Water Partnerships Which best describes your role? A. I work for a - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Water Partnerships

Which best describes your role? A. I work for a water 55% u;lity B. I work for an 30% organiza;on that 15% advises water u;li;es C. Other I work for a water utility I work for an organization th.. Other Data from informal poll of approximately 40 water system managers

What is your role in your organiza;on? A. Technical 54% B. Financial C. Managerial D. Other 27% 12% 8% Data from informal poll of approximately Technical Financial Managerial Other 40 water system managers

How long have you worked in this role? (In total, at all organiza;ons you may have worked at.) A. Less than 5 years 38% B. Between 5 and 15 33% 29% years C. More than 15 years Between 5 and 15 years Less than 5 years More than 15 years Data from informal poll of approximately 40 water system managers

What is your sex? A. Male B. Female 52% 48% Data from informal poll of approximately 40 water system managers Male Female

Does your organiza;on have a reserve fund sufficient to cover unexpected cost increases in a given year without leading to a rate increase (choose 1) A. Less than 10% of 27% 27% normal yearly costs 23% 23% B. Between 10% and 30% of normal yearly costs C. More than 30% of normal yearly costs Less than 10% of normal yea... More than 30% of normal ye... Don’t Know Between 10% and 30% of n... D. Don’t Know Data from informal poll of approximately 40 water system managers

Pre-Survey Transfer of treated water between water u;li;es is a way of ensuring that u;li;es have sufficient water during periods of drought. The following ques;ons are meant for us to beYer understand your prior knowledge of water transfer agreements between u;li;es.

How familiar are you with water transfers between water u;li;es, on a scale of 1 to 5? (1 “not at all familiar”, 5 “very familiar”) A. 1 “Not at all familiar” 31% B. 2 “A liYle bit 24% 21% familiar” 14% C. 3 “Moderately 10% Familiar” D. 4 “Familiar, but not an expert” 1 “Not at all familiar” 4 “Familiar, but not an expert” 2 “A little bit familiar” 3 “Moderately Familiar” 5 “Very Familiar” E. 5 “Very Familiar” Data from informal poll of approximately 40 water system managers

Other than for emergency purposes, has your water u;lity ever bought or sold water to another u;lity in the past? A. Yes 77% B. No C. Don’t Know 18% 5% Data from informal poll of approximately Yes No Don’t Know 40 water system managers

Based on what you know about transfers, what are the pros and cons of transfer agreements for your par;cular u;lity?

How recep;ve would you be to having a drought plan that required you to rely on transfers as part of your drought management strategy, (either buying or selling) on a scale from 1 to 5? (1 “not at all recep;ve”, 5 “extremely recep;ve”) A. 1 “Not at all 38% recep;ve” B. 2 “Would rather not 25% rely on any 17% 17% transfers” 4% C. 3 “A liYle recep;ve” D. 4 “Recep;ve” 1 “Not at all receptive” 3 “A little receptive” 4 “Receptive” 5 “Very Receptive” 2 “Would rather not rely on a.. E. 5 “Very Recep;ve” Data from informal poll of approximately 40 water system managers

The Jordan Lake Partnership: Interlocal Coopera7on for a Sustainable and Secure Water Supply Don Greeley 2016 Water and Wastewater Finance Workshop February 9, 2016

Historic Droughts NC Drought Monitor

Nov. 2007 Image credit: hYps://www.sercc.com/drought

• Mutual need to reduce drought risk • Economies of scale • Technical constraints (one more intake allowed; limited sites) • Streamline the approval process • Strength through partnerships

“We learned you have to work together – stop figh7ng wars. If you don’t, you will have other people deciding what happens in your ci7es and towns.” Wayne Hill, former Chair of GwinneY County, Georgia Commissioners, regional Chamber of Commerce event, Cary, NC, May 13, 2008

The Jordan Lake Partnership What is the Partnership? • Interlocal effort begun in 2009 to coordinate planning and further development of the regional water supply to meet future needs • Local government led ini;a;ve – demonstrate that local leadership can solve regional water planning challenges

Who are the Partners? Morrisville Apex Orange County Cary OWASA Chatham County PiYsboro Durham Raleigh Hillsborough Sanford Holly Springs Wake County

