Loading...
01/12/2000 - Packet FILE COPY INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, January 12, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to OruLl-f 2. Roll Call and Introductions 3. Approval of Minutes December 8, 1999 4. Water Rate Study— CI-12M Hill 5. Conservation Update— Kim Swan 6. Director's Report 7. Utility Manager's Report Klute Property Assessment 8. Public Comments 9. Non Agenda Items 10. Adjournment Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) & (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; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by thosepresent. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. kathy\iwb1-12agn Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Members present: Paul Hunt, Jan Drangsholt, Gretchen Buehner, Patrick Carroll, and Bill Scheiderich Staff present: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, and Tim Ramis Visitors present: Jack Polaris, Roel Lundquist, Jane Turner, Norman Penner, David Strauss, and Paul Owen 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:25 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken with all Board members present. Ed Wegner introduced Tim Ramis from the City Attorney's office and who has been involved with the review of the legal documents over the last few months on water supply. Mr. Ramis stated that Bill Monahan had requested his attendance at tonight's meeting. It was noted that there was not an agenda item for approval of minutes. Commissioner Drangsholt made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 10, 1999 meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Carroll and passed unanimously. 3. Long Term Water Supply Mr. Wegner discussed the packet of information that was distributed to all Board Members. The packet of information included a memo dated October 271'from Mike Rosenberger, Portland Water Bureau discussing the status of the wholesale contract and a memo from Mike Miller. Mr. Wegner stated that the model contract committee has not gotten together lately but will be scheduling a meeting within the next couple of weeks to discuss ownership and financial questions. Mr. Wegner stated he would like to discuss the Willamette plan status and provided the members with a copy of the Proposal to Construct from Tualatin Valley Water District that will be distributed at the WWSA meeting on Thursday evening. He continued by stating that in September there were two elections (City of Tigard and Wilsonville)resulting in a charter amendment for Tigard and Wilsonville to issue bonds to build a transmission facility on the Willamette. Wilsonville has moved forward very quickly and has begun the process of request for qualifications with their hopes to have a facility up and running by 2002. Wilsonville received two RFQ's last week from Montgomery Watson and Black and Veatch. There IWB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 1 will be a meeting of the technical review committee for those interested parties in pursuing this option next week and the City of Tigard has decided not to be represented. Wilsonville is hoping to take a proposal to their City Council on December 201h to authorize an interim contract with one of these consultants. Wilsonville has also hired Ch2M Hill to be the owner's representative to negotiate the long-term contract with either of these two firms. They anticipate the design phase to begin by May of 2000. Wilsonville did go to the individual members of the WWSA to inquire who wanted to participate and at this time Sherwood, Tualatin and Tualatin Valley Water District have indicated an interest in participating and will sit on the technical review team. Chairperson Scheiderich questioned this opportunity to join in within the 90 days will be for the first stage of construction? Mr. Wearer sl ied that those opting in would be involved with the initial stage of the land purchase, intake, high service pumping, etc. Chair Scheiderich questioned what TVWD's initial capacity purchase would be? Mr. Wegner stated they are looking at a large increment of upsizing the intake for their water rights which are up to 120mgd. TVWD at this point is not interested in cost sharing of the treatment plant. Mr. Wegner stated that at the next meeting of the WWSA, Paul Hunt will be asking that Tigard's Proposal to Construct be tabled. Chairperson Schederich questioned whether the proposal of the WWSA would include the State of Oregon? Mr. Wegner stated that it would not include the State of Oregon, Department of Corrections, although they will be working with the City of Wilsonville as a wholesale customer. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that after the election, the City Council requested that staff look into additional water supply to the West (Joint Water Commission). Staff then went to the JWC to inquire about excess supply. The JWC is made up of four entities, which include Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverton, and Tualatin Valley Water District. They have their own water treatment facility in Gaston near Hagg Lake. This week with the Bull Run crisis, Tigard is taking water from an emergency intertie with Beaverton from the JWC, although this connection is not suitable for a long-term supply. The Joint Water Commission is currently doing a Cost Allocation and Facility Plan. Membership into the joint commission is based upon a varied percent. Various entities that are member of the JWC have different percentages of ownership. This Cost Allocation study will look at a better way to spread their costs out amongst the members, with the Facility Plan to look at what it would take for the JWC to supply water to this region for the next 40-50 years to include sizing of pipes and future expansion. The JWC Board consists of three elected officials from each entity and a technical committee made up of a City Manager, Public Works and Finance Director from each entity. The JWC has agreed to allow Tigard to join in the Cost Allocation and Facilities Plan to add a Tigard scenario. This study would include feasibility and the cost projection to get water from their facility to Copper Mountain. Tigard would then have to hire Murray, Smith and Associates to estimate the cost from Copper Mountain to Tigard. This IWB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 2 f� 1 proposal has been taken to the Tigard City Council and they were in agreement to look at this proposal. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that he will discuss the contents of the agreement and ask the IWB to agree to have Tigard City Council to sign contract to begin the process. j f Mr. Wegner stated the basis for this is to become a wholesale customer and buy surplus water from the JWC. The source and the treatment plant right now produces 60mgd. Tigard did talk with the JWC about ownership when the supply opens up. The JWC, Unified Sewerage Agency and the Tigard Valley Irrigation District jointly own the supply at Hagg Lake. Tigard has received a proposal from Economic Engineering Services (EES), the consultant used by the JWC for not to exceed$31,000 for a preliminary facilities plan to service the Tigard Water service area for the next 20 years and to address the potential for ownership. Mr. Wegner continued by discussing the Beaverton connection. Beaverton has water at Sexton Mountain (Murray Road). There is excess water throughout the JWC system, but this supply has been pooled and a separate deal cannot be made with an individual entity. Mr. Wegner asked for questions from the Board on regards to the JWC. Commissioner Drangsholt Willing to discuss ownership? Mr. Wegner stated they will be willing to discuss ownership but will have to look at what that would involve. Commissioner Buehner ➢ If the Willamette was a good idea six months ago, why not now? Mr. Wegner stated that the Council did not say the Willamette is not a good idea but they did interpret the vote to mean that the citizens want them to make sure that is the best option. ➢ Has staff been instructed to get a new cost analysis from the City of Portland for the cost of being involved in the project without Wilsonville, Sherwood, and Tualatin? Mr. Wegner stated this will be addressed at the next contract meeting. ➢ If the Citizens for Safe Water were concerned and objected to getting water from the Willamette, why will they not object to getting water from the Tualatin? Mr. Wegner stated that people are afraid of the Willamette since it has not been a proven source other than Corvallis. Ten years from now after Wilsonville, Tualatin and Sherwood have been drinking the Willamette; this will become a mute issue. The Trask River has a modernized facility and a proven record since Hillsboro, Forest Grove and Beaverton have been drinking since 1953. ➢ Tigard Water District Board was informed that a study would be coming, why have they not received a copy of study, no