WEST
INFORMATION ONLY COUNCIL REPORT
Engineering & Public Works Department
For the September 6,2016 Council Meeting
IGTOWNA
DATE
August 31,2016
TO:
Jim Zaffino, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM:
Rob Hillis, Engineering Manager
RE
Rose Valley Water Treatment Plant
- Recommended
Timeline
BACKGROUND:
On January 1,2011 the Westbank and Lakeview lrrigation Districts were transferred to the West
Kelowna municipality. This was in addition to the three water ulilities already under the
municipality's jurisdiction, Sunnyside, West Kelowna Estates, and Pritchard. The five utilities
have their own characteristics with strengths and weaknesses. Upon the transfer of the utilities,
West Kelowna was provided conditions on the Permit to Operate Water Supply Systems from
lnterior Health to complete a Master Plan for the utilities.
Table l: Transferred Reserves in Janua
Lakeview
Net Deficit
Deferred Revenues CEC
2011
Reserves
$ (33,081.00)
$ 2,877,968
Westbank
Net Surplus
Deferred Revenues CEC
$ 1 ,188,560
ç 1,521,729
ln 2011 Council directed West Kelowna staff to provide a West Kelowna Water Utility Master
Plan for the five water systems. The Water Utility Master Plan is a comprehensive guide to West
Kelowna's water utility. lt is intended to serve as West Kelowna's roadmap for infrastructure
development of the water system. The plan has been developed to deliver a safe and reliable
water supply in a cost-effective manner. This considers drinking water treatment facilities,
adequate fire protection, and water distribution networks to satisfy West Kelowna's current and
projected water demands. The Water Utility Master Plan is able to focus on optimizing the
cafitat requirements while maintaining the flexibility to adjust to a range of future planning
outcomes. The Plan was awarded to AECOM on May 10,2011.
ln 2013 six members of the community including former members of the Lakeview and
Westbank lrrigation District Board of Directors were members of the Water Master Plan Steering
Committee. The Committee was presented information from the consultant, lnterior Health, and
City staff. The Committee reviewed the Master Plan and provided their expertise and insights on
the plan. The Committee had the consultant, AECOM, review alternatives that were not
addressed in the original draft plan. These alternatives included system separation and
centralized source water supply. After reviewing all the options, the steering committee
Rose Valley Water Treatment Plant
- Recommended
Timeline
Page315
1 of 3
recommended treatment at the Powers Creek and Rose Valley locations with supplemental
source of Okanagan Lake.
Prior to adoptinglhe Master Plan a business case was completed to determine the feasibility of
completing the projects in the timelines that were proposed in the plan. Funding for the
improvemènts are proposed from a combination of user fees, debt servicing, and development
coit charges. lnterior Health supported the business case and the recommended approach of
increasing the utility rates and providing treated water to residents by June 1 2021, which was
reiterated in the 2016 Lakeview Water Service Area Conditions on Permit.
On November 9, 2015 the Water Rates Study was awarded to Urban Systems Ltd. The
comprehensive review and recommendations is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2016'
The total ten year investment into all the water system by the Master Plan is approximately
954,600,000 for the five water service areas. As shown in Table 1, reserves at the time of
transfer were inadequate for the proposed capital program. This investment is proposed to be
funded through user fees and development cost charges. The new rate structure is needed to
appropriately recover funds from users to pay for the operation, maintenance, and capital
improvements to operate the utility.
With the issues that being experienced with the Rose Valley source water, staff will attempt to
accelerate the construction of the water plant.
Complete the Water Rates Study and adopt the new rate structure with planned
increases to get the structure to the new rates. The earlier reserves can be built to fund
the plan, theless impact there will be for debt servicing to fund the improvements. Fall
2016
lnstall additional sampling infrastructure into the chlorine station at Rose Valley to
expand data collection in order to test the source water at the Rose Valley Reservoir.
Two years of additional data prior to the design of the plant will help complete treatment
process design. $75,000 in 2017 Budget
Design of Treatment Plant, approximate two year completion. $800,000 in 2019 Budget
Tender the Treatment plant work in 2020, with an expected two year construction
timeline. Estimated cost in Master PIan of $40,000,000 design and construction
included (DCCs fund $13,296,500)
Commission plant and make sure the treatment process is working. Expected in
summerlfall of 2021
lnterconnect Sunnyside, West Kelowna Estates, and Pritchard to the Lakeview system in
order to provide one level of service throughout the community. $3,064,500 in 2022
Budget
.
.
.
.
.
¡
At the completion of the interconnected water system, West Kelowna will have one level of
service meeting Provincial Water Quality Guidelines for all users supplied from the municipal
system.
COUNCI L REPORT/RESOLUTION
H
ISTORY:
Date
Report Topic/Resolution
Resolution
No.
2014-OCT-28
THAT the District of West Kelowna Water Utility Master Plan
dated January 29,2Q14 be adopted; and
c376-14
THAT Council accepts the first five years
of
the
Water
recommendations made in Appendix 81 and B,2, of the
Utility Master Plan subject to annual budget review.
Rose Valley Water Treatment Plant
- Recommended
Timeline
2 of 3
Page316
FI
NANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
All funding will be from existing water reserves (from user fees), and debt borrowing (which will
be repaid from userfees).