• Develop & maintain buy-in from all governing boards • Develop regional water supply plan • Submit coordinated Jordan Lake alloca;on requests to State • Explore op;ons for addi;onal facili;es to access Jordan Lake water supply • Coordinate with upstream & downstream stakeholders, state agency staff, and environmental groups

Accomplishments • Consensus approval of preferred regional soluAon • Coordinated Jordan Lake allocaAon requests • Phase I InterconnecAons Inventory • Interconnec;on Improvements • Chatham - Durham and Cary - Raleigh • Phase II Interconnec;ons Modeling complete in 2016 • Western Intake facility planning

Cost Sharing • Each Partner invests in overall Partnership • Investment in individual projects is op;onal • Cost share for most projects is not complex o Costs are based on size of the Partner o Typically 2-3 levels of costs for a project • Long term planning on cost share for large projects • Coordinated Jordan Lake alloca;on requests

• Plan future infrastructure investments • Western Intake, treatment and transmission facili@es • Regional interconnec@ons • Broaden focus of regional collabora;on • Emergency response planning • Water efficiency educa@on • Water shortage indicators • Planning for Triangle Water Partnership

www.jordanlakepartnership.org

The Big Mo’

Western Intake Study A shared intake will be more efficient and likely to obtain regulatory approval than individual intakes for each Partner Feasibility Study was completed in 2014 Conceptual level study evaluated the feasibility of a shared raw water intake for: Chatham, Durham, PiYsboro, OWASA Study Included: Evalua;on of three (3) alterna;ves: Review of Partnership op;ons Development of a conceptual level perminng and a construc;on schedule for the Preferred Alterna;ve

Wholesale Water Agreements Je ff Hughes Environmental Finance Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

What Would You Do? A small town purchases wholesale wastewater service from a neighboring community/town. The legacy contract requires the payment of double the large community retail rate. Rates have risen drama;cally and are approaching $150 per month for customers. And the small town has inflow and infiltra;on problems in their sewer system.

hYp://geocommons.com/maps/179148

Crating Successful Inter-local Agreements Available at hYp://efc.sog.unc.edu/ Format – Ques;ons to consider, descrip;ons, example text – Advice for genng inter-local agreements right, avoid pivalls – NOT drat contract – NOT every issue that will come up in every document

What are Issues you Discuss or Put Down in Wri;ng in your Inter-System Agreements? § Service area boundaries § Usage limits § Meter maintenance and ownership § Water quality § Capital costs § Resale or capacity § Water pressure § Communica;ons, service interrup;ons § Conserva;on status and measures … and more.

Begin with Service Areas Current boundaries Planned future boundaries Unserved areas Annexation Growth Process to change or expand boundaries in the future Extend whose lines to new areas? Service Area Maps

Capital Costs § How does the agreement assure that water suppliers receive adequate payment for use of their capital? § How does the agreement address what happens when facili;es need to be upgraded and expanded? § Does the agreement specify minimum purchase requirements?

Common Methods § Rolling capital costs into the commodity charge (with a minimum?) § An upfront capacity fee § A recurring capacity fee linked to reserved capacity or actual maximum purchase over a year § Purchaser assumes a percentage of seller’s debt service § Pass through retail customer impact fees

Examples 1: Capital Costs “At the occurrence of such capital improvements, should Monroe issue long-term debt to finance, in whole or part, its water and sewer u@lity capital improvement program, Monroe agrees to nego7ate with Union the terms and condi7ons of financing Union's share of the capital improvements to the WWTP, conveyance, and disposal facili7es providing allocated capacity to Union. ” (Union – Monroe)

Examples 2: Minimum Purchase Requirements “Town will bill the County monthly for the actual amount of water sold and delivered to it at the then applicable rate; provided however, the Town will bill and County will pay for a minimum quan7ty of 500,000 gallons per month regardless of whether or not the County actually uses such quan7ty .” (Chatham - Siler City) “ … the minimum daily volume shall be one million four hundred thousand (1,400,000) gallons per day .” (Halifax – Roanoke)

Determining Who Owns Unused Capacity? § All partners? § A seller? § A buyer? § Who shows use of it in 5, 10, 20 years?