information on timeline for study, no itemization of costs. Mr. Wegner stated that under the IWB agreement, the City of Tigard operates the water system, and the City does not have a study or a scope of services. As an advisory group, Tigard can provide a copy of the scope of services to the respective boards for review. IWB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 3 ➢ Should the City of Tigard be the entity to be involved in these types of contracts or should the IWB evaluate the need to be in direct relationship with other commissions? Mr. Wegner stated that under the terms of the existing contract, the City of Tigard is the operating agency that the other entities have agreed to and this would require a revision to the IGA. Mr. Tim Ramis clarified that this would require an amendment of the IGA which would be a matter to negotiate between each entity not between the IWB and those entities. Ms. Buehner questioned whether the IWB should re-visit that agreement to clarify issues that exist. Mr. Ramis stated that he was not aware that Tigard was interested in having that discussion, but those separate entities could have that discussion with Tigard. Ms. Buehner stated that she would report this buck to her Board and since they are very unhappy with how things are operating, will be talking with Tigard. Mr. Wegner stated that under the agreement with the individual agencies, the authority has been given to enter into contracts unless they are issues of capital improvement or water supply. Commissioner Buehner noted the objection of the Tigard Water District to enter into this study without further information being provided to all of the members. She continued by stating it was very inappropriate what was going on. Chairperson Scheiderich questioned whether this was work that would be underway before the next meeting? Mr. Wegner stated that EES would attend the meeting in January to provide a status report. Commissioner Hunt's response to Ms. Buehner's concern is that Tigard cannot supply the answers she is requesting without this study. Mr. Wegner stated that the Tigard Water District, fifteen years ago owned water rights at Hagg Lake and gave up those rights. He continued by stating that this option has become available within the last five months and was not previously an option. Commissioner Carroll questioned whether conservation will be a shared concern? Mr. Wegner stated that with a variety of contracts, the wealth and the problems are spread out equally. Commissioner Carroll questioned whether Tigard would plan to aggressively pursue a contract with Portland? Mr. Wegner stated that the commitment was made when we adopted the Willamette project to stay involved in the Portland contract negotiation. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that within five years, it would be ideal to have a single source whether it be the Willamette, Portland or the JWC. Commissioner Drangsholt questioned what specific information that Ms. Buehner was looking for? Commissioner Buehner stated that TWD would like to know specifically what the survey will entail. Mr. Wegner stated that the next meeting of the WWSA'is Thursday, December 16 at 7:00 p.m. The agenda will include tabling the City of Tigard's Proposal to Construct, and accepting the Proposal from TVWD and begin the 90 day response period and a decision on whether the WWSA will continue the raw water monitoring program with Montgomery Watson. IWB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 4 i Commissioner Hunt read the following statement to the IWB: "The City of Tigard City Council has decided to not seek voter approval in the near future for authorization to use the Willamette River as a drinking water source and the City is in the process of re-evaluating long term water source options. One issue that is now being considered is seeking a long-term supply commitment from the Joint Water Commission. A study to update information we currently have on this option is necessary in order to give it serious consideration. In April of this year, each IWB member governing body approved the Willamette Rive.- Water Supply System capital improvement program as the program for the long-term water supply to serve IWB members. In order for Tigard to move forward with this re-evaluation of long-term water options for the system, it is requesting the cooperation of each IWB member in recommending to their governing bodies, recession of the April actions to approve the Willamette capital improvement program. When the re-evaluation is complete, Tigard will return to this Board with a recommendation on an appropriate capital improvement program that will best meet the long-term needs of the customers of all members. I move that Board direct each member to request their respective governing bodies to rescind the action taken by each earlier this year in adopting the Willamette project capital improvement program, and to report to this Board at its next meeting the response of each governing body to this request." This motion was seconded by Commissioner Carroll and was voted upon and passed unanimously. Commissioner Buehner stated that without having an opportunity to discuss this issue with her Board, she stated she would not be authorized to vote on this issue. It was then clarified to Ms. Buehner that this motion only asks for each member to take the issue back to their respective Board for their recommendation. 4. Utility Manager Report—Mike Miller Mike Miller stated as an update for the rate study, CH2MHi11 did not get the information in time to prepare a status report for tonight's meeting. The intent is that they will provide a report during the January meeting. Mr. Wegner stated that Mayor Nicoli has suggested that he and Paul come back to the IWB to discuss an interim rate increase without the study being done. Commissioner Scheiderich requested that Mr. Wegner pass along to Mayor Nicoli that he would prefer seeing SDC increase be included with a rate increase. Mike Miller continued by giving a brief update on the reservoir siting. He stated that a meeting has been scheduled with the School District on Monday, to discuss the IWB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 5 possibility of siting a reservoir on school district property on Bull Mountain (129`h & Bull Mountain) in the 550 zone. Commissioner Hunt questioned the status of acquiring the ` property adjacent to the Menlor site? Mr. Miller stated that we have been talking with property owners on that site also and Murray, Smith and Associates are working on a drawing to show how a reservoir could be placed on that property. Commissioner Scheiderich requested that an appraisal or market study be provided on the surplus property at the Menlor site at the next IWB meeting. Mr. Miller provided an update on the Portland supply. He stated that due to high rainfall, all tributaries into the watershed were scoured out causing the turbidity to spike up over 30 units. This caused the watershed to be closed from Thanksgiving and is expected to be back online by Sunday. This gave Tigard the opportunity to test oar emergency connection with the City of Beaverton (135`h&Scholls). This connection allows Tigard to take 1.5 mgd. Due to the I5-Bonita Road construction our connection with Lake Oswego is down. Commissioner Buehner questioned whether the contract with Portland for minimum purchase will be affected? Mr. Miller stated that a letter is due to all wholesale customers stating no effect. 5. Director's Report—Ed Wegner Mr. Wegner discussed amending the IGA between the City of Durham and Tigard to bring their IGA to be consistent with the others in regard to the way the funds are distributed, which will take place by the end of the month. Mr. Wegner stated that he is hopeful that EES will be far enough along by the end of January or the first part of February for the Annual meeting of the IWB members and their respective Boards to provide a status report. It was decided that this Annual meeting could possibly be held the last Monday of January. Mr. Wegner stated that we have advertised to fill the budgeted position for the Water Resource Specialist with this recruitment closing on December 20a'. Mr. Wegner provided the Board, with a report prepared by the Regional Water Providers Consortium and the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition on the Water Conservation Program Evaluation. He also provided the Board with preliminary evaluation of the four Regional Transmission Scenarios and the Consortium organizational mandates, purposes, authorities and limitations. 