REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 9, :30 PM 8:00 PM AGENDA

Transcription

1 REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 9, :30 PM 8:00 PM Water Environment Services Development Services Building, Rm Beavercreek Road, Oregon City AGENDA 1. Welcome, Introductions, Opening Remarks 6:30pm a. Approval of 8/25/16 Minutes 2. Public Comment Period 6:35 pm 3. Project Update (Chicoine/Geist) 6:45 pm 4. Financial Principles (Donovan) 7:15 pm 5. Discussion (All) 7:45 pm 6. Next Steps (All) 7:55 pm 7. Adjourn 8:00pm Actions Required For This Meeting: Items to Track After This Meeting: Please note: This meeting is being recorded and will be available online within a few days. Rev: November 9, 2016

2 *DRAFT* Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee August 25, 2016 Meeting Summary The Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee met on August 25, 2016 at 6:30 PM, in the auditorium, room 115, of the Development Services Building, Clackamas County. Advisory Committee members in attendance: Markley Drake Member Councilor, City of Happy Valley Diana Helm Member Mayor, City of Damascus Eric Hofeld Member Unincorporated Clackamas County, CCSD#1 RiverHealth Advisory Board Chair Rocky Smith Member/Alternate City of Oregon City Brenda Perry Member Councilor, City of West Linn Kay Mordock Member Mayor, City of Johnson City Advisory Committee members absent: Steve Johnson Member Councilor, City of Gladstone Karin Power Member Councilor, City of Milwaukie John Ludlow Chair, Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners, Liaison Public and WES staff in attendance: Greg Geist WES, Director Greg Eyerly WES, Water Quality Manager Lynne Chicoine WES, Capital Program Manager Don Krupp Clackamas County, Administrator Gary Schmidt Clackamas County Pubic and Government Affairs Ed Nieto WES/Clackamas County Pubic and Government Affairs Gari Johnson WES/Clackamas County Pubic and Government Affairs Jim Knapp Citizen John Lewis City of Oregon City Lance Powlison City of Oregon City Brian Shaw City of Oregon City Barbara Muller City of Happy Valley Tom Mersereau Mayor, City of Gladstone Neil Reisner City of Gladstone Council Tammy Stamper Gladstone Planning Dave Devore Customer Bob Martin City of West Linn Council Kim Wollenburg WES, Administrative Analyst Darren Aevermann CCOC The full meeting discussion and presentation materials are available at: Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee, August 25,

3 The Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Diana Helm. Introductions of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee were made. I. Welcome, Introductions, Opening Remarks 1) Diana Helm welcomed everyone 2) The Committee voted unanimously to approve the meeting summary from the April 20, 2016 RWTCAC Meeting. Benda Perry was absent at the time of the vote. 3) The group briefly discussed the status of the disincorporation of the City of Damascus. Mayor Helm noted her interest in continuing on the Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee. There was a suggestion the committee recommend to the Board of County Commissioners Mayor Helm continue to represent her area on the committee. Committee members agreed to come prepared to the next meeting to discuss a recommendation on the matter. 4) Mayor Helm suggested the committee consider selecting a Vice-Chair for the committee to assist during Chair Power s upcoming parental leave. The committee agreed to discuss and vote on the matter at the next meeting. II. II. III. IV. Public Comment: None. Presentations/Discussions: 1) Lynne Chicoine, Capital Program Manager, updated the Committee regarding population projection work and how the information is used within the capital planning program. West Linn expressed a concern about their number and Lynne said she d get back with them with further details/explanation. 2) Lynne also gave an update on the Solids Handling Improvements Project specifically speaking to a detailed evaluation of the various thermal drying options versus digestion. Included in this discussion was information regarding maximizing use of the existing facilities. She also noted the change from the original construction plan which included two digesters into the revised plan that only requires one digester. More information to follow at a later date. 3) Councilor Markley Drake shared the results of the public meeting held in West Linn regarding wastewater capacity and bringing everyone together to discuss. Discussion followed around the next meeting and logistics. Actions Taken: None Follow Up: None V. Next meeting November 9, 2016 at 6:30 pm The meeting was adjourned at 9:25pm. /kw 2

4 Update November 9, 2016

5

6 From Collection System Headworks Primary Sedimentation Conventional Activated Sludge MBR UV Disinfection Chlorine Contact Basin To Outfall Primary Sludge CAS Waste Activated Sludge MBR Waste Activated Sludge Beneficial Use WAS Thickening Solids Stabilization Solids Dewatering

7 Facility 2007 Master Plan New Approach (Phased) Digesters 2 Phase 1 1 by 2020 Phase 2 1 by 2030 Digester Control Building Sludge Blending Tank Purpose Capacity Capacity Operation Solids Handling Facilities Truck Loadout and Cake Storage Centrifuges Phase 1 Improve existing building, add to digester control building Phase 1 Replace equipment to allow extended operation Phase 2 Add equipment Condition/Capacity Odor control/operation Capacity Centrate Equalization Phase 2, if required Capacity Emergency Power Relocate Electrical Gear Combined Heat/Power Separate project with funding opportunities Reliability Reliability Power generation