Respectfully su bm itted,
Hillis
Engineering Manager
Allen Fillion
General Manager
Public Works
of
Powerpoint:
Engineering &
/ v"r-
No
Approved for Agenda
m
Attachments:
Appendix A - Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption, October 28,2014
Appendix B - Water Master Plan Steering Committee Update, November 12,2013
Appendix C - Water Rates Study Council Presentation, July 26' 2016
Rose Valley Water Treatment Plant
-
Recommended Timeline
Page317
3 of 3
Appendix A
ry
WESr
I(EIO\MNA
COUNCIL REPORT
Engineering and Public Works Division
For the October 28,2014 Council Meeting
October
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
RE:
File No. 5600-16
22,2014
DATE:
Allen Fillion, General Manager of Engineering & Public Works
Rob Hillis, Engineering Manager
Jim Zaffino, CAO
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
ïHAT the District of West Kelowna Water Utility Master Plan
dated January 29, 2014 be
adopted; and,
THAT Council direct Staff to commit to the first five years of the
inAppendixBland82,oftheWaterUtilityMasterPlan'and'
recommendations made
which will control the flve
THAT Council direct staff to operate the utility as one Parent Utility
Subsidiary Utilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
guide to West Kelowna's water utility with a
The Water Utility Master Plan is a comprehensive
to the first five years of
planning horizon until 2032. Staff is 1.u"ott"nOingihq! Cou.ncilcommit
intended to serve as the District
the recommenoationsGfattácneo scrr"äuiå eì ãnd B2). lt is
water system' Council was
of West Kelowna's .àãrtp for infrastru"irte Oevetopm'e* -of the
An open house occurred on
presented the draft piãn ,nà business plan on Januaiy 28,2A14'
ttreit feedback is provided in Appendix
May 21,2014, theinf-mãtiðn provided'to the public "nd
A.
supply in a cost-effective
The plan has been developed to deliver a safe and reliable water
adequate fire protection, and water
manner. This considers drinking water treatment facilities,
District of West Kelowna's current and projected water
distribution networ¡<s tå
"àt¡tfv-1¡u
demands.
the capital requirements while
The water utility Master Plan is able to focus on optimizing
outcomes'
planning
*"ìnirinìng the fiexibility to adjust to a range of future
slructure analysis to be
The ptan includes a recommendation for an overall water fee 1at9
plant
be constructed in2o21
treatment
conducted in 201s. Staff is recommend¡ng that ifre water
years
the capital cost-recommended for tho first five
instead of 2016, and that Council
"pptouä
and increase fire protection
of the plan. This would ailow for the upgiadã of st'orage deficiencies
throug'hout the District on a timely basis'
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption
Page 1 of 10
318
Staff is also recommending that a Parent Water Utility be created to manage the five
water utilities, which will be treated as subsldiaries. This recommendation recognizes the
past capitalinvestments in infrastructure of the five water utilities'
At the June gth 2010 meeting, Council recommended that the Westbank lrrigation District
(WlD) and the Lakeview lrrigation District (LlD) be operated as segregated funds for a
perioá of at teast three yeãrs. Staff is reviewing the water utilities with the intent of
äventually merging them iñto one utility. The Guiding Principles, which were adopted by
Council ón SepiemUer 22,2009, is to be adheredto throughoutthe transition process. The
new water utility will be called the District of West Kelowna Water System, which would be
classified as the Parent Company and will manage the current water utilities.
The plan is appropriate to guide the development of related policies and capital programs
and therefore staff recommends adoption of the Water Utility Master Plan.
STBATEGIC PRIORITY OBJECTIVE:
Completion of a Water Utility Master Plan is consistent with Council's 2014 Strategic
Prioiities, Priority #3 .- Community Enhancement, Master Plans.
BACKGROUND:
Master Plan Baçkqround:
The Water Utility Master Plan is a comprehensive review of the water utility. The document
will ultimatery gl¡Ue the operation, maintenance, upgrading, and expansion of the District's
water infrastructure. The plan will be used by staff for documentation of location and
condition of works, assess upgrading current conditions, and expansion
requirements to serve the community over the long term.
On May 10, 2011 Council awarded the Water Utility Master Plan _consultation
contract to AECOM and a progress update on the plan was provided at the February 28,
2012 meeting. Council appointed a Water Master Plan Steering Committee on May 29,
201,3. The S[eering Committee reviewed the Master Plan and provided valuable feedback.
Major improvement items that are recommended in the plan
are:
.
.
.
r
Rose Valley Water Treatment Plan- $48,282,373
for the Lakeview, West
Areas.
Service
Water
Kelowna Estates, Sunnyside and Pritchard
Transmission Mains-$3,000,000
o These projects interconnect the utilities and provide treated water meeting
Provincial Guidelines from the future treatment plant'
o This project would
provide treated water
Storage Deficiencies-$25,000,000
in the various
durations.
flow
water service areas to improve fire
Distribution Deficiencies-$3,000,000
o These projects would increase the available water flow during fire flow and
peak hour demand scenarios'
o
These projects would provide additional Water storage
The capital program and business plan was presented at an open house on May 21,
2014. Financíal õptions included building the water treatment plant in either 2015 or 2021.
Also, staff presenied the options of amalgamating the five utilities or keeping them separate.
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoptlon
Page 2 of
l0
319
online following the
Attendees were asked to fill out a survey, which was also available
house and the public input
open house. n summaiy àt tn" information þresented at the open
is attached in APPendixA'
Chanqes from Previouslv Presented Business Plqn
been moved forward from
recommended installatíon dates for the storage deficiencies have
This change required adjusted
the ten and twenty-Våãi.ãfitttptàn to the five-yeär.capitalplan'
the first five years will be as
for
deficiencies
storage
rate increases as tnã ãap¡iåi iosts tor the
follows:
ïhe
wlD
User Fee Funded
DGG Funded
$7,348,983
1
LID4DWK
User Fee Funded
DCC Funded
62,374,411
969
1
hydrant flows to
The upgrade in storage deficiencies will allow for an increase in fireallow
the District to
will also
accommodate increaseã fire protection requirements. The upgrade
utility Master Plan, instead
water
the
by
prioritize and improve the fire flows as recommended
various areas within West
develop
to
of increasing the fire flows as required to allow developers
see AppendixA'
house'
open
2014
Kelowna. These ctr"nges wer" pïusented at the May 21,
Options:
of west Kelowna's roadmap for
The water utility Master plan is intended to serve as the District
extends to 2032 and will
infrastructure improvãments. the pran has a pranning horizon that
upgrades
.r'ò;n future däcisions on the néed and timing of the required manner. intended to ensure
tfråt a safe and reliable water supply is delivered in a cost-effective
while maintaining
The water utility Master plan focuses on optimizing the capital requirements
the flexibility to adjust to a range of future planning outcomes.
staff is recommending that council approve the following approaches:
1.
