The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2003-08-11 Item 5B - Contract - Support Cascade Water Alliance (CWA) Supply and Costs A Meeting Date Prepared,by Mayor's review Council review CAS Number: 03-103 I Original Agenda Date: August 11, 2003 Agenda Item Title: Cascade Water Alliance Supply Contract and Costs Original Sponsor: Council Admin. Public Works Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: Cascade Water Alliance recently completed contract negotiations to purchase a wholesale block of water from the City of Seattle. A 50-year declining block water supply agreement will need approval by the City of Seattle and CWA members before the next CWA board meeting in mid-August. Tukwila has purchased a consistent block of water over the last 10 years and no major growth is anticipated. Overall, costs with CWA are projected to be lower than Seattle. An exit clause is available to withdraw from CWA. Recommendations: Sponsor: Forward to Committee of the Whole to authorize support of CWA block contract. Committee: Same as sponsor. Administration: Cost Impact (if known): Fund Source (if known): 401 Water Fund Meeting Date Action 8/11/03 Meeting Date Attachments 8/11/03 Information Memo dated July 29, 2003 Comparison of WSA (Seattle) and CWA costs Tukwila's Water Consumption History Average resident's water costs with comparison Utilities Committee Meeting Minutes from August 5, 2003 INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Directo~fi) Date: July 29, 2003 Subject: Cascade Water Alliance Suoolv Contract and Costs ISSUE CWA has recently completed contract negotiations to purchase a wholesale block of water from the City of Seattle. This paper will explore the costs associated with the new contract. BACKGROUND Cascade has essentially completed negotiation of a long-term water supply agreement with the City of Seattle. It is anticipated that the 50-Year Declining Block Water Supply Agreement (the Block Contract) will be presented m the Cas6ade Board and Seattle City Council for review and approval in August 2003. This agreement is the culmination of more than three Years of negotiations and provides for the purchase of water and transmission capacity that will meet the needs of Cascade members in the immediate future. A model has been put together comparing costs between members of CWA and those such as Water District 125 who are on the direct service contract (see attached). Rates through the block contract will be lower than the full service contract initially but will rise by 2020 due to the new supply and water treatment plant work at Lake Tapps. So what are the real issues for Tukwila to be supplied with water? Growth has not been a big factor for Tukwila over the last ten years (see consumption figures on attached). Tuk~ila's proportionate share of a block of water has remained fairly constant where conservation efforts have balanced the effect of new connections. Thus, what is the comparison of cost between the two for an average water customer? Those figures are listed in the attached. The cost for water commodity is cheaper in the CWA Block Contract in the near term. The contract has an exit clause that would allow a member who was previously a Seattle Wholesale customer to withdraw from Cascade if they' choose. The Cascade Block will be decreased proportionately by the mount of allocated water to that member. RECOMMENDATION Forward to Council to authorize Jim Haggerton to vote in support of the CWA block contract on water supply. attachments cf: Jim Haggenon y ear 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015 2020 1180000 1060000 940000 820000 700000 580000 460000 340000 220000 100000 1993 Water Purchased Sold (ccf) Water (ccf) 713620 756839 688944 862309 701873 880582 917134 1183867 944891 1241880 1027199 1143486 1034781 1193680 1031057 1096157 926354 1101088 9131891 1119248 925000 1124844 940000 1127094 950000 1129348 1000000 1185816 10500001 1245106 1994 1995 Peak Hour (MG) 5.24 Yrwtr Peak Day 1 Average Increase (MGD) I Flow from prior yr. 1.46 2.69 1.55 6.06% 2.82 1.77 13.94% 1.80 2.12% 2.9 2.43 34.44% 4.2 2.55 4.90% 4.494 2.34 -7.92% 2.45 4.39% 2.25 8.17% 2.26 0.45% 2.29 1.65% 2.31 0.50% 2.31 0.20% 2.31 0.20% 2.43 5.00% 2.55 5.00% 0.00 Tukwila Water Consumption History (ccf) 1996 1997 1998 Year 1999 2000 Water Loss Comments Drought season 20.10% 20.29% 22.53% 23.91% 10.17% 13.31% 5.94% 15.87% 18.41% 17.77% 16.60% 15.88% 15.67% 15.67% 2001 Seattle transfer of accts. 