Reasons to abandon 2008 adopted Water Master Pln & retain 2204 Plan

TO:  Council and Staff

FROM: Bob Thomas

SUBJECT:  Reasons to abandon the 2008 adopted Water Master Plan and retain the 2004 adopted Water Master Plan.

PREFACE:  All of this will be posted on my blog at (http://informingWL.blogspot.com\])

 I, Bob Thomas, originally wrote the appended column to present reasons why voters should vote “no” to the proposed large water rate increases in Measure 3-364 on the ballot in the November 2010 election to raise monies to implement the 2008 adopted Water Master Plan devised by the hired engineering firm of MSA (Murray, Smith & Associates).  It remains just as relevant today and into the future.  The whole point is to give up and reject further attempts to raise monies to implement the unnecessary and oversized 2008 adopted Water Master Plan and instead retain and implement the much less costly and sufficiently adequate 2004 adopted Water Master Plan which doesn’t require voters to approve raising monies to finance it like the 2008 Plan requires.

I show in my appended column, on Page 8 and Page 9, that there has been plenty of money available annually to have instituted a program for accordingly implementing elements of the 2004 Plan, and to do so with such monies until the 2004 Plan is completed.  The problem is that the ruling council majorities during the King Administrations and now during the Kovash Administration have pursued a “dog in the manger” attitude of being stubbornly wedded to pursuing implementation of the unnecessary, oversized and costly 2008 Plan requiring voter approval of large water rate increases to finance revenue bonds to be utilized in implementing the 2008 Plan.  This pursuit has put on hold and prevented any progress whatsoever in implementing needed water system improvements in accord with the 2004 Plan and which otherwise could have been progressing annually since 2005, as recommended in the 2004 Plan.  So the longer this “dog in the manger” ruling council majority under Kovash foolishly and callously prevents implementing needed water system improvements in accord with the 2004 Plan, the more they are doing West Linn residents a major disservice by not providing such needed water system improvements.  It’s more than high time that this ruling council majority give up further attempts to have voters approve big increases in water rates to finance the unnecessary, oversized and costly 2008 Plan and instead start implementing the very adequate and readily affordable 2004 Plan which doesn’t require asking the voters to approve big water rate increases like the 2008 Plan requires.

It’s shown on Page 9 and Page 10 of my appended column why the net cost of the 2004 Plan, namely $14,085,745, is $6,914,255 less than the net cost of about $21,000,000 for the 2008 Plan, 

Starting with Page 4 of my appended column, and further throughout the column I have made several corrections and introduced some new topics, resulting in lengthening the column to a total of 14 pages.  So if you have retained a copy of the original, please discard it and replace it with this updated version.  At the end, I’ve appended another 3 pages to relate the genesis of the 2008 Plan to former Councilor Scott Burgess.

My appended column begins on Page 2.

                                      ***************************

                                                                   Page 2

    I, Bob Thomas, present additional reasons in this column to vote “no” against

   Measure 3-364 in Nov. 2010 Election which proposes large water rate increases

                                                                                                                                     

     Before the Sept. 21, 2010 special election when John Kovash was interim mayor and Jim Mattis was interim councilor, those two, along with councilors Scott Burgess and Jody Carson, placed Measure 3-364 on the 2010 November ballot asking voters to approve progressive water rate increases considerably beyond our charter limitation of 5% annually.  Additional reasons are given here why voters should vote “no” to such unnecessary increases.  (Voters in fact voted “no” by a big majority.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

     Besides their claiming that these rate increases are necessary to induce water conservation (water conservation can be achieved without such rate increases, as discussed in the Addendum starting on Page 12), they claim these rate increases are primarily necessary to finance revenue bonds to pay for  $21,000,000 in required water system infrastructure projects listed in a Nov. 2008 adopted Water Master Plan.  (I’ll show that much of its costly infrastructure projects are not necessary nor required) That doesn’t describe the derivation of the $21,000,000 nor the true nature of projects it would pay for.  I’ll go into a great amount of detail about this $21,000,000 in comparison to the much less costly 2004 Plan in which the average reader may not wish to take the time to go through or check on.  With my engineering background and my continuing detailed familiarity with all aspects of West Linn’s water system, I can assure you that the bottom line to remember is that there are no valid reasons to vote to approve Measure 3-364 on the November ballot, but to definitely vote “no” to it.

                                                ****************************************

     I’ll show why it’s totally unnecessary to finance revenue bonds to pay for this $21,000,000 and furthermore that the $21,000,000 in itself is far more than needed to be funded, as shown when comparing the very excessive 2008 adopted Water Master Plan against the very adequate and much less costly 2004 adopted Updated Water Master Plan.  I’ll show why the 2004 Plan is much less costly than the 2008 Plan and point out that 20 pipeline replacement projects amounting to a total of 14,630 feet of pipeline were replaced during the Dodds administration.  This accordingly reduced the total estimated costs of the 2004 Plan, as published in the Tables of pages 78 and 79 of the 2004 Plan, by $1,329,600 in 2004 dollars or by $1,552,840 in 2008 dollars.  However, I’ll show, on Page 9 and Page 10 why this doesn’t reflect the actual even lower total estimated cost of infrastructure yet to be undertaken in the 2004 Plan.  