That the water treatment plant is constructed in
2021 instead of 2016, and that Council approve
the capital cost recommended for the first five
the plan
yeart
-nas òf the plan. The capital cost forestimated
been amended to reflect
inflationarY costs.
Water Treatment Plan Construction Costs
zozt
Estimated Cost
Net Amount
borrowed - user
Rational for recgmmendation:
The 2016 and the 2021 water treatment plant
construction costs are estimates, it is
recognized that the actual amounts may vary'
The lifterence in total construction and debt
servicing costs between construction in 2016
and 20i1is 1.01%, this is not material enough
to make the decision on cost alone' The
benefits of delaying the construction to 2021
outweigh the 1.01% difference. The primary
benefits are:
zoi,ts 1
Construction Date
779
fee poftion
Total User Fee
portion of Debt
Servicing (25 Years)
Reserues
I
used
6'J,,276,7 28
55,900,827
61000,000
I
..
:TotalCost
728
Water Utility Master Plân - Adoption
Page 3 of 10
320
.
.
.
.
Ab¡l¡ty to upgrade the storage deficiencies throughout the District. New fire regulations
are further highlighting the deficiencies within the existing system.
lncreased fire protection due to increased water storage.
Allows sufficient time for proper piloting and design of the new treatment plant, including
a possible phased aPProach.
permits time to review the capacity requirements of the new and existing plant with more
cerlainty
.
.
Z.
as more data is
collected and furlher conservation approaches are
implemented.
Provides tìme for staff to seek grant funding oppoñunities'
Council will be able to make changes if recommendations in the Water Utility Master
Plan change.
Create a parent DWK Water Utility which to manage the five current West Kelowna water
utilities, which will be treated as subsidiaries.
Rational for recommendati-o.n
.
.
.
:
This recommendation recognizes the past capital investments in infrastructure of the five
water utilities. Each of the five water systems has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Each of the five utilities requires various capital upgrades to bring them up to the same
standards. Each upgrade requires an investment, which will be funded mostly from user
fees, and some DCC charges.
By adopting this recommendation, the five utilities will still have their own unique user fee
structure.
The implementation of the Water Utility Master Plan will require user fee and DCC increases to
fund thã capital projects per Appendix 81 and 82, The report includes a recommendation that
allthe rates andthe coriesponding charge structure be reviewed in 2015. This may result in a
new method of charging water clients.
The public was presented with the following example of what increases may look like if the
water treatment plant is built in 2021 or 2015.
Figure 1: Example Water Rate lncrease
combined)'
if
treatment plant built in 2021 (LlD and DWK have been
comparison of water Rate lncreases by system
wrP 2o2l'
29 oAVo
20.00tâ
1s.00%
10,00ç6
5.007;
f).00%
-5.rÛir'o
-10.00%
-15.00Yo
_*
% lncrêêsê
W|D/DWK/!ID --*tá
Inc.ease
WIO
inc.ease DIVK./LID
-96
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption
Page 4 of 10
321
plant built in 2021 (LlD
Figure 2: Example Water Rate lncreases by percentage if treatment
and DWK have been combined).
Year
o/o i
% lncrease
lncrease
WID/DWK/LID
wtD
iowr<¡Lto
t'74o/oi
1,44%,
2014'.
I
Y"
lncrease
L.67%
t9.44%.
2015:
t9.62%l
L9.86%i
2016:
g.o8%'
L1.84%i
7.06%',
20L7
5ss%
3.88%t
7.54%':
2018
10.87%.
L5.27o/o
7.63%,
20L9
2.O5%
3.s6%
O.86%'
2020,
1.24%i
t.oL%
L.43o/oi
2021
632%"
L.O2%l
LO.5g%:
2022
6.O3%'
2023
9.s7%i
t.o3%i
r.o4%i
16,o4%:
2024
8.23%'
L.O5%i
L2.48%'.
2025
4.490/o'
t.O|o/o
2026,
1.Ot%i
I.A6%¡
0.99%
2027;
O.76%t
L.a7%i
0.60%
2028'
-2.25%:
-tO.7to/oi
2.07ß/o'.
2029
L.08%,
o.o3%
t.680/o
2030
L.68o/ot.
1..72%
r.99%"
2031,
L.O5o/oi
o.67%
t.27%,
2032
L58%
0.92%
L.94o/o,
9.7!o/o:
6.32%:
1
(LlD and DWK
Figure 3: Example water Rate lncreases ¡f treatment plant built in 2015
have been combined)
Comparlsoñ of Water Ratg lncreases bySystêm WTP 2015
go.oo*
25,009(
¿q.00?6
15,0996
10.00?6
5r,0%
000t6
-5.00P/6
-r0,0096
-r5.00%
tote¿¡E
-16
W|D/DWr{UD
Ind€a5e
-96
wlÐ
lncr€ás€ DWIUD
-96
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption
Page 5 of 10
322
Figure 4: Water Rate lncrease by percentage
if
treatment plant built in 2015 (LlD and DWK
have been combined)
% lncrease
Year
: wto/Dwr/lto
¡
o/o
%
lncrease
lncrease
WID
D'.\
rlvLrD
20t4
!.44o/o
0.65%
r.70%
2015,
L8.55o/o
L9.86%
t7.58Yo
20L6',
t9.o4%
L1".84%
24.38%
2017i,
rs.27%
3.88%
22.88o/o"
70l:8'
L8.50%
ls.27%
20.32%i
:
2019,
7.67%
3.56%1
9.9O%ì
2024,
4.L7%
t.OLo/o:'
s.78%
2021
0.68%
L,OZTI,
o.sL%
2022
0.83%
L.O3%i,
0.74%
2023
0s3%
'J..O4%1
o.87%
2024
o.70%
1.05%r
os3%
2025
0.83%
1,05%i
2026
0.73%
1.06%1
I
.
0.72o/o
0s6%
!
o.82%
2027
o.9L%
t.OTYol
2028
-2.25%.
-tO.7Lo/ot,
2.A6%
t.o7%:
0.03%l
1,.67%
I
2029¡
,
L.67%i
2030i
t.L2%1
1s9%
I
203L'
o.6L%l
0.670/ot
O.57o/o
2032,
o.7r%i
0.92%.
