Implementation of the Joint Operations Plan

1. Implementation of the Joint Operations Plan Regionalization of the WaterResource Rationalization Carol Bryck Capstone Project Executive Masters of Public Administration Portland State University Advisor: Dr. Craig Shinn

2. Joint Operations Plan (JOP) • The JOP is an agreement between: • Clackamas River Water (CRW) • North Clackamas County Water Commission (NCCWC) • South Fork Water Board (SFWB) • Purpose: • Effective and efficient use of the water resource for the benefit of all customers • Timeline: • Signed July 2001 • Not implemented

3. Provisions of the JOP • Optimizing the use of all three plants and major pump stations • Optimizing power consumption • Facilitating expanded use of gravity flows and reservoir use • Increasing coordination among the plants

4. Clackamas River Basin • 974 square miles of watershed: • Water flow • Timothy Lake – up river storage • Dams/water flow/hydroelectric • Demands: • Water demands within the JOP participants • Residential/domestic • Industrial • Agricultural

5. See if Mike can make an electronic map showing four WTPs and city and district boundaries.

7. Why is this important? • Public Benefit • Availability of Water - a limited resource • Cost effective provision of necessary resource • Potential increased equitable rate structures • Water Provider Benefits • Cost savings on operations • Delay of high capital cost of infrastructure • Efficient and effective operation

8. Water Flows - with Trend Line

9. Water Demands

10. Capital Cost of Expansion • Capital cost for plant capacity expansion estimated from $2 to $5 per gallon • 5 million gallons per day would cost $10 million to $25 million • Estimated annual debt payment for $25 million bond • 20 year debt - $1.8 million per year • Evenly distributed to affected wholesale and retail customers $2 to $3/month for the next 20 years

11. Current Rates with Additional Cost of Capital SFWB NCCWC

12. Effect on Public • Rate comparison doesn't include potential cost increases for costs above debt coverage such as: • Other capital projects for replacement of aging infrastructure; • Utilities, chemicals, other materials • Personnel costs • medical insurance coverage, • PERS rates, • COLA increases per contracts,

13. JOP • INTERESTS • CRW – optimal plant operation, protection of territory boundaries and meeting water needs of customers – retail and wholesale • NCCWC – optimal plant operation and delivery of water to SWA, Oak Lodge and Gladstone • SFWB – optimal plant operation and delivery of water to Oregon City (current and future) and West Linn (current and future) • All – sufficient revenue to cover all fixed and variable costs • All – alternative source(s) of water if Clackamas River is compromised

14. Implementation • Meeting those interests – cooperation and a regional/rational approach to water production and delivery • Governance • Sharing resources to the benefit of all participants • Sharing technical expertise across region • Management of each entity as a partner with the other two

15. Leadership • Eliminate US versus THEM attitude • Partner on acquisition of alternative water connections/sources • Evaluate available expertise and partner for specialized services • Hydraulic Modeling • Information Technology • Lab services • GIS

16. Joint Operations • Overall benefits of big picture thinking include: • Stewardship of the watershed and all users including: • Lake Oswego-Tigard • Estacada • City of Milwaukie and Rockwood PUD (on wells) • Reduced rate increases for customers – greater customer satisfaction • Delayed capital construction costs – particularly at the water treatment plants • Utilization of expertise without having to hire out – use the expertise available at any of the entities

17. Joint Operations Questions?

18. Acknowledgements • My Family – no housework since September 2011 • My cohort – the most amazing and brilliant group I have ever been associated with • All of the Professors • My advisor – Thank you Dr. Shinn