Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 12/10/2001 PORT ANGELEB~ wa 9B362 DECEMBER 10~ 2nn 1 3:On P.M. .AGENDA m, P-ALL TO ORDER II. ROll r'~- AL L UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Port Angeles, Washington November 13,2001 I. Call to Order: Chair Pro Tern Doyle called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. II. Roll Call: Members Present: Mayor Doyle, Councilman Campbell, Allen Bentley, Councilman Williams (3:20) Members Absent: Dean Reed Staff Present: Michael Quiun, Craig Knutson, Glenn Cutler, Scott McLain, Gary Kenworthy, Larry Dunbar, Doyle McGinely, Cate Rinehart Others Present: Pete Grigorieff- Northland Cable Richard Li - Metropolitan Communications Consultants III. Approval of Minutes: Mayor Doyle was appointed Chair Pro Tem in the initial absence of both Chairman Reed and Vice Chairman Williams. Chair Pro Tem Doyle asked if there were any changes or additions to the agenda. Chair Pro Tem Doyle asked if there were any additions or corrections to the meeting minutes of October 8, 2001. None were given. Councilman Campbell moved to approve the minutes. Allen Bentley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV. Discussion Items: A. Cable TI~Franchise Renewal Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, gave a brief background, advised the City had been working with Northland Cable toward mutual goals, and had received a formal agreement from them. A formal studywas recently done on community needs and interests. A short discussion followed. No action taken. Information only. B. Amendment to I~holesale ~Fater Contract with Clallam County Public Utility District No. 1 Glen Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities, explained the contract expires December 21,2001 and an amendment is needed to provide for a seven percent increase. This is the last ora three year increase with a new study scheduled for next year. A brief discussion followed with concerns over the percentage. Staff advised Council had approved a three year increase of eight, eight, and seven percent. Allen Bentley moved to recommend City Council approve Amendment No. 6 to the Wholesale Water UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 13, 2001 Contract with Clallam County Public Utility District No. 1. Councilman Campbell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. C. Fiber Optic Pilot Project Status Report 4 Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, pointed out Report 3 included a delay due to private parties interested in building the project. It was felt it would be prudent to further delay the design work until March 2002 to negotiate and consider proposals. A discussion followed with concerns expressed over multiple cable placement on City utility poles. Councilman Campbell moved to delay the fiber optic pilot project schedule until March of 2002 to allow additional time to prepare and negotiate proposals. Allen Bentley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. V. Late Items: Morse Creek Update Scott McLain, Deputy Direct6r of Power Systems, reviewed the permit process to perform pipeline repairs and indicated the comparison between lease versus sale would be available soon. No action taken. Information only. VII. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held December 10, 2001 at 3:00 p.m VIII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Mayor Doyle, Chair Pro Tem Cate Rinehart, Administrative Assistant 11/16/01 N:~PWKS~LIGHT~CONS\CATE~nov 13rneet.wpd WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: December 10, 2001 TO: UTIL1TY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Yvonne Ziomkowski, Finance Director RE: Adjustment to Daishowa's Monthly Basic Charges Summary: In October 2001, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) increased electric rates to the City by 46%. The City passed this increase on to its residential customers by increasing rates by 19.5%, and to its industrial customer (Daishowa America) an average of 35%. To mitigate the impact of the increases, the City is proposing a decrease to the Monthly Basic Charge to Daishowa America for the period from October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council the elimination the Monthly Basic Charge to Daishowa America for one year beginning October 1, 2001, for a total amount of $70,440. Background / Analysis: Expecting a substantial increase in electric rates from the BPA, the Utility Advisory Committee at its June 11, 2001 meeting, addressed the issue of a partial rebate of electric utility taxes to Daishowa America. After further research, City staffconcluded that a reduction of the monthly basic charge would be a simpler method to effect the reduction. The General Fund will compensate the Electric Utility Fund by reducing its overhead charges. At the same time, Daishowa worked with the City and BPA on a voluntary load reduction program. In July 2001, City staffmet with Acting Mill Manager Dean Reed to discuss the City's proposal to reduce monthly basic charges by approximately $52,000 annually. In November, a response was received from Daishowa asking for a reduction total of a $70,440 for the 12-month period. This will give Daishowa partial relief from the significant loss in profitability that resulted from the BPA rate increase. Since the City already included these reductions in its 2002 budget, the staff recommends accepting Daishowa's proposal. Attached is a copy of the Ordinance reducing the monthly basic charge for Daishowa, which would have to be approved by the City Council, and a copy of the letter from Daishowa with its attachments. I will be at the meeting to answer any questions. G:\EXCHANG E~PWKS\UACmemo.