0.58%
Proposed Parent Utilitv Backqround:
At the June
Bth
2010 meeting, Council officially recognized the uniqueness oflhe water systems
as
within the DWK boundarieõ and recommended that the WID and the LID be operated
being
utility
ságiegated funds, with revenue, expenses, assets, and liabilities for each
years, with Council
accounted for separaiàly. Corn"it s"i tfte segregat¡on period at three
rev¡ewing the utility fund segregation afterthat time.
seoreoatino the water utilities was not the most efficient method to operate an organization' At
tr.ã¡rì.," ãtt' z-oro meeting staff was tasked to provide a method which would eventually
consolidâte allwater systems in a fair manner.
This report provides a recommendation on how the water utilities may be combined'
West
Currengy the District of West Kelowna operates five water utility systems,,of which three,
LID
WID
and
two,
The
remaining
one.
as
treated
are
Prichard,
and
14åiornã Estates, Sunnyside
separated.
assets
and
profits,
reserves
the.net
keep
we
may
so
water systems are segiegated
West
For public Sector nccäuñting Board requirements, they are consolidated in the District of
Kelowna financial statements at year end.
At the June 8th, 2010 Council Meeting, Council adopted:
THAT Council direct staff to establish three water utility funds; and
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption
Page 6 of l0
323
THAT these funds be established for a period of three years; and
THAT after three years
a
report be submitted
to
Council with
an updated
recommendation; and further
of the Anders Hall/Park
THAT Council direct staff to undedake operations and bookings
effective JulY 1, 2010'
merging- them. into one utility
Staff is reviewing the water utilities with the intent of eventually
by Council on September
while maintaining the foib;int cuiding Principles which were adopted
process:
iZ., ZoOg and arð to be adhered to throughout the transition
1.
31, 2010, unless mutually
Dissolution of the lrrigation Districts will take place on December
agreed to by the DWK and theWlD and/or the LID'
(Completed)
of the lrrþation District(s)
2, Early transfer (i.e. prior to December 31, 2010) of some aspectsbeneficial
to the lrrigation
business(es) to the DWK will be pursued where deemed
District(s) and the DWK.
(Completed)
owned by the lrrigation Districts-, including buildings, equipment,
r9!e.Rayer9 of the
materials and land will be maintained tJ tne benefit of the respectiveremains with
3. All assets currently
all debt
service areas of the WtD and the LID through to dissolution. Likewise,
the respective lrrigation Districts.
(adhere to)
4.
DWK Council.in accordance
After dissolution, each lrrigation Districtwill be governe! by the
applicable legislation'
with the Cor*Lnlii Cní,t"r, the Local Govelnment Act and other
(adhere to)
ju.risdiction of the
that each of the existing water utilities currently under the
of treatment,
DWK, WID and LID are unique in-terms of the water source, level
District(s)
lrrigation
Any'changes made to any aspect of the
administration
(as
all
involved
to
"noJin"nce.
w¡ll be undertaËen in a fair and equitable manner
through tne 'trans¡t¡oÁ;,
recommended)'
(Adhere to)
5. lt is recognized
to ensure the proper and efficient
6. lt is recognized that staff are a critical resource
Districts... Staff will be treated fairly and in
management and operation of the lrrigation
labou.r law with respect to
accordance wiir.r 1'ê applicable colleciive Agreement(s) and
will be pursued where
successorsn¡p. opóorti.,i'tit¡"s for an early lra_nsition of staff
District(s) and the
lrrigation
appropriate ano oèãmed in the best intereáts of the staff, the
DWK.
(ComPleted)
7.
issues including
The parties agree to cooperate and develop a transition plan to address
at the earliest
issues
other
and
bylaws,
staffing, disposition of assets, harmonizatión of
possible date.
(Gompleted)
Water UtilitY Master Plan - AdoPtion
Page 7 of l0
324
B. Any costs incurred for the planning and implementation of the 'transition' of the
lrrigation
Districts to the DWK will be funded,
a. firstly, from the transition funds received from the Province;
secondly, if necessary, by the DWK, WID and LID in a fair and equitable
manner.
(Gompleted)
b.
Statf is recommending that a new water utility be created which will adhere to guiding
principles three and fiúe. The new water utility will be called DWK Water System, which
woutd be classified as the parent company and will manage the current water utilities. The
DWK Water System would be controlled by Council, and would manage the current water
systems as if they were subsidiaries.
The parent company would:
a.
lmmediately take over the operation of the three DWK systems, including all assets and
reserves.
b.
Employ all water utility employees, currently the staff is budgeted by water utility.
c. All new assets
installed in the water systems would be capitalized in the DWK
water system.
d.
The water rates will be comprised of four components;transmission, reserve, operating
and administration. All but the transmission revenue would go to the DWKwater system.
The net profits from the transmission revenue would be segregated and may be
used much like a dividend payment in private enterprise. However, instead of
receiving a cheque, customers may receive a credit on their account, or the profits
could bã used to increase reserves if required. This approach would ensure water
service areas maintain the benefits of their respective systems, as they paid for capital
construction costs.
COUNCIL REPORT/RESOLUTION
Date
2010-06-08
HI STORY:
Report Topic/Resolution
THAT Council direct staff
funds; and
Resolution No.
to
establish three water utility
c309/10
THAT these funds be established for a period of three years;
and
THAT after three years, staff submit a report for Council's
consideration of various options going forward; and further
2010-09-14
THAT Council direct staff to complete the transition of the
operations of the Anders Hall/Park and lssler Park effective
Julv 1, 2010
the proposal process to c431110
THAT Council direct staff to
retain qualified, professional consultants to prepare a Master
Water Þlan for the District of West Kelowna, based on the
Terms of Reference appended to this report.
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption
Page I of 10
325
201 -05-10
20 3-04-23
I
to execute an
and C
the
Council a
ng servlces
for
consulti
td
L
Canada
agreeme nt with AECOM
of One
ount
am
e
in
th
for the Water Util ity Master Plan,
 Hundred Dol lars
On
Thousand
Hundred and Seve nty Two
($172,100.00).
