04/26/2000 - Packet Public Works Copy
Intergovernmental Wkwao�s
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
AGENDAI
Wednesday, April 26, 2000
5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
Motion to call meeeting to order
2. Roll Call and Introductions
Staff to take roll tall
3. Approval of Minutes— April 12,2000
Motion from Board for minute approval
4. 2000/0I Budget Review—Mike Miller(IS minutes)
:.
Review budget documentation—no action necessary
i
I
5. Water Rate Increase—Mike Miller(20 minutes) j
Presentation on what results of 3%fee increase will look like. Discussion of timetable for this issue
and make recommendation to refer to Tigard City Council for approval
I
6. Long Term Water Supply—Ed Wegner(10 minutes)
Presentation/update on various long term water supply options. No action necessary
7. Informational Items
Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed j
i
8. Public Comments
Call for any comments from public
9. Non Agenda Items
Call for any non-agenda items from Board Members. Next meeting date May 10`h
G
10. Adjournment—Approximate time 7:00 p.m. G
Motion for adjournment
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1)(d),(e),(fl&(h)to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,current and pending litigation issues and
to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential; j
therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media
are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
I
Intergovernmental Water Board
Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2000
Members Present: Paul Hunt, Gretchen Buehner,Jan Drangsholt, and Patrick
Carroll
Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz, Craig Prosser, and Gary
Firestone
Visitors Present: Chris Uber, Phil Smith, Paul Owen, Roel Lundquist, and Mr. &
Mrs. J. Shelton, and Mr. & Mrs. Kirkpatrick
1. Call to order
The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:30
p.m.by Vice Chair, Patrick Carroll due to Chairperson Scheiderich's absence. i
2. Roll call and introductions
Roll call was taken with Chairperson Scheiderich absent and Commissioner Buchner
arriving at 5:40 p.m.
3. Approval of minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner Hunt to approve the minutes from the February 28th
and March 8a'meetings, which was seconded by Commissioner Drangsholt. Motion was
voted upon and passed unanimously.
4. Credit allowance request—Craig Prosser
Ms. Kirkpatrick outlined their request for additional assistance regarding a water leak
beginning with a letter that was sent to Craig Prosser back in November. According to
Ms. Kirkpatrick they were notified on June 14th of a possible water leak and they were
told that someone would contact them the next day.regarding the leak. Without any
visible signs of a leak and no further contact from the Water Department, they assumed
the situation was under control. In August they received their utility bill and were
shocked at the amount of the bill and were aware at that time that they had the leak in
their irrigation system repaired. The Kirkpatrick's billing for six months was $754.29
and they were credited$153.14 and have continued to make payments on the account.
They requested a credit of$401.15. After the Kirkpatrick's presented their story, the
Board briefly discussed this situation and Commissioner Hunt motioned to credit the
IWB Meeting_ Minutes April 12,2000
Page 1
Kirkpatrick's account$401.15 with a second from Commissioner Drangsholt. The Board
voted on the motion, which passed with an abstention from Commissioner Buehner.
Mr. & Mrs. Shelton was present at the meeting to discuss a leak situation in which they
were requesting a credit of$200 on their account. The Shelton's were out of town and an
elderly family member was at the home when the leak was noted. According to the
Shelton's there was a leak in the bathroom of the elderly family member who was unable
to detect a leaky toilet. As soon as the leak was noted it was repaired immediately: The
Shelton's were billed in excess of$400 and were credited with $26.55. They were
requesting to split the total billing of$400 and credit their account for$200. After brief
discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Drangsholt to credit the Shelton's
account for$200, which was seconded by Commissioner Hunt and passed-unanimously. i
The Board discussed the need for defining the policy on leak credits. It was noted that
staff would review this policy and return to the June meeting with some policy
recommendations.
5. Water Master Plan—MSA
Ed Wegner stated that a contract was executed with Murray, Smith and Associates to
complete a hydraulic water master plan. Chris Uber from Murray, Smith and Associates
was present to make a presentation on the Water Master Plan.
Chris began his presentation by noting previous studies on the Bull Mountain service
area, water supply plan,Willamette River Water Supply System Preliminary Engineering
Report and various distribution system analyses. A completion of a comprehensive
distribution system analysis consisted of the following:
• System inventory
• Population demand estimates
• Establish planning and analysis criteria
• Develop hydraulic model
• System analysis
• Determine existing deficiencies
• Improvement needs for system expansion
• Recommended system improvements
• Develop capital improvement plan
Mr. Uber continued by outlining the existing system service/pressure zones, reservoirs,
pump stations, pressure reducing stations and distribution system piping. He then
discussed the population and projected water demands for the year 2000 through 2060.
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 2
4
Mr. Uber continued by discussing the analysis and findings of storage and pumping needs
and distribution system needs*with the following recommendations:
• Storage
Service zone Recommended volume/number of reservoirs
550 - foot 5.0 mg—2 reservoirs
713 - foot 0.8 mg— 1 reservoir
410 -foot 1.0 mg— 1 reservoir
• Pumping
550—foot 2 new stations
713—foot 1 consolidated station
470—foot Expanded station capacity
• Distribution system improvements
410 foot service zone
550—foot service zone
713 —foot service zone
• Other
Property acquisition
Aquifer Storage and Recovery(ASR)
Infrastructure project coordination
Mr. Uber discussed the recommended project sequencing as follows:
• Prioritized recommendations
Yearly projects
Sequencing
Estimated annual capital outlays
Reco_m_ _mendedfiscal year 2000101 projects
Project Project Costs
Property acquisition $350,000
SW Walnut Street main 513,000
550-foot reservoir supply main 152,000
SW 79 Avenue main 285,000
SW Burnham Street main 335,000
ASR stud w/Beaverton 25,000
Distribution system main 75,000
oversizin
TOTAL $1,T35,000
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 3
Recommendedfiscal year 2001102 projects
Project Project Costs
Menlor pump station $650,000
550-foot reservoir pumping 190,000
SW 150 Avenue piping 171,000
SW Gaarde Street PRV 150,000
ASR Stud wBeaverton 25,000
Telemetry system evaluation 50,000
Distribution system main 75,000
oversizin
TOTAL _. . $1,311,000
In summary, Mr. Uber stated that hydraulic model would provide for the following:
• Comprehensive plan
• Long term vision of distribution system
• Provides for expanding service needs
• Ready to integrate with long-term water supply
• Identifies capital needs vision
• Dynamic document
Mr. Wegner stated that of the original contract with Murray, Smith and Associates the
water quality portion will be set aside until a determination is made on a long-term water
supply. He continued by stating that Mr. Uber will be back at the May 12th meeting with
a formal draft of the hydraulic model which will in turn need to be taken back to the
appropriate entities for adoption. At the July 12`h meeting of the IWB this document will
be adopted as a working document (Master Plan) and each representative will come back
with acceptance from his or her respective entities.
A brief break was taken and the meeting was resumed at 6:55 p.m.
6. Ballot Petition Initiative 47—Craig Prosser
Mr. Prosser, Finance Director for the City of Tigard was in attendance to present
information on the Ballot Petition Initiative 47. Mr. Prosser distributed copies of his
presentation, report by Preston Gates &Ellis on the initiative, the measure, and Mr.
Sizemore's information on the initiative.
He began his presentation with a disclaimer that the information being provided was
based upon current understanding and interpretations may change with further legal
review. He stated the following regarding the initiative:
• Filed by Bill Sizemore, March 10, 1999 as Initiative#47
• Certified ballot title reads "Amends Constitution: Requires voter approval
of most new and increased taxes, fees."
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 4
e
• Similar to Measures 5 (1994), 20 (1996), and I-695 recently approved in
Washington
• Main differences from previous measures:
Retroactive to December 6, 1998
Inappropriate tax of fee increases subject to refund
Raising percentage required for voter approval of measures
He continued by stating that the main focus of this initiative is no fee increases without a i
vote.
• People's right to approve all taxes
• No fee increases without vote
• Increased voter approval percentage 4
• Public safety and gas tax exempted from Super Majority [
• Removal of tax credits or exemptions considered an increase
• Double majority still applies
• Issues/Comments
• Subjects all obvious taxes, fees and charges to voter approval with new
percentage requirement, including local option taxes, utility rates and charges
and permit and planning fees.
* Unclear whether increased property tax revenues due to increases in value are
subject to measure.
• Unclear whether increases in taxes paid by property owners for levy-based
taxes due to differential growth rates in valuation are covered by this measure.
* Currently, measure allows votes only at general elections. Legislature would
need to establish an annual date for approving statewide initiatives for more
frequent election opportunities to exist.
• Public safety is viewed as the primary mission of government, hence the
exemption from the super-majority provision for renewal at the same rate or
amount. Public Safety measures are still subject to the super majority if they
are new or if they increase the,rate or amount.
• Exemption for gas tax is inconsistent with the rest of the measure. Why is it
here?
* If new elections granted, Measure 50 double majority provisions would still
apply to new property taxes.
The ballot title and ballot question contents are:
The ballot title for a measure to adopt a new tax, fee, or charge; to approve a bond
measure, or to increase an existing tax, fee, or charge, shall begin with the words:
• A"yes" vote on this measure is a vote to increase taxes"
If the measure is a bond measure, the ballot question must contain a projection of
the total cost of the bond, including interest thereon.
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 5
i
rr!
` • 6
Issues and comments on the ballot title contents:
• Language required specifies increasing"taxes" even in cases where measures
addresses fees and charges. Governments will be required to tell voters
something that is not true.
• Projection of bond"cost" may be wildly inaccurate,--especially if bonds are not to. .
be sold for an extended period of time or are to be sold in series.
• Will the size of the bond measure be limited by the total cost projection? (i.e. If
interest rates increase dramatically, the total cost of the bond measure will
increase. Will the size of the bond have to be lowered to keep within the total
cost projection?)
Mr. Prosser continued•his presentation by discussing the following exemptions,of.this
measures and the issues/concerns with each:
• Existing general obligation bonded indebtedness exempt
This measure clearly exempts general obligation bonds approved prior to
November 7, 2000 but...It raises questions about validity of bonds approved at
November 7, 2000 election by less than required percentage or without the proper
ballot title wording. Exemption only applies to "taxes levied for...bonded
indebtedness". May not apply to revenue bonds, even if.they have been
previously approved by the.voters.
• Certain revenues
The following revenues shall not be considered new or increased taxes, fees or
charges...
* Users fees charged by Peoples' Utility Districts or port districts
* Mass transit fares
* CoIlege or university tuition and fees
* Incurred charges and assessments for local improvements (Measure 5)
* Pass through costs of wholesale inputs that are not government employee
labor costs, or otherwise under the charging government's control
* Fines or forfeitures for violation of law
* Lottery revenue
* Fees paid to official business and trade associations by those engaged in that
business or occupation
* Earnings from interest, investments, donations, or asset sales and
* Competitively priced fees or charges for products or services which may be
legally obtained from a reasonable available source other than government
The following issues/comments in regards to certain revenues:
• Incurred charges exemption may be helpful for some fees (development-related,
possibly utilities)
• Fines/forfeitures exemption may give incentive to modify charges into fines
• Pass-through of increased wholesale costs—may allow increases without a vote
for costs "passed through" from one government to another(i.e. Portland water)
• Exemption for"legally obtained from a source other than government" should
apply to some park and recreation services (e.g. swimming pools)
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 6
Retroactivity and refunds
• Retroactivity Provision
* Measure retroactive to December 6; 1998
* Any taxes or fees imposed or increased more than 3% during that time must
be repealed or referred to a vote of the people "at the next election"
* Past elections would now be subject to the new super-majority requirement
* Past elections may be subject to the new Ballot Title and Ballot Question
wording requirements
• Refund Provision
* If a tax or fee was imposed or increased more than 3% and not subsequently
approved by the voters in conformance with this measure, the amount-
collected must be refunded"to the payer"
The following issues/comments in regards to retroactivity and refunds:
• Local option levies approved after December 6, 1998 and that increased taxes by
more than 3% must be refunded unless originally approved by new percentage or
subsequently re-approved.