6. Public Comments Jack Polaris read from a letter he received from Mike Miller regarding furnishing the Tigard Water District bylaws. Since the letter stated that Mr. Miller could not locate a copy of the bylaws it was his assumption that the Board members had never read the bylaws. Mr. Wegner clarified that Mr. Polaris is referring to the Tigard Water District Board and their bylaws not the IWB and he would need to take this issue before the Tigard Water District Board. IWB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 6 f I Chairperson Scheiderich stated that if Mr. Polans would like to request a copy of the bylaws of the Intergovernmental Water Board, a written public records request will be necessary. Mr. Polans also requested a copy of Commissioner Hunt's statement from tonight's meeting, which was provided. 7. Non Agenda Items There were no non-agenda items for discussion. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Drangsholt made a motion to adjourn, which Commissioner Carroll seconded at 7:10 p.m. IWB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1999 Page 7 City- of Tigard Water System Cost-of-Service-:Rate Study Update .� January 12, 1999 Status Draft CH2M HILL .1999/00 Bud. get Water Fund, SDC Fund, CIP Fund Combined Beginning of Year Capital Reserves: $9,500,000 im Revenues Water Sales $3,900,000 SDC $500,500 Interest $640;00'0 Other $238,5,00 - Total $5,279,000- 0 Expenses O&M $5,279,0.00 (Portland Purchase Cost Increase) Capital $1.112,000 Total $6,391,000 ® O&M Expenses. Influenced by Portland Purchase Cost 1998/99 $0.652/ccf 1999/00 . $1.223/ccf Prelim' inary''2000/01 $0.82/ccf January.12, 2000 CH2M HILL; Draft . 2 Water 'System' ' x enses 1999/00 ' . -Bud g* et' im Personnel: $1,385.,00.0 ® Repair and Maintenance.: `$235,000 ® Electricity: $106,000 Personnel 22 ® Other Materials and Supplies: p�' °'° ti,i} $39900 Repair/Mai st— enance m Capital Outlay: $1, 112,000 Water 4° Purchase Bectricity ® Water Purchase: $3, 154;000 49°'° z°'° Other ® Total: $6,391,000 Materials/Su pplies 6% Capital 'Outlay 17% January 12, 2000 CH2M HILL, Draft 3 UtilityOutlook ® Inflationary O&M Increases Purchased Wci.ter Costs`: Extreme Fluctuations/Peaking Charges is CIP: $15M Over 10 Years: Reservoirs, Dist. System ® Water Supply Project - . Large Capital Cost: Placeholder Value at This Time Change in Purchase.Water Cost is Existing Rate Revenue Will Not Cover Projected Future O&M - Fiscal Policies Under Consideration Revenue Stabilization Account Pay, As-You-Go CIP = Incremental Rate Increases Reserve Balances Repair/Replacement Financing January 12, 2000 CH2M HILL, Draft 4 lPro ° ect laeeolder Water Suppy J CNot yet available: preferred-water supply project decision and costs: Capital cost, debt financing terms, O&M costs in Placeholder Capital cost placeholder $44,000,000 (2003 Dollars) Start-up in 2004 Debt financing terms plac.eholder: Three interest only payments followed by 25 level ized principal and interest payments Set-asides from utility revenues 2001 - 2003. $0 ® 2004 - 2006: approximately $2,500;000: per year ® Beyond 2007: approximately $3,70.0,000 per year - Set-asides uses: accumulate reserves to lessen debt amount,. debt service.payments (depends on startup schedule) January 12, 2000 CH2M HI-LL, Draft 5 Rate Forecasting ® 10-Year-Planning Period . ® Project Operating Expenses and Revenues 1999/2000 Budget as Basis - Adjust For Inflation and: Growth Adjust:For Changing Purchased Water Costs ® Growth: 1 .2% Annual-Average. Source: City, Based on Metro Population - Forecasts ® Pay-as-you-g,,j CIP funding ® Preliminary rates m Review with City, staff and revise policies/scenarios where appropriate January 12, 2000 CH2M HILL, Draft 6 Example Rate Forecasts : Projected Single Family p Residential. Volume Charge, $/ccf $2.80 $2.60 Placeholder WSP $2.40 ($44M Capital). $2.20 Placeholder WSP $2.00 ($44M, Incr. SDC) $1.80 - — Placehold-er W-SP $1.60 ($24M Capital) $1.40 Without WSP $1.20 $1,:00 00 ��ti o0 00) January 12, 2000 CH2M HILL, Draft 7 future Work m Incorporate Additional Fiscal Policies Into Model Where Appropriate r. �m Develop Alternate Rate Scenarios: How to get from today to 10 years from now � ■ Revise/Update Cost-of-Service Rate Model, Worksheets January 12, 2000 CH2M HILL' Draft 8 ti •' DRAFT #3 "White Paper No. 1" Contract Principles and Basic Approaches. INTRODUCTION Portland Water Bureau is in the process of working with their wholesale customers to examine the current contract relationships, along with alternatives:for future relationships. _In order to begin the process of developing new wholesale watzr contracts, it is useful to begin defining the basic contract principles and approaches that might be incorporated into these contracts. To that end, the Finance Subcommittee has developed a "White Paper"outlining some essential features of contract options and,alternatives'. The objective of this process is to begin to define the primary principles and approaches, ;so that subsequent efforts will be based on a general consensus and common understanding among the parties involved. At the same time, this process may identify the possible strengths and weaknesses of specific options. But most importantly,:all parties desire to avoid expenditures of time,and resources on contract details that are based on principles that are unrealistic or unlikely to be agreed to by the respective decision-makers. Therefore, this white paper may begin'to sort-through approaches that are acceptable-or not acceptable to the respective;decision-makers. This paper is not-intended to cover the details,of.possible contract,terms. Such details:"will be covered in subsequent papers, as well as the eventual contract negotiations. Furthermore, it is not intended to discuss every possible option or alternative. Rather, it is'a broad review of some basic foundations,around.which specific alternatives may.be later reviewed on a,side-;by=sid'e basis. OVERVIEW OF.OUR APPROACH In developing our review of each option, they needed to be reviewed or considered on a consistent basis. The sub'-committee determined that there were six major headings that form the foundation for any ,proposed contracts: ® Ownership • Operations ® AssetFiurtding Arrangement&(Methods) o Ownership Capital Recovery (Cost Sharing) e Non-Ownership.Capital Recovery' • Risk In creating these five major headings, a consistent set.of definitions-should be applied to each when reviewing each option. For purposes of this discussion, we have defined,ach:major heading as follows: • Ownership — Refers to ownership of the physical assets. Ownership: may consider both the existing physical assets, along with any new or future assets. Ownership as defined herein, may also consider the right of access to available capacity, or stated otherwise, the right to allocate both existing and/or new available capacity ® Operations—Refers to the party or parties responsible for the actual operation of the facility. ® Asset Funding Arrangements (Methods) —Refers to the available funding n-,cthods that may be used to fund existing and new assets.(e.g., debt, SDC's, etc.).- Available funding methods may.be limited under certain contract arrangements. ® Owner Capital Recovery — Refers to the various methods that an owner of an asset may use to recover their capital investment. Capital recovery will generally occur from three possible sources: wholesale rates,retail rates, and system development charges (SOC's). ® Non-Owner Capital Recovery - Refers to the methods that non-owners may use to recover the • payments made to the owner for supply system capital payments. It does not refer to capital recovery for distribution facilities on a non-owner's system. ® Risk-Refers to the various types of risk that may be incurredby both the owner and non-owner. Risk is considered from both a short-term and long-term perspective. Short-term risk assumes that capital (production) facilities are fixed in nature. Long-term risk allows-for changes in facilities. Risk may also be further subcategorized around the types of "risks incurred - operational, monetary, physical and regulatory. These topics are covered in the following discussion. It is hoped that a description of the range of approaches to ownership will help define the funding arrangements and cost sharing approaches that logically would accompany those ownership choices. Therefore, the organization.of this paper is to group the discussion by ownership approach, and to review funding and cost sharing implications of those ownership choices. OWNERSHIP ALTERNATIVES Ownership can have many different meanings in the context of the new water sales contracts. The following are a few examples of what ownership might mean as contractual options.are considered. It is important to note that throughout this paper references to "the system" and "assets" refer only to supply, transmission, and terminal storage facilities, unless specified otherwise. Facilities used to meet retail demands of any customers in the region are excluded from.the discussion, except when,clearly noted to the contrary. The basic ownership options could include the following: ® Portland owns the water facilities and charges the wholesale customers for water these customers obtain from