T Council endorse the 20 13 Water Master
ic
Plan
c174An3
Outreach Program; and
THAT Gouncil direct staff to draft a Terms of Reference for
the Public outreach steering committee for consideration at
the May 14,2013 Council meeting.
for t
Terms of
2013-05-14 THAT Council endorse
Committee'
Steering
Outreach
Public
Plan
Master
Water
c170113
to
c072114
2014-01-28 THAT Council d irect staff to take the Water Master
Public open house; and
THAT Council direct staff to bring back the results of the
public open house along with the recommended water fees'
2014-02-11
Council
outlined in the
a decision on the water system structure
Water Master Plan until after the public
c101
4
consultation
r
2014-08-12 THAT Counci defer conside rati on of the Water uti ity Maste
neral
Ge
red
h¡
newly
ct's
Pla n pe nd ing revtew by the Distri
report back
M anager of En g tneen n g and Publi c Works with
to Council bY October 31,2014.
Ft
c317114
NANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
the Municipal
funding to pay for the capital projects will have !o be borrowed from
to fund the
bylaw
borrowing
Finance'Association. Council will ultimåtely have to adopt a
DCCs'
various projects. The debt servicing will be collected from user fees and
ïhe
require
As recommended above, the implementation of the Water Utility Master Plan will
is
utilities
water
user fee and DCC increases. The recommended rate increase for the
includes a
iequireO to fund the capital projects per Appendix 81 and 82' The report
charge structure be reviewed in
recommendation that ail itre rates and ìh"
"orresponding
2015; this may resutt in a new method of charging our clients.
Watet Utility Master Plan - Adoption
Page
I
of
l0
326
ALTERNATE MOTIONS:
THAT Gouncil postpone consideration of the Water Utility Master Plan adoption
RespectfullY submitted,
Allen Fillion
General Manager of Engineering & Public Works
h
Officer
Engineering Manager
Attachments:
.
Appendix A
- Water Master
Plan Survey and Results
'AppendixBl_scheduleofcapitalProjectsbyYearLakevieWDWK
of Capital Projects by Year Westbank
.
.
Appendix 82 - Schedule
Appendix C - WID/LlD Amalgamation
-
Council Report
H:\2010 shared Files\R-2o14-OCT28 - Water utility Master Plan - Adoption.Docx
Water Utility Master Plan - Adoption
Page 10 of 10
327
Appendix B
\ Esr
INFORMATION ONLY COUNCIL REPORÏ
Community Services
For the November 12,2013 Council Meeting
I(ËICIWNIA
7,2013
File No. 5600-16
DATE:
November
TO:
Jason Johnson, CAO
FROM:
Michael Trickey, Consultant, Strategic I nfrastructure Management I nc (SlM)
Rob Hillis, Engineering Supervisor
RE:
Water Master Plan Steering Committee Update
BACKGROUND:
Chronoloov of Committee Activities
The foflowing chronology presents the progress made in preparing the draftWater Master Plan
(WMP) for public consultation and recommendations to Council:
o
.
Council appoints WMP Steering Committee (S/C) on May 29113.
Summery of S/C actions:
Meets with lHAforwater quality requirements.
Reviews WMP details with WMP Consultant.
Requests that additional options be included to address agriculturaltwinning and
water conservation.
Develops option evaluation criteria and weightings, and ranks options.
Process and options presented to key District stakeholders: AgriculturalAdvisory
Committee, Urban Development lnstitute, and Chamber of Commerce.
Two open houses conducted and public feedback forms provided.
Progress update to Council and request to take options to public open houses.
Open house material and feedback form posted on District website.
Public feedback compiled.
S/C reviews public feedback, selects prefened options.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Public Feedback
Based upon Council direction, public open house materials were developed that provided an
overview of the WMP analysis process, financial and non-financial option evaluation criteria,
option ranking and selection. Figure 1 presents a summary of the options and Figure 2 presents
a summary of the option evaluation scores.
Wâter Master Plan Steering Committee Update
llPage
328
Figure
l:
Summary of allWMP Options
Description
Options
ValleyTreatment/ Pump Station Upgrades for Filtration Deferral
1
Rose
2
Rose Valley Treatment
3
Rose Valley
4
Rose Val I ey Treatment, I ntercon ne cl
5
Rose Va I I ey Treatme nt
6
Expand WID
7
Current system
/ nterconnect
I
/ No Okanagan Lake
Treatment/ lnterconnect
/
/
I
nte rcon
lnterconnect
/
|
n
/
ec t
85% Agriculture Twi
| 3}o/oAgri cu lt u ra
I
n ni
Twi
ng
nn
i
ng
8,S%Agriculture Twinning/ Defer Rose Valley
lncrease Okanagan Lake Water/ Defer Rose Valley
Figure 2: WMP Option Evaluation
Evaluation
Criteria
Criteria
Weighting
System Operational Ease & Flexibility
25%
0;4 2.4.
22
1.3
1.3
L,4
1.0
Emergency Preparedness
25%
o.4
2.4
1.1
1.6
1.3
L.2
2.O
5%
0.1
0.4
o.z
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
25o/o
0.7
2.r 0.8 2.1
1.9
0.9
1.5
5Yo
0.5
0.3
0.4 0.2
CI.2
0.2 0,3
L0%
4.2
0.8
0.4 0.9
0.8
0.6 0.5
5%
0.2
0.3
a.2 0.4
0.3
0.3
LOO%
2.4
8.6
5.3
6.9
6.1
4.8 6.0
Raw Water Quality lmpacts on
Treated Water
Reliability & Availability of Supply
Ease
of lmplementation
Future Expansion
Envi ron mental,l
Totals
mpacts
0.4
For the open houses, all options were presented so that the public could see the full breadth of
the analyses and not imagine any gaps in option selection. Open houses then presented greater
detail around preferred options: 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Figure 3 presents a summary of preferred options with their associated 20 year capital and
operating costs, and the capital costs include 40o/o for engineering and contingency.