• Unclear if previous approval had to use new ballot title language
• Election to validate previous increase may be at any election, not just general
election. Not clear whether double majority provisions apply to re-approval '
• How will governments refund money to "the payer" when that information is not !
currently maintained(i.e. water billings, parking meters, etc)?
• If revenue bonds are outstanding, increases in rates required by bond covenants to
meet coverage ratios may be protected by contracts clause. However, funds
collected over what is necessary to meet coverage may be subject to refund .
provisions
• Inflationary Increases
* Increases since December 6, 1998 okay if they did not exceed 3%
* Future increases are allowed"at a rate not greater than the rate of inflation"
without a vote of the people
Issues/comments regarding inflationary increases:
• With 3% provision, essentially allows for increase of approximately 1.5% per
year during period between December 7, 1998 and December 7, 2000
• Fees may be increased after December 7, 2000 by the rate of inflation without a
vote of the people
• "Rate of inflation" is not defined. Depending on index used, this may be more or
less useful.
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 7
• Changes in Income or Circumstances
• Increased taxes as a result of changes in Federal law increased income not
affected
• This section shall not require a vote of the people when increases in
government revenue occur solely due to
o A change in federal tax law
o Increases in income
o Or other changes in the circumstances of individual taxpayers
• Existing property tax limitations still apply.
• Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing an increase in the tax
on a property tax in an aitiount greater than allowed under Article XI of this
Constitution
* Government may temporarily suspend or lower a tax or fee, and than later
increase it to the level allowed by this measure without a vote
Issues/comments regarding exemptions:
• Exemption for increases in revenue due to increases in income should allow State
to collect income tax based on current system
• Not clear whether increases in local government property taxes due to growth in
value is exempt under this section. They may not be"change in the
circumstances of an individual taxpayer".
• Measure does not address change in taxes attributable to annexations.
• State Override Provisions
• The legislature and Governor may override this section and call for a special
election date other than the date(s) set forth in this section, or
• Enact by law particular taxes, or authorize particular local taxes, fees, or charges
without a vote of the people.
If:
• Such taxes are approved by a three-fourths vote in each house and signed into law
by the Governor.
• The tax authorized is designated for a specific purpose
• The tax shall be in effect no longer than twelve months
• The tax shall be subject to referendum
Issues/comments regarding State override provisions:
• Ability to achieve 3/majority plus Gubernatorial approval seems remote
• Best case is one year tax
• Impractical timing: No provision for dealing with years when Legislature not in
session. Section la of Article IX requires waiting 90 days after signing for a tax
measure to be effective. Therefore, delays in collection of additional revenue may
be substantial
• Local tax may be approved,but not clear on collection mechanism and how it is
coordinated with other constitutional provisions. Measure 50 limitations still in
effect for property taxes
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 8
• If the measure is sub sequentially referred to the voter and not approved, the tax
or fee will be subject to refund provisions
• Local Override Provisions
• A city, county or local taxing district may override this section for a period not
exceeding twelve months
If:
• A local emergency is declared by the Governor
• The override is approved by not less than a three-fourths vote of the members of
the local governing body
• The continuation of the tax for any remainder of the twelve months is approved
by the voters voting in an election held within ninety (90) days of the date the
emergency is declared
• The tax or fee is otherwise adopted in conformance with this section
Issues/comments regarding local override provisions:
• Election problems—may not be able to hold an election within 90 days under
current law or in an emergency situation
• Voter approval subject to adoption "in conformance with this section" which
probably means both the higher percentage and possibly requiring voting at a
general election, which would render the local override provision mostly
meaningless
• If measure is subsequently not approved by voters, the tax or fee will be subject to
refund provisions
• Penalties for Violations
• Penalties—6% interest,plus cost of living l
• Amounts collected in violation of this measure shall be refunded along with `
interest, computed as the cost of living change plus six percent per year,
compounded.
• In some cases, credits may be substituted for refunds t
• If the cost of issuing the refund is more than 20% of the amount of the refund, a
credit may be issued to the appropriate taxpayers
l
Issues/comments regarding penalty for violations:
• "Cost of living change" undefined
• Would penalty be assessed for refund of fees, taxes collected during retroactive i
period when the collection was allowed?
• Issuing credits to taxpayers may not be an option - If the appropriate fee is one-
time or periodic rather than ongoing. How would credit be issued? What
happens if the payer has moved out of the jurisdiction and will, therefore have no
future charges to credit against?
• The money for paying the costs of the refunds or paying the penalties cannot be
netted out of the refund. This creates an additional burden on other revenues.
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 9
i
I
• Other Financing Mechanisms that do not increase taxes or fees may be subject
to a vote
• Because governments have at times been creative at redefining terms, or
otherwise creating new funding mechanisms in order to circumvent limitations
(emphasis added)the legislature and the courts shall apply the strictest scrutiny to
any new or renamed government funding mechanism
• Certificates of participation and all such funding mechanisms shall be subject to
the same limitations and requirements as a bond measure
Issues/comments regarding other financing mechanisms:
• Certificates of participation and other financing mechanism are used by
government to finance major equipment and capital facilities at advantageous
interest rates over time without increasing taxes i
• Does other financing mechanisms include revenue bonds?
• Suggests that even if certificates of participation, or other funding mechanisms
have no impact on increasing taxes, fees or chane, still subject to voter approval
• Legal Challenges
• Standing to bring suit—any Oregon taxpayer affected by a new or increased tax,
fee or charge has standing to challenge it or the election authorizing it. Such an
action must be started within ninety (90) days after the earlier of:
o The date on which the election approving the tax,fee or charge or bond is
held or;
o The date on which the tax, fee or charge is first imposed or the bond is
approved for issue
• Award of attorney fees—the court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing
taxpayer or if the action is found to be frivolous,to a prevailing government party
Issues/comments regarding legal challenges:
• Language of the measure is unclear. This creates a large potential for suits.
• The 90 day provision for legal challenges may cause delay in the issuance of
bonds, as issuers may want to let period run after obtaining voter approval
before the bonds are issued.
• Unequal treatment of attorney's fees encourages citizen litigation. Citizen
receives attorney's fees if they prevail; governments receive fees only if the
citizen suit is "frivolous"
Mr. Prosser concluded his presentation with the following:
• The retroactive and refund provisions are a major problem area. Money was
collected legally(under rules that currently exist) and has been spent
• Refunds may be payable from any source.—e.g. even if the fee or charge came
from the Sewer fund,the General fund might have to provide the reimbursement
if there are insufficient dollars in the Sewer fund to do it.
• Difficulty in identifying"payer"
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 10
V
• Local option taxes approved at any election between December 1998 and
December 2000 that increased taxes more than 3% will invalidated if they were
not approved by at least the percent that the measure was approved by
• Typical result: library fines, cafeteria increases, parking meter increases, and/or
placement of new parking meters, planning fees,permitting fees—are all
potentially subject to voter approval
• November 7, 2000 general obligation bond elections may also be invalid—if they
are not approved by the same percentage as the measure itself or if measure does
not contain the appropriate wording. Most bond counsel think that bond measures
will be ok if the bonds are sold prior to December 8. However, beast case is that
municipalities will have to sell all bonds in one month period of time—a practical
impossibility. '
• Exemption for"incurred charges" may exempt some fees and'some utility
charges. Under Measure 5, a property tax was exempt from the limits if it could
be classified as an incurred charge (avoidable, equal to the actual cost of
providing the service). Requires a legal interpretation.
The Board raised the question whether rates could be increased at this time within the
allowable limits? Gary Firestone stated that since there has been no rate increase since
December of 1998,the Board could increase the rates by 3% without any.problem.The
Board continued the discussion on whether using the base rate from Portland in 1999/00
of.66 cents and next years rate of.88 cents could we investigate the legality of raising
the rate based upon this twenty-two cent increase? Gary Firestone stated that to raise the
rates 3% would clearly be allowed if the initiative passes but to attempt to go after an
increase from Portland would raise numerous questions.
Commissioner Drangsholt made a motion to direct staff to prepare the documents to ask
City Council to increase fees by 3%. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Hunt
and voted upon and passed unanimously.
Mr. Wegner stated that staff would come back to the next meeting with a timetable to get
this issue on the City Council agenda.
7. Director's Report
Mr. Wegner stated he would cover a few items and then send a memo to the Board to
cover the additional items. He continued by stating that they had met with the consultant
that was hired to work on the Portland contract and are working on revising the timetable,
and after completion will be forwarded to the Board. The process is expected to be
finished one year prior to the first wholesale contract expiration date (2002). This will
place all wholesale customers on the same schedule. Since this will be completed prior to
2002, it will allow Tigard five years to determine the status of their contract.
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 11
Mr. Wegner and Bill Monahan met with the Joint Water Commission's, General Manager
and Public Works Director last week and will be attending a meeting on Friday where the
consultant will attend to discuss the capital improvement program. The Joint Water
Commission will attend the May meeting of this Board to discuss this issue.
Mr. Wegner stated that the City of Tigard, City of Lake Oswego, South Fork Water
Board and the North Clackamas County Water Commission (Mt. Scott,Damascus, Oak
Lodge) will be signing an IGA to hire Murray, Smith and Associates to second phase of
the study that was begun earlier. They will have an Memorandum of Understanding that
all participants will sign and agree to what the general principles will be, such as equity
of ownership--, water rights assigned, monetary value to watt r ri y:its, is there enough
water, etc. This will be a three-phase contract and will deal initially with Phase I and H.
Tigard's share of this contract will be $37,000.00 and will be taken to the Tigard City
Council in May. In August there will be a Memorandum of Understanding and by year-
end will have an engineering phase and then proceed to a cost allocation phase.
Mr. Wegner stated that when we purchased water from Beaverton we paid 24.5 cents per
unit. For 44,000 ccfs of water cost were$10,800,this same amount of water from Lake
Oswego would cost us $39,000 and Portland's costs would have been in excess of
$50,000.
8. Utility Manager Report
It was noted that the capital improvement projects that Mike was going to discuss have
already been covered earlier in the meeting. It was agreed that Mr. Miller would provide
an overview of the proposed 2000/01 budget at the next IWB meeting.
9. Public comments
There were no comments by the public in attendance.
10. Non agenda items
There were no non-agenda items noted.
Il. Adjournment
Motion was made by Commissioner Hunt for adjournment at 8:10 p.m. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Drangsholt and was voted upon and passed unanimously.
IWB Meeting Minutes April 12,2000
Page 12
SW Walnut Street between SW 128th Avenue and SW 132nd Avenue at the new
Garrde Extension. Replace 1,000 feet of 12-inch and 1,000 feet of 6-inch cast iron water
main with 24-inch ductile iron water main. This project is part of the City's SW Gaarde
Street extension project. Included in this project are two fire hydrants and six water
services. Please note that this project has additional funding from 540-6270-755.600 line
extensions.
1,000 feet of 24-inch DI @ $228/ft Total Project cost $305,520.
SW Lincoln Street from SW Greenburg Road to SW 91st Avenue. Replace 800 feet of
6-inch cast iron water main with 6-inch ductile iron pipe. This is a on-going program of
replacing old cast iron water mains with ductile iron during as part of the City's street
improvement program.
This is a carry over project from last year due to lack of funding for the entire project.
Total cost $60,000
SW Gaarde Street PRV - In the recently completed Water Master Plan, it is recommended
that a PRV station and associated piping be constructed near the intersection of SW Rose
Vista and SW Gaarde Street to serve the 410-foot pressure zone from the 10 MG
Reservoir. This improvement will provide additional hydraulic capacity to the southeasterly
portion of our service area and will improve fill operations at reservoir Site#1
(Canterbury). Total cost $150,000
ASR Project with City of Beaverton
The City of Beaverton currently is budgeting (they have yet to go to their Budget
Committee)to construct ASR (Aquifer Storage and Recovery)well No.4 near SW Scholls
and Loon Drive. Under this program potable water is injected into underground aquifers
during the winter months when water supplies are typically plentiful and demands are low.