Portland's assets. • Portland owns the facilities. guarantees that water will be available to the wholesale customers to • meet any of their demands, and charges the wholesale customers for water obtained from Portland's assets. A Portland owns the facilities, and wholesale customers own rights to specific capacities or percentages of capacity. • Portland and other regional providers jointly own specific assets, with Portland retaining ownership of other assets. ® Portland owns some facilities, and other regional providers own other facilities, with all parties working together to ensure that the facilities function in a consistent manner. • Portland owns some facilities, and other regional providers own other facilities, with all parties sharing water rights to varying degrees. • Portland owns some facilities; and other regional providers own other facilities, with one party responsible for ensuring that the facilities function in a consistent manner. Although this is not a complete list of options that might loosely lie called ownership options, it illustrates ''in a broad sense that there are alternatives that provide varying _lev.,els of "ownership" rights and responsibilities to the regional water providers. AssocatEd with each ownership arrangement is a set of fights, responsibilities, risks, and opportunities. It is important to consider how these alternatives might be'further developed and considered as part of the larger contract renewal process. It is noted that these ownership -pproaches are closely tied;to matter&of governance, which is a topic thabis not covered in this document. • BASIC APPROACHES Within.this white paper, various approaches will be reviewed. Each approach is a simple variation of some of the concepts previously discussed. This white paper will 'reuiew in 'detail the 'following approaches Alternative A—Status Quo . A 1 —Status Quo , A2—Status Quo; No "Surplus" Water A3 —Status Quo;Nomination of Service,Capacity t A4—Status Quo; Cash Basis, Actual.Use Alternative B—New Assets; Existing Assets Alternative C—All Assets Each of these alternatives is discussed in more detail below, in the context of the five major,headings (aspects of ownership),previously discussed. REVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVE OWNERSHIP OPTIONS Provided below is a brief discussion of the alternative ownership options discussed above. Each,option will be discussed from th'e :context of the 'perspestive ,of ownership and the,responsibilities and risks associated with it. Only by understanding .,and' comparing each alternative can the Bureau a_nd its . wholesale customers begin.to-narrow their focus on this issue. T. Alternative.Al Status Quo The status.quo.approach would mainfain the current contractual and ownership arrangement. Ownership - Portland would continue to,own all the.facilities and would sell "surplus'2 water to wholesale customers under whatever pricing terms were indicated in the contract. Portland would continue to sell water•to the,wholesale customers under.the "utility basis" approach for setting revenuo.,requirements. IThe "utility basis" approach includes operation and,maintenance costs, depreciatibn,;and a:return on P,ortland's.rate base invesiment'in these facilities (see the-attached glossary for more detailed definitions of',these terms). Implicit in this approach:is that-Portland is the "owner" of the facilities, and the water purveyors are"customers' whose,rights are limited to the acquisition of water under,the terms of the contract. Because Portland is.t_he .owner, if,charges depreciation to cover the wearing-out of'the capital assets,and a return on its'investments,made to serve the wholesale customers. Some implications of-the status quo approach are that Portland would continue to determine future capital requirements for the system, operate the facilities,according to its best judgment, and make all management decisions that may be necessary: It would continue-to perform system planning functions.with input from its wholesale customers as appropriate., Operations — Portland as the' owner of the facilities would be responsible for all decisions regarding operations associated with the facility. Variations under Alternative B could be similar to the alternative options under Alternative A. Altemative variations excluded from tias white paper for purposes ofsimplicity and brevity,. Z Surplus water is a legal term from Portland's City Charter that is not defined or extensively discussed inthis paper. However, Portland currently has a written legal opinion form their City Attorney that states that the current City Charter provides broad authority to the Bureau to develop and sell water,and Portland.is not constrained(limited) • by the phrase"surplus water." Asset Funding Arrangements (Methods) - Portland, as owner, would provide funding for new facilities under the status quo. The City of Portland would have the option of funding new facilities from whatever resources it might have available, including' accumulated funds (reserves), current rate-generated cash, or debt financing. It would continue to be responsible for the adequacy of overall system financing, cash flow, and other financial issues. Wholesale customers would not be required to provide the financial resources to build new facilities, although once built, those facility costs would be recovered through the rates. Owner Capital Recovery — Based on this ownership approach, the cost sharing would likely continue to use an approach similar to that being used now. The City would allocate costs to \vho',esale customers based on their proportionate use of,-various types'of system' facilities. The costs being allocated would include depreciation and return on investment. The return on investment component would be derived from multiplying the rate base.(i.e., net asset values) applicable to wholesale customers by a rate of return, 'Assets serving..only Portland's .retail customers would be excluded entirely from any of these calculations. Specifics of this approach would need to be determined, such as the possible continuation of replacement cost depreciation and the rate of return to be used in this calculation. The rates that would be calculated from these allocations would be charged to wholesale customers,Iand Portland's retail customers would pay the remaining cash requirements of the system. Non-Owner Capital Recovery—Under this ownership alternative, non-owner capital recovery is not applicable. Risk — Short-term is shared by both owners and non-owners of the facilities. Portland, as the owner assumes all levels of risk in both the short-term and long-term. Non-owners have certain levels of short-term monetary and operational risk associated non-delivery of water, etc. However, in viewing overall risk, under this,scenario, Portland.as owner of the system assumes all risk. Example of Alternative;—An example arrangement under this alternative would be that Portland would plan, design, build, finance,, own and operate a treatment facility. 'The operating and capital cost of the treatment facility would be included within the wholesale customer's water rates. Summary of Alternative AI — The effect of this alternative is to maintain the existing relationships as is. For those wholesale customers that are generally satisfied with the current arrangement as it relates to ownership, operations, financing, and risk may desire to maintain the status quo. 2. Alternative A2 _ Status Quo; No "Surplus Water" This option is a variation of the status quo approach discussed above, except. that there is no longer a restriction related to selling only "surplus"'water to wholesale customers. As noted in the previous discussion, the.City's Attorneys are of the opinion that the "surplus water" phrase of the City, Charter is not as restrictivelas previously thought. For all practical purposes,this approach is the same as the status quo for the purposes of funding new improvements and for cost sharing. Rather than repeat the above discussion point by point, we believe the only major,area of change under this assumed alternative would be under risk. Risk- The risk under this,alternative may be,:slightly greater to Portland"than the current status quo, which makes the assumption about sales limited to "surplus water." Under this alternative, Portland may be willing to take more risk and build more supply facilities than under-the "pure" status:quo. To help offset'some of:this risk, Portland may require changes to the current contract language to have greater assurances of revenue stability over time. • Summary of Alternative A2—The effect of this',alternative would be to provide the possibility of increased assurance..towholesale customers of Portland that they would continue to receive water, regardless of water supply conditions. In the, event of limitations on supply, the wholesale customers presumably would be,subject to the same