                                                ************************************

                                                                         

                                                                                    Page 3

    Now I’ll first go into the details about the approximate $21,000,000.  The estimated costs of each of the water-related infrastructure items described below are in terms of 2008 dollars since that is the year in which the 2008 Water Master Plan was adopted.  They come to a total of $33,256,775 in 2008 dollars when including $150,000 for Planning Studies.  The approximate $21,000,000 is the remainder (that is paid for by the City from its taxpayer derived monies) left after subtracting about $12,300,000 (in 2008 dollars) in growth-related charges on developers (water SDCs accumulated in a water SDC fund) from the total of $33,256,775.  This $33,256,775 is comprised of 8 capital maintenance projects costing an estimated total of $8,845,000 as shown in Table 8-1 on page 8-2 of the 2008 Master Plan, an excessively large Bolton Reservoir of 4.0 million gallons costing an estimated $8,000,000 as shown in Table 8-2 on page 8-5 of the 2008 Master Plan, an excessively large Bland Reservoir No. 2 of 300,000 gallons costing an estimated $525,000 as shown in Table 8-2 on page 8-5 of the 2008 Master Plan, an entirely unnecessary hefty contribution of $2,200,000 (shown near the bottom of the right most column of Table 8-6 of the 2008 Master Plan) toward an entirely unnecessary Tigard-Lake Oswego Intertie (dubbed “emergency supply connection improvements” to mislead and induce voters to vote for Measure 3-364 by using the scary words “emergency supply”), an entirely unnecessary hilltop booster pump station drawing water from the proposed Bland Reservoir No. 2 and discharging into 2,500 feet of 12-inch pipe feeding into the Rosemont pressure zone costing a total of $1,250,000 as shown in Table 8-3 on page 8-6 and dubbed “Bland Intertie Supply to Rosemont” as discussed on page-8-7 of the 2008 Master Plan.  Its sole purpose is to pump water for expansion of West Linn into the Stafford Triangle.  See fourth paragraph on Page 13.

     A valid addition of a third pump to our existing emergency intertie pump station with Lake Oswego is shown in Table 8-3 on page 8-6 of the 2008 Plan as costing an estimated $75,000.

     Near the bottom of Table 8-6 on page 8-12 of the 2008 Plan is shown an estimated total cost of  $12,091,775 for 62 capital improvement (CIP) pipeline replacement projects (not including $120,000 for a pressure reducing valve).  Also shown is an allocation of $150,000 for Planning Studies related to a future Master Plan update.  Not all of the 62 CIP pipeline replacement projects are needed by far, as explained on pages 5, 6 and 7.

     The estimated costs of each of the above items of water-related infrastructure and the Planning Studies come to a total of $33,256,775 in 2008 dollars.

                                                ***********************************

                                                                          Page 4                                                                                                         

     I previously explained in my 8-12-10 Tidings column why the 2008 Water Plan was excessively expensive and unnecessary and why the perfectly adequate and much less costly 2004 Water Plan, not requiring such increased rates, should be retained by voting “no” in November.  I also pointed out how water conservation is achievable without big water rate increases.  I’m appending a copy of that Tidings column under ADDENDUM, starting on Page 12.

                                                *************************************

     Now I’ll show why it’s entirely unnecessary to finance revenue bonds to fund water projects.  The City has a large amount of recurring annual revenue to pay for all necessary water projects instead of misusing much of it to pay for an excessive level of police department funding, retaining and fully funding public works personnel who should have but haven’t been doing waterline replacements, and excessively contributing to supporting other staff through transfers from the water fund.

                                                                                                                                   

     During Dodds Administration (prior to King Administration), 14,630 feet of water pipelines were replaced, comprised of 12,270 feet of 16 Capital Maintenance pipeline replacement projects and 2,360 feet of 4 Capital Improvement pipeline replacement projects.  In accord with the two large foldout tables of 2004 Plan that list Capital Maintenance and Capital Improvement projects, the sixteen Capital Maintenance projects included PW 0307, PW 0306, PW 0305, PW 0401, PW 0402, PW 0403, PW 0404, PW 0405, PW 0406, PW 0407, PW 0501, PW 0503, PW 0504, PW 0311 (listed twice because it covers two different locations along Alley Street) and PW0409. The four Capital Improvement projects included PW 0502, PW0311, PW 0409, and PW 0311.  In accord with those foldout tables, at end of the Dodds Administration there were 71,920 feet of Capital Maintenance pipelines (29 projects) left to do and 72,100 feet of Capital Improvement pipelines (49 projects) left to do. .

