HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2010-10-11 - Number 3.1 - LOTWP Update 10/12/2010
Presentation overview
,. Lake Oswego •Tigard
�' Water Partnership Current water system cannot reliably meet today's
needs
Conservation is key supply element but cannot meet
Lake Oswego City Council long term needs
Study Session Even with increased program costs/allocations benefits
of partnership with Tigard are substantial
October 11, 2010 New rate strategy reflects benefits of partnership and is
close to current adopted strategy
Next steps
Lake Oswego water system objectives Aging facilities require immediate attention
r
Intake r
Source reliability -. _ Structural
Own/operate system .1,, Mechanical
System reliability
Electrical - I a
Affordability Raw Water Pipeline
--- Willamette River crossing
Water Treatment Plant I•
Electrical /
Mechanical r
4 Water quality r■
1
10/12/2010
Undersized facilities require upgrade for future, Partnership benefit to Lake Oswego confirmed by
regardless of conservation 2007 Carollo Report
taim o wrogatilibtar Use
• Intake is • Lowest cost option for Lake Oswego
• Water Treatment Plant TREATMENT CAPACITY
• Smallest cumulative rate increase
• Finished Water Pipeline 114
• Waluga Reservoir RELIABLE CAPACITY • Economy of scale-share costs for upgrades already required and
• Growth assumptions II 12 , for O&M
n
• Potential excess capacity has I M M M M • $35M in net present value savings
regional value
- - - - • Intergovernmental Agreement with Tigard executed in 2008
illy - MM
1110 MO 2006 MS 2020
ee M.
SmEwPimkElsoril
i-we i;.J'
Conservation essential — but only part 2010 Project Definition work refines
of the solution scope/cost
• Clackamas River Intake
• Lake Oswego and Tigard already '� I i • Untreated"Raw"Water Pipeline
committed to conservation .m o ► • Water Treatment Plant
• Most aggressive program is
Lp—.-° m: _ • Treated Water Pipeline
'"
costly,intrusive,and success -"'" """ .a y/' `4 Waluga Reservoir
uncertain •_� • Bonita Pump Station
�' - '. uUWNw _
• Most aggressive program still
leaves capacity shortfall „,
��
• Benchmarks from others
6 4
® �erwr
Lake Oswego-Tigard 1
,.
.+. .1=,LAW. ,
���
® • Water Partnership
2
10/12/2010
Project Definition: higher costs, higher allocation 'Allocation change due primarily to greater
to Lake Oswego needs at WTP
• Total program capital cost
Tigard:14 MGD
— Carollo=$200 M
— Project Definition=$230 M
• Allocation of costs 16 Million
— 2008 IGA=42.54%to Lake Oswego,57.46%to Tigard Gallons per Day(MGD) 1
— Revised WTP allocation drives shift toward Lake Oswego 13r 87i
— 2010 allocation=46.47%to Lake Oswego,53.53%to Tigard EXISTINI
• Lake Oswego share of capital costs increases from prior Lake Oswego Tigard
$85 M to current$106 M as/ ss%
Chemical Storage Electrical Administration/
Building Building Operations
Sedimentation Ozone
Scenarios evaluated to determine viability of Net Present Value compares long-range
Partnership for Lake Oswego expenditures on equal footing
Net Present Value
• Partnership with Tigard ✓ An evaluation method used to compare long-term costs between
— 38 mgd,ozone treatment,WTP initial expansion 32 mgd alternative projects.
— 38 mgd,no ozone,WTP initial expansion 32 mgd ✓ Net present value is not a project cost estimate
• Lake Oswego"Go-it-Alone":
— Scenario A—24 mgd,complete by 2015,no ozone
Capital Costs+Long-Term O&M = Net Present Value
— Scenario B—21 mgd,10%conservation,address immediate (Current Dollars)
needs now,complete by 2025,no ozone
— Scenario C—18 mgd,25%conservation,address immediate
needs now,complete by 2035,no ozone
_ . '
3
10/12/2010
Net Present Value over 25 years shows savings to financing strategy enables Lake Oswego to realize
Lake Oswego from Partnership savings if Partnership goes forward now
•sseri,.r++"'n Lake Oswego Go-It-Alone Scenarios Lake Oswego Average Residential Monthly BIII Ito all Under Partnership with Tigard
sxsOM szu M ' .u,.i[i w..[ o q iii
SIX 1.111 wa4
SHWA COST.- w•, w M
_ 7'14 �m �, .�
Si 15M Z M
1,5.M _ swoe - f.,,[auy II 1 I I I
S SW
■ .
-- �I I I I I I Irim
stxs x _ ,mm
Si.Al 1 1 1 1 1 1
SJS M ■ 1M = 1=
SUM
350M I. M 1=
I1'ao.nee,[ nb,[rm,x n`anvaen Pr a.,vrn•n'xowaen rrzo[rm..rYav[wen. nxo,arI
S]SM 1. _
,.o
$OM uSeY used ,[Ash ., ,[I.. o� BP•.
°mne Ho Oxarw r< ! C
m55 SI MGO n OW ee srra xrMulAIL
.arcr, rrw. rxm. ,•,o. iov ,o sm. [u,.
XIS XIS I03S
NO 000e. S e CO
Ozone recommended by panel of treatment ext steps
experts and Citizen Sounding Board
• Provides an additional treatment barrier—protects ' _- • Council briefings on any final questions October 2010
public health ,._
• Consistently produces pleasant tasting water �elJ�_ • Joint Councils confirm recommended CIP 11/08/10
• Delivers a higher water quality than required by Liquid oxygenlsusedtomakeozona. • Lake Oswego Master Fees&Charges 11/30/10
current regulations _ • Lake Oswego adopts Water Supply Facilities CIP 12/07/10
• Reduces the amount of chlorine needed for •
disinfection --"'S- • Lake Oswego adopts Master Fees&Charges 12/14/10
• Is capable of meeting emerging concerns for: itti:
•pathogens • Tigard adopts Water Supply Facilities CIP 12/21/10
•algal toxins•disinfection by-products
•pharmaceuticals and personal care products
• Proven technolo _ !
gy increasing applications
`-Gam'' .1
4