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, revising the industrial transmission electric rate and amending Ordinance 2054 as amended and Chapter 13.12 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Ordinance 2054 as amended and Chapter 13.12 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code are hereby amended by amending PAMC 13.12.071 to read as follows: 13.12.071 Schedule IT-01 - Industrial Transmission. A. Applicability. This schedule applies to all accounts where power is taken at transmission voltage. B. Character of Service. Service to be furnished under this schedule is unregulated three phase sixty cycle, alternating current at transmission voltage, 69 KV nominal. C. Point of Delivery: Service under this schedule shall be provided and measured where the customer's facilities interconnect with the facilities of the City and the Bonneville Power Administration. D. Service Policy: Service under this schedule is subject to the Customer Service Policies of the City. E. Rate: 1. Monthly Basic Charge Daishowa America Co. LTD: $5,870/month, provided that the monthly basic charge shall not be in effect from October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002. -1- 2. Energy Charges: The average monthly wholesale cost of energy to th_~e Port Angeles City Li~Id Electric Utility times the measured KWH net of the monthly CSPE allocation. 3. *Demand Charge: the average monthly wholesale cost of demand to Port Angeles City Light times the customer one-hour peak net of the monthly CSPE allocation. 4. Other Charges: Any other power or transmission charges will be billed at the wholesale rate charged to Port Angeles City Light times the proportional share serving the industrial customer. 5. Reactive Power Charge: Reactive Energy: Proportional share of total City charges for lagging reactive energy during HLH and leading reactive energy during LLH. Reactive Demand: Proportional share of total City charges for lagging reactive demand during HLH and leading reactive demand during LLH. Reactive ratchet demand: Any reactive demand ratchet established while a customer of City Light are due until the ratchet is retired. 6. Other Charges: Generation Support Services: Any charges to support customer owned generation will be passed to the retail customer at the BPA wholesale rate. 7. Taxes: Utility and other taxes will be added to customer bills such that they recover the actual tax obligation of the Utility and City. (Ord. 3098 § 1 (part), 11/1/2001; Ord. 2930 §6, 9/13/96; Ord. 2924, 7/26/96; Ord. 2875 §6, 10/1/95; Ord. 2776 §6, 10/1/93; Ord. 2646 §6, 10/1/91; Ord. 2608 §6, 10/1/90; Ord. 2417 §3, 12/1/86; Ord. 2273 §4, 11/1/83; Ord. 2267 § 1,9/6/83; Ord. 2260 §4, 8/1/83; Ord. 2232 §4, 10/1/82; Ord. 2210 §4, 5/1/82; Ord. 2173 §2, 11/1/81) -2- publication by summary. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: Becky J. Upton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney PUBLISHED: By Summary -3- November 29, 2001 Ms. Yvonne Ziomkowski Finance Director City of Port Angeles P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: City of PA Electric Utility Tax Dear YvoIlne, This is a long overdue response to the City's proposal for compensating Industrial Transmission (IT) rate customers for increases to Utility Tax payments that will be driven by significant increases in the BPA Wholesale rate. Prior to the West Coast "energy crisis" in the first half of this year, Daishowa had budgeted for an electric power rate increase of 8%. This amount was based upon information provided to us by the City of Port Angeles and BPA in the first quarter of 2001. BPA's Load Based CRAC, announced in June 2001, has produced a significantly larger increase that will produce, by default, a windfall increase to the City's Utility Tax. To understand the impact of the BPA rate increase, Daishowa's Accounting Department prepared a comparison using 12 months of historical power usage at the old and new rates. A summary of the analysis is provided as Attachment 1 and the detail by month is provided as Attachment 2. Review of the summary will show the average increase in total power cost is 41.1%. The BPA rate increase results in a 41.1% increase in the City Utility Tax. The analysis provided in Attachment I indicates the City would collect an additional $234,925 from this tax. Again, this analysis is based on our historical load. We anticipate our total electric load will decrease by approximately 13.5 % as a result of our Voluntary Load Reduction Agreement with the City and BPA. If this reduction is applied to the Utility Tax, the City will still benefit by over $200,000 for a 12 month period. Please recall that this increase is in addition to the approximately 40% increase in Daishowa's City Utility Tax fee that resulted from our sale of the Elwha Projects in February 2000. Earlier this year, the City proposed to rebate a portion of the Utility Tax increase to Daishowa. The amount of $51,898 was sggested, based on a calculation that compared the Utility Tax increase resulting from the actual rate increase to a 15% rate increase that had been proposed for all other City rate payers. A copy of the City's proposal is provided as Attachment 3. In our view, there is no linkage to the increase for all other City rate payers since Daishowa's actual rate increase is not mitigated by the City's electric utility reserves. We recograze the City cannot provide relief to the Utllty Tax increase without an unwelcome revision to the City's Utility Tax ordinance. However, the City does have discretion to alter the Monthly Basic Charge, which totals $70,440 per year. Our proposal is for the City to eliminate the Monthly Basic Charge for the period of October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002. With this proposal, the City will still benefit by approximately $130,000 for the 12-month period and Daishowa will receive partial relief from the significant loss in profitablility that has resulted from the BPA rate increase. Please review our proposal and advise me of how we can proceed. Acting Mill Manager Utility Tax POSTOFFICE BOX 271 FORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362 (360) 457-a,'74 A'I"fA~ M~I~ [~ 'f Power Bill 12 Month Average Kilowatts Charge $ Amount Kilowatts Cha~le $ Amount Energy:. Net BPA HLH Energy ....... 