restrictions as Portland's retail customers, but would not be cut off from water supplies completely. I .Alternative A3 — Status Quo;.Nomination of-Service: Capacity This alternatiNe is another variation of the current.arrangement with each wholesale customer nominating a.service levei or capacity. Ownership - Under this option, Portland would continue to own all the supply and transmission facilities, and,its wholesale customers would own "capacity rights in the overall system supply and transmission facilities. The capacity right of each customer would be the option to use a specified quantity of water during a paiticular period of time, such as per day or .per.year. Most likely nomination of service would be for a specified number.. of million gallons .per day of capacity because supply constraints typically occur for periods of a few days or'less' Although the current wholesale customers would not actually receive the ownership title to any,assets, their -"ownership" would.be in the form of th&'right to use a given amount of water. ,Alternatively, Portland would have an "obligation to serve.' The right.of use is a form.of ownership that is more general in nature than more:traditional.forms,but in functional terms it differs little from the perspective of•the ultimate users. And because this form of ownership usually does not include responsibility for such items as meeting water quality regulations, directly financing new improvements, operation and maintenance responsibilities, and so on, some jurisdictions prefer this approach because Jt simplifies"their role to that of being more like a customer. Operations —Portland would likely continue to make all decisions and take all responsibility ® regard'm&the,op-ration of the facilities_ Asset'Fundiog Arrangements (Methods).—Ata minimum;this option,is similar to current status quo arrangement. 'However, funding forfacilities can be undertaken in some different ways using this ownership approach. One method,for funding is to require the agency that nominates a specified capacity` to pay an initial buy-in charge for that capacity and then to 'contribute its proportionate share of the costs for any major replacements or other costs that are:incurred to maintain the existing level of service. The proportionate'share would be-the nominated capacity level as a percentage of the then-existing capacity. This agency wouldnot be required to,,fund any costs,for'growth'`,'unless it desired to,increase its•capacify rights: Another option might be to Have the utility that has title to the physical assets''(Le., Portland) finance the entire cost of new facilities and recover the.capitate costs through the rates. .In this instance; the ."utility basis" of revenue requirements would probably be the most appropriate option. The asset-owning utility would then recover its investment. in the capacity that serves other jurisdictions over time, in;luding a,reasonable return for;the risk of the investments, the time value of money, and an allowance for inflation. Any replacements or other capital expenditures to maintain capacity would also be financed by the direct owner and then rolled into the rate calculations for those with capacity rights. An intermediate approach might be.to have the.capacity-acquiring°utilitypay directly for its share of new facilities, but roll the costs of existing assets into the longer-term volumetric rates. Yet, another variant would be to have the capacity-acquiring uti'iity`pgy directly for the existing assets over a limited term, with interest, much like a loan by the direct asset owning utility. The purpose of any such intermediate approach would be to mitigate and smooth the financial impact to the acquiring utility of any immediate purchase costs. Owner Capital Recovery—Owner capital recovery may be very similar to the current status quo arrangements. However, wholesale customers buying "capacity rights" may make an up front capital contribution (buy-in) for that capacity right. Given the possible buy-in, the cost sharing arrangement in a nomination of capacity option would be in the form of a rate calculation that recovered the costs of any capital that were not paid directly by the capacity-acquiring utility. As noted above, these costs probably would be recovered using a utility-basis of revenue requirements. The contract would state how the capacity-acquiring utility would share in costs, which could be either on a direct cash funding basis or through the rates if the water provider arranged for complete financing cf facilities;or some combination of the two. Non-Owner Capital Recovery — Capital recovery by non-owners is similar to,the current status quo arrangement. Should wholesale customers make up-front capital contributions for capacity rights, the wholesale customer would need some form of capital recovery. Risk—Under this alternative, greater risk is shifted to the wholesale customer in terms,of demand planning. By nominating a specified capacity, the wholesale customer may significantly over- or under-nominate which could have significant operational and financial implications. An under- nomination would suggest insufficient capacity to meet the wholesale customer's demands during certain periods of the year. In contrast, over-nomination would suggest that the wholesale customer is paying for idle excess capacity. For those wholesale customers where significant growth is occurring, risk could be reduced by allowing excess capacity to be sold to willing buyers. Example-of Alternative—An example arrangement under this alternative would be that Portland would plan, design, :build, finance, "own and operate a treatment facility. . Each wholesale customer would nominate a specified capacity right that they desire to purchase. The customer would then "own" a right to that nominated capacity within the facility. The facility would be • designed around the nominated capacities provided by the customers. The operating and capital cost of the-treatment facility would be included within the wholesale customer's water rates, with the cost of the facility allocated .on the proportional "nominated" capacities.of each customer within that facility. For example,.a customer who nominates 10%of the capacity of the treatment facility is allocated 10%0"of the operating and capital costs of that facility, even though they may be currently using only 5%of the total capacity). Sicmmary of Alternative A3 In short, the ownership of capacity rights eliminates many of the operational and management "headaches" and is therefore an attractive alternative to some jurisdictions that desire the increased certainty of supply without other*ownership responsibilities. Portland likely would continue to make operational decisions,perform system planning functions determine future capital facilities to be constructed,and be responsible for system risk. 4. Alternative A4—,Status,Quo; Cash Basis: Actual Use This alternative is a slightly different approach froin the status quo. This alternative would have wholesale'customers continue to�have no ownership interest in the system, but pay for use of the system on a cash basis. In _effect, this alternative is the same as the status quo ,in'terms of ownership, but there are some differences with respect to is and cost sharing. Ownership—Same as the current status quo.. Operations—Same as the;current status'quo. Asset Funding Arrangements(Methods) — Under a "cash-basis" approach to financing new improvements, the wholesale customer would be responsible for cash financing their=portion of any new facilities, as well as meeting the cash requirements associated with existing facilities. • • Owner Capital Recovery;- Capital requirements of either cash-`financed capital expenditures or debt financed facilities would be recovered from a wholesale customer on the basis of its proportionate share of the,use of the respective facilities. The effect of this,approach typically would be to make the financial requirements, andpossibly wholesale rates, more variable from year to year compared to the "utility basis" approach, which spreads the capital recovery over a period equal to the depreciation life of each asset- Non-Owner Capital Recovery—Not significantly different than under the current status quo. Risk— This option spreads some of the risk to'non-owners of the system. By virtue of using a "cash basis" approach, large unanticipated capital'expenditures are immedWely absorbed by non- owners through the funding process. The existing status-quo xx ould have. Portland finance.the improvement and spread the cost over a number of years, via depreciation and a return on investment. Other than this"shifting"of risk, this alternative is similar to the status quo. Example.of Alternative—If Portland were to build a treatment facility, it would be debt financed. By using the cash basis approach, the annual revenue:requirements would include the debt service payment associated with the facility, plus a component, for rate financed ,capital expenditures (renewal and replacement). The debt;in this case would likely be paid over a 20-year period. This compares to the current status;quo whereby the asset is depreciated over. a longer life (5'0 years).'and the return on rate base(investment)is earned over`a corresponding"period'offime: Summary of Alternative A4 — This alternative; isclearly'a viable and7 generally accepted. approach., However,its,possible drawback is the mixingof.two methodologies to establish rates for a.single customer. That is;, existing assets may be viewed under the "utility basis" of the existing status quo approach, and..all new assets could be viewed from the "cash basis" approach. . This mixing of methodologies hiay create'a complex and,confusing wholesale rate situation for ® both Portland and its wholesale customers,but such complexity would be appropriate,under this situation.. -1. 