     The Dodds Administration recommended this remainder be replaced at a rate of at least 5.000 feet per year.  Inexcusably, only 5,120 feet of pipeline replacements were done during early King administration and none since.

     In referring to the 2008 Plan, it’s odd that 62 CIP (capital improvement projects) pipeline projects shown individually in Appendix E (compared to 49 projects in 2004 Plan) add up to a total length of 78,914 feet of CIP pipeline projects to be installed, and even more oddly adds up to 79,135 feet in its Table 8-5.  This is a muddled mess characteristic of so many inconsistencies throughout the 2008 Plan.  Also, it’s as if the 2008 Plan was looking at an entirely different water system than what was the

                                                                                       Page 5

subject of the 2004 Plan.  None of the 62 CIP pipeline projects listed and described in Appendix E of the 2008 Plan match any of the 49 CIP pipeline projects left to do in accord with the 2004 Plan.  In the 2008 Plan’s 62 CIP in Appendix E, 26 are in the Willamette Pressure Zone, ten in the Rosemont Pressure Zone, 8 in the Horton Pressure Zone, 8 in the Robinwood Pressure Zone, 7 in the Bolton Pressure Zone, and 3 in the Bland Pressure Zone.  Very importantly, did MSA check to see if any of the 62 CIP pipeline projects in the 2008 Plan overlap or incorporate any of the 49 CIP pipeline projects left to do in accord with the 2004 Plan?

     In the second paragraph on page 7-2 of the 2008 Plan it says that proposed or new water mains should be at least 8 inches in diameter in order to supply minimum fire flows except that in special cases, 6-inch diameter mains are acceptable if no fire hydrant connection is required, etc.  In the 2004 Plan, within the original list of 53 CIP pipeline replacement projects (before four were done during the Dodds Administration), 2 are 20-inch, 3 are 18-inch, 2 are 16-inch, 1 is 14-inch, 6 are 12-inch, 4 are 10-inch, 21 are 8-inch, 10 are 6-inch, 1 is 4-inch, 1 is 8&4 inch, 1 is 8&6 inch and 1 is 8&10 inch.

     In the section under “Residential Fire Flow” on page 7-4 of the 2008 Plan, it says that according to TVF&R, dwelling units whose fire area is 3,600 square feet or less shall have a minimum fire flow requirement of 1,000 gpm, and those that are greater than 3,600 square feet shall have a minimum fire flow requirement of 1,500 gpm.

     Most houses in Barrington Heights are greater than 3,600 square feet, quite a lot of houses in the entire Tanner Basin are greater than 3,600 square feet and all of the relatively latest subdivisions in the city proper have quite a lot of houses that are greater than 3,600 square feet.

     But by far, most houses in the Willamette District, in the Sunset District, in the Bolton District, the Robinwood District and the Hidden Springs District are less than 3,600 square feet.  Those districts comprise quite a big portion of the City, and their residential areas are undoubtedly adequately served for the most part by a fire flow of 1,000 gpm.   So it’s fiscally irresponsible to blanket all of the city’s residential areas with a fire flow requirement of 1,500 gpm under the excuse that MSA uses, namely that it claims a new fire code was adopted in 2007 that resulted in a higher fire flow standard, especially for larger sized homes.  “Larger sized homes” obviously means homes larger than 3,600 square feet.   MSA says that for the purpose of this plan (the 2008 Plan), a minimum residential fire flow of 1,500 gpm is recommended.  So that imposes a blanket fire flow requirement of 1,500 gpm

                                                                                    Page 6

throughout all residential areas in the whole City, even on those that are adequately served by a fire flow of 1,000 gpm.  As noted, it’s very fiscally irresponsible to unnecessarily replace existing pipes that are large enough to provide a fire flow of 1,000 gpm in residential areas that are adequately

served by a fire flow of 1,000 gpm with larger pipes that can provide a fire flow of 1,500 gpm, or to replace any undersized pipes with pipes that are large enough to provide for a fire flow of

1,500 gpm on residential streets when smaller pipe sizes that can provide the lower figure of 1,000 gpm for fire flow are adequate.  So fiscal responsibility and common sense should prevail.  That would entail ignoring MSA’s blanket recommendation that system planning allow for a minimum available fire flow of 1,500 gpm throughout all residential areas of the City.  That’s an easy and irresponsible approach for MSA to take.