0.02035 2,308,928.28 ........ 0.02965 3,363,654.87 Etwha Replacement HLH Energy 67,704,079 0.01807 1,223,449.46 67,704,079 0.02700 1,827,784.76 Nat BPA LLH Energy ........ 0.01872 2,111,028.98 ........ 0.02024 2~81,780.78 Elwha Replacement LLH Energy 51,976,226 0.01672 868,849.78 51,976,226 0.01816 943,971.24 LG&E Energy 47,685,911 0.01462 697,168.02 47,685,911 0.01910 910,800.90 LG&E Transmission Loses 906,034 0.02066 18,715.67 906,034 0.04500 40,771.53 (New Chlrge) Load Variance ....... 0.00117 462,858.32 Energy Subtotal: 7,228,140.20 g,831,822.41 Demand: Net BPA Demand 241,154 0.87 209,803.98 241,15~; 3.06 739,101.08 EIw~a Replacement Demand 152,096 0.87 132,323.52 152,096 2.81 427,679.79 Demand Subtotal: 342,127.60 1,166,790.87 241.04% Transmission: Base Charge (includes Elwha) 458,097 1.000 456,097.00 458,097 1.01300 464,052.26 Load Shaping (include~ Elwha) 461,228 0.539 248,601.89 461,228 0.40400 186,336.11 (New Charge) Scheduling, System Control Dispatch 4581097 0.16400 75,127.91 (New Charge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Contmt 461,228 0.06600 30,441.05 (New Charge) Regulation & Frequency Response ...... 0.00030 118,681.62 (New Cha~,~e) Operating Resewas - Spinning 2.60~ 10,285,741 0.00827 85,063.07 (New Charge) Operating Ras~ves - Supplemental 2.60% 10,285,741 0.00827 85,063.07 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 6,600.00 6,600.00 Transmlasion Subtotal: 713,298.89 1,061,369.10 47.39% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 70,440.00 70,440.00 Medic - One Charge 40.50 42.00 Load Regulation ....... 0.00028 110,769.51 Load Shaping ........ 0.00032 126,59~.73 Other Charges Subtotal: 307,843.74 70,482.00 -77.10% Subtotal Power Bill: 8,691,410.33 12,120,250,38 41.07% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 5711955.96 6.6573% 8061881.43 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 369,198.68 4.2973% 520,843.52 Total Power Bill: 9,532,664.97 1 $,447,975.32 41.07% ATTACHMENT 2 Kilowatts Char~le $ Amount Kilowatbt Charl~e $ Amount Energy: Ne~ BPA HLH E~ergy 9,675,015 0.02243 217,010.59 9,~75,015 0.02379 230,168.61 Elwha Replacement HLH Energy 4,835,582 0.02243 108,462.10 4,835,5~2 0.02379 115,038.50 Net BPA LLH Energy 10,066,715 0.02099 211,300.35 10,066,715 0.01720 173,147.50 Elwha Replacement LLH Energy 3,801,863 0.02099 79,801.10 3,~01,863 0.01720 6~,392.04 LG&E Energy 2,745,994 0.01462 40,146.43 2,745,994 0.0191 52,448.49 LG&E Transmission Loses 52,174 0.02296 1,197.92 52,174 0.045 2,347.83 (NewOharge) Load Variance 31,282,645 0.00117 36,600.69 Energy Subtotal: ~87,918.~L9 675,143.66 2.82% Demand: Net BPA Demand 21,166 0.87 18,414.42 21,166 2.57 54,396.62 Elwha Replacement Demand 9,819 0.87 8,541.66 9,818 2.57 25,232.26 Demat~d SubtmaJ: 26,9~.0~ 79,828.88 185.40% Transmission: Base Charge (includes Ehvha) 35,752 1.00 35,752.00 35,752 1.01300 36,216.78 Load Shaping (includes Elwha) 36,118 0.539 19,467'.60 36,118 0.40400 14,591.67 (New Charge) Schuduling, System Dentrol Diepat¢h 35,752 0.1640 5,863.33 (New Charge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Control 36,118 0.0660 2,383.79 (New Charge) Regulation & Frequency Response 31,282,645 0.0003 9,384.79 (New Charge) Operating Resewes. Spinning 2.80% 813,349 000827 6,726.39 (New Charge) Operatirrg Rese~es - Supplemental 2.60% 818,349 0.00827 6,726.39 Power Faclor Charges (Retche¢,} 550.00 5EO.00 Transmission Subt~o~al: 55,769.60 92,443.t5 47.83% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,870.00 Medic - One Charge 3.00 3.50 Load Regulation 31,282,645 0.00028 8,759.14 Load Shaping 31,282,645 0.00032 10,910.45 Othe~ Charges Subtotal: 24,642.59 5,873.50 -76.17% Subtotal Power Bill: 765,286.76 ~43,089.19 10.17% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 50,947.44 6.6573% 56,126~98 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 32,886.67 4.2973% 36,230.07 Total Power Bill: 849,120.86 935,446.23 10.17% Power Bill October 2000 & Estimated October 2001 ATTACH~4E~T 2 Ki/owatts Charge $ Amount Kilowatts Char~;e $ ~ L~E Tmnsmi~n Lo~ 52,174 0.022~ 1,197.92 52,174 0.~ 2,~7.~ (N~a~e) ~Vahance 31,282,~ 0.~117 ~,~.~ (N~ ~a~) S~uling, S~em ~ml Disp~ch ~,752 0.1~ 5,~.~ (New~) R~ Supp~ & Vo~ ~ml ~,118 0.~ 2,~.79 {New ~a~e) R~ul~i~ & F~ncy Res~n~ 31,282,~ 0.~ 9,~.~ P~r FaVor Charg~ (R~c~) ~.~ ~.~ MothN Basic Char~ 5,870.~ 5,870.~ C~y Re~n~ Tax: 6.~73% ~,~7.~ 6.65~% ~,126,~ ATTACHMENT 2 Power Bill December i,000 & Estimated December 2001 Kilowatts Charge $ Amount Kilowatts Charge $ Amount . Energy:. Net BPA HLH Energy 10,850,376 0.02243 243.373.93 10,850,376 0.03312 359,364.45 Elwha Replacement HLH Energy 5,885,978 0.02243 132,022.49 5,885,978 0.03312 194,943.59 Net BPA LLH Energy 10,121,521 0.02(~9 212,450.73 10,121,521 0.02540 257,086.63 Elwha Replacement LLH Energy 5,171,850 0.02099 10~,557.13 5,171,850 0.02540 131,364.99 LG&E Energy 3,949,474 0.01462 57,741.31 3,949,474 0.0191 75,434.95 LG&E Transmission Loses 75,040 0.02296 1,722.92 75,040 0.045 3,376.80 (NewCherge) Load Variance 36,146,628 0.00117 42,291.55 Energy Subtotal: 766,868.51 1,063,862.