Water is withdrawn from these aquifers during peak use periods, typically summer when
supplies are less plentiful. The City of Beaverton has offered to all,)w Tigard to join in
assessing the potential development of a joint ASR project. It is recommended in the
Water Master Plan that we budget funding not only in this years budget, but also in FY
2001/2002. Budget request $25,000
SW Burnham Street from SW Hall Blvd to SW Main Street. In the Water Master Plan it is
recommended that approximately 2,100 feet of 16-inch ductile iron water main be installed
as part of the planned Burnham Street Street Improvement project. This 16-inch water
main will replace 650 feet of 12-inch cast iron water main and 400 feet of 8-inch cast iron
water main.
2,100 feet of 16-inch DI @ $152/ft Total cost $319,200
SW Walnut Street and SW 121st Avenue. This project is to be completed as part of
Washington County's 121 and Walnut street improvement project. This project includes the
replacement of existing 12-inch and 6-inch cast iron water mains with 900 feet of 24-inch
and 1,500 feet of 12-inch ductile iron water mains.
900 feet of 24-inch DI pipe @ $228/ft
1500 feet of 12-inch DI pipe @ $114/ft
Please note that $84,920 of this project will be funded from 530-6270-755.100
Total cost $376,200
550 ft. Reservoir supply feed - from Menlor reservoir site to SW Sunrise Lane.
Install 1,000 feet of 16-inch transmission main. In the 2000 Water Master Plan, a new 16-
inch transmission main was identified to be constructed in this area to convey water to the
proposed 550 foot reservoir location.
1,000 feet of 16-inch DI @ $152/ft Total cost $152,000
Currently the City is in the process of identifying alternate long term water supply
sources. Since at this time we have not identified the final option, we are requesting that
$3,500,000 from the Willamette River Drinking Water Treatment Plant project be held in
reserve. This will enable us to have "seed" money to start a major project while we are
securing revenue bonds to complete the project.
LA-,-0
Table 5- X
Historical Water Loss Summary
kiscal TotaL't-jigotal$ R6 Total h rUsageLoss t'Io Loss
Year aProdueed urchase � � r
85-86 O 822 1,822 1,622 200 11%
86-87 O q o 1,402 1,248 154 11%
87-88 n c4 o3 1,403 1,348 55 4%
88-89 5'7 1559 1,616 1,489 128 8%
89-90 99 Y5-0 1,549 1,456 93 6%
90-91 -7 S 1(oCc)Gi 1,687 1,543 1439%
91-92 136 1,880 2,016 1,720 296 _ 15%
92-93 132 1,372 1,504 1,455 49 3%
93-94 60 1,770 1,830 1,669 161 9%
94-95 ( b o 1<,5 Z 1152 I .bq5 - 1,43
95-96 374 1289 1,663 8(PZ _ M
96-97 157 1,939 2,096 "Cl Z9 (o b
97-98 98 1,918 2,016 (e2 3' b
98-99 82 2,179 1 2,261107-
99-0430.101
o Z S
5 ( �. e
99-0430.101 Page 5-4 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study
April 2000 DRAFT` Water System Analysis City of Tigard
City of Tigard, OR Printed: 4/26/00
City of Tigard, Oregon
Water Fund (530)
Revenue Recap
. .........:.:..
..
� Yvi:;: iii::i::}::ilii:{iiii':i:<i:ii:+>'iii>.iii•'.i>.:;iti:}}i::y`:�:
��((.. m�aarr ......:....
... ........
�....�.vi iii+:•i.i..: Y.'�,_ :::•i>.G' . :3F� Yt:`vii` iF�:::v:
446010 Water Sales- Metered 4,350,000 4,100,000 - -
446011 Water Sales- Other 10,000 10,000 - -
446013 Meter Sales 128,075 128,075 - -
446014 Credit for Leaks/Misreads (9,000) (9,000) - -
446015 Bad Debt Expense (10,000) (10,000) - -
447001 Developer 10% Overhead 50,000 50,000 - -
447002 Developer Engineering Fee 10,000 10,000 - -
447005 Water- Fire Svc. Hook-up 7,500 7,500 - -
448000 System Develop. Charge Reimb. 287,730 287,730 - -
449000 Line Extension Rebate - - - -
451000 Miscellaneous Fees & Chgs. 2,000 2,000 - -
470000 Interest Earnings 100,000 100,000 -
472000 Rental Income 17,400 17,400 - -
478000 Other Revenues 5,000 5,000 - -
478001 Water Late Pay Penalties 10,000 10,000 - -
478002 Water returned check fees 1,620 1,620 - -
479000 Recovered Expenditures 5,000 5,000 - -
Total Water Fund = 4,960,325 4,710,325 - -
5 Uqu X325"
r2 �
Recap ! /�
Water Rate Increase Timetable
5/9/00 City of Tigard City Council Meeting
* Discussion of Water Rate Increase along with other City of
Tigard fee increases
5/23/00 City of Tigard City Council Meeting
Public Input
* Resolution of fee increase
6/1/00 Effective Date
)E Let all governing boards know
X Advertise in Times/Regal Currier
RAMIS
CREW
CORRIGAN &
BACHRACH, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W.Hoyt Street MEMORANDUM
Portland, Oregon 97209
(503) 222-4402
Fax: (503) 243-2944
TO: Ed Wegner, Public Works Director
FROM: Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office
DATE: April 18, 2000
RE: Water Rate Increases
The attached resolution provides for a 3% increase in the various water rates established by Resolution
No. 93-67 as modified by Resolution 96-58. The enclosed resolution increases all applicable rates and
charges (except SDC charges). The City will need to decide whether to increase all rates or to leave
some of them unchanged.
Please call with comments or suggestions.
Enclosure
gtiiacrri9Uu i2/waterrates.mel
TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.
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 No. 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
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. 93-67 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
1" $448.05
1 1/2" $736.45
2" $973.35
SECTION 5: The Fire Service Connection fee established by Section l(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 l(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 1(b)(V) of Resolution No. 93-67 is increased
to:
$5.15 for the first two times;
$10.30 thereafter.
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.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being
read by number and title only, this day of , 2000.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2000.
Jim Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
gff/acm/90072/waterrates.rel(4/18/00)
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 3
QQdtfl:1;:::::lCaee1>ki1 .....:.............................................
::. ...............................................::::-:::......::::::::...:...;::::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;::::.::.::.;:.:;.;:.;:::.;:.;:.;:.;::::::.::;::;;::.;:.;;;:.::::.::;:::.;;;::.;:.;..:;:;::.:;:.>::>::>::»»
. t:Tt and= Jre
��A�� '..' ...
......:.:...........::::::::::::::...:..:....................................��#u a:..::..:::::::Attu al.: ................ ........................ ..:...:::.::::::::. R::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. .::::::
Q ><
> .
Personal Services
Positions 15.50 16.00 17.00 17.00 - -
Wages $421,888 $503,837 $616,081 $660,595 $0 $0
Overtime 20,993 23,741 23,803 26,200 0 0
Worker's Compensation 11,020 43,332 10,154 11,882 0 0
Payroll Taxes 42,032 9,162 54,183 58,169 0 0
Retirement 45,763 42,651 65,127 66,531 i 0
Group Insurance 49,913 49,487 79,794 94,973 0 0
Total Personal Services $591,609 $672,210 $849,142 $918,350 $0 $0
Materials & Services
Water Costs $2,094,245 $2,214,358 $3,275,100 $2,750,000 $0 $0
Prof. &Contract Services 249,778 234,343 264,430 143,390 0 0
Repair& Maintenance 140,308 195,997 235,400 177,900 0 0
Special Dept. Expense 10,213 6,875 7,084 6,840 0 0
Small Tools & Equipment 0 9,015 0 25,575 0 0
Office Supplies 6,728 2,016 3,000 1,500 0 0
Advertising & Publicity 13,940 23,573 69,740 84,465 0 0
Fees/Dues/Subscriptions 3,421 6,742 6,320 3,956 0 0
Travel &Training 7,797 8,352 10,000 10,502 0 0
Fuel Expenses 13,789 15,656 15,000 16,000 0 0
Computer Software 929 9,176 0 0 0 0
Rents &Leases 835 159 3,000 5,100 0 0
Utilities 3,455 4,918 4,000 4,100 0 0
Insurance 1,437 1,180 1,000 1,000 0 0
Library Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Materials & Services $2,546,875 $2,732,360 $3,894,074 $3,230,328 $0 $0
Capital Outlay
Land & Improvements $24,093 $54,140 $36,500 $20,000 $0 $0
Building & Improvements 3,024 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicles 28,579 72,083 40,000 50,000 0 0
Office Furniture & Equipment 2,404 1,196 0 0 0 0
Computer Equipment 5,094 7,471 0 0 0 0
Operation Equipment 42,709 15,093 92,090 5,500 0 0
Total Capital Outlay $105,903 $149,983 $168,590 $75,500 $0 $0
Total Budget Unit $3,244,387 $3,554,553 $4,911,806 $4,224,178 $0 $0
112
1 ftpt
::::::.:::::.:::.:::::.:::::::::::::::.:::::::::: :. :......:...... ................... ...................................:..:..::::::::::::::::.:::...:...::::::::::::::.:::::::::::;::::.
::..::.;::.::::......:..:::._.:::::::::::::: :::..:::.:. :::::.............::::.;:::::::............::..::::::........::....:............
........... .......
F ...........: ::::. ..::::::::::::::..
<: » «
.'..d
.... �at.::::::::::::::::::::::::..:....................................::.:.:::::::::::::::.:p.:::::::::.::::.:::::::::.::::.::::.::.: .:::.:::..::
Project Summary
General 1,798,937 825,558 314,960 144,500
Sanitary Sewer 18,759 81,950 3,000,000 1,290,000
Storm Sewer 329,539 180,779 900,000 1,040,000
Water 3,386,435 1,494,962 5,110,800 5,595,000
Street/Overlays 655,839 1,674,978 5,645,000 3,678,500
Parks 278,22+ 876,896 1,375,000 1,337,518
Local Improvements (LID) 1,629,128 437,086 971,000 81,298
Other 412,579 273,605 2,692,000 312,000
Total Capital Projects 8,509,439 5,845,814 20,008,760 13,478,816
Fund Summary
General Fund 1,798,937 825,558 314,960 144,500
Facility Fund 370,540 266,414 267,000 200,000
Urban Services Fund 0 0 0 112,000
Tree Replacement Fund 42,039 7,191 227,000 0
Sanitary Sewer 18,759 81,950 3,000,000 1,290,000
Storm Sewer Fund 139,749 159,217 900,000 330,000
Water Fund 361,440 560,840 1,110,800 1,255,000
State Gas Tax Fund 450,421 651,821 945,000 332,000
Traffic Impact Fee 205,418 1,022,574 3,800,000 3,346,500
Traffic Impact Fee-Urban Sv 0 583 900,000 0
Parks SDC Fund 231,456 540,239 910,000 785,000
Water Quality/Quantity 189,790 21,562 882,000 710,000
Underground Utility 0 0 373,000 0
Water SDC 2,296,754 500,000 943,000 840,000
Dartmouth LID 1,629,128 9,634 70,000 12,753
Park Levy Improv. Fund 263 100 218,000 225,518
Water CIP Fund 728,241 434,122 4,000,000 3,500,000
Metro Greenspaces 46,505 336,557 247,000 327,000
69th Ave. LID Fund 0 427,452 901,000 68,545
Total Capital Projects 8,509,439 5,845,814 20,008,760 13,478,816
178
................................... ...
.................... ....