     A responsible approach by MSA would have been to look at the City’s housing records to identify streets where houses of greater than 3,600 square feet have been built and only provide those streets with pipes large enough to provide a fire flow of 1,500 gpm.  Otherwise, on streets where residential housing is of a size that does not exceed 3,600 square feet, piping need only be large enough to provide a fire flow of 1,000 gpm.  This of course invalidates the assertion that a total of as much as about 79,000 feet of new pipe needs to be installed throughout all residential areas of the City which is of a size large enough to cater for a fire flow of 1,500 gpm throughout all such areas of the City.  The total length of such new pipe will be considerably less, being dependent on a housing records survey of the number and location of houses of a size greater than 3,600 square feet.  Once that survey is done and the length and location of such pipe is determined and MSA assures that none of it includes or overlaps any of the 2004 Plan’s CIP pipeline replacement projects left to be done, then that survey determined length and location of pipe would be the only portion of the 2008 Plan to be retained and implemented.  All the rest of it would not be implemented and instead the much less costly and adequate 2004 Plan would be implemented.    

     Further, on page 7-7 of the 2008 Plan, certain comments in the section under “Modeling Results” are related to the above MSA nonsensical blanket recommendation.  First it says that modeling analysis revealed distribution system deficiencies during fire flow events under existing conditions and saturation development conditions in all six of the pressure zones resulting in unacceptable pressure drops below 20 psi.  It says potential system improvements were systematically (whatever that means) input into the model and tested to determine the most effective and economical improvements to address the deficiencies.  It says the recommended distribution system improvements are tabulated and

                                                                                    Page 7

can be found in the appendix.  Presumably it means Appendix E, the contents of which have been discussed above in the last paragraph on Page 4 and top of Page 5.  {I pointed out there that it’s odd that the 62 CIP pipeline projects shown individually in Appendix E (compared to 49 CIP pipeline projects in 2004 Plan) add up to total length of 78,914 feet to be installed, and even more oddly adds up to 79,135 feet in its Table 8-5.}

     Returning to page 7-7 of the 2008 Plan under the Section on “Modeling Results” it says Plate 1 also illustrates the location and proposed size of recommended improvements.  That Plate 1 is a nightmare to try to read and try to correlate with Appendix E.  That section further says that system performance

was generally found to be adequate under the full range of domestic water supply needs including existing and future peak hour conditions with minimal pressure fluctuation.  It goes on to say that

however, under existing and future maximum day demand with fire flow conditions, certain areas in the distribution system were found to be inadequate.  And then it makes the following outstanding statement.  It says that approximately 79,000 linear feet of piping improvements are recommended to address these deficiencies.  That’s the approximate figure as discussed above for Appendix E and Table 8-5.  This all consists of CIP (Capital Improvement) pipeline projects.

     All of this so-called needed installation of CIP pipeline length of 79,000 linear feet is tied into and results from MSA’s nonsensical recommendation that system planning allow for a minimum available fire flow of 1,500 gpm as a blanket condition throughout all residential areas of the City.  This is all discussed in detail above, starting at the bottom of my Page 4 and continuing on through pages 5, 6 and up to this point on Page 7.  Consequently, in the 2008 Plan, Appendix E, Plate 1 and Table 8-5 should not be observed as valid because not all residential streets, by far, require a fire flow of 1,500 gpm.  As noted above, the length of such new pipe will be considerably less than about 79,000 feet, being dependent on a housing records survey of the number and location of houses of a size greater than 3,600 square feet.

     Some more comments are undoubtedly needed about the 2008 Plan to dispose of the rest of its nonsense.  In regard to CMP (capital maintenance projects) pipeline projects to be replaced in the 2008 Plan, it’s not explicitly made clear.  Its Table 8-6 doesn’t show that.  The best one can do is to refer to the two paragraphs subsequent to its Table 8-1.  The first paragraph says there is 54,000 feet of Asbestos Cement Pipe to be replaced in contrast to 59,310 feet in the 2004 Plan under its CMP-47.  In the second paragraph, it says there remains 11,500 feet of galvanized and steel piping to be replaced

                                                                                    Page 8

(compared to 9,680 feet remaining to be replaced in the 2004 Plan).  Using the above numbers of the 2008 Plan, that makes a total of 65,500 feet of CMP pipeline projects to be replaced compared to 71,920 feet in the 2004 Plan to yet be replaced.  This is another example of inexplicable and weird numbers in the 2008 Plan.

   

     Replacing 14,630 feet of pipe during the Dodds administration was done without raising water rates, while also complying with covenants related to sale of $1.8 million in revenue bonds to seismically upgrade the portion of West Linn’s water supply line suspended under I-205 Bridge.

                                                                                   

     Also, very importantly, during Dodds administration, approximately $789,000 became available as ongoing annually recurring general fund revenue after voters approved permanent annexation of

West Linn into TVF&R fire district.  It was previously necessarily used to supplement West Linn’s own fire serial levy to maintain our own fire department.

     The levy’s termination left an ending fund balance of $736,000.  Part was used to pay off a $500,000 loan from TVF&R, leaving a balance of $236,000.