5. Alternative.B.— New'Asseis/Existing Assets Under this alternative, a new approach to ownership would,be considered for all "new" assets. Portland would still retain ownership of the existing assets. However, some, or all new assets, could be'owned totally by the whol'esalecustomers or could be jointly owned with,the wholesale customers and the supply-providing agency. This,particular alternative could have all,the;same variations noted above under status: quo (e.g., nomination, cash basis, etc.). -.For purposes of simplicity, this option is being.reviewed from a more general perspective. Ownership — Depending on,.the nature of the agreement, there could'be provision for mandatory ownership participation of the wholesale customer utilities, or such ownership could be an available option at their request. , The benefit of mandatory ownership is that all utilities in the region would. have a clear understanding of the future ownership and funding obligations. A potential disadvantage to the wholesale customers is that without management rights to accompany.the ownership and financial re'sponsibil'ities, they would be subject to potentially unacceptable financial risks. Specifically, these customers would probably require a, meaningful voice in decisions about investments.in new facilities before committing to mandatory ownership and financial :ommitments. The advantage of an optional ownership,arrangement is that the.parties to theagreement would retain more. flexibility. However,;a disadvantage of.this approach is that a supply provider like 'Portland faes increased uncertainty and risk associated with its .financial planning'and overall system management. This is because it would not necessarily know well in advance what 1_ investments it might need to make.and what funding participation to expect from the other agencies. A. wholesale supplier probably would require increased compensation for financial uncertainty and risk, as well as perhaps primary control over investment decisions. Some of the implications of this option depend on the details of the agreement. For example, decision-making about future capital projects could vary, according to whether ownership is optional or mandatory. Utilities probably would desire a governance role regarding the planning and implementation of new capital facilities if there was mandatory ownership participation of these facilities. Conversely, if ownership was optional, there could be less of a management role for these utilities and a stronger role for the primary supplier. As suggested above, there could be a similar variation in operational and financial risks borne by the respective parties depending on the contractual provisions. Because the wholesale supplier,.such.as Portland, would still be the predominant owner by virtue of owning the existing facilities as well as a portion of new ones, this utility might seek to have primary control over day-to-day operations and a substantial role in facility planning. However; "the joint ownership'roles could result in a more shared approach on these matters. The outcome with respect.to these implications of the "new assets — existing assets" alternative could vary considerably according to the desires and negotiating positions of the parties. Operation — Existing assets would still be under the direction.and responsibility of Portland. For new assets, the operation of the facilities is not so cear. Operational decisions and responsibilities for new assets could either be the responsibility of Portland, the wholesalers or other mutually agreed upon arrangement: In any case, the operator of the facilities would have to be a mutual agreement between all participant parties. Asset Funding Arrangements (Methods)"— All participating.utilities would bear the costs of new facilities under this concept'of.ownership. They'would be individually responsible for their proportionate shares of the costs of any particular facility based on-their actual or future use of • that facilit;-. The wholesale customer wc;ild either be responsible for direct financial contributions for'its share of relevant new facilities or'need to make financing arrangements with the existing supply provider. utility, such as agreement to pay a portion of the debt service associated with the facilities: A frequent issue using.this ownership option, as well as some other approaches, is whether the proportionate cost sharing is calculated on the basis of current levels of use, projected levels of demand as of some future date, or some combination of the two methods. This question is particularly relevant when the utilities involved in ,the:agreement have different growth,rates of water demand. This issue needs to be-carefully considered and resolved'as part of the contract negotiation process. One possibility is.that the parties agree to use projected demands as of some future date, with perhapsan agreement on how the future demands will be estimated. Another possibility is to consider`whether the facility'to be paid for.is to expand capacity.to meet growth needs or merely to continue existing levels of service. 'In the latter case, current levels of demand may�be.used for determining the proportionate cost sharing. Offen a new'facil'itymay serve both .growth needs as well as meeting existing water, demand requirements. In such cases, some,cost allocation between growth and current service benefits of the facility may be,needed to determine how best to split the cost responsibility between'current and future demands. Because this matter of how to develop appropriate cost sharing percentages can be a -source of confusion and misunderstanding, especially- under joint ownership arrangements,. the 'parties to such an arrangement should carefully, consider how to address such situations and incorporate the understanding into the proposed agreement. The funding outcome of this alternative would be that more utilities would participate in the initial financing of new capital facilities. This would potentially create,a new level of complexity • • in the financing of projects. Because more agencies would be'involved, than under the status quo, there would be an increased need for coordination among all participating agencies. Owner Capital Recovery — To "the extent that an agency paid for 'the costs of new facilities, those facilities except for O&M related costs would be excluded from.the rates charged to that agency. Therefore, if a utility paid for its share of the cost of'a new-transmission fine, the line would be excluded from the depreciation and from the return on investment calculations used to develop the wholesale water rate for that utility. Noir-Owner Capital Reeovetiy —The recovery of capital by non-owners would not be applicable (relevant) under this alternative. Risk— This option will result in a reduced financial risk for Portland; for:any new assets, when compared to the current.status quo for Portland. -Correspondingly, there.would be,more upfront financial responsibility (risk) for the other regional partner utilities. The outcome of this responsibility for these utilities would be that they would have 'increased financial pressure on their own finances in the short-term, compared to the status quo under�•which the recovery'of capital•costs occurs over the duration of the useful lives of the assets. There could be increased rates and less stability of revenue requirementsfor these new co-owners,.but they would no longer be,pay ng,a return on investment to Portland and long-term costs could be•lower. Which approach.i(this option or the status ,quo) would have a lower present value, of costs for these agencies would depend on the specific circumstances Of the,new facilities, the utilities, the then- current financial markets,and;other factors.. In some instances, the new co-owners might use debt instruments to help'::mAigate these impacts`to their finances. Example of Alternative — This alternative•maintains existing assets at the status quo. .For new assets, such as"a treatment facility; each participating wholesaler would-participate ih the project and be a joint owner of the facility. Given the joint ownership of the facility, numerous financial and operational approaches could be utilized under this scenario. One approach may be that each wholesale participant would issue their own revenue bonds(or other appropriate debt.instrument) and deposit the proceeds to a•joint.agency constructing the assets, and eventually operating it: All financing and operating agreements under this approach would need to be mutually agreed.upon between the participating parties. Summary of Alternative.B -'This alternative has a.certain'level of appeal for those wholesale customers desiring.ownerships"and stronger voice in planning and operations. For large "stand alone"projects, this may be a very viable approach. As noted-previously, this alternative may be further structured to consider the variations discussed under the status quo methodology. 