::::::::. .::::::.::.:::.:::: ...............::.::::..:..............:......:........................................
.............
::::::::::.:::::..:. ::::::: ::::.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::._:::::::::. kt: ;?v :T# Ifs . .. fCl€............................
..........................................:.:...:........::.::::::::::::
...:......... .........x..:.:::::: ::::::: :.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:::.:::::::.:...............
3i:>a'
::::'<::::::::::i'::Y<i;::;:j.::::iif:::::::::::.i::s .::i:::<:•:::<•::........;>'.>::.::a::.>:.>:.>:.:.;:.::•;:•:s:.;:.>::.>::.>:<.»::.::::.>;>:.>:<.>:.>:.»:t.;>:::.:::.:::.::.>:.>:.::.::.::n:::n:•::;:•::•;;y...... .........::.::.::.:.::::.:.:::.:::.:+::s:.>:.;:.:'.>'.::.:
a ::.:»: .>:.»::»i:::•:::>:::.::>:;.::::.>:::::: ::»>:.>::::.»>:::.>::::::::::YL>::::>::>::>:.:.::':::.::::.:sj::::.:::•::•::•:rr::::o-::::;::;: >UkR.Cr.;::.. .......
Program Results: 2000/01 Goals and Objectives:
Tigard has a safe and reliable water system that Through the use of our water conservation programs,we realize
meets or exceeds all EPA and Oregon Health a 1% reduction in peak season demand per person per day.
Division standards for water quality. All the
while, efficient water service is provided under Pursue the development of regional and subregional water
normal, peak, and emergency situations. source development.
Program Description: Expand our water main flushing program, so that the entire
distribution system is flushed on an annual basis.
The Water Division's primary responsibility is to
maintain, repair and expand the water system, Progaan, Highlights:
while at the same time providing a dependable
water supply of the highest quality to its Plan the development of a water efficient demonstration garden
customers. The Tigard Water Service Area is at the Tigard Water Building. This demonstration garden, once
comprised of the cities of Durham, King City, completed,will be used as an educational tool to show citizens
two thirds of Tigard and the unincorporated that outdoor water conservation doesn't have to mean rocks and
areas of Tigard Water District. The Water cactus that it can be a very attractive landscape for home or
Supervisors report to the Utility Division business.
Manager,who is responsible for the Water
program. Expand the current level of Water Conservation programs to
include workshops on landscape design and maintenance in the
1999/00 Accomplishments: Tigard Water Service Area.
SCADA system was successfully upgraded Continue the pilot residential outdoor water audit/survey program
(both computer and software)to be Y2K ready. and expand it to a full-blown program for the Tigard Water
Service Area.
Systems were tested and certified ready by
December 6, 1999.
Completion of 3,000 lineal feet of 24-inch water
main along SW Beef Bend Road. This project
was successfully partnered with Washington
County as part of their MSTIP 3 project.
s
110
:.:.............:..::.................................................................
y. 2:<`:
. :i ':i `ij::;:;:i:;: i>iii}�ii:<�N'!v:'::':'i:;:}:t4:v2:;:;i`::i:` '}:�:,:%`� :�:^:::tF` ' >. Lvv`?'�:i?`viii.v::::....
Performance Measurements
1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01
Number of outdoor residential water audits 12 40 50 150
Number of attendees at youth education presentations 0 10 26 34
Number of conservation workshops 0 1 1 2
Miles of pipe flushed 214 216 220 225
Number of meter connections 14,309 14,800 15,300 15,600
Number of water wells 4 4 4 4
Water storage capacity(mgd) 21.0 24.5 24.5 24.5
Full Time Equivalent Positions
1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01
Utility Division Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Operations Manager 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Operations Supervisor 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Senior Utility Worker 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Water Works Inspector 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Program Coordinator 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
Utility Worker II 7.00 7.50 7.50 7.50
MicroComputer Specialist 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Technician II 1,00 1.00
Water Resource Specialist 1.00 0.00
Total Positions 15.50 16.00 17.00 17.00
111
City of Tigard, OR Printed: 4/26/00
City of Tigard, Oregon
Water Fund (530) _
Revenue Recap
2.0
01
..
:yT'is'j,.•.:Y:ii:::':;v}?ii'F.ii� v:i
> <<< < ':< <s #[<>> rr c+c>t <::::« <::::«:» fit::::::: r « <1 >::_ae .. #<
c>€::>::
:.;:.;:.;:.;;:.:
446010 Water Sales- Metered 4,350,000 4,100,000 - -
446011 Water Sales- Other 10,000 10,000 - -
446013 Meter Sales 128,075 128,075 - -
446014 Credit for Leaks/Misreads (9,000) (9,000) - -
446015 Bad Debt Expense (10,000) (10,000) - -
447001 Developer 10% Overhead 50,000 50,000 - -
447002 Developer Engineering Fee 10,000 1 10,000 - -
447005 Water- Fire Svc. Hook-up 7,500 7,500 - -
448000 System Develop. Charge Reimb. 287,730 287,730 - -
449000 Line Extension Rebate - - - -
451000 Miscellaneous Fees & Chgs. 2,000 2,000 - -
470000 Interest Earnings 100,000 1.00,000 - -
472000 Rental Income 17,400 17,400 - -
478000 Other Revenues 5,000 5,000 - -
478001 Water Late Pay Penalties 10,000 10,000 - -
478002 Water returned check fees 1,620 1,620 - -
479000 Recovered Expenditures 5,000 5,000 - -
Total Water Fund = 4,960,325 4,710,325 - -
Recap
.:•::.>:.;:;::;::;::>::>::>:z:>:<:::>:. ::>::::»::::#�97108:::>::>::>::>::>::>1:�91319�::<:i> z<:'� :.:.......................................................................
401000 Current taxes $3,415 $11,062 $0 $0 $0 $0
446010 Metered water sales 3,881,019 4,233,818 3,900,000 4,480,500 0 0
446011 Other water sales 12,234 7,747 10,000 10,000 0 0
446013 Meter installation fees 169,758 153,515 130,150 128,075 0 0
446014 Credits for leaks/misreads (26,880) (13,193) (9,000) (9,000) 0 0
446015 Bad debt expense (10,258) 93 (9,500) (10,000) 0 0
448000 SDC reimbursement 376,952 336,056 308,000 287,730 0 0
Total Water Sales $4,406,240 $4,729,098 $4,329,650 $4,887,305 $0 $0
447001 Developers fees 10%O/H $112,806 $55,767 $60,000 $50,000 $0 $0
447002 Engineering fees 22,561 11,153 10,000 10,000 0 0
447005 Fire service reimbursement 11,250 16,250 5,000 7,500 0 0
Total Developer Revenue $146,617 $83,170 $75,000 $67,500 $0 $0
451000 Misc.fees and charges $1,338 $1,943 $3,000 $2,000 $0 $0
470000 Interest income 448,627 281,418 400,000 100,000 0 0
471000 Interest earned from others 0 0 0 0 0 0
472000 Rental income 16,491 11,261 17,400 17,400 0 0
478000 Other revenues 5,192 5,094 5,000 5,000 0 0
478001 Penalties for non-payment 12,125 9,390 14,000 10,000 0 0
478002 Returned check fee 2,145 1,620 2,500 1,620 0 0
479000 Recovered expenditures 9,854 2,594 0 0 0 0
Total Miscellaneous Revenue $495,772 $313,320 $441,900 $136,020 $0 $0
Total Revenues $5,048,629 $5,125,588 $4,846,550 $5,090,825 $0 $0
30000 Fund balance $7,011,200 $8,696,409 $4,528,579 $3,547,858 $0 $0
Total Water Revenue $12,059,829 $13,821,997 $9,375,129 $8,638,683 $0 $0
Notes:
Water sales income is based on water supply projections and estimated growth in the customer base of the system.
These estimates include a 3%water rate increase recommended by the Intergovernmental Water Board in FY 1999/00
plus a projected 10% rate increase in FY 2000/01. The actual amount of the FY 2000/01 increase has not yet been
determined.
Developer revenues charges assessed to developers of property and covers expenses for engineering expenses
connected with the development and overall cost of the system.
Miscellaneous revenues consist of a variety of smaller revenue sources. The largest single item in this category is
interest earned on fund balances.
Beginning fund balance represent the amount of money to be carried forward from the previous fiscal year. This amount
consists of savings plus planned reserves.
38
.:0... ..::..... ?# .............. ................:.:.:::::::::::::..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::.................................:...:::..:.::.:::::::::::.::::.::::.:::._::.::._::::::
..1fS......... .....l� n....# .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::::.:::.
is>>l
.......:.:::.::.:::::::.::,.::::::.::::::.::::::...
A u....:........................::::::::::::.::. ::::::.:::::.:: p::::::::::::.::.::::.:::
.. .: ::::. a �. �s.:::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::»:<::«::<::«:::>::»::::::>::> 919 «<:::>::>:<:::>:.: � 69� <::::<:»»:::: . . >::>:::::>:...�.......�...�..........�#1..G(fl.............��1.........:....
450000 System Development Chgs $337,658 $299,474 $192,510 $214,800 $0 $0
470000 Interest 114,822 23,456 20,000 25,000 0 0
Total Revenues $452,480 $322,930 $212,510 $239,800 $0 $0
300000 Fund balance $2,758,107 $575,928 $731,402 $601,764 $0 $0
39
Total Water SDC $3,210,587 $898,858 $943,912 $841,564 $0 $0
Notes:
Water System Development Charges were last updated in December 1996 based upon a water rate study completed in
June 1996. The improvement portion of the charge is recorded in this fund to be used to fund capacity increasing
improvements to the water system.
Beginning fund balance represent the amount of money to be carried forward from the previous fiscal year. This
amount consists of savings plus planned reserves.
:;;.»:.»::> . ::::.:;«<::::;.�E1.'.4#�.�:............�#1...�....'#....
470000 Interest $32,304 $193,310 $220,000 $75,120 $0 $0
478000 Other revenues 0 4,000,000 0 0 0 0
499000 Transfer from other funds 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue $32,304 $4,193,310 $220,000 $75,120 $0 $0
300000 Fund balance $742,841 $46,903 $3,788,461 $3,791,648 $0 $0
Total Water CIP $775,145 $4,240,213 $4,008,461 $3,866,768 $0 $0
Notes:
The Water CIP Fund accounts for major capital projects of the Water System. Fund resources consist of periodic
transfers from the Water Fund and interest earnings on any fund balances.
In FY 1998/99,the Water Fund transferred$4 million to the Water CIP Fund in anticipation of a new water supply
project. That project was delayed,and funds are held in this fund in anticipation of a major water supply project at
some time in the near future.
40
MEMORANDUM
TO: Intergovernmental Water Board
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Informational Items
DATE: April 24, 2000
Here are some additional informational items that will be discussed at the April 26th
meeting, as time allows.
• 1999 Water Sources — attached is a graphic summary showing our water sources for
1999
• Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting - On March 1 st, Paul Hunt and
myself attended the RWPC Board Meeting. Most of the meeting discussion was
centered around the consolidation of the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation
Coalition and the Consortium budget and work program. The other major topics
were comments on the draft transmission strategy. Attached are the minutes from
this meeting.
• Willamette Riverkeepers "State of the Willamette" Report— I have enlcosed a copy
of the Willamette Riverkeepers, Executive Summary. A full report is on file in the
Public Works Office for those interested.
• Portland Harbor Superfund Designation — For your information the Portland Harbor
Superfund site is approximately 29 miles downstream from the Willamette WTP,
although the media and citizen groups continue attempted to link them.
• Clute Property Update — City staff if currently working on the Minor Land Partition
with a proposal being sent out this week for comments. The comment period
generally runs about two weeks and then a decision will be made by staff.
