost full storage might work for you. The decision is yours, but careful use of storage is the only way to stay within the 10% change pattern giving your district the lowest possible rates. To make this pattern work requires a good understanding of both your system and your customer demand. WILL WE EVER BE ABLE TO CHANGE FLOWS MORE THAN 10% WITHOUT INCURRING A PEAKING PENALTY? The general consensus of operators is that ONLY SYSTEM EMERGENCIES, such as a large fire or main break, would be valid justification for a pattern change. So please call me at 823-7468 if you have any system emergencies Since the 10% control cannot be achieved without telemetry you need to make sure that your telemetry is up and running before the peak season. If your system has a brief telemetry malfunction please let me know so the peak calculation can be adjusted. In addition —you can request one day per month be excluded from the calculation. And if a sudden weather change causes serious demand reductions districts can decrease flows by 20%. Please call the Control Center at 823- 1560 to schedule the timing�&Ahe flow change. - — WHAT ABOUT THE HOUR FACTOR? The calculation for hour is exactly the same as the calculation for the day- each hour is compared to the prior hour and average of all the hours becomes the hour peaking factor. The hour factor will be "1" if flows did not fluctuate by more than 10% from hour to hour. Again, don't hesitate to call me at 823-7468 if you have any questions. cc: Jim Doane Todd Humphrey Rich Perkel Bob Rieck randy Hawley _ a