~8 40.7~,, Demand: Net BPA Demand 38,890 0.87 33,834.30 38,890 3.38 131,448.20 Elwha Rep~nement Demand 7,897 0.87 6,870.39 7,897 3.38 26,691.86 Demand Subtotah 40,704.69 168,140.06 288.61% Transmission: Base Charge (includes Elwha) 51,310 1.00 51,310.00 51,310 1.01300 51,977.03 Load Shaping (includes Elwha) 51,701 0.539 27,866.84 51,701 0.40400 20,887.20 (New Charge) Scheduling, System Control Dispatch 51,310 0.1640 8,414.84 (New Charge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Contro; 51,701 0.0660 3,412.27 (NewChe~e) Rngutation & Frequency Respe~lse 36,146,628 0.0003 10,843.99 (New Charge) Operating Reserves - Spinning 2.60% 939,812 0,00827 7,772.25 (New Charge) Operating Reserves - Supplemental 2.60% 939,812 0.00827 7,772.25 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotal: 79,726.84 111,629.82 40.02% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,870.00 Medic - One Charge 3.00 3.50 Load Regulation 36,146,628 0.00028 10,121.06 Lcad Shaping 36,146,628 0.00032 11,566.92 Other Charges Subtotal: 27,560.98 5,873.60 -78.69% Subtotal Power Bill: 903,861.01 1,335,~06.36 48.20% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 60,172.74 6.6573% 89,174.96 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 38,841.62 4.2973% 57,562.61 Total Power Bill: 1,002,876.37 1,486,243.92 48.20% ATTACHMENT 2 Power Bill January 2001 & Estimated January 2002 Kilowatts Charge $ Amount Kilowatts Charge $ Amount Er~r;~c Net BPA HUd Energy 9,820,884 0.02278 223,719.74 9,820,884 0.02942 288,930.41 EIw~a Refllacemen~ HLH Energy 7,336,277 0.02278 167,120.39 7,336,277 0.02942 218,833.27 Net BPA LL.H Energy 9,020,377 0.02136 192,675.25 9,020,377 0.02068 186,541 Elwha Replacerne~t M.H Energy 5,426,343 0.02136 115,906.69 5,426,343 0.02068 112,216.77 LG&E Energy 4,217,741 0.01462 61,663.37 4,217,741 0.0191 80,558.85 LG&E Transmission Lo~e~ 80,137 0.02335 1,871.20 80,137 0.045 3,606.17 (NewCharge) Load Variance 35,986,620 0.00117 42,104.35 Energy Subtotal: 762,956.64 929,791.21 21.87% N~ BPA Demand 28,201 0.87 24,534.87 28,201 3.16 89,115.16 EN/na Replacement Demand 13,800 0.87 12,006.00 13,8~1 3.16 43,608.00 Demand Subtotal: 36,640.87 132,723.16 263.22% Tranlmi$sioR: Base Charge (includes Eh,vha) 40,504 1.00 40,504.00 40,504 1.01300 41,030.55 Load Shaping (includes Elwha) 40,777 0.539 21,978.80 40,777 0.40400 16,473.91 (New Charge) Scheduling, System Control Dispatch 40,504 0.1640 6,642.66 (NewChlrge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Control 40,777 0.0660 2,691.28 (New Charge) Regulatio~ & Frequency Response 35,986,620 0.0003 10,795.99 (New Charge) Operating Resents - Spinning 260% 935,652 0.00827 7,737.84 (New Charge) Operating Resen'~ - Supplemental 2.60% 935,652 0.00827 7,737.84 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotak 63,032.80 93,680.07 48.69% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,870.00 Medic - One Charge 3.50 3.50 Load Regulation 35,986,620 0.00028 10,076.25 Load Shaping 35,986,620 0.00032 11,515.72 Other Charges Subtotal: 27,466.47 8,873.50 .78.61% Subtotal Power Bill: 889,996.78 1,162,047.94 ~0.67% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 59,249.69 6.6~73% 77,361.02 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 38,245.78 4.2973% 49,936.69 Total Power Bill: 987,491.26 1,289,34~.64 30.67% ATTAC}~[ENT 2 Power Bill Februaw 2001 & Estimated FebnmW 2002 Kilowatts Charge $ Amoont Kilowatts Char~l~ $ Amount · Energ~ Net BPA HLH Energy 11,054,216 0.02278 251,815.04 11,054,216 0.02717 300,343.05 Ehvha Replacement HLH Energy 4,048,679 0.02278 92,228.91 4,048,679 0.02717 110,002.61 Net BPA LLH Energy 11,422,662 0.02136 243,98~.06 11,422,662 0.0'1921 219,429.34 Etwha Replacement LLH Energy 3,108,972 0.02136 66,407.64 3,10~,972 0.01921 59,723.35 LG&E Energy 3,953,414 0.01462 57,798.91 3,953,414 0.0191 75,510.21 LG&E Tmnsm~ion Loses 75,115 0.02347 1,762.95 75,115 0.045 3,380.18 (New Charge) Load Variance 33,742,451 0.00117 39,478.67 Energy Subtotah 714,001.51 807,867.40 13.16% Demand: Nat BP^ Demand 16,791 0.87 14,608.17 16,791 2.97 49,869.27 Elwha Replacement Demand 12,349 0.87 10,743.63 12,349 2.97 36,676.53 Demand Subtotal: 29,361.80 88,545.80 241 Transmission: Base Charge (includes Elwha) 43,247 1.00 43,247.00 43,247 1.01300 43,809.21 Load Shaping (in¢lude~ Elwha) 43,554 0.539 23,491.78 43,584 0.40400 17,607.94 (New Charge) Scheduling, System Contro; Dispatch 43,247 0.1640 7,002.51 (New C. herge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Control 43,584 0.0660 2,876.54 (New Charge) Regulation & Frequency Response 33,742,451 0.0003 10,122.74 (New Charge) Operating Resewes - Spinning 2.60% 877,304 0.00827 7,255.30 (New Charge) Operating Resewes - Supplemental 2.60% 877,304 0.00827 7,255.30 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotal: 67,288.78 96,569.64 43.82% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Cha~ge 5,870.00 5,870.00 Medic - One Charge 3.50 3.50 Load Regulation 33,742,451 0.00028 9,447.89 Load Shaping 33,742,451 0.00032 10,797.58 Other Charges Subtotal: 26,118.97 6,873.60 -77.51% Subtotal Power Bill: 832,761.06 996,856 ~.3 15.70% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 55,439.40 6.6573% 66,363.71 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 35,786.24 4.2973% 42,637.90 Total Power Bill: 923,986.70 1,106,067.85 18.70% ATTACHMENT 2 Power Bill March 2001 & Estimated M~irch 2002 Kilowatts Charge $ Amount ,Kilowatts Charge $ Amount Energy: ~ BPA HLH Eher~y 9,805,367 0.02278 223,366.26 9,805,367 0.02461 241,$10.06 EIw~a Replacement HLH Energy 5,556,918 0.02278 126,.586.59 5,556,916 0.02461 136,7'=;5.75 Net BPA LLH Energy 11,995,781 0.02136 256,229,88 11,995,781 0.01670 200,329.54 Elwha F~epiacement ~ Energy 4,~53,4~8 0.02136 86,5~2.50 4,053,488 0.D1670 67,693.25 LG&E Eneroy 4,463,291 0.01462 65,253~31 4,463,291 0.0161 85,248.86 LG&E Transmission Lose~ 84,803 0.02335 11980.15 84,803 0.045 3,816.14 (New Charge) Load Variance 36,057,306 0.00117 421187.05 Energy Subtotal: 769,998.70 777,~4~.$7 Deaf id: Net BPA Demand 10,410 0.87 9,056.70 10,410 2.66 27,690.60 Elwha Replacement Demand 15,292 0.87 13,304.04 15,292 2.