Water Master Plan Steering Committee Update
2lPage
329
Figure 3: Preferred Options and Costs
Option
Capital
Operating
ror
¡vl
S s.go wl
sls4M
5 o,zs tvl
$
S
rz¿
n¿
S
s.7o M
Based upon the WMP open house storyline and analyses, attendees were asked to complete a
feedback form. Because of the low attendance at the open houses, the open h.ouse po$er
boards and feedback form were posted on the District website between October 7th and 27h to
capture additional responses (see Appendix A).
A summary of public feedback coverage is presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Public Response Coverage
Question I
What water service area are you currently in?
Lakeview
Pritchard
Sunnyside
Westbank
WestKelowna
Response
Total
o/o
of lbtal
Survey
o/o
of Total
Connections
Open
House
Survev
Online
Survey
7
11
18
31.07o
0
I
1
1.7o/o
1.3o/o
3
I
3
Responses
3
o
11
6
18
14
39.370
10.30/o
10.6a/o
31.4o/o
43.5o/o
24.1o/o
10.5olo
ln all areas except West Kelowna Water Service Area, the percentage of responses collates
well to the percentage of water connections.
Water Master Plan Steering Committee Update
3lPage
330
Based upon the information provided, respondents identified the following preferences:
84o/o responded that water system reliability is of High importance'
81o/o responded that water quality is of High importance.
52o/o responded that drought tolerance is of High importance.
360/o responded that drought tolerance is of Medium importance.
45o/o responded that future water system investments were of High importance.
45o/o responded that future water system investments were of Medium importance
Preferred option breakdown:
43o/o of respondents selected Option 2;
10% of respondents selected Option 4;
5o/o of respondents selected Option 5;
19o/o of respondents selected Options 6; and
12o/o of respondents selected 'other' (see Appendix A).
o
.
.
.
¡
.
¡
o
o
o
o
o
WMP S/C Becommendations
At the final WMP S/C meeting on November 4, 2013, Committee members
discussed
recommendations to Council. Figure 5 presents a summary of the preferred options as selected
by the Committee.
Figure 5: WMP S/C Preferred Option Eummary
PrioriW
Option
2
1
Prioritv 2
Prioritv 3
4andG
4
Priority {. Option 2: Rose Valley Treatment / lnterconnect.
Priority 2. Option 6: Expand WID I lnterconnect I 85o/o Agriculture Twinning / Defer Rose
Valley; or
priority 3. Option 4: Rose Valley Treatment, lnterconnect l85o/o Agriculture Twinning
Committee member comments included:
Option 2 has the highest level of operation effectiveness; it is mostly gravity supply and
only requires pumping in drought conditions. lt is the most cost effective to operate and
will provide redundancY.
Option 2 is the best system for this scenario. lt's a duplicate system and not a lot of
pumping would be required.
Option 6 as agricultural twinning should happen (however not sure that it should be
AS"lr). There'á not enough information on twinning now, so not sure of the benefit. Need
better costing information.
Option 2 offers multiple sources, This option has the best chance of responding to
emergency situations (with the option to interconnect)'
.
o
.
.
Water Master Plan Steering Committee Update
4lPage
331
The WMP S/C Committee also provided the following implementation ideas:
.
¡
¡
Commence WMP improvements starting with the $50 million worth of proposed
investment that are common to all options;
Monitor metered water use over the next 5 years, and then update the WMP as
necessary. This approach will help clarify the level of water treatment required and
provide the District time to ascertain whether agricultural twinning can be funded in
whole or in part by DCCs;
Actively promote and/or enforce water conservation across the District.
NEXT STEPS:
The fullWater Master Plan, including financial implications, will be brought forward for Councíl
consideration no later than the first meeting in January, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
H
P
Engineering Supervisor
Consultant
Strategic I nfrastructure
)
lnc.
for Agenda
{
I
cAo
Attachments:
Appendix A - Open House Feedback Summary
H:\COUNC|L\STAFF REPORTS (REG[Corporate SeMces\2o13\R201]NOV-12
Updâtê.doo(
MasterWater Plan-Steering Commlttee
Water Master Plan Steèring Committee Update
SlPage
332
APPENDIX A - OPEN HOUSE FEEDBACK SUMMARY:
Open House - Thurs. Sept. 26 - 15 attendees, 11 completed surveys
Open House - Mon. Sept. 30 - 11 attendeês, 11 completed surveys
Online Survey - Mon. Oct. 7 -20,35 completed surveys
TotalSurveys Completed - 57
.
.
.
.
Open House Survev
Lakeview
Pritchard
Sunnyslde
Westbank
West Kelowna
10
\)
I
Ooen House Survev
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
No Opinion
17
5
0
0
0
Open House Survev
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
No Opinion
21
1
0
0
0
Open House Survev
Hígh
14
Medium
4
Low
3
0
0
Very Low
No Opinion
Online Survey
7
0
3
Total
17
1
1
3
o
6
1B
11
14
Online Survey
Total
30
47
3
0
0
I
1
1
0
0
Online Survev
28
Total
49
4
2
3
2
0
0
Online Survey
16
16
1
0
0
Total
30
20
4
1
1
0
0
Water Master Plan Sieering Committee Update
6lPage
333
Online
House
High
9
Medium
Low
Very Low
11
NoO
on
I7
1
0
nion
1
I
1
0
0
0
1
1
13
NoO nion
1
House Su
Option
Option
Option
Option
Other
2
11
4
1
5
6
0
4
1
33
7
14
Total
Online S
15
3
No
Total'
Online
14
6
n House
Yes
4
2
19
No
No
26
25
1
House Su
Yes
Total
U
24
39
7
3
10
4
Total
Online Su
14
5
3
7
5
25
6
3
11
6
Open House Survey Results:
.
.
r
.
.
.
.