6. Alternative C —All Assets This alternative is the most divergent from the status quo. Under this alternative, all assets would be jointly owned by the region's water utilities. Ownership — Under this alternative, there would be shared ownership of all system assets that jointly serve the region's water utilities. This would be a radical departure from the current status quo. Assets currently owned by Portland would be purchased, in part, by the wholesale custom-s according to some predetermined method, such.as nomination of capacity, historical level of use, or negotiated level of service. Whatever the method, the whole`sa'le customer utilities would in effect buy into the existing system and become co-owners of -•ripply assets. At that point they would also jointly purchase and own new assets according tc, :he ownership arrangements. • A significant obstacle to this ownership approach is the high cost of buying into the system by the agencies that are currently being supplied water on a wholesale basis. The resources that would be required to purchase a share of major supply and transmission systems that have been built and • operated for some time could be an insurmountable obstacle for smaller 'agencies with very limited resources and small customer bases. The purchase price could be on the basis of depreciated original cost, depreciated replacement cost, or even negotiated price. Under any reasonable approach, some utilities could find this ownership option beyond their financial capability. Operations — Under this arrangement, all utilities in the region would be joint owners and partners in the system. The,facilities would then be regional facilities, and the agreements would have to specify how system planning, decision-making, funs ing, operations, and management would. occur. Most likely, the co-owners would participate directly in all these functions as part of the overall move to, obtain more control over their water supply, which is inherent in this ownership option. Asset Fmiding Arrangements (Methods) —All participating agencies would share in the funding of new system facilities. The financial contribution of each system to a new acquisition could be on a cash basis, or there could be agreements for larger utilities, which generally would ,have more financial capability to borrow funds at favorable interest rates, to finance the assets and be repaid by the- other utilities. The details would need to be worked out, but in general, the 'financial requirements of new facilities would be met by more regional participants, which generally means a wider array of financial resources to fund new projects. Owner Capital Recovery—If a utility were to buy into Portland's system, then the new co-owner would no longer be charged rates Aeveloped under a "utility basis" approach. Being charged for depreciation and return on investment by the original owner would no longer be justified. Instead, the new co-owner would be responsible for its share of operation and maintenance costs, as well as capital requirements, such as debt service payments or cash-financed capital outlays. • These costs could be recovered by the local wholesale utility in a.variety of methods. The exact method for cost sharing would depend on whether the co-owners jointly'operated the system (including'its financing) or if one had the primay responsibility for these activities and billed the other- owner(s), or if a new, regional entity were established for these purposes. Depending on the institutional arrangements, the new co-owner could pay directly for its,share of the costs. Alternatively, they could pay a volumetric rate that recovered its share of costs on an annual basis (probably with a year-end true up), or they could pay fixed monthly amount for its share of annual budgetary ekpenses. In any event, it would not pay Portland any return for ownership, because Portland and the new co-owners would each be owners of equal standing (although not necessarily equal 'investments, given differences in water demands and other factors). Noir-Owner Capital Recover}, — Non-owners of the system would still be charged. under the existing methodology. 'The recovery of their"capital costs would be determined at a local level. Risk — As with other co-ownership alternatives, this option will result in an increased financial obligation by the current wholesale customers. This will have a tendency to increase their own costs and retail rates, and could test their ability to borrow funds to implement the partial buy-'out. For the primary owner (Portland), this option raises the question of what it would .do, with.the funds received from the Pu,tial buy-out. One possibility would be to provide "one-time" rate relief. A second option might be to issue a one-time "rebate" or credit to Current'ratepayers. A third way to deal with the funds might be to 'spread them out over a period of time, such as perhaps 10 years, as a credit against revenue 'requirements to hold down future'retail rate' increases during this time frame. Finally, the funds could be held in reserve or-as a rate stabilization fund to offset any of Portland's major capital costs that might be anticipated in the. • future. The way that Portland handles the-funds received from'a joint ownership purchase of existing facilities could have a material impact on its finances and retail rates. Example of Alternative — An example of°this alternative would.'be similar to the previous alternative, with the exception.that the ownership'of assets would be for both existing and new assets. Sunnniary of Alternative C=This alternative is the most divergent from the status quo. Erom a risk and financial perspective it may not be an attractive option, to a number of utilities. This alternative may be viable and attractive alternative,for a few of the larger' wholesaleutilities currently served by Portland. Attached at the conclusion of this report is a matrix developed by the subcommittee comparing the status quo (Alternative Al) with the alternative that compared Portland retaining existing assets and new assets being jointly o:vned (Alternative B). These matrices were developed for comparison purposes only, and required a great deal of internal discussion and subjective judgement on the part of the:. subcommittee to develop. Theexpectation is that matrices for other alternatives be developed later. DECISION-MA' KING One important aspect in reviewing each of the alternatives that wasotity mentioned,in a passing manner is that of decision making. One of the,responsibilities that comes with:.ownersh p is-the decision-making that is "red to providing a safe and:reliable utility service., This,paper does,not-delve into the issues of decision-making roles (governance); but it is important to note that decision-making in both day-to-day' operations and longer.term planning are tightly linked to ownership. In many respects-such decision= making authority is often more important than formal ownership of system assets. Control over how the system is operated; what new investments will be made, how to.finance both operating and capital ® requirements, and what levels of uncertainty and risk are acceptable may be more important to a-utility than holding title;to system assets: Certainly a utility's_responsibility;for,costs could vary considerably depending on such decisions, regardless of formal. ownership status. In other instances`the :decision- making-role is more clearly tied to°an ownership role..