~6 40,676.72 DemalxJ Subtotal: 22,360.74 68,:~E?.$2 206.76% Transmission: Base Charge (includes £1wha) 50,928 1 .iX) 501928.00 50,920 1.01300 51,580.06 Load Shaping (includes Ehvha) 51,366 0,539 27,686.27 51,366 0.40400 20,751.86 (NewChar~e) Scheduling, System Control Dispatch 50,928 0.1640 6,352.19 (New C/~arge) Reectiv~ Supp/y & Vol~ Contra/ 51,366 0.06e0 3,390.16 (New Charge) RngulatJon & Frequency R~sponse 36,057,306 0.0003 10,817.19 (N~w Chm'g~ Opereting Reserves - Spinning 2.60% 9:37,490 0.00827 7,753.04 (New Charge) Operating Reserve~ ~ Supplemental 2.60% 937,490 0.00827 7,753,04 power Facto~ Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotal: 79,164.27 110,~67.6~ 40.1 Other Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,670.00 Medic - One Charge 3.50 3.50 Lo~d Regulation 36,~57,3~6 0.00028 10,0~6.05 Load Shaping 36,057,306 0.00032 11,538.34 Ot~er Charges Subtotal: 27,607.g8 6,873.60 Subtotal Power Bill: 889,051.60 952,639.04 8.27% City Revenue T~x: 6.6573% 59,185.50 6.6~73% 64,079.11 $tata Excise Tax: 4.2973% 38,204.35 4.2973% 41,363.19 Total Power Bill: 986,421.48 1,067,981.34 8.27% ATTACHMENT 2 Power Bill ADH12001 & Estimated April 2002 Kilowatt~ CAtar~e $ Amount Kilowatts Char~le $ Amount Energy:. Net BPA HLH Energy 9,108,9~5 0.02022 1~4,183.68 9,108,985 0.01927 175,530.14 Elwha Replacement HLH Energy 5,656,323 0.02022 114,370.85 5,656,323 0.01927 106,9~7.34 Net BPA LLH Energy 9,865,646 0,01932 190,604.28 9,865,646 0.01290 127,266.83 Elwha Rpptacement LLH Energy 4,504,068 0.01932 87,018.5~ 4,504,068 0.01290 56,102.48 LG&E Energy 3,593,721 0.01462 52,540-20 3,593,721 0.0191 68,640.07 LG&E Transmission Loses 68,281 0.02103 1,435.95 68,281 0,045 3,072.65 (New Charge) Load Variance 32,924,991 0.00117 38,522.24 Energy Subtotal: 630,163.86 ~80,131.79 -7.94% Demand: Net BPA Demand 21,430 0.87 18,644.10 21,430 2.12 45,431.60 Elwha Rpplacement Demand 13,491 0.87 11,737.17 13,491 2.12 28,600.92 Demand Subtotal: 30,:381.27 74,032.62 143.68% Transmission: Base Charge (includes Elwha) 22,202 1.00 22,202.00 22,202 1.01300 22,490.63 Load Shaping (includes Elwha) 22,379 0.539 12,062.28 22,379 0.40400 9,041.12 (New Charge) Scheduling, System Contro~ Dispatch 22,202 0.1640 3,641.13 (New charge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Control 22,379 0.0660 1,477.01 (New Charge) Rngulation & Frequency Response 32,924,991 0.0003 9,877.50 (New Charge) Operating Re~er~es. Spinning 2.60% 856,050 0.00827 7,079.53 (New Cherge) Operating Reserves - Supplemental 2.60% 856,050 0.00827 7,079.53 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotal: ~4,814.28 61,236.44 75.83% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,970.00 Medic - One Charge 3.50 3.50 Load Regulation 32,924,991 0.00028 9,219.00 L~ Shaping 32,924,991 0.00032 10,536.00 Other Charges Subtotal: 25,628.49 5,873.60 -77.08% Subtotal Power Bill: 720,977.60 721,274.22 0.04% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 47,997.64 6.6573% 48,017.39 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 30,982.57 4.2973% 30,995.32 Total Power Bill: 793,9b'7.01 800,286.92 0.04% A*I'TA~J b~*~.:~ 'J.' Z Power Bill May 2001 & Estimated May 2002 ~ . Kilowatta Char~le $ Amount Kilowatts Ch.r~e $ Amount Energy: Net BPA HLH Ermrgy 4,007,818 0.01101 44,126.08 4,007,618 0.0192 76,S50.11 EIw~a Rpp~acement HLH Energy 9,872,208 0.01101 10~,693.01 9,872.208 0.0t92 188,546.39 Net BP^ LLH Energy 5,538,402 0.00959 53,113.28 5,538,402 0.01060 58.707.06 Elwha Replacement LLH Energy 7,185,029 0.00959 68,904.43 7,185,029 0.01060 76,161.31 LG&E Energy 2,g66,604 0.01462 43,371.75 2,966,604 0.0191 56,662.14 LG&E Transmission Loses 56,365 0.02103 1,185.36 56,365 0.045 2,536.43 (NewCherge) Load Variance 29,736,837 0.00117 34,792.10 Energy Subtotal: 319,393.90 Demand: Net BPA Demand 8,921 0.87 7,761.27 8,921 2.09 181644.89 Elwha Replacemeet Demand 18,792 0.87 16,349.04 18,792 2.0~ 39,275.28 Demand Subtotal: 24,110.31 57,620.17 140.23% Transmission: Base Charge (includes Elwha} 25,771 1.00 25,771.00 25,771 1.01300 26,106.02 Load Shaping (includes El~na) 25,664 0.539 13,832.90 25,664 0.40400 10,368.26 (New Charge) Scheduling, System CONTOl Dispatch 251771 0.1640 4,226.44 (New Charge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Control 25,664 0.0660 1,6~3.82 (NewCherge) Rngulation & Freduency Response 29,736,837 0.0003 8,921.05 {New Charge) Operating Reserves - Spinning 2.60~ T/3,158 0.00827 6,394.01 (New Charge) Operating Resewes - Supplemental 2,60% 773,158 0.00827 6,39,1,01 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotal: 40,153.90 64,663.63 61.01% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,870.00 Medic - One Charge 3.50 3.50 Load Regulation 29,736,837 0.00028 8,326.31 Load Shaping 29,736,8:37 0.00032 9,515.79 Other Charges Subtotal: 23,715.60 6,873.50 -76.25% Subtotal power Bill: 407,373.70 623,802.83 63.13% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 27,120.09 6.6573% 411528.43 State Excise Tax: 4.2073% 17,506.07 4.29731(, 26,806.68 Total Power Bill: 451,999.86 692,137.93 63.13% ATTACHMENT 2 Power Bill Jun~ 200t & Estimated June 2002 Kilowatts Char~ $ Amount Kilowatts Char~]a $ Amount Energy: Net BPA HLH Energy 5,906,978 0.01101 65,035.63 5,906,976 0.02405 142,062.82 Ekvha Replacement HLH Energy 9,611,394 0.01101 105,821.45 9,611,394 0.02405 231,154.03 Net BPA LLH Energy 6,212,134 0.00959 59,574.37 6,212,134 0.01287 79,050.16 EIwha Replacernenl LLH Energy 7,052,255 000959 67,631.13 7,052,255 0.01267 90,762.52 LG&E Energy 3,140,035 0.01462 45,907.31 3,140,035 0.0191 59,974.67 LG&E Transmission L~ses 59,661 0.01162 693.26 59,661 0.045 2,684.75 (NewCharg$) Load Vadance 32,083,549 0.00117 37,537.75 Energy Subtotal: 344,663.34 6,44,126.78 86.89% Demand: Net BPA Demand (314) 0.87 (273.18) (314) 2.62 (022.6~) EIwha