• School District Joint Resevoir Site — 550' Reservoir Site at Alberta Rider Property
We have been working with the Tigard/Tualatin School District and MSA on
conceptual drawings for a reservoir to be built on the School District elementary
school site. MSA has provided technical assistance and site plan graphics
preparation related to reservoir siting analysis for this site. We made a brief
presentation and project overview to a joint meeting of the Tigard City Council and
Tigard/Tualatin School District on April 18, 2000. We presented two conceptual
drawings showing the location of the proposed 3.0 million gallon reservoir and final
grading. In addition we handed out material showing how reservoirs can be blended
into the existing landscape and how play surfaces/structures can be incorporated
into the design.
Kathy\iwb\info items 4-26
kpiiiii�
E . ...................... ..................................................................................................................,.................:.:.:.::::.::::::::::::::.:::::::::.>::::::::.....................
»> . .
..:.:::.:;
`:srrst .`..:.'"222
... .........
..............
.> fis. .
................. :.;::.:::.::::::::.::::::::::::::::::..:::..::.
01"I'li"I"I", %............ .....*owl
Personal Services
Positions 15.50 16.00 17.00 17.00 - -
Wages $421,888 $503,837 $616,081 $660,595 $0 $0
Overtime 20,993 23,741 23,803 26,200 0 0
Worker's Compensation 11,020 43,332 10,154 11,882 0 0
Payroll Taxes 42,032 9,162 54,183 58,169 0 0
Retirement 45,763 42,651 65,127 66,531 0 0
Group Insurance 49,913 49,487 79,794 94,973 0 0
Total Personal Services $591,609 $672,210 $849,142 $918,350 $0 $0
Materials & Services
Water Costs $2,094,245 $2,214,358 $3,275,100 $2,750,000 $0 $0
Prof. &Contract Services 249,778 234,343 264,430 143,390 0 0
Repair& Maintenance 140,308 195,997 235,400 177,900 0 0
Special Dept. Expense 10,213 6,875 7,084 6,840 0 0
Small Tools & Equipment 0 9,015 0 25,575 0 0
Office Supplies 6,728 2,016 3,000 1,500 0 0
Advertising & Publicity 13,940 23,573 69,740 84,465 0 0
Fees/Dues/Subscriptions 3,421 6,742 6,320 3,956 0 0
Travel&Training 7,797 8,352 10,000 10,502 0 0
Fuel Expenses 13,789 15,656 15,000 16,000 0 0
Computer Software 929 9,176 0 0 0 0
Rents & Leases 835 159 3,000 5,100 0 0
Utilities 3,455 4,918 4,000 4,100 0 0
Insurance 1,437 1,180 1,000 1,000 0 0
Library Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Materials & Services $2,546,875 $2,732,360 $3,894,074 $3,230,328 $0 $0
Capital Outlay
Land & Improvements $24,093 $54,140 $36,500 $20,000 $0 $0
Building & Improvements 3,024 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicles 28,579 72,083 40,000 50,000 0 0
Office Furniture & Equipment 2,404 1,196 0 0 0 0
Computer Equipment 5,094 7,471 0 0 0 0
Operation Equipment 42,709 15,093 92,090 5,500 0 0
Total Capital Outlay $105,903 $149,983 $168,590 $75,500 $0 $0
Total Budget Unit $3,244,387 $3,554,553 $4,911,806 $4,224,178 $0 $0
112
r
.................
. ......................................................................::::::...:.:.........
finONE
.....
..................................................................................
. ...........................
Project Summary
General 1,798,937 825,558 314,960 144,500
Sanitary Sewer 18,759 81,950 3,000,000 1,290,000
Storm Sewer 329,539 180,779 900,000 1,040,000
Water 3,386,435 1,494,962 5,110,800 5,595,000
Street/Overlays 655,839 1,674,978 5,645,000 3,678,500
Parks 278,224 876,896 1,375,000 1,337,518
Local Improvements (LID) 1,629,128 437,086 971,000 81,298
Other 412,579 273,605 2,692,000 312,000
Total Capital Projects 8,509,439 5,845,814 20,008,760 13,478,816
Fund Summary
General Fund 1,798,937 825,558 314,960 144,500
Facility Fund 370,540 266,414 267,000 200,000
Urban Services Fund 0 0 0 112,000
Tree Replacement Fund 42,039 7,191 227,000 0
Sanitary Sewer 18,759 81,950 3,000,000 1,290,000
Storm Sewer Fund 139,749 159,217 900,000 330,000
Water Fund 361,440 560,840 1,110,800 1,255,000
State Gas Tax Fund 450,421 651,821 945,000 332,000
Traffic Impact Fee 205,418 1,022,574 3,800,000 3,346,500
Traffic Impact Fee-Urban Sv 0 583 900,000 0
Parks SDC Fund 231,456 540,239 910,000 785,000
Water Quality/Quantity 189,790 21,562 882,000 710,000
Underground Utility 0 0 373,000 0
Water SDC 2,296,754 500,000 943,000 840,000
Dartmouth LID 1,629,128 9,634 70,000 12,753
Park Levy Improv. Fund 263 100 218,000 225,518
Water CIP Fund 728,241 434,122 4,000,000 3,500,000
Metro Greenspaces 46,505 336,557 247,000 327,000
69th Ave. LID Fund 0 427,452 901,000 68,545
Total Capital Projects 8,509,439 5,845,814 20,008,760 13,478,816
178
��hh*
Program Results: 2000/01 Goals and Objectives:
Tigard has a safe and reliable water system that Through the use of our water conservation programs,we realize
meets or exceeds all EPA and Oregon Health a 1% reduction in peak season demand per person per day.
Division standards for water quality. All the
while, efficient water service is provided under Pursue the development of regional and subregional water
normal, peak, and emergency situations. source development.
Program Description: Expand our water main flushing program, so that the entire
distribution system is flushed on an annual basis.
The Water Division's primary responsibility is to
maintain, repair and expand the water system, Program Highlights:
while at the same time providing a dependable
water supply of the highest quality to its Plan the development of a water efficient demonstration garden
customers. The Tigard Water Service Area is at the Tigard Water Building. This demonstration garden, once
comprised of the cities of Durham, King City, completed,will be used as an educational tool to show citizens
two thirds of Tigard and the unincorporated that outdoor water conservation doesn't have to mean rocks and
areas of Tigard Water District. The Water cactus that it can be a very attractive landscape for home or
Supervisors report to the Utility Division business.
Manager,who is responsible for the Water
program. Expand the current level of Water Conservation programs to
include workshops on landscape design and maintenance in the
1999/00 Accomplishments: Tigard Water Service Area.
SCADA system was successfully upgraded Continue the pilot residential outdoor water audit/survey program
(both computer and software)to be Y2K ready. and expand it to a full-blown program for the Tigard Water
Systems were tested and certified ready by Service Area.
December 6, 1999.
Completion of 3,000 lineal feet of 24-inch water
main along SW Beef Bend Road. This project
was successfully partnered with Washington
County as part of their MSTIP 3 project.
110
::::::::. .:::::::.::::.:.....:::::::::.:::.:;:::::.:::.:.:::.:...::.:.:
....
Performance Measurements
1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01
Number of outdoor residential water audits 12 40 50 150
Number of attendees at youth education presentations 0 10 26 34
Number of conservation workshops 0 1 1 2
Miles of pipe flushed 214 216 220 225
Number of meter connections 14,309 14,800 15,300 15,600
Number of water wells 4 4 4 4
Water storage capacity(mgd) 21.0 24.5 24.5 24.5
Full Time Equivalent Positions
1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01
Utility Division Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Operations Manager 1.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Water Operations Supervisor 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Senior Utility Worker 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Water Works Inspector 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Program Coordinator 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
Utility Worker II 7.00 7.50 7.50 7.50
MicroComputer Specialist 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Technician II 1.00 1.00
Water Resource Specialist 1.00 0.00
Total Positions 15.50 16.00 17.00 17.00
111
City of Tigard, OR Printed: 4/26/00
City of Tigard, Oregon
Water Fund (530)
Revenue Recap
R: mi
446010 Water Sales- Metered 4,350,000 4,100,000 - -
446011 Water Sales- Other 10,000 10,000 - -
446013 Meter Sales 128,075 128,075 - -
446014 Credit for Leaks/Misreads (9,000) (9,000) - -
446015 Bad Debt Expense (10,000) (10,000) - -
447001 Developer 10% Overhead 50,000 50,000 - -
447002 Developer Engineering Fee 10,000 10,000 - -
447005 Water- Fire Svc. Hook-up 7,500 7,500 - -
448000 System Develop. Charge Reimb. 287,730 287,730 - -
449000 Line Extension Rebate - - - -
451000 Miscellaneous Fees & Chgs. 2,000 2,000 - -
470000 Interest Earnings 100,000 1.00,000 - -
472000 Rental Income 17,400 17,400 - -
478000 Other Revenues 5,000 5,000 - -
478001 Water Late Pay Penalties 10,000 10,000 - -
478002 Water returned check fees 1,620 1,620 - -
479000 Recovered Expenditures 5,000 5,000 - -
Total Water Fund = 4,960,325 4,710,325 - -
Recap
..........................................................................
min
401000 Current taxes $3,415 $11,062 $0 $0 $0 $0
446010 Metered water sales 3,881,019 4,233,818 3,900,000 4,480,500 0 0
446011 Other water sales 12,234 7,747 10,000 10,000 0 0
446013 Meter installation fees 169,758 153,515 130,150 128,075 0 0
446014 Credits for leaks/misreads (26,880) (13,193) (9,000) (9,000) 0 0
446015 Bad debt expense (10,258) 93 (9,500) (10,000) 0 0
448000 SDC reimbursement 376,952 336,056 308,000 287,730 0 0
Total Water Sales $4,406,240 $4,729,098 $4,329,650 $4,887,305 $0 $0
447001 Developers fees 10% O/H $112,806 $55,767 $60,000 $50,000 $0 $0
447002 Engineering fees 22,561 11,153 10,000 10,000 0 0
447005 Fire service reimbursement 11,250 16,250 5,000 7,500 0 0
Total Developer Revenue $146,617 $83,170 $75,000 $67,500 $0 $0
451000 Misc.fees and charges $1,338 $1,943 $3,000 $2,000 $0 $0
470000 Interest income 448,627 281,418 400,000 100,000 0 0
471000 Interest earned from others 0 0 0 0 0 0
472000 Rental income 16,491 11,261 17,400 17,400 0 0
478000 Other revenues 5,192 5,094 5,000 5,000 0 0
478001 Penalties for non-payment 12,125 9,390 14,000 10,000 0 0
478002 Returned check fee 2,145 1,620 2,500 1,620 0 0
479000 Recovered expenditures 9,854 2,594 0 0 0 0
Total Miscellaneous Revenue $495,772 $313,320 $441,900 $136,020 $0 $0
Total Revenues $5,048,629 $5,125,588 $4,846,550 $5,090,825 $0 $0
30000 Fund balance $7,011,200 $8,696,409 $4,528,579 $3,547,858 $0 $0
Total Water Revenue $12,059,829 $13,821,997 $9,375,129 $8,638,683 $0 $0
Notes:
Water sales income is based on water supply projections and estimated growth in the customer base of the system.
These estimates include a 3%water rate increase recommended by the Intergovernmental Water Board in FY 1999/00
plus a projected 10%rate increase in FY 2000/01. The actual amount of the FY 2000/01 increase has not yet been
determined.
Developer revenues charges assessed to developers of property and covers expenses for engineering expenses
connected with the development and overall cost of the system.
Miscellaneous revenues consist of a variety of smaller revenue sources. The largest single item in this category is
interest earned on fund balances.
Beginning fund balance represent the amount of money to be carried forward from the previous fiscal year. This amount
consists of savings plus planned reserves.
38
i:•:Y:b:�ii<::�:�:::::;::•;••i:•::•>:•::hi iiii:•i:•is�;iiiiiiiiii:;:�::::i:;i;:•i:•:i:•iiiSii i:;%2�:�ii i i:�ii i::i;:.