.
r
¡
a
Option 2 - Best bang for the buck
We think these options (Options 2 & 4) will provide the best water by way of
1. Longevity
2. Good production if problems occur in a particular area
3. Cost effectiveness
Option 2 - Offers redundancy, flexible timetable
Can't pick an option at this time, more data required
Unsure at this time, need to study options in more detail
Other - Stop spending large amounts of money on changes to the systems. Stop
population growth so that costs can be decreased
Option 2 - Future expansion. Not including agriculture twinning. Consolidating resources
Option 2 - Straight forward, interconnect for one system. No need for separate ag feed
as ag land decreases and district becomes more urban
Option 2 - Appeared to come out with highest score
Option 2 - No water taken from the lake until there is a "major" drought - 50 year
drought - pure mountain water mixed with contaminated lake water is not to my taste!!!
of1to3
on: After a
Not sufficient info - unreasonable uestion
Wâter Master Plan Steering Comm¡ttee Updaie
TlPage
334
.
r
.
¡
r
.
collecting performance info, tuning up systems (5), consider a 3-person review of
alternative. This review at a high level technical level to add confidence to submit to
Gouncil for decision.
Option 2 - Appears to be the most saleable to homeowners. The best of all worlds.
District needs to look into cisterns (water storage) of rain water and taking every
opportunity to tap into underground streams. Golf courses water with non-potable water,
why not agricultural areas?
Option 6 - Comply with IHA requirement sooner and time to better to collect more data
with review after three years
Option 6 - Ag is important and needs to be separate from potable water
Option 6 - Meets our needs best
Option 6 - This option will provide quality water in a timely manner to most of West
Kelowna. lt also provides time to better define the Rose Valley WTP requirement (size
etc.)
Option 2 - Seemed the most cost effective solution to the water supply in the future for
the areas involved
Option 2 - Most cost effective
Online Survey Results:
o
.
o
.
.
r
.
.
.
¡
¡
.
.
r
Other - No opinion
Option 2 - Most cost effective option
Option 2 - Least cost to me, when it would not benefit me in any way.
Option 2 - Not opposed to agricultural twinning; however, resídential should not be
paying for it. lt is heavily subsidized already but residential users. Ag users need to
start paying their share. Any improvements to LlD, and DWK systems should be paid for
by their users. WID users do not want to pay for improvements to other systems as
we've already paid (by ourselves) for the WID improvements.
Option 5 - Seems to be best all round value/cost for improvement outlined.
Option 2 - The twinning of the agricultural system seems a waste and adds costs that
are not paid for by the people that would most benefit from them.
Other - Put in a new uplands storage pipeline supply - Flexible interconnection with
1/5th the overall cost with a 50 year plan
Option 4 - I think the upgrades should be on the Rose Valley system and leave the
Westbank irrigation alone, other than maybe eventually twinning for agriculture. I
strongly oppose paying for any more upgrades as we in the WD have already paid our
share and the other districts should pick up their own costs. lmproving the other water
supply systems is up to the people using ihem!
Option 4 - I like the lower operating costs, offset slightly by the higher upfront capital
investment, which is eligible for provincial grants. The interconnect system is a must, in
my opinion, as is the treatment plant for a water service area of our size. The capital
costs should and must be shared equally been utility billing charges for existing and new
users, development cost charges and possibly higher property taxes.
Other - water color & odor is lacking in the spring & fall; often get the odor of chlorine
from the water.
Option 2 - Seems to be the best treatment option for the capitaloutput.
Option 2 - IHA 4321is an over kill, a little turbidity never hurt anyone, option 2 addresses
IHA's standards, we can't afford twinning irrigation lines.
Option 6 - Larger more reliable supply
Other - None of the above
Water Master Plan Steering Committee Update
SlPage
335
a
Option 6 - WID seems to be the most up to date water treatment plant we have. We
should therefore put more money into that plant to use it to its fulf capacity.
Option 6 - Water Master Plan presentation information from pages 11-15.
Option 6 - Best water quality at lowest cost - remove Okanagan Lake supply and no
sense irrigating orchards with treated water.
Option 2 - lt makes sense to me to have 80% of the residential users using the higher
treatment levels afforded by both a Rose Valley Treatment upgrade along with the
existing Westbank system. An interconnect always makes sense in case of something
going wrong with one of the major systems. Maintaining our three sources of supply
makes better sense than eliminating the lake as a source. I am sort of indifferent
regarding the twinning for agricultural purposes whether it be 30% or 85%. I suppose
that could be done at some later time if costs warrant.
Option 2 - We have dirty water frequently and have to use our private filter system for
drinking water.
Option 2 - Seems to provide a balance between improving water quality, ensuring long
term water sustainability and cost.
Option 2 - The cost might be more acceptable to Westbank residents although most of
them having already contributed to an upgraded system will perhaps be not in favour of
subsidizing other areas problems, problems they should have addressed like we did (by
ourselves).
Option 6 * Over all best.
a
Option 2
a
a
a
a
ra
a
a
a
a
- Our water quality has been going down every year, We have been on
Lakeview (water) for nearly 20 years and this is the worst it has ever been. We deserve
filtered and treated water as the rest of the Ðistrict. ls not the price the same for all, and
we get an inferior product?
Option 4 - Most bang for the dollar, with the most growth. I am concerned with the 40%
Engineering and Contingency? also noting 19.5% unaccounted for ADD...what maybe
we should be able to account for this amount 19.5% is huge.
Option 2 - There's no point to putting off construction of a treatment plant, because it will
only cost more in the future. There is a large watershed available for capturing water for
the northern half of West Kelowna, so it makes sense to use it, rather than relying on the
watershed to the south to serve the entire community, As long as West Kelowna makes
it a
a
priority to keep the lands around Rose Valley Reservoir undeveloped, it's an
excellent source of clean water. lt's also important to keep tabs on activity in the upper
watershed, though. lt's also the cheapest option. Twinning is outrageously expensive.