Replacement Demand] 23,819 0.87 20,722.53 23,819 2.62 62,405.78 Demand Subtotal: 20,449,36 61,583.10 201.t5% Transmisaion: Base Cha~ge (includes Elwha) 15,173 1.00 15,173.00 15,173 1.01300 15,370.25 Load Shaping (includes Elwha) 14,581 0.539 7,859.16 14,581 0.40400 5,690.72 (New Charge) Scheduling, System Contro/Dispatch 15,173 0.1640 2,486.37 (New Charge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Contr~ 14,581 0.0660 962.35 (New Charge) Regulation & Fredue~cy Response 32,083,549 0.0003 9,625.06 (New Charge) Operating Rsserves - S pinning 2.60% 834,172 0.00827 6,898.60 (New Cl~rge) Operating Reserves - SuppJemental 2.60% 834,172 0.00827 8,898.60 Power Fact~' Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmlaalon Subtotal: 23,582,16 48,683.97 196.44% Other Charges: Monthly Basic Cha~ge 5,870.00 5,070.00 Medic - One Charge 3.50 3.50 Load Regulation 32,083,549 0.00028 8,983.39 Load Shaping 32, D83,54g 0.00032 10,256.74 Other Chargei Subtotal: 25,123.63 5,873.50 -76.62% Subtotal Power Bill: 4t3,818.48 760,267.26 83.72% Clty Revenua Tax: 8.6573% 27,54g. 14 8.6573% 50,013.27 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 17,783.02 4.2973% 32,670.97 Total Power Bill: 459,'150.64 843,651.80 63.72% ATTACHMENT 2 Power Bill July 2001 & Estimated July 2002 , , Kltowat~ Charge $ Amount Kilowatt~ Charge $ Amount Energy: Ne~ BPA HLH Energy 9,169,287 0.01353 124,060.45 9,168,297 0.03163 290,024.55 Elwha Replacement HLH Energy 6,280,139 0.01353 84,970.28 6,280,139 0.0318:3 198,640.80 Net BPA LLH Energy 9,390,701 0.01179 98,926.:36 8,3~0,701 0.02148 180,232.26 E [wha Replacem ant LLH Energy 6,124,125 0.01179 60,413.43 5,124,125 0.(32148 110,066.21 LG&E Energy 4,367,201 0.01462 63,848.48 4,367,201 0.0191 83,413.54 LG&E Transmission Loses 82,977 0.01162 964.19 82,977 0.045 3,733.97 (New Ch~) Load Val~ance 33,550,964 0.00117 38,254.63 Energy Subtotal: 433,183.20 ~06,~6~.~4 109.00% Demand: Net BPA Demand 16,237 0.87 14,126.19 16,237 3.38 54,881.06 Elwha Replacement Demand 19,874 0.87 17,290.38 19,874 3.38 67,174.12 Demand 8ubtetel: 31,416.6'/ 122,0~.16 288.61% Transmission: Base Charge (includes Elwha) 39,819 1.00 39,819.00 39,819 1.01300 40,336.65 Load Shaping (include~ Elwha} 40,240 0.539 21,689.36 40,240 0.40400 16,256.g6 (New C~arge) Scheduling, System Control Dispatch 39,819 0.1640 6,530.32 (NlwC~er~e) Reactive Suppiy & Vnitage Cofltrol 40,240 0.0660 2,65~.84 (New Charge) Regulation & Frequency Response 33,550,964 0.0003 10,065.29 (NewCha~e) Operating Resefve~. Spinning 2.60~ 872,325 0.00827 7,214.13 (NewCher~e) Operating Reserves. Suppiemontal 2.60% 972,326 0.00827 7,214.1:3 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotal: 62,068.36 30,823.31 46.38% Ot~er Charges: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,870.00 Medic - One Charge 3.50 3.50 Load Regulation 33,550,964 0.00028 9,394.27 Load Shaping 33,550,964 0.00032 10,736.31 Oilier Charges Subtotal: 26,004.08 8,873.~0 -77.41% Subtotal Power Bill: 552,662.21 1,124,117.83 103.40% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 36,792.38 6.6573% 74,835.g0 State Excise Tax: 4.2973% 23,749.55 4.2973% 48,306.72 Total Power Bill: 613,204.16 1,247,260.~ 109.40% Power BII~ August 2001 & E~ttmmed August 2002 ATTACHiMENT 2 Kilowatts Char~ $ Amount Kiiowatta Charge $ Amount · Energy: Net BPA HLH Energy 10.100,156 0.01929 194.832.01 10,100,156 0.04682 472,889.30 Elwha Replacement HLH Energy 3,244,025 0.01929 62,577.24 3,244,025 0.04~82 151,885.25 Net BPA LLH Energy 9,474,596 0.01675 158,699.48 6,474,5~6 0.02622 248,423.91 Elwha Replacement LLH Energy 2,316,104 0.01675 38,794.74 2,316,104 0.02622 60,728.25 LG&E Energy 5,026,192 0.01462 73,482.93 5,026,192 0.0191 96,000.27 LG&E Transmission Loses 95,498 0.01939 1,851.71 95,498 0,045 4,297.41 (New Charge) Load Variance 30,315,229 0.00117 35,468.82 Energy Subtotal: 630,238.11 1,0~9,695.20 101.74% Demand: Net BPA Demand 8,065 0.87 7,016.55 8,065 3.38 27,259.70 Elwha Replacement Demand 7,944 0.87 6,911.28 7,944 3.38 26,850.72 Demand Subtotat: 13,927.83 ~4,110.42 288.E1% Base Charge (includes Elwha) 41,247 1.00 41,247.00 41,247 1.01300 41,783.21 Load Shaping (includes E N/ne) 41,734 0.539 22,494.63 41,734 0.40400 16,860.54 (New Charge) Scheduling, System Control Dispatch 41,247 0.1640 6,764.51 (New Charge) Reactive Supply & Voltage Control 41,734 0.0660 2,754.44 (New (~) Rngulatioft & Frequency Response 30,315,229 0.0003 9,094.57 (New Charge) Operating Reset/es - Spinning 2.60% 788,196 0.00827 6,518.38 (NewCherge) Operating Resewes - Supplemental 2.60% 788,196 0.00827 6,518.38 Power Factor Charges (Ratchet) 550.00 550.00 Transmission Subtotal: 64,291.63 60,844.03 41.30% Other Charge~: Monthly Basic Charge 5,870.00 5,870.00 Medic - Orm Charge 3.50 3.50 Load Regulation 30,315,226 0.00028 8,488.26 Load Shaping 30,315,229 0.00032 9,700.87 O~er Charges Subtotal: 24,062.64 6,673.~0 -7S,$~% Subtotal Power Bill: 632,520.20 1,220,621.16 92.06% City Revenue Tax: 6.6573% 42,108.77 6.6573% 81,253.75 State Excise ?ax: 4.2973% 27,181.29 4.2973% 52,449.46 Total power Bill: 701,810.26 1,364,224.86 ATTACHMENT 2 · ,K. ilowitts Char~le S Amount Kilowatts Charge $ Amount Energy:. NetBPAHLHErmrgy 11.178.208 0.02243 250,727.21 1~.178.208 0.03354 374.917.10 Ebv*na Replacement HLH Energy 1,476,955 0.02243 33,128.10 1,47~.955 0.03354 49.537.07 Net BPA LLH Energy 10,001,406 0.02.099 209,929.51 10,001,406 0.02748 274.838.64 Elwha Replacement LLH Energy 1,359,450 0.02099 28,534.86 1,35~,450 0.02748 37,357.6~ LG&E Energy 4,933,033 0.01462 72,120.94 4,933,033 0.0191 ~4,220.93 LG&E Transmission Loses 93.728 0.023 2,155.74 93,728 0.