�::;�:;::s::;::iii:::::i::>:i::: :::::::;::`:::::r:<:iiiri:::::`•E:isi:::i::?:::i:::: �:� :'• ii:`•:i:::::::::::::: ......�.'.��.�,,#"';f,:��•,'.,��1....��:,�. ?� :�#':#� i �% :••'•. :'�:� :�� : 'r'EiEEi:: •.'•. �:':�:�?�:��:'� ?:�E� '�:�:
..... :::<%2%::ii:E:::E::;%; ;::::: ::;is ti :•`:;. ?:::a:::i si:::'.`'`;:.;:;:•:;;:;:"t,nG:��'::::i : :'`''"''
Af.. .:.:::.:.....t11t3�d::....::?AN�....
:..:......... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.................................................................................::...:::.:::.::::::::.::
��4'>F:1�:'•>:'.#: —..i'# .�..�........................... ... �f.'� :.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.. � � 1�;:;::;;::'222$�: . . �r�:rrrE:>� '. :::::>:::;E::i:: � . :'�::i:::;.i:::;:;• !� . :::::�
450000 System Development Chgs $337,658 $299,474 $192,510 $214,800 $0 $0
470000 Interest 114,822 23,456 20,000 25,000 0 0
Total Revenues $452,480 $322,930 $212,510 $239,800 $0 $0
300000 Fund balance $2,758,107 $575,928 $731,402 $601,764 $0 $0
39
Total Water SDC $3,210,587 $898,858 $943,912 $841,564 $0 $0
Notes:
Water System Development Charges were last updated in December 1996 based upon a water rate study completed in
June 1996. The improvement portion of the charge is recorded in this fund to be used to fund capacity increasing
improvements to the water system.
Beginning fund balance represent the amount of money to be carried forward from the previous fiscal year. This
amount consists of savings plus planned reserves.
` Et< ? > ':'•> >'>'.?`: •'•.'.<: '•> ••`:': >??: '>`: '•> >
.......t ............:::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.::::::::::...:.:,.:::::.:::.::::.::::::::::::::.::::
::>::>:
tlu `: »»» ARtiva >> s ::•:••:::e€ >>
......... .................................................................................:::.:....................:.................: :..:::.::: ::!:::.:::.:::::: ? :: ::::
470000 Interest $32,304 $193,310 $220,000 $75,120 $0 $0
478000 Other revenues 0 4,000,000 0 0 0 0
499000 Transfer from other funds 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue $32,304 $4,193,310 $220,000 $75,120 $0 $0
300000 Fund balance $742,841 $46,903 $3,788,461 $3,791,648 $0 $0
Total Water CIP $775,145 $4,240,213 $4,008,461 $3,866,768 $0 $0
Notes:
The Water CIP Fund accounts for major capital projects of the Water System. Fund resources consist of periodic
transfers from the Water Fund and interest earnings on any fund balances.
In FY 1998/99,the Water Fund transferred$4 million to the Water CIP Fund in anticipation of a new water supply
project. That project was delayed,and funds are held in this fund in anticipation of a major water supply project at
some time in the near future.
40
r
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING
Minutes of March 1,2000
Consortium Board Chairman Rob Kappa called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board
meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers.
r
Elected representatives from seventeen Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting
(which is a quorum), including City of Beaverton, Clackamas River Water, Damascus Water
District, Metro, City of Milwaukie,Mt. Scott Water District, Oak Lodge Water District, Powell
Valley Road Water District, Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy, South Fork Water Board,
City of Tigard, City of Tualatin, Tualatin Valley Water District, West Slope Water District, City
of Wilsonville, and City of Wood Village.
Consortium member agencies not represented by elected officials at this meeting included the
City of Fairview, City of Forest Grove, City of Gladstone, City of Gresham, City of Hillsboro,
City of Lake Oswego, City of Portland, Raleigh Water District, and the City of Sherwood.
Introduction: Introductions were made. Those in attendance included Mayor Charlotte Lehan
and Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville; Tacy Steele from the City of Hillsboro/Joint
Water Commission; Councilor Kent Seida and Denny Klingbile from Damascus Water District;
Joel Komarek from the City of Lake Oswego; Commissioner Bob Frentress and John Thomas
from North Clackamas County Water Commission/Mt. Scott Water District; Councilor Katharine
Forrest and Mike McKillip from the City of Tualatin; District Board Vice-President Bob Luce
and David Gilbey from Powell Valley Road Water District; Lee Weislogel from the City of
Sherwood; Councilor Paul Hunt, Ed Wegner, and Kimberly Swan from the City of Tigard;
Councilor Susan McLain from Metro; Matt Steidler from Raleigh Water District; Commissioner
A.P. DiBenedetto and Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District; Jeanne LeJeune and Judi
Ranton from the Portland Water Bureau; Councilor Rob Kappa from the City of Milwaukie;
District Board President Jim Duggan and Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District;
Commissioner Jim Knapp from Oak Lodge Water District; West Linn City Councilor Michael
McFarland and Dan Bradley from South Fork Water Board; District Board President Pat
Stallings and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD; Commissioners Bruce Fontaine and
Paul Rogers, and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; Councilor Ken Fletcher from the City
of Wood Village; Councilors Don Allen and Eugene Smith from the City of Sandy; Mayor Rob
Drake from the City of Beaverton; Joe Glicker from Montgomery Watson, Inc.; Greg Nokes
from The Oregonian; Frank Gearhart from Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc; and Lorna
Stickel, Rebecca Geisen, and Dominique Bessee from the City of Portland/Consortium staff.
Chair Rob Kappa announced that his term as Milwaukie City Councilor will expire soon, and the
Consortium Board will need to consider nominations for Board Chair and Vice-Chair at the June
meeting.
Approval of Minutes: A motion was made and seconded for the meeting minutes of
December 1, 1999 to be approved. The Consortium Board unanimously approved the minutes as
written.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 2
Public Comment: Frank Gearhart, Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc., commented that
regional water supply planning efforts in the Portland metropolitan area have-been underway for
nearly a decade, and the "wheels of progress" are moving slowly. Mr. Gearhart said the region
will need to take action soon if it is to prepare for the new growth population projections from
Metro. He suggested that the democratic and referendum processes have potential to affect the
composition of the Consortium Board and drive Consortium activities.
There were no other public comments.
Chair Kappa announced that the Consortium Board meeting agenda has been modified to include
discussion about U.S. House Resolution 623,the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
Consortium Work Program and Budget Adoption: Greg DiLoreto, Chair of the Consortium
Technical Committee (CTC), reported that the recommended Consortium Work Program and
Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-01 is being presented at this time for Consortium Board adoption.
Mr. DiLoreto said the recommended FY 2000-01 Consortium Work Program/Budget represents
the same base budget amount as the FY 1999-2000 Work Program/Budget, and includes
activities related to Business Administration, Public Information/Involvement, Interagency
Coordination and Source Viability Strategy Implementation, Conservation Program Planning and
Implementation, Transmission Strategy Implementation and Coordinated Emergency
Management Planning, and the Regional Water Supply Plan Revision Process.
Mr. DiLoreto noted that the recommended Work Program/Budget consolidates the regional
conservation program implementation activities of the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation
Coalition(Coalition)under the Consortium umbrella. This merger would bring oversight of
these activities to the Consortium for review and guidance. Mr. DiLoreto commended the
Coalition for its tremendous contribution over the years to regional conservation activities. He
reported that the Consortium Technical Subcommittee (CTSC) and CTC have reviewed and
provided input to refine the FY 2000-01 Consortium Work Program/Budget that is now being
recommended for Board adoption.
Chair Rob Kappa invited questions and comments on the recommended Work Program/Budget.
There were none.
Chair Kappa mentioned that the City of Milwaukie is not a participant member of the Coalition
at this time,but will become a funding member soon. He commented that Milwaukie supports
the concept of merging the Consortium and Coalition.
Mayor Rob Drake moved for the adoption of the FY 2000-01 Consortium Work Program and
Budget. Councilor Katharine Forrest seconded the motion.
f
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 3
Harvey Barnes referred to the proposed FY 2000-01 Consortium Dues Share Table. He noted
that all Consortium member entities except Metro will fund the regional conservation activities if
the Consortium Board votes to approve the recommended Work Program/Budget. He asked if
there has been discussion about Metro's role in regional conservation program implementation.
Councilor Susan McLain said Metro's contribution amount has always been calculated in a
different manner than other participant entities in the Consortium because Metro is not a water
provider agency. She noted that Metro has always paid a flat rate due to its non-water provider
status, and has made both financial and in-kind service contributions to the Consortium in the
past. Metro's current dues funding share is $12,617,with an additional contribution of$3,997
towards the Regional Transmission and Storage Project..
Councilor McLain reported that Metro is currently involved in the FY 2000-01 budget
preparation cycle, and the agency is facing some budgetary cut-backs. She reported that Metro
has been working with Consortium staff to arrange for the same dues share amount as last year,
and is open-minded about how the Consortium allocates these funds to support Consortium
activities.
Harvey Barnes asked if it would have been more appropriate for Metro to have directed the
request regarding funding amounts to the Consortium Board rather than Consortium staff.
Councilor McLain indicated that Metro has not made an official request regarding its dues, and
the conversations are occurring as part of the normal dialogue between Consortium staff and the
Metro representative on the Consortium Board and Chair of the Metro Budget Committee.
Councilor McLain indicated that Metro values its membership in the Consortium and wants to
remain an active participant. She said Metro would welcome guidance from the Consortium
Board on how Metro's contribution amount is allocated to Consortium activities.
District Board President Pat Stallings voiced support for Metro's continued involvement in the
Consortium. However, she said it`seem, unfair thatf the Consortium is asking the nine non-
Coalition member entities to fund regional conservation activities, and is not making the same
request of Metro. Ms. Stallings said she believes that Metro should have to pay if it wants to
have a vote in Consortium activities.
Councilor McLain noted that Metro was previously a funding member of the Coalition but
needed to resign its membership last year due to limited resources. She said she believes that
there is wisdom in merging the two organizations, and would be happy to continue working to
secure the funding commitment for the Metro dues share. Councilor McLain said that Metro is
not looking for special consideration, and believes that it is contributing its full and fair share as
a Consortium member.
There were no further comments or questions regarding the Consortium Work Program/Budget.
4
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 4
The Consortium Board voted(16:0:1) to adopt the Consortium Work Program/Budget. (A
representative from Wood Village was present at the meeting and did not vote.)
Draft Transmission Strategy: Joe Glicker, Montgomery Watson, Inc., gave a presentation on
the Discussion Draft of the Regional Transmission and Storage (RT/S) Strategy Report. The
Draft RT/S Strategy Report was distributed for Consortium Board review in advance of the
meeting.
Mr. Glicker reported that prior work tasks in the Regional Transmission and Storage Assessment
(RT/SA)Project developed draft evaluation criteria, draft regional transmission and storage
scenarios, institutional options, and the evaluation of scenarios.
Mr. Glicker indicated that the Draft RT/S Strategy Report is based on key direction provided at
the December Consortium Board meeting. Consortium Board members at that meeting indicated
that the RT/S Strategy should include the following elements: 1) Recognize that improved
emergency connections in the region are vital;2)Recognize that the added benefits of a
transmission system that allows the transport of large quantities of water does not justify added
costs; and 3) Allow the regional transmission system to be phased-in over time in a manner that
is consistent with supply decisions being made in the region.
Mr. Glicker reviewed the three major elements of the Draft RT/S Strategy. The first element
would build interconnections between systems to increase reliability in the region. The second
element would develop a Zonal or Interconnected Subregional system depending on the source
decisions being made. The third element would develop the projects in the regional transmission
system using Intergovernmental Agreements among participating parties.