     This made, together with the $789,000, a total of $1,025,000 to be used beneficially in final year of Dodds administration.  An allocation of $500,000 was made to the street fund (which could previously

only be funded at about $100,000 per year), and the balance added to the general fund’s contingency fund toward maintaining its recommended level at 5% of general fund revenues.

     These freed up monies weren’t “excess” monies as claimed before and after November 2004 election by major opponents of the Dodds administration, namely, Scott Burgess, Mike Gates and

Norm King.  After they got into office by falsely disparaging the Dodds administration they said the $789,000 should either be refunded to taxpayers or spent as heads of staff or citizens recommended during six months of discussions.  Those discussions were suddenly dropped.

     They then claimed they were very short of money due to no increase in water rates during the Dodds administration.  So they were extremely hypocritical in first claiming they had $789,000 in excess money and then claiming they were very short of money

                                                                                    Page 9

     The annually recurring availability of $789,000 in the general fund along with annual revenues the city gets from our water bills (with rates being increased eight times by 5% each since beginning of King administration in 2005, making a total increase since then of 48%), provides plenty of money to have far more than replaced 5,000 feet of waterline each year and there continues to be plenty of money to fund all categories of necessary water projects at an adequate rate into the future without asking voters to approve big water rate increases beyond the charter permitted 5% per year.

    Voters can therefore justifiably vote “no” to Measure 3-364 in November 2010.

                                    ********************************************

                                    ********************************************

     Now I’ll compare the lower costs of the 2004 adopted Updated Water Master Plan (adjusted to be in terms of 2008 dollars), against the costlier 2008 adopted Water Master Plan.  The adjustment of the costs of the 2004 Plan to 2008 dollars were arrived at by using the annual percentage increases in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.  I’ve been supplied these annual percentage increases by Richard Seales, West Linn’s finance director.  So I’m trusting that he has supplied me with the correct annual percentage increases.  The overall increase from 2005 through 2008 is equal to a multiplying factor of 1.1679.

     As shown previously, the net cost of approximately $21,000,000 of the 2008 Plan was arrived at after subtracting the approximate $12,300,000 in water SDCs from the total estimated cost of $33,256,775 for its proposed new infrastructure.  The $12,300,000 in water SDCs is 36.98% of the total estimated cost.

     In contrast, the net cost of the 2004 Plan (as determined from the published form of the Plan) when converted to 2008 dollars is about 15,539,500, or about $5,460,000 less than the 2008 Plan.  The 2004 Plan’s net cost of $15,539,500 is arrived at by subtracting an approximate $12,651,253 in water SDCs in 2008 dollars from total proposed new infrastructure costs of about $28,190,770 in 2008 dollars.  The $12,651,253 in water SDCs is 44.88% of the total estimated cost, in contrast to only 36.98% for the 2008 Plan.  See Tables on pages 78 and 79 in the 2004 Plan for verification of these

infrastructure costs and the water SDC figure in terms of 2004 dollars and then multiply them by 1.1679 to convert them to 2008 dollars.

                                                                                    Page 10

     However, this does not reflect the actual total estimated cost of infrastructure yet to be undertaken in the 2004 Plan because, as listed above, 16 Capital Maintenance pipeline replacement projects and four Capital Improvement pipeline replacement projects had already been done during the Dodds administration.  The total estimated costs of the 16 Capital Maintenance projects are $943,600 in 2004 dollars or $1,102,030 in 2008 dollars.  The total estimated costs of the 4 Capital Improvement projects are $386,000 in 2004 dollars or $450,809 in 2008 dollars.  The combined estimated costs for both kinds of projects are $1,552,839 in 2008 dollars.  The related water SDCs for the Capital Maintenance projects are $50,625 in 2004 dollars or $59,125 in 2008 dollars.  The related water SDCs for the Capital Improvement projects are $34,200 in 2004 dollars or $39,942 in 2008 dollars.  The combined water SDCs for both kinds of projects are $99,067 in 2008 dollars.

                                                           

     The $1,552,839 in 2008 dollars for the combined costs of both kinds of pipeline replacement projects completed during the Dodds administration should be subtracted from the above figure of $28,190,770 to determine the balance of infrastructure costs for projects that remain to be undertaken to complete the 2004 Plan.  That balance is equal to $26,637,931.  The combined water SDCs of $99,067 in 2008 dollars for both kinds of pipeline replacement projects that had been completed during the Dodds administration should be subtracted from the above figure of $12,651,253 to determine the balance of water SDCs available for completing the 2004 Plan.  That balance is equal to $12,552,186.  Subtracting that from $26,637,931 leaves a net cost of $14,085,745 (to be paid for by the City from its taxpayer derived monies) for completing the 2004 Plan.  That is about $6,914,255 less than the net cost of about $21,000,000 for the 2008 Plan that was arrived at by subtracting the 2008 Plan’s approximate $12,300,000 in water SDCs from its total estimated new infrastructure costs of $33,256,775.  For the 2004 Plan the $12,552,186 in related water SDCs is 47% of the $26,637,931 in infrastructure costs remaining to complete the 2004 Plan, compared to the fact that the water SDCs of

$12,300,000 for the 2008 Plan are only about 37% of its total estimated infrastructure costs of $33,256,775.