•_For example, the alternative of joint ownership of all,facilities almost always carries with it some,measure of decision-making,responsibility. Therefore, an evaluation of ownership options by a:utility should be accompanied by a similar evaluation of'governance options before a final contract is agreed to. Alternative: Al • Alternative Name:- "Status Quo" Portland Others Notes Existing New Existing New Ownership Assets ✓ ✓ Partnership not Capacity ✓ ✓ I- Prohibited Operating Facilities ✓ ✓ Asset Funding Debt ✓ ✓ Lt. Lease Not prohibited Cash Reserves/R. E. ✓ ✓ SDC(Improvement) Not prohibited Contributed Capital Not prohibited Sale of Assets Available(bonds) Owner Capital Recovery Wholesale Rate Cash Wholesale Rate Utility ✓ ✓ Retail Rates ✓ ✓ SDC(Reimbursement) ✓ ✓ Non-Owner'Capital,Recovery—.Supply System Only ` Retail Rates N/A N/A • Contract N/A N/A SDC'S Nl.,, N/A Contributed Capital N/A N/A Risk Operational Short Term ✓ ✓ ✓' ✓ Operational Long Term ✓ ✓ Monetary Short Term ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Monetary Long Term ✓ ✓ Physical ✓ ✓ Regulatory ✓ ✓ • Alternative: .13 Alternative Name: Existing Assets Portland; New Assets Shared Ownership, Portland Operates Portland Others, Notes Existing New Existing New' Ownership Assets Capacity ✓ ✓ ✓ Opeekiing Facilities ✓ ✓ Asset Funding Debt ✓ ,� �, ✓ Lt.Lease ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Cash Reserves/R.E. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SDC.(Improvement) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Local or'.Regional Contributed Capital ✓ ✓ ✓ Sale of Assets Owner Capital-Recovery Wholesale.Rate Cash ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ Wholesale Rate.Utility ✓ ✓` N/A ✓. Retail'Rates ✓ ✓ N/A• SDC(Reimbursement) ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ Local, Non-Owner Capital,Recovery—Supply System Only Retail Rates N/A N/A_ ✓ N/A Contract N/A N/A ✓ N/A SDC'S N/A N/A N/A Contributed Capital N/A N/A N/A Risk Operational ShortTerm ✓ ✓ ✓ Operational Lorig Term ✓ ✓ ✓ Monetary:Short Term ✓ ✓ ✓ Monetary Long Term ✓ ✓ Physical ✓ ✓. ✓. Regulatory ✓' ✓ ✓ . . Glossary of Common Rate Setting Terms As Utilized by AWWA annual operating revenue requirement The total revenues required on an annual basis adequate to meet all expenses and capital requirements of the utility. bond covenants Terms of obligations incurred as conditions of the issuance of bonds. bonded debt Indebtedness represented by outstanding honds. capacity The ability of available water utility resources to meet the quantity, quality, peak loads, and other service needs of the various customers of classes-of customers. served by the utility. capital expenditures Expenditures that result in the acquisition of or addition Of;ixed assets or assets with multi-year lives. cash-basis (needs) approach . The method of .detennining annual operating revenue requirements based .on all, cash needs; including' but not limited to, operation and maintenance expense, taxes, debt service, and capital expenditures from current revenues., commodity costs (variable costs) Costs-that tend to vary with the quantity of water produced, including the costs of chemicals, a large part ofpower-costs, and other elements that follow, or change almost directly with, the amount of water produced. connection charge The charge made by the utility to recover the cost of connecting the customer's service line to the utility's facilities. This charge is often considered as a contribution of capital by the customer or other agency,receiving'the service. contributed capital Any amount of money,, services,. or property received` by'a water utility from any person. or governmental agency that is provided at no cost to' the utility. It. represents an addition or transfer to the capital of the utility, and is used to offset the acquisition, improvement, or'construction costs of the utility's property; facilities, or equipme, !-t used to provide utility services to the public. Contributions are generally carried as equity capital on the balance sheets of government-owned utilities. cost allocation .The procedure,for classifying or assigning the costs,of service to functional cost components for subsequentdistribution to respective customer classes. costs of service The operating-and capital costs incurred in meeting various aspects of providing water service, such as customer billing costs, demand-related costs, and variable costs. coverage ratios,The margin of safety ratios associated with bonded indebtedness, reflecting the ratio of the actual or projected net revenue available for debt service to debt service or other costs, after allowance for operation and maintenance costs. Coverage may be expressed as a ratio or as a percentage. debt An obligation resulting from the borrowing of_money or from the purchase of goods and services. A revenue bond is a form of long-term debt. debt-service requirement The amounts of money necessary to pay interest and. principal requirements for a given series of years. depreciation The loss in service value not.restored by current maintenance as applied to depreciable plant facilities. Depreciation is incurred in connection with the consumption or prospective retirement of plant facilities .in the course of ,providing, service. This depreciation is the result.of causes known to be in current operation and against which the utility is not protected by insU1ance. Among the causes are wear and tear, decay, action of the elements, inadequacy, obsolescence, changes in technology, changes in demand, and requirements of public authorities. The proper level of depreciation expense at any given time should be based on the costs of depreciable plant-in service. The funds resulting from depreciation are available for replacements, improvements, expansion of the system, or for repayment of the principal portion of outstanding debt. equity The net worth of a utility, consisting of capital (or paid in) surplus, earned surplus (or retained,earnings), and, occasionally, certain net worth reserves. expenditures Amounts paid or incurred for all "purposes, including expenses, provision for retirement of debt, and capital outlays. firm service Dependable service in the amounts an at utiles as desired by the customer. marginal cost rates Rates based on the cost of providing Mlle next unit.(if-production. off-peak rates Rates charged for usage during certain designated off--peak periods.. peak-load pricing rates A multiple-part rate structure in which charges vary and are based on the higher costs of providing water during the system peak periods of use and on the lower cost of providing water during the system off.-peak periods. rate base The value of a water utility's property used in computing an Authorized return.under the applicable laws, generally accepted methodologies, and/or regulatory policies'of the agency setting rates for the utility. rate-making process The process of developing and establishing rates and charges. Theprocess is comprised of four"phases; (1) determination of revenue requirements; (2):al'location of costs to the functional. components of the cost of service; (3) distribution'of.the function costs of service to customer classes; and (4) development,and design of a schedule of,rates: and charges to recover the revenue requirements. rate schedule Schedule of the rates and"charges to,the various customer classes,and customers. raw water Water,that is obtained directly from the .supply sources; such as wel s, reservoirs, rivers, etc., that has not,been treated to produce potable'water. return,onrate base The percentage of earnings on the rate base. system development charges A contribution.of capital towards recently completed or planned future backup plant facilities necessary to'meet,4he service needs of new customers to which such fees apply. Various terms have been used to describe,these charges"in the industry, but .regardless of the term used., these charges.have the purpose.of providing funds to be used to ® ' finance all or part of the capital improvements necessary to serve new customers and are raised outside of capital to be served from general.water use rates: test year The annual period for which costs are to be analyzed and rates established. unit cost The cost of producing a unit of a product or service. An example would be the cost of treating a thousand gallons of potable water for use bythe.Water utility's customers. unit of service An.element of service for which a cost can be .ascertained,, such as thousand gallons,hundred.cubic feet, million gallons per day,.monthly bill, etc. uniform volume charge A single.charge per unit of volume for all water used. utility basis approach The method of determining annual operating revenue requirements, which includes operation and: friaintenance expenses, taxes, de'preciatio.i expense, and return,on rate base (investment)- wholesale service customers 'Service in which water is sold to.a customer at one or more'major points of delivery for"resale within the wholesale customer's.service area. working capital Cash, materials, supplies, and other similar current assets necessary in the day- to-day operation of the enterprise. It is usually measured by.the excess of current assets over the current liabi5ties, or sometimes as a percentage of annual .operation and, mai"nte,nance, expense levels.