The draft recommended RT/S Strategy was developed to provide all systems with access to both
a primary and emergency source. These sources would be one of the following six major
regional sources: Bull Run•River, Columbia South Shore Wellfield, Clackamas Basin,
Trask/Tualatin, Joint Water Commission(JWC), and/or local groundwater. The draft RT/S
Strategy recommends that emergency supplies are sized to meet at least annual average demand
with a back-up source. Interconnections would consider future peak season and peak day
demands, and any new east-west transmission lines would be via a"southern"route. The
primary transmission system would be set based on elevation at Powell Butte, and project timing
would be determined by negotiation among project participants.
Mr. Glicker reported that projects currently included in Capital Improvement Plans of local
jurisdictions are considered to be part of the draft RT/S Strategy. Other local connection projects
have been identified as either recommended or potential projects based on future supply
decisions. The RT/S Strategy Report includes a visual map that illustrates the recommended
strategy.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 5
Mr. Glicker indicated that the next steps in the regional transmission strategy development
process will include a public workshop to receive feedback on the Draft RT/S Strategy Report.
(The public workshop was subsequently scheduled, and will be held on April 3, 2000 at 7:00
p.m. at Tualatin Valley Water District.) Mr. Glicker mentioned that the Consortium member
agencies are invited to forward feedback on the Draft RT/S Strategy Report to Consortium staff
by April 14, 2000. The Draft RT/S Strategy Report will be revised to reflect the input received
and presented for Board consideration and potential adoption in June.
Lorna Stickel noted that a set of questions on the Draft RT/S Strategy was distributed with the
meeting materials.- She said the questions are intended to help frame discussions at the agency
level about the acceptability of the Draft RT/S Strategy. The questions invite agency feedback
about the policy values identified for strategy development, and the recommended near- and
long-term regional transmission strategies.
Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto asked if additional transmission lines between Powell Butte and
the west-side of Portland are planned. He asked if existing connections are sufficient to meet the
anticipated growth in demand. Mr. Glicker said additional connections in terms of the regional
transmission system are not needed beyond the Portland Conduit 5 that will bring supply into
Powell Butte. He mentioned that improvements within the Portland system will create a stronger
connection between the east and west sides of the Willamette River.
Commissioner DiBenedetto suggested there should be further study of the proposed route
identified for transmission lines between Portland and Washington County. He noted that the
proposed route follows a perimeter course and more direct path is needed. Mr. Glicker reported
that the RT/SA Project Team evaluated an alternative route between these points but selected the
southern route because it connected Portland, Clackamas, and supplies on the west-side. He said
Portland will make some improvements to the Portland transmission system that will benefit
customers on the western edge of the system. He explained that construction of the potential
600' reservoir at Powell Butte will--allow additional supply ter serve the west-side via the-existing
pathway.
There were no other questions on the Draft RT/S Strategy Report.
Frank Gearhart, Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc. (CIIBRI), indicated that Don Cook
submitted written comments on the Draft RT/S Strategy Report,and requested that the comments
be noted in the meeting record. The written comments were circulated to meeting participants.
Strategic Planning Committee Report: Commissioner Bruce Fontaine reported that the
Strategic Planning Committee (SPC)was formed in March 1999 to begin the strategic planning
process that will lead to development of the Consortium Five-year Strategic Plan.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 6
Commissioner Fontaine reported that the SPC began meeting in May 1999. Since that time, the
SPC has completed a number of activities, including: 1)Reached agreemenwn a reasonable
strategic planning process for the Consortium;2) Identified the current organizational mandates;
and 3) Prepared a Stakeholder Survey for distribution to the Consortium Board, Consortium
Technical Committee, and other external stakeholder groups. He noted that the results of the
Stakeholder Survey were distributed earlier.
District Board President Jim Duggan reported that the SPC met with members of the Consortium
Technical Subcommittee (CTSC)in January and February to map the Consortium's
organizational strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats as part of a SWOT analysis. He
said the SPC discussed the mission and future vision for the Consortium, and began to identify
strategic challenges and actions. He mentioned that a draft mission statement was prepared
based on discussion at the joint SPC/CTSC meetings.
District Board President Duggan said the SPC determined that the project schedule to produce
the Draft Five-year Strategic Plan in time for discussion at this meeting was too ambitious, and
would not provide adequate time to conduct a thorough,methodical review of the strategic
challenges facing the Consortium. The SPC revised the strategic planning process schedule and
will now present the Draft Strategic Plan for Board review in June, and Board adoption in
September.
District Board President Duggan reported that the SPC, CTSC, and Consortium Technical
Committee (CTC) reviewed and provided feedback on the draft Consortium mission statement.
The mission statement includes language on the proposed Consortium mission,values and future
vision. He invited Consortium Board members to provide feedback on the mission statement
either at this meeting or following discussion with their respective governing bodies. He
indicated that the Consortium Board is not being asked to adopt the mission statement at this
time but to comment on whether it captures the intent of the Consortium.
Mayor Rob Drake asked if the SPC is looking for comments about individual bullet points in the
draft Consortium mission statement. He referred to the statement of Consortium values that
reads "Collectively planning for the provision of water supplies and programs before taking
individual actions that may affect the actions of other water providers." Mayor Drake said the
statement is broadly worded and the intent is unclear.
District Board President Duggan said he believes that the intent of the statement is to coordinate
the Capital Improvement Planning and actions of each individual entity, and to share this
information collectively. He said the benefits of collective planning and shared coordination will
be improved decision-making that could help guide plan implementation at the local level.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 7
Mayor Drake mentioned that there was some tension at the Consortium Board meeting where a
number of Consortium entities reported that the potential for tapping the Willamette River for
supply was being explored. Mayor Drake said he is not interested in discussing the merits of the
Willamette River at this time, but believes that the participant entities were within their rights to
pursue this option. He asked if the SPC crafted the value statement in response to discussion
which occurred at that meeting.
Councilor Don Allen said the value statement in the draft mission statement would be relevant to
that specific discussion or any other issue. He said the value statement is intended to convey that
an individual participant agency would benefit from sharing information with the Consortium.
District Board President Duggan said the intent of the SPC was not to force individual agencies
to take certain actions, and the SPC recognizes that all participant entities have responsibilities to
their customers. He explained that the intent was to have advance planning and/or notice of
potential actions. District Board President Duggan suggested that the value statement could be
modified somewhat and still have the same effect if the wording ". . .before taking individual
actions that may affect the actions of other water providers" is removed.
Mayor Drake commented that the value statement seems to carry an implied sanction if a
participant agency decides not to provide the Consortium with advance notice of potential
actions. He said he values that the Consortium member agencies are able to convene in this
forum to discuss common problems, and he would not want the Consortium to be in the position
of interfering with decision-making at the local level. Mayor Drake said he would be
comfortable with the suggested revision to the value statement if the intent pertains to collective
planning. He commended the work of the SPC, and said the draft Consortium mission statement
is a very nice document.
Mayor Charlotte Lehan concurred that the suggested wording change would improve the mission
statement and add needed clarification.
A meeting participant expressed concern about the term "collectively planning" in the same
value statement, and suggested"coordinated planning" instead.
Ed Wegner pointed out that"collective"or"coordinated planning"does not necessarily imply
collective involvement on the part of all Consortium entities. Mr. Wegner noted that when the
Willamette Water Supply Agency (WWSA) gave a report on activities to explore the potential
for tapping the Willamette River for supply, Consortium Board discussion focused on whether to
allow this activity to occur. He pointed out that WWSA was not asking the Consortium Board
for approval to proceed on this activity,but intended for the Board presentation to be an update.
Mr. Wegner said the Consortium should preserve individual and collective rights to make
decisions and move forward on activities that are deemed to be prudent without fearing that the
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 8
Consortium will work to stall these efforts. Harvey Barnes and others agreed with these
comments. '
Chair Kappa asked if the SPC should reexamine this issue at the next SPC meeting,and return to
the Consortium Board with proposed revisions.
Mayor Lehan and District Board President Stallings suggested additional wording changes to the
values statement.
Lorna Stickel said the intent of the value statement is not to focus on actions by an individual
agency, or group of agencies,but to convey that the Consortium was formed on the basis of the
value it believes to be inherent in the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP). She said the water
provider agencies collectively developed the RWSP, and the value statement is intended to
validate that the Consortium continues to believe that this is a valuable function. Ms. Stickel
asked if the Consortium is moving away from that concept.
Mr. Barnes said he perceives value in avoiding similar situations of controversy in the future. He
said the value statement as currently drafted would indicate that the Consortium is once again
headed in that direction.
Ms. Stickel suggested that if the Consortium Board wants the draft mission statement to include
language related to planning that is being conducted by individual agencies, then the mission
statement should perhaps include two separate points.
Mayor Drake said he believes that the suggested revision, "Coordinate planning for the provision
of water supplies and programs", will address the concerns being voiced by meeting participants,
and yet not limit future opportunities for coordination. He commented that the Consortium
serves as a national model for regional coordination that is unseen elsewhere. Mayor Drake then
talked about the major accomplishment of gathering together the diverse entities that comprise
the Consortium membership.
District Board President Duggan agreed with these remarks, and expressed similar comments.
He said the Consortium is stronger as a group than the sum of its individual parts.
Chair Kappa and others voiced support for the proposed language change.
Commissioner Fontaine pointed out that the second and fifth bullet points in the values section of
the mission statement are intended to capture actions at the individual agency level, and may
allay some of the concerns being voiced. Commissioner Fontaine said that he would support
changing the values statement as suggested.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 9
Councilor Don Allen mentioned that he participated as a SPC member in drafting the mission
statement, and had some initial misgivings about the length and structure of the statement.
Councilor Allen commented that he is surprised/pleased that this mission statement is being so
well accepted. Councilor Allen voiced support for the suggested revision to the values statement.
There were no additional comments on the draft Consortium mission statement. Chair Kappa
indicated that Consortium staff will modify the draft mission statement to reflect comments
provided at this meeting, and distribute the revision for discussion at the next Consortium Board
meeting.
Ms. Stickel mentioned that the SPC has been discussing ways to structure future Consortium
Board meeting to allow for increased exchange between Board members. She reported that SPC
members have suggested the use of break-out sessions at Board meetings to allow additional
opportunities for dialogue among the decision-makers. She noted that break-out sessions are
planned for the June Consortium Board meeting when the Board will discuss the draft Five-year
Strategic Plan.
Chair Kappa invited Consortium Board representatives who participate on the Metro Policy
Advisory Committee (MPAC)to provide guidance on how the MPAC operates in the large space
that constitutes the Metro Council Chamber/Annex
Mayor Drake reported that MPAC recently discussed this issue and decided that MPAC meetings
held in smaller spaces, or when the meeting tables are placed in closer proximity, are more
congenial. He commented that the Metro Council Chambers is not acoustically sound, and
sometimes makes it difficult to hear conversations.
Councilor Allen reported there was some discussion at earlier Consortium Board meetings about
changing the location and room set-up of Board meetings. He said this issue has become less
essential as attendance at Consortium Board meetings has improved:
Other Business: Chair Kappa reported that he attended the December Canby Utility Board
(CUB) meeting to request that CUB reconsider its decision to withdraw from the Consortium.
He mentioned that the summary for the CUB meeting was distributed with the Consortium Board
meeting materials.
Chair Kappa reported that CUB communicated that the agency's return to the Consortium would
be contingent on two conditions. CUB indicated that the Consortium would need to return to the
original concept of being a technical advisory committee exclusively, and the Consortium could
take no action on political or policy issues unless authorized by a unanimous vote of the
Consortium membership. Chair Kappa said that he will prepare correspondence to CUB to
communicate the Consortium Board's reaction to these reports.
r
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 10
Mayor Rob Drake indicated that while he respects CUB's requests, he cannot agree with them.
He said a voting system that would allow one member entity to veto an actio4 would be
unworkable. Mayor Drake said he would welcome CUB's return to the Consortium,but
questions if the trade-offs requested would be worthwhile.