     The explanation in the above two paragraphs (not in the two paragraphs above the last two) is based on the fact of the completion of 20 pipeline replacement projects during the years of the Dodds administration.

     Water-related projects left to be done to complete the 2004 Plan at a net cost of 14,085,745 involve (1) implementing the remaining 29 CMP pipeline replacement projects (2) implementing the

                                                                                    Page 11

remaining 49 CIP pipeline replacement projects (3) adding a 1500 gpm pump to the existing Bolton Pump Station and (4) building a 600,000 gallon reservoir (if proven to be needed for build out within the present city limits) adjacent to the existing 1.5 million gallon Horton Reservoir on ground the city already owns.  Completion of the less costly 2004 Plan can be accomplished in considerably less time than the 20 years estimated to complete the unnecessary and much costlier 2008 Plan.

                                                *******************************************      

     The primary reason the 2004 Plan costs less than the 2008 Plan is because it doesn’t include the larger cost of $8,000,000 for an unnecessarily large Bolton Reservoir, the larger cost of $525,000 for unnecessarily larger Bland No. 2 Reservoir, an entirely unnecessary contribution of $2,200,000

toward the entirely unnecessary Tigard-Lake Oswego Intertie, the entirely unnecessary hilltop booster pump station costing $1,250,000 providing the capability to pump water to serve expansion of West Linn into the Stafford Triangle and doesn’t include an excessive number of pipeline replacement projects.

     In the 2004 Plan, the existing old Bolton Reservoir is proposed to be replaced by a new 2.4 million gallon reservoir estimated to cost $3,515,379 in 2008 dollars instead of a 4.0 million gallon reservoir in the 2008 Plan estimated to cost $8,000,000.  The 2004 Plan adds only a 100,000 gallon Bland Reservoir No. 2 estimated to cost $221,900 in 2008 dollars instead of a 300,000 gallon Bland Reservoir No. 2 in the 2008 Plan estimated to cost $525,000.

     It is emphasized here that the 2004 Plan was designed to adequately serve the City’s water needs through build out within the City’s present boundary, but deliberately designed to not in any

way have the capability to supply water outside the present City limits into the Stafford Triangle, as is the case with the 2008 Plan.

     The 2004 Water Master Plan includes replacing all old pipes, replacing the old Bolton Reservoir and adding other water infrastructure to achieve a very adequate water system without ever raising water rates beyond 5% annually.

    Consequently there is no need whatsoever to fund the considerably more expensive 2008 Water Plan with its larger storage components and its associated booster pump station that give it the

                                                                                    Page 12

capability to supply water into the Stafford Triangle, nor any need to pay a large amount toward the entirely unnecessary Tigard-Lake Oswego Intertie.

     Incidentally, the ratio of costs of 2008 Plan to the 2004 Plan when their costs are both expressed in 2008 dollars, as above, would remain the same ratio if expressed in 2009 or 2010 dollars, etc.

                                                **********************************

     The bottom line of all of this is to vote “no” to the totally unnecessary Measure 3-364 on the November 2010 ballot.

                                                **********************************

ADDENDUM

              Reasons to vote against proposed water rate increases (Tidings column of 8-12-10)

     Our ruling council majority, which doesn’t include citizen-oriented Councilor Cummings, consists of interim Mayor Kovash, interim Councilor Mattis and councilors Burgess and Carson.  They plan on

requesting voters in November to approve water rate increases beyond our charter limitation of 5% annually, phasing them in over three years, with each annual increase exceeding the previous one.

     I strongly urge voters to not approve such increases in November for the following reasons.

     The ruling council majority claims there are two needs for such increased rates, namely:  (1) to start implementing the new 2008 Water Master Plan in order to replace old pipes, the old Bolton Reservoir and add other new water system elements, and (2) to institute “conservation pricing” to induce water conservation.

     Don’t fall for any of this.  The considerably less expensive 2004 Water Master Plan includes replacing all old pipes, replacing the old Bolton Reservoir and adding other water infrastructure to achieve a very adequate water system without ever raising water rates beyond 5% annually.

     One reason for the 2008 Plan’s higher cost is due to it being fashioned to supply water for urbanized expansion of West Linn into the Stafford Triangle.  This capability involves building bigger water

reservoirs than otherwise needed and building a booster pump station near the hilltop that isn’t needed except to pump water into the Stafford Triangle.