~45 4,21'7.76 (New Charge) Load Variance 29,109,105 0.00117 34,057.65 Total Power Bill: ' 801,063.14 1--','2'~'~,435.42 50.60% ATTACI{MENT 3 Electric Utility Tax 2001 2002 2000 Budget Proposed Daishowa: Power purchase (revenue) $8,686,373 $9,161,333 $13,100,706 less reorganization/savings -$1,700,000 $11,400,706 Increase in power purchase $2,239,373 24.44% Utility Tax 6% $521,182 $549,680 $684,042 Increase in Utility tax $134,362 24.44% Assuming 15% increase: Utility Tax $82,465 Possible refund Non Industrial Customers: Power consumption $10,491,891 $11,462,265 $13,181,604 Increase in power purchase $1,719,340 15.00% Utility Tax 6% $629,513 $687,736 $790,896 Increase in Utility tax $103,160 15.00% WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: December 10, 2001 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Tom McCabe, Solid Waste Superintendent Subject: Minimum Fee at Port Angeles Landfill Summ~ar.y: The Port Angeles Landfill has had a constant increase in the number of self-haul vehicles annually. The increase has caused extra workload for the staff. It is proposed to increase the minimum fee for disposal to help eliminate the number of small loads at the landfill. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council to increase the minimum rate at the Port Angeles Landfill from $2.00 to $7.00 effective March 1, 2002. Background / Analysis: There has been a steady increase in the volume of the self-haul customers at the landfill. This has caused an increase in the number of transactions at the scalehouse and increased traffic volume. King, Snohomish, and Pieme Counties have increased their minimum rate to reduce the mount of self-haul customers with minimal adverse comments. The counties did not report an increase in illegal dumping upon implementation of higher fees. It is anticipated that the rate increase will reduce the frequency of self haulers at the landfill. The following chart has been developed to show the increase in trips for self haulers. Port Angeles Landfill Self-Haul Customer Count: Year Self Hauler Trips Per Cent Increase 1998 73,729 Baseline 1999 77,191 4% 2000 81,315 10% 2001 86,263 (Projected) 17% UAC Memo 12/10/01 Landfill Minimum Fee Page 2 The following table is a survey of the minimum charges at some landfills and transfer stations in Washington State. Survey of Landfills / Transfer Stations: Location Landfill / Transfer Station Minimum Rate Walla Walla Landfill $5.95 King County Landfill $13.72 Oak Harbor Transfer Station $11.00 Olympic View Landfill $3.61 Thurston County Landfill $9.95 Port Townsend Transfer Station $5.00 West Waste Transfer Station $4.20 It is recommended that the minimum rate at the Port Angeles Landfill be increased from $2.00 to $7.00 effective March 1, 2002. This equates to a minimum load increase from 52 pounds to 182 pounds. N:XPWKS\LIGHT~POWM\SWCOS98~vl LF.wpd 2002 JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT DEC DEC 30 31 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4! 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 171 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 APRIL MAY JUNE SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE ! WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 23 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 7~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 141 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 26 [] 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER SUN MON TUE WED THU I FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT - I I 1 2 3 5 6 1 2 3 I 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 3(} 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRt SAT i SUN MON 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 6 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10/ 11[ 12 13 14 / / 131 14 15 16 17 lS 19 101 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17~ 18~ 19 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24~ 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 30 29 30 31 3 4 I Summary of Water System Plan for the UAC December 10, 2001 A brief summary of key aspects of the City of Port Angeles' (City's) Water System Plan (Plan) is presented herein in alignment with the outline of the draft Plan itself, which is currently being reviewed by the Department of Health (DOH). 1. Description of Water System The City's municipal potable water system is supplied primarily from the EIwha Ranney collector, located adjacent to the Elwha River, and serves nearly 7,400 retail connections in the City as well as a portion of Clallam County PUD No. l's (PUD's) "Port Angeles Composite" system located east of the City. In total, nearly 21,000 people are sen/ed from the City's system. The system may also be supplied, on an emergency basis only, from the City's Morse Creek supply system, which does not comply with all DOH drinking water regulations. 2. Water Use The City's water use has remained relatively stable in recent years. Population growth between 1990 and 2000 averaged 0.4 percent per year. This growth has been offset by reductions in per-capita consumption resulting from reduced system-leakage and heightened awareness of the need to conserve. With successes in leakage-reductions and conservation accounted, the City projects growth in demand to roughly parallel projected population growth (0.5 percent per year). These projections are presented in Table ES-1. Table E$-1 Population and Demand Projections Base Year 2006 2020 Population City of Port Angeles 18,930 19,505 20,916 East UGA Annexation Area 2,062 2,125 2,278 Combined Total 20,992 21,630 23,194 Water Demand ADD (average day demand) 3.40 3.50 3.75 MDD (maximum day demand) 8.11 8.36 8.96 PHD (peak hour demand) 13.13 13.53 14.51 *Demand in million gallons per day (mgd) 3, System Analysis The City's water system was analyzed with respect to the following key categories: water quality, supply, treatment, storage, and distribution. The City provides to its customers a