District Board President Pat Stallings voiced similar comments. She said it is noteworthy that
the Consortium provides a forum for water providers in the region to express a variety of
opinions, and she would not want that to change.
Chair Kappa voiced agreement with both sets of comments. He indicated that he felt the need to
pursue the"CUB membership issue because he believes that the agency speaks from a unique
position and should be included in the regional discussions about water supply issues.
Councilor Susan McLain suggested that the Consortium response to CUB could indicate that the
Consortium is unable to meet CUB's conditions at this time, and hopes that CUB will decide to
rejoin the Consortium in the future. She suggested that Consortium staff could send copies of the
Consortium Board meeting minutes to CUB on a regular basis as a courtesy.
Commissioner Bruce Fontaine voiced support for this approach. He expressed his appreciation
for Chair Kappa's efforts on this issue.
Chair Kappa directed Consortium staff to draft correspondence on his behalf to communicate the
Board response.
Chair Kappa reported that nominations for Consortium Board Chair and Vice-Chair will be heard
at the next Consortium Board meeting in June. Chair Kappa said that he has thoroughly enjoyed
his tenure with the Consortium, and hopes to be able to attend Consortium Board meetings in
another elected capacity after the first of the year.
Lorna Stickel noted that the Consortium Board agenda packet includes draft correspondence to
the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) on the proposed 4(d) of the Endangered Species
Act that will apply to the west coast steelhead and Chinook listings. She indicated that
Consortium staff recognizes that many individual jurisdictions will be providing comments on
the proposed 4(d) rule,however Consortium staff identified one item that will collectively affect
the water providers in the Portland metropolitan area and which might justify a collective
response.
Ms. Stickel reported that issue (J) of the 4(d) rule would assure that water supply demands for
new development in the Portland metropolitan jurisdiction can be met without impacting the
flows needed for threatened salmoids either directly or through groundwater withdrawals. She
said Consortium staff is concerned that issue (J) implies the Metro Functional Plan and related
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000
Page 11
ordinances would make the required assurances regarding issues related to water supply or fish
screening. Consortium staff recommends that issue (J)be removed from the,4(d) rule because
the appropriate venue for this action is within state agencies and not the regional government
setting. Ms. Stickel explained that water rights come from many diverse areas, including some
outside of Metro's jurisdiction, and it is the role of the Oregon Water Resource Department to
make this kind of assurance when granting water rights or providing for transfers. Ms. Stickel
noted that the NMFS comment period on the 4(d)rule ends on March 6, 2000.
Councilor Susan McLain said that Metro would not view the proposed modification to the
4(d) rule as being problematic. Councilor McLain said there has been limited comments on the
proposed language at.the Metro Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee(WRPAC)
meeting, and WRPAC members indicated that there should not be redundancy among the
different agencies. She said Metro would be amenable to issuing a response to NMFS that the
role proposed for Metro does not fall within Metro's primary purpose or function.
Mayor Rob Drake reported that the comments expressed in the draft correspondence are
consistent with the perception held by governing bodies in Washington County. He said Metro
is a key player in this issue, and should be involved in the collective discussion,but should not
be overseeing the entire discussion.
Chair Kappa asked if Consortium Board members had objections to the draft correspondence to
NMFS on the 4(d)rule. No objections were voiced. The Consortium Board approved the
correspondence.
Rebecca Geisen reported that the Consortium previously submitted correspondence to the
Oregon Congressional Delegation in opposition to U.S. House Resolution 623,the Plumbing
Standards Improvement Act of 1999 that would eliminate current plumbing products efficiency
standards.
Ms. Geisen mentioned that H.R. 623 is again gaining momentum and there is renewed effort to
oppose the bill. She noted that the Consortium Board meeting materials include a position
statement from a national group of companies, organizations, and public agencies that have
formed to support maintaining national standards for plumbing fixtures. She said the position
statement is well aligned with the Consortium's views on this subject, and asked if the
Consortium Board would authorize adding the Consortium to the list of supporters.
Mayor Charlotte Lehan recalled that Canby Utility Board was the only Consortium member
entity that voiced opposition to the earlier correspondence on H.R. 623. She voiced comments in
favor of supporting the national coalition that formed to oppose H.R. 623. There were no other
comments, and the Consortium Board approved joining the group opposing the bill.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of March 1, 2000 •
Page 12
Councilor McLain announced that Metro has formed a State and Legislative Committee to assist
in partnering in lobbying efforts at the State and Federal levels. She said theyetro Committee is
available to assist the Consortium in areas related to water supply, and will support Consortium
activities in whatever way possible. Councilor McLain invited Consortium Board members to
contact her office if there are agenda items for the Committee.
District Board President Jim Duggan mentioned that Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD)has
received national media attention in response to actions taken to modify the TVWD personnel
policy related to medical marijuana. He reported that the TVWD Board did not believe that it
was setting great policy direction at the time of the decision-making, but wanted to arrive at a
compromise that addressed the will of the voters and dealt with a normal personicl policy
update. District Board President Duggan gave a brief explanation of the TVWD personnel
policy.
Councilor Don Allen voiced appreciation for Consortium staff's effort to improve logistics at
Consortium Board meetings. He commented favorably about the new name tent cards.
Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto asked if it would be possible to better coordinate mailings of
Consortium meeting minutes and notices. He suggested that improved coordination would
reduce postage costs.
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. The next Consortium Board meeting will be on
June 7, 2000.
Prepared by Dominique Bessee
1999 Water Sources
9% 1%
5%
17% ■Wells
0 Beaverton
0 Lake Oswego
■Tualatin Valley Water District
■Portland
68%
Table 5- X
Historical Water Loss Summary
Fiscal Totalotal� �Totaln� Usage1 Lass alo Loss
Year , Produce
d Purchased t
e'- ,#-fir '
MG =x MG
G.._
85-86 1 82Z 1,822 1,622 200 11%
86-87 0 1 It 0 1,402 1,248 154 11%
87-88 1 L4 o3 1,403 1,348 55 4%
88-89 3-7 1559 1,616 1,489 128 8%
89-90 99 1y5-0 1,549 1,456 93 6%
90-91 -1 S I(v:Jq 1,687 1,543_ 143 9%
91-92 136 1,880 2,016 1,720 296 15%
92-93 132 1,372 1,504 1,455 49 3%
93-94 60 1,770 1,830 1,669 161 9%
94-95 1 b 0 1<,5 Z I -1 52 I .?-)q5 - JLJ3
95-96 374 1289 1,663 5 Z lal
96-97 157 1,939 2,096 q Z 9 I(, b
97-98 98 1,918 2,016 (e2 37
98-99 82 2,179 2,261 10 Z q,5-
s. r
a
99-0430.101 Page 5-4 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study
April 2000 DRAFT` Water System Analysis City of Tigard
t
Under the Surface ...
Year 2000 State of the Willamette
A Report by Willamette Riverkeeper
Principal Authors: Joe Coffman and Elizabeth Grossman
Executive Summary
This report describes the toxic point source pollution entering the Willamette River Basin and its
impact on the river system. The report also recommends ways to improve conditions in the
Willamette River, now and for the future.
Results and Findings: Toxic Point Source Pollution in the Willamette
1. Each year, millions of pounds of toxic chemicals are released into the Willamette River and its
tributaries from industry and from waste water treatment plants, stormwater and sewage
overflows.
2. In 1997, the Willamette ranked 10`h of U.S. waters receiving the greatest discharges of toxic
chemicals, up from its ranking of 17`h between 1992 and 1996 (according to EPA figures).
Among western U.S. waterbodies,the Willamette River currently receives the most direct
releases of toxic chemicals, followed by the Pacific Ocean and the Columbia River.
3. Since 1995, reported direct discharges of toxic chemicals to the Willamette River have nearly
doubled, as have discharges of toxic chemicals from publicly owned sewage treatment plants.
4. The Willamette River's wild chinook, chum and coho salmon and steelhead are now listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. For these species to be saved, toxics must be
cleaned up. A 1999 study found concentrations of dioxin in Willamette River fish tissue
exceeded Oregon state's standards for cancer-risk exposure to dioxins. The toxic chemicals
entering the Willamette persist and impact both human and aquatic biological health.
5. High-technology industries contribute a large and growing portion of toxic discharges to the
Willamette River, both directly to the river and indirectly through sewage treatment plants.
According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency,the volume of heavy metals
discharged into the Willamette River Basin appears to be increasing, despite the reduction in
some industry sectors.
6. One of the major shortcomings in the reporting and monitoring of point source toxic pollution
of the Willamette, is in the tracking of releases from public treatment plants. While treatment
plants do reduce direct discharge of toxics,they have not reduced the overall release of toxics
t
f
into the Willamette, and the current reporting system makes it difficult to assess the contents
of such releases.
7. There is currently no comprehensive monitoring or reporting system for toxic pollutants
entering the Willamette River. Further,the Clean Water Act's antidegradation, Total
Maximum Daily Load and 303(d)programs have not been used proactively to protect the
Willamette River Basin from toxic point source pollution.
8. Under the current system of regulation, and using current technology,it appears that a
condition of acceptable degradation has been created for the entire watershed. This appears to
be contrary to the Clean Water Act's goal- now 15 years past due- of zero discharge.
What Needs to be Done: Recommendations
1. Everyone who lives and works in the Willamette River Watershed—individuals, institutions,
business and industry—must exercise vigilance and take responsibility to protect, defend and
restore the health of the river. This means: a) use the Clean Water Act and other laws to
prevent pollution and encourage restoration of the Willamette River, b) challenge industries to
eliminate toxic discharges throughout the watershed, and, c) elect public officials who will be
accountable for the protection, defense and restoration of the Willamette River.
2. Phase out all toxic discharges into the Willamette River and its tributaries by 2010. Technical
solutions exist to eliminate toxic discharges. Innovative strategies can be used to encourage
elimination of toxic discharges.
3. Restore the river as a dynamic functioning ecosystem. In protecting and restoring the river,
focus on the biological health of the entire watershed: the river, the people, and the other
living systems that depend on it.
4. Establish a consistent monitoring system for toxics. The State of Oregon should establish a
comprehensive discharge accountability system to track all discharges. Adequate data will
enable us to make the right decisions to protect and restore the river. Legislation and full
funding is needed for discharge accountability and monitoring.
Conclusion
The goal of the Clean Water Act continues to be zero discharge of toxic pollution into our rivers.
Yet, while this goal remains in place, toxic discharges into the Willamette River are increasing,
nearly doubling in the last five years.
To meet the Clean Water Act goal of zero discharge of toxics, and restore the Willamette River as
a dynamic functioning ecosystem,the State of Oregon must take steps to monitor and reduce
toxic discharges in the river.
2
We should remember that the Willamette is our river. As citizens of Oregon and the United
States, we own the river. We must all understand- legislators, business, industry, institutions and
individuals -that the health of the river is directly related to the overal economic health of the
State of Oregon. A clean and healthy Willamette River will enhance our communities and help
sustain us, both economically and ecologically.
"... the battle to save the planet begins with each of us, and progresses when we each resolve to
take responsibility for preserving little bits of it—our backyards, our neighborhoods, our
communities, our river valley. After all, our planet is being destroyed piece by piece. It will only
be saved in the same fashion."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and John Cronin, The Riverkeepers
About the Authors
Joe Coffman is a Policy Analyst and Boardmember of Willamette Riverkeeper, an organization
that works with concerned citizens, elected leaders, agency staff and other organizations to stop
pollution and protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat in and along the Willamette River. Mr.
Coffman has a graduate degree in City and Regional Planning from the University of Iowa and a
B.A. in Environmental Studies from University of California Santa Barbara.
Elizabeth Grossman is a writer who specializes in environmental and natural resources issues.
She has a B.A. in literature from Yale University and has been published in the Washington Post,
Orion Afield, Chicago Tribune, and the Seattle Times.
3