                                   

                                                                                    Page 13

     Another reason the 2008 Plan costs considerably more taxpayer-derived monies than the very adequate 2004 Plan is because it funds only 37% of its more expensive new infrastructure costs with growth-related system development charges (SDCs), whereas the 2004 Plan funds 45% of its new infrastructure costs with SDCs.  These comparisons are in 2008 dollars.

     Regarding water conservation, it can be achieved without requiring water rates to be raised beyond 5% annually.  The Clackamas River Water Providers organization, which includes South Fork, our water supplier, puts out a brochure on how to save water and even have healthier lawns, landscaping and gardens.   Such a brochure could be included with our water and sewer bills.

     If considerably less water were used, correspondingly less water storage would be required than called for in the 2008 Plan.  But this ruling council majority is adamantly against such reductions.  Instead, they say the increased water rates are needed to fund implementation of the 2008 Plan as it is.

     On page 8-7 of the 2008 Plan, it claims the above-mentioned booster pump station is needed to supply a water deficiency in the Rosemont pressure zone.  That claim is indefensible.  An existing enlarged Bolton Pump Station with room for an additional pump can supply ample water to the existing Horton Reservoir to supply all of the Horton zone’s needs through buildout of the City within its present boundary.  And the expanded Horton Pump Station (that was required of a developer), which pumps water to the Rosemont Water Tower, and a new View Drive Pump Station that feeds a new transmission line going up into the Rosemont zone (all having been required of another developer) can both in combination supply more than enough water to the Rosemont zone through buildout. Therefore, to repeat, the only use of the booster pump station would be to pump water into the Stafford Triangle to initiate its urbanization.

     The water operations supervisor claimed otherwise at a League of Neighborhoods meeting, saying it’s needed to eliminate a problem of keeping adequate water in the Rosemont Tower during hot weather.  He needs to define what he means by adequate water level and furnish recorded information on the Tower’s water levels.  If there were any such problem, I believe it’s avoidable by having Horton

and View Drive pumps programmed to turn on sooner.  But if even that can’t keep the required fire flow volume of 300,000 gallons maintained in the Rosemont Tower during hot weather, consequently endangering public safety, then Rosemont zone water rationing should have been instituted and a moratorium declared on further growth until the situation is remedied.  Neither has been done.  So

                                                                                    Page 14

either there is no such problem, or if there is, then the ruling council majority and city manager are being extremely negligent by not instituting such rationing and a moratorium.

                                                ********************************* 

To summarize, if the elements giving the 2008 Plan the capability to supply water to the Stafford Triangle were eliminated, it would essentially become equivalent to the much less expensive and adequate 2004 Plan.  We can sensibly retain the 2004 Plan and oppose water conservation pricing by voting “no” to the proposed big increased water rates in Nov. 2010.                                   ********************************

Written by Bob Thomas

                

                 Councilor Scott Burgess was primary instigator of 2008 Water Master Plan

     Scott Burgess has a long history of participating in policies for accommodating development interests, first as city manager for eight years from 1993 through 2000 under Mayor Jill Thorn and then as City Councilor since beginning of 2005 until end of 2010.

     In the early 1990’s Burgess started using considerable monies from the water fund (fed by our water bills), both directly and through interfund transfers, to subsidize projects to serve growth and help subsidize city staff time and related overhead spent on growth-related activities.  I think that my repeatedly pointing that out while on the citizen Water Rate Task Force in 1996 contributed considerably to the hiring of a consultant to look into the use of water and sewer fund monies.  His investigations showed that such monies were indeed being used to subsidize growth.  Upon his recommendation, much of that was stopped.

     However, Burgess continued to accommodate developers in other novel ways.  One was that he participated in only imposing grossly inadequate SDCs for years and none on South Fork.  I believe my persistence in also pointing that out resulted in Thorn councils gradually raising SDCs (but not nearly enough) and implementing SDCs for South Fork.  Another flagrant attempt under a Thorn council that was planned by Burgess to compensate for prior subsidy of growth was the sudden doubling of our water rates in the fall of 1994 under a phony emergency clause.  Part of its motivation was to help replenish the water fund that was previously depleted to subsidize growth as described above.

     I then became one of the founders of STOP, which got enough signatures on a citizens’ initiative petition to put a charter change before the voters a little over a year later, which they overwhelmingly approved, to roll back the water rates and require voter approval of any proposed future water rate increases.  Unfortunately, our dear Councilor Dee Burch later persuaded the voters to rescind that charter amendment and approve his formulated charter amendment to allow 5% annual increases in water, sewer and storm water rates forever without voter approval.  The last Thorn councils took full advantage of that to successively raise water rates each year.  Commendably the councils under Dodds did not approve any such increases, but subsequently they have been raised by 5% every year starting with the King administration and on up to the present.  In fact, in the first year of the King administration they were raised by 10% in violation of the charter.