2002 2003 A gency Costs: NSA vs CWA Tukwila Total Wholesalewater Demand, ect Total CWA Payments without RCFCs Average CNA Cost per eel T ntal W SA Payments without 50Cs Average NSA Cost per cut without SOCs Annual ge resident U s i n g700 ctlnlonth over 12 manths) Basedon 8v ofgaterwith CWA (e de meter tees) cost Annr WSA meter tees) cost of wets Sav a ngs loo Customer in CWA contract 57.04 %Savings on anneal cod 1339% 10 Year Savings Cumulative 10 Year Average %Savings 2013 2014 687 2012 2011 1246,693 2009 2010 949 tz�4 821 200'7 2008 i,202, 2006 1,174204 9.181 878 2004 2,808 1,157,141 146,693 2005 2004 1,180.472 880.549 t 878,950 1.48 t 14673 1,801, 1.57 1.53 S 1,1'39, 1508.893 1 5 1J28,130 1,132.998 12832'8 1'458180 1.29 5 22 206 30 1 1.25 5 2 69,111 5 2.153. 1.82 6 S b 1.70 b 1,281, 1.12 S 1,733774 1310,032 S 18 b 115 1,494820 1.34 b 1 378,906 1,435,76 i 30 S ,326,248 1.25 1.21 5 92.89 93.118 108.85 112.66 105.17 S 108 19.78 1129 S 21.04 21.29% 1203% 23.95 9889 9816 (0,71) •0.71% 96.54 5 101.62 5.06 526% A 05 756. 1,,049 ,310 5 1 620,464 1.44 8 1 1.39 124.53 131.94 128.8 152.89 106.77 S 1477 28.36 10794 142.72 184 124.91 18.86 120.69 1016 14.63% 2277% 116.61 12.74 18.14 8.17% 157.0 11.68 16.99% 1.81% 11.13% Utilities Committee August 5, 2003 Present: Pam Linder, Chair; Dave Fenton, Joan Hernandez Jim Morrow, Mike Cusick, Brian Shelton, Frank Iriarte, Pat Brodin, Gall Labanara, Lucy Lauterbach 1. 2003 Small Drainage Program Bid Award The 2003 project includes five projects and ono altemativo. Of six bids, the lowest was from DL Asahara for $279,519.44. The additive could not be afforded at this time so is not included. References wore somowhat inconclusive, as the company references(which were good) were for landscaping and irrigation, not drainage work. Tho engineor's base bid was $310,000, so tho committoe recommended project award. Award small drsinao~e pro|ect award to DL Asahara at a Regular Meeting. 2. Infiltration and Inflow 2003 Manhole Repairs In March the City contracted with Pivetta Brothers for work on three manhole repairs and related work. There was one change order. The project final cost was $47,749.35. The work is complete. Recommend contract acceptance and release of retainage to Regular Meeting consent agenda. 3. Cascade Water Alliance After analyzing the cost of buying water from Seattle in the future versus what it might cost from Cascade Water Alliance, Public Works recommended proceeding with Cascado Water. They estimated that their costs would be lower than Seattle's for the next 47 years. It's very difficult to estimate future costs and supply, but staff was confident CWA (Cascade) will be ahead in the long run. The committee said they trusted staff's analysis. Recommend staying the current course with Cascade. 4. Sewer Utility Rates Tukwila has not raised sewer rates since 1996, and in the past year or two has had to dip into the reserve account to pay for maimenance and operations (M & O). Metro's portion of the sewer bill is $23.40, while the city portion of the bill is $5. Tukwila's sewer charges are lower than other valley cities and districts. Staff recommonded raising the $28.40 rate by $2.00. The Committee was concerned whether even that would cover all the sewer needs for M & O. We've used up half the reserve in paying maintenance costs. The water and sewer pipes in the CBD were all installed in the 1960's and will all need replacing in the next few years. Tho committee wanted to look at rates if not next year then at least in two more years. They pointed out the City has merely passed on Metro cost increases in recent years, and has absorbed some costs. Recommend sewer rate increase to COW. 5. Wet-Floodproofing Variance Though the main building at Starfire has been taken care of for floodprooding, the concessionaire and restrooms have not. Staff recommended granting them a variance for being in the floodplain. The committee members agreed that if the insurance was ok with it, the City could be. Jim assured them a hold harmless motion would be included, as well as a requirement for a manual shut off of the sewage system in the event ora flood. Joan asked who would shut it off at 2 am. Jim said he would work with Starfire to resolve issues like that. Recommend variance.