8 Digester Control Bldg. Existing Digesters and Control Building New Solids Bldg. and Truck Load Out New Digesters

9

10 Level 4 Estimate AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R 97

11 Item Mark Up General Conditions 6% Overhead and Profit 15% Contingency (Level 4) 25% WES Internal Costs (Engineering, Legal, Admin) 25%

12 Facility Purpose Estimated Const. Cost, $M Digester and Control Building Capacity Expansion 12.3 Sludge Blending Tank Operational Improvement 2.0 Solids Handling Facilities Truck Loadout and Cake Storage Refurbish Existing Solids Facilities Capacity Expansion 4.3 Odor Control and Operational Improvement 4.2 Condition/Reliability 4.4 Emergency Power Reliability 0.3 Power Distribution Capacity/Reliability/Condition 3.4 Total 30.9

13 $13.2M $17.7M Capacity Expansion Operation/Condition/Odor Control

14 $60 $50 $52M $3.4 $2.0 $M $40 $30 $20 $10 $18 $28.4 $31M $3.4 $0.3 $9 $18.7 $ Master Plan New Approach Anaerobic Digestion Solids Handling Facilities and Loadout Emergency Power Power Distribution

15 Finalize CDR Value Engineering Detailed Design Construction Now Dec

16

17 Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee November 9, 2016

18 How are Capital Intensive Projects Financed? Equity contributions to the project from the service districts (via reserves and free cash flow) Long term debt helps manage future rate increases (at current interest rates, a dollar of debt proceeds translates into 6 cents to annual revenue requirements from rates) 2

19 Updated Cost and Projected Cash Flow Requirements for the Solids Handling Project» Costs through FY $354,526» Future costs FY through FY $37,500,000 Millions $14.0 $12.0 Solids Handling Project Projected Cash Flow Requirements $12.7 $12.7 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $6.4 $4.0 $2.0 $2.5 $3.2 $0.0 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 3

20 An Effective Funding Strategy for the Project Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Financing Assumptions: Current future cost of the Solids Handling Project (uninflated) $ 37,500,000 less: equity contributions from the service districts 18,750,000 Balance to be funded from DEQ CWSRF loan $ 18,750,000 Financing assumptions: Funding source: DEQ Clean Water SRF Loan type: Design/Construction Start date for loan servicing 1 Jul 21 Repayment term (years) 20 Interest rates: Interest rate 1.79% Administration fee 0.50% Total 2.29% Imputed total level debt service $ 1,179,029

21 Estimated Monthly Rate Impacts Monthly Rate Impacts CCSD 1 TCSD delta from base delta from base CCSD 1 TCSD by increment case by increment case 50% 50% $ 0.92 ($0.26) $ 1.45 $ % 36% $ 1.18 $ $ 1.05 $ 70% 30% $ 1.29 $ 0.11 $ 0.87 ($0.17) 75% 25% $ 1.38 $ 0.20 $ 0.73 ($0.32) 80% 20% $ 1.47 $ 0.29 $ 0.58 ($0.47) 85% 15% $ 1.57 $ 0.39 $ 0.44 ($0.61) 90% 10% $ 1.66 $ 0.48 $ 0.29 ($0.76) 95% 5% $ 1.75 $ 0.57 $ 0.15 ($0.90) 100% 0% $ 1.84 $ 0.66 $ ($1.05)

22 Estimated Monthly Rate Impact $ Estimated Monthly Rate Impact $/EDU $ $ $ $ $ $45.92 $46.18 $46.29 $46.38 $46.47 $46.57 $46.66 $46.75 $46.84 $ 50% 64% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Percent of Solids Handling Project Costs Assigned to CCSD1 Rate Zone Current Monthly Rate Rate Impact due to the Solids Handling Project in 2021

23 Estimated Monthly Rate Impact $ Estimated Monthly Rate Impact $/EDU $ $ $ $ $ 5.00 $22.95 $22.55 $22.37 $22.23 $22.08 $21.94 $21.79 $21.65 $21.50 $ 50% 64% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Percent of Solids Handling Project Costs Assigned to Tri City Rate Zone Current Monthly Rate Rate Impact due to the Solids Handling Project in 2021

24 Estimated Monthly Rate Impacts - Continued Estimated Monthly Rate Impact $/EDU $ 2.00 $ 1.80 $ 1.60 $ 1.40 $ 1.20 $ 1.00 $ 0.80 $ 0.60 $ 0.40 $ 0.20 $ Estimated Monthly Rate Impacts of the Proposed Solids Handling Project $ 1.84 $ 1.75 $ 1.66 $ 1.57 $ 1.45 $ 1.47 $ 1.38 $ 1.29 $ 1.18 $ 1.05 $ 0.92 $ 0.87 $ 0.73 $ 0.58 $ 0.44 $ 0.29 $ 0.15 $ 50% 64% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Percent of Solids Handling Project Costs Assigned to CCSD1 Rate Zone CCSD 1 TCSD

25 Conclusions» WES engineering team reduced the cost of the solids handling project ($56.4m down to $37.5m)» WES is in a financial position to cash finance 50% of the cost of the project ($18.75m)» Based on the base case cost allocation of 64% to CCSD1 and 36% to Tri-City Rate Zones, the rate impacts are: $1.18 per EDU per month to CCSD1 rate zone $1.05 per EDU per month to Tri-City rate zone