     One of the most flagrant actions by Burgess to accommodate developers was taken in 1996 and 1997 to provide city services, including water and sewer, to about 300 various kinds of dwelling units

                                                                                    Page 2

being developed in Tanner Basin and to about 24 lots along the Tualatin River in the Willamette District, all in violation of state law, our Community Development Code and Municipal Code that prohibit extension of such city services to developments on land that has not first been annexed.  This was done when water infrastructure was already inadequate to serve existing developments in Tanner Basin and in the Willamette District.  This gave developers a huge break by allowing them to go ahead and engage in such a large amount of development without being made to first up-front fund the improvement of facilities to adequately and safely serve such growth.

     A very major attempt, in which Burgess participated in late 2000 near the end of the last Mayor Thorn administration, was to provide enough water storage to serve the balance of possible growth within West Linn’s boundaries and to then expand West Linn through urbanized expansion into the Stafford Triangle.  It began by quietly having a survey done in Wilderness Park to site a 15 million gallon water tank.  This survey was discovered by a citizen, Ann Short, who regularly went for recreational walks in Wilderness Park.  Fortunately, when word got out about this, there was a massive citizen protest against it, which resulted in the attempt being aborted before even the trees tagged for removal could be cut.  However, there were ongoing efforts to find a different place for such a tank.  These efforts continued until stopped by the Mayor Dodds council that took office in January 2001.

     This was a major reason the Thorn administration was replaced by the Dodds administration.  The other major reason was that the Thorn administration during Thorn’s last term was making available, for free, city staff time and the council chambers at City Hall to help developer Herb Koss and land owners in Area 30 of about 190 acres who wanted to develop their land, plan for its development.

     When the Dodds administration took office in January 2001, Burgess was still city manager.    Burgess was continuing with a process he had begun in late 2000 by declaring a resolution of necessity to condemn land above the senior center for a 3.4 million gallon tank.  This was another attempt by Burgess to store water to serve growth, namely for growth into what at that time was designated Area 30 within the Stafford Triangle on the far side of Rosemont Road.  But the Dodds administration soon put a stop to that attempt by Burgess.

     The Dodds council then terminated Burgess because it felt he was not a good fit with its goals.

     So all of this demonstrates the longstanding orientation of Burgess to accommodate and subsidize development interests, which ties in with his being the primary instigator and proponent of the

                                                                                    Page 3

November 2008 adopted Water Master Plan.  Immediately after he took office as a city councilor in 2005, he started bad-mouthing the Updated Water Master Plan just previously adopted in August 2004 by the Dodds administration.  He claimed it had a serious deficiency by not having enough storage to provide adequate water during emergencies.  If that were truly the case, then Burgess and the rest of the King council should have declared a moratorium on further developments until the so-called deficiency was remedied.  But they allowed development to proceed as usual, in essence saying they could allow a different standard for ongoing development, namely that the existing system was fine for that but far from being fine to serve the city’s residents as a whole.  That’s grossly bogus.  One can’t serve more development without continuing to simultaneously serve the existing city as a whole.  If it’s fine for ongoing development, it’s also fine for the city as a whole.  But Burgess was never one to acknowledge the facts if they didn’t suit his agenda.  He’d simply make up his own unsupportable facts to further his agenda.  The water system has essentially remained the same since the beginning of the King administration in 2005 because the recommendation by the Dodds Administration for ongoing annual programs for pipeline replacements has inexcusably not taken place, as explained above.

     The pursuit by Burgess to provide water for initiating expansion of West Linn through urbanized development of West Linn into the Stafford Triangle did not cease with the Dodds administration putting the kibosh on his pursuit of a 3.4 million gallon water tank above the senior center.  The 2008 Water Master Plan instigated by Burgess and devised by the MSA consulting firm continues that pursuit by other means.  It would of course never be admitted by Burgess or MSA or the ruling council majority that the 2008 Plan embodies the capability to provide water for initiation of urbanized expansion of West Linn into the Stafford Triangle.  It in fact, however, does have such capability through its oversized amount of storage and its booster pump station for pumping water from a new Bland Circle Reservoir into the Rosemont zone from which it can be relayed into the Stafford Triangle.

     Within the paragraph headlined “Bland Intertie Supply to Rosemont” on page 8-7 of the 2008 Plan, it is claimed that the booster pump station is needed to eliminate a water supply deficiency to the Rosemont zone.  That is an indefensible claim.  There’s no such deficiency as explained in last paragraph on page 12 of my column, That leaves the only purpose and use of the booster pump station to be one of pumping water into the Stafford Triangle to initiate its urbanization.

     Consequently, the 2008 Plan should be rejected and the 2004 Plan retained and implemented for the reasons given in the PREFACE on the first page of this submittal.