Other - No Opinion - Travelling since late august didn't access materials. Against
cadillac system and costs, resent how much water we pour on wineries, do not consider
grapes to be food supply, resent special water deals for agriculture and especially large
commercialwi
Water Master Plan Steering Committee Update
9lPage
336
Appendix C
Wqter Rqles Sludy:
COUNCIL MEETING
July 26th,2OL6
337
Meeti ng Ob¡ective
input qnd direction on the
updqtes to the water rate structure to inform
the draft report and recommendations to the
City's Fees and Chqrges bylaw
To receive Council's
338
Council's Priorit ze d Rqle Setti ng
Pri nciples
o
Revenue StabilitY
Equity
Affordability
Conservation
Simplicity
)
Easy
for customer to understand
339
Whqt We Heqrd
Water Master Plan
Operations and Maintenance
plant is built in 2022
Capital
ch a rge
Agricultura I Customers
1)
2l
Existing rate subsidization split (consumptio n = 24%o while revenue = 2%)
Agricultural users do not pay for treatment & f¡re storage
340
Rqte Componenls
Types of Expenses
Typical Funding Mechanisms
identified in the 20L4 master plan (transmission, storage,
distributioh, treatment and fire protection)
341
User Chqrge Rqte Structure
(excluding qgriculturql users )
Fixed + Consumption Charge
S-
consu mption (revenue stabilitY)
o
E
J
(n
c
connection (equity)
o
unit (conservation)
o
U
P
{r>
G'
1t-,
t-o
Fixed Charge
uniformly with volume used
(conservation)
Volume of Water
Consumed
342
cqp ¡r ql Chqrge
10 Year Capital Requirements
Westbank
L0 Year Capital
Req u irements
Debt Servicing
*
5tt,l87 ,967
$t,660
Lakeview
523,68
0,426
City of West
Kelowna
S19,
r39,r72
,322 St,+S3,056 5t,t1q,400
Total
55+,607 ,565
54,293,778
*Note: Debt servicing payment includes existing WID principal and
interest payments
special charge
)
Assumed costs to be amortized over 20 years by service area aL2.6%
(current MFA rate)
343
User Chqrge qnd Cqpitql Chqrge
(excl uding qgric ullurq I users)
User Charge: Fixed Charge (Funds
Operation and Maintenance)
#of
Monthly
Meter Size Customer
l_.5"
2"
3"
4"
.
.
Meter Size
Westbank
CWK
Lakeview
Charge
s
=< ltt
Capital Charge (Funds Capital Projects Amortized
over 20 years)
LO,642 s
74
s
81
s
15
s
6
s
24.78
55.75
99.10
222.98
396.4L
6"
4
S
89 L.93
gtt
0
s
1,585.65
tgt. tg
S330.99
Stqq.tz
5t,3zE.gl
5z,glg.gz
Ss,e ss.++
Ss,zgs.gg
itz,lz+.lq
Stt,gts.lz
s22,62t.76
S21,183.50
s4gg.67
S3s3.aG
t
Szgs.go
2"
St,gs+.og
St,+t9.86
3"
S+,ggg.o+
Sg,
4"
6t'
5l,gtg.lq.
itl ,sgz.tg
gtt
SEt,zlq.gg
=<1tt
L.5"
S
t,ogg.
s
Consumption Charge = SO.ZS /m3
Excess revenues from 2OI7-2022 placed into a reserve to offset future borrowing
344
Melered Residentiql Rqte Compqrison
Service Area
Lakeview - Existing
User
Charge*
Capital Charge Total
5270
Szto
Lakeview - Proposed 5400
CWK - Existing
$gso
CWK - Proposed
s4oo
Westbank - Existing
Ssro
Westbank - Proposed 5400
s331
$zsr
$3so
s48e
Sssg
Ss
Sgsg
ro
s7s3
Penticton
SqqE
Sq+z
Greater Vernon
Sszo
Sszo
Lake Country
Ssg r
Sag
Peach la nd
Sso+
s3e7
r
Stot
*Notes: Assumes 355m3 per yea r (-29m3/month) and less than
inch connection
1
345
Agriculturql Rqte Struclure
Consumption Charge (Minimum Allotment + Surcharge)
)
S-
(u
E
J
(n
c
o
(J
unit (conservation)
Price to consumer increases
uniformly with volume used
(conservation, €guity)
Minimum
Allotment
increases above the property
o
P
Itn-
allotment (conservation)
Co
1l-,
.o
F
Volume of Water
Consu med
346
o
Agriculturql Rqte OPI lons
Consumption Charge OPtions
Option 1: Existing Rate
allotment (not currently being applied)
Option 2z Full cost of service (not including treatment
or fire protection)
o pt¡on 3: Council preference
Su rcha
rge ove r al lotment
347
a
Agriculturql Rqte C ompqnson
Equivalent
Charge*
Service Area
Allotment
(m3)
1
S
150/Acre
2,778
CWK - Option 2
S
153o/Acre
2,778
GEID
Srcz/ncre
SEKI D
Sgg/ncre
2,778
BMID
Sgg/ncre
N/A
Greater Vernon Water
S
toglRcre
2,024
Penticton
$Ms/ncre
N/A
mata
5zG4/Acre
N/A
CWK
N a ra
-Option
N/A
*Based on a 72ïmmlaue application rate, not including
any consumption su rcharges
348
Nexl Steps
L. Draft report
2. Public consultation and
com m u n ication recom mendations
3. Bylaw recommendations
4. Water conservation recom mendations
5. Final report
349
User Chqrge: The Fixed Chorge
Fixed charge is based on meter size
system demand
- more cost
Meter Size
Equivalent
Connections
=<1tt
1.0
1.5tt
2.3
2"
4.0
3tt
9.0
4"
16.0
o
Fll
36.0
gt'
64.0
Area = 4x
Diameter: t"
Area:3 square inches
Diameteri 2"
Area: !2.5 square inches
350
User Chqrge: Fixed Cosl vs. Vqriqble
Cosl
Relqtionship
s4s.oo
So
$¿o.oo
c s3s.oo
o
So. ro
E
So.zo
P
<.1>
o
bo
t(o
L)
E
o
.x
lJ-
Sgo.oo
So.go q
J
So.+o d,
s2s.oo
s2o.oo
S
rs.oo
so.so
s
Lo.oo
so.60
Ss.oo
so.70
so.so
s-
0% rc% 20% 30% 40% s0% 60% 70% 80% 90% Laj%
351