high-quality supply that has adequate capacity to meet its current and projected needs. A new storage tank in the high pressure zone (one of 3 pressure zones in the system) is required to meet DOH storage volume requirements. The distribution system improvements needed are mostly related to the replacement of aging concrete cylinder pipe and pumping and piping improvements to meet fire flow objectives. The major challenges faced by the City are related to compliance with treatment regulations. These challenges include: 1) compliance with the City's bilateral compliance agreement {BCA) with DOH to reduce copper corrosion, 2) compliance with its other BCA to install filtration treatment on the EIwha supply (or meet other non-filtration alternatives) as a result of its "groundwater under the direct influence of surface water" (GWI) classification, and 3) coordinate with Department of interior (DOI) to ensure that adequate treatment is provided as part of DOl's project to remove the Elwha dams. PAGE 1 OF 2 4. Water Conservation The City's conservation progrem complies with DOH's Conservation Planning Requirements, and the conservation measures employed have already resulted in reduced per-capita consumption. A key target of the City's conservation program is to reduce proiected ADD and MDD by an additional 10 pement over the 20-year planning horizon. 5. Water Rights, Reliability, and Interties The City has water rights for use of water from the EIwha River and Morse Creek. These water rights support the City's municipal drinking water supply needs. The City also has a water right for use of Elwha River for its non- potable industrial supply. The City's existing water dghts are adequate to meet its current and projected future needs. The City's water system, with respect to supply and system infrestructure, is reliable and in need of relatively minimal imprevements. Although the City has only two existing interties that enable it to supply the PUD, it has been informally approached by Dry Creek Water Association and Black Diamond Water District regarding potential future interties. 6. Source Protection For several reasons, as described in Section 6 of the Plan, development of a specific program to ensure protection of the Elwha River source of supply has been deferred, with the approval of DOH, until the City's supply and treatment issues are further resolved. 7. Operations and Maintenance The City manages its water system in a cooperative manner with the wastewater collection system through the Water/Wastewater Collection Division of/he Department of Public Works and Utilities. 8, Design and Construction Standards Policies and procedures related to design-review, design standards, construction standards, and construction cedification are outlined in the Port Angeles Municipal Code and Chapter 4 of the Urban Services Standards and Guidelines. These requirements are required of the City by DOH to ensure standardization in water system infrastructure and compliance with DOH and industry-standard guidelines for water system facilities. 9. Improvements Program The improvements presented in Section 9 were developed as a result of the analysis presented throughout this Plan. The specific improvements and their scheduled implementation are presented in the attached Table 9-1 and have already been incorporated into the City's 2001 Capital Facilities Plan. The improvement program is a key element of the City's financial program, summarized in the fol~wing sect/on. 10, Financial Program To undertake the Improvement Program presented in Section 9, the City will likely need to increase revenues by raising water rates. The City has budgeted a 3-year rate study to be completed in 2002. The study will look at how the improvements Program wiJl be funded, including the use of grant and loan programs to fund the larger projects. The most costly project of the Improvement Program is the future water treatment plant, which is required to comply with drinking water regulations. Even if the City is able to avoid the cost of the treatment plant by successfully developing a DOH-approved non-filtration strategy that complies with current regulations, (or a federally-funded municipal treatment plant is constructed under the EIwha Act) rates may still need to be raised to complete the Improvement Program. PAGE 2 OF 2 pORTANGELES WASHINGTON, U.S.A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: December 1'0, 2001 TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Tom MeG, abe, Solid Waste Superintendent SUi~ECT: Amendment to Landfill Contract for City of Sequim Summary: The City of Sequim contract is reviewed and renewed annually. The current contract expires on December 31, 2001. It is proposed to extend the contract to December 31, 2006 or until closure of the landfill at the current rate with the provision to maintain the current rate differential if landfill tipping fees are adjusted. Recommendation: Recommend that City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the contract amendment with the City of Sequim. Background / Analysis: The City executed a contract with the City of Sequim for municipal solid waste tipping fees at the Port Angeles Landfill. The contract expires on December 31, 2001. The amendment is to extend the contract until December 31, 2006 or until closure of the landfill at the current rate with the provision to maintain the current rate differential if landfill tipping fees are adjusted. The amendment also permits the rate to be assigned to a commercial hauler if the City franchises it collection service. PAMC 13.56.045 allows special rates for a commercial hauler of over 2000 tons per year that deliver compacted refuse to the landfill. Tipping fees for these haulers were set at $63.00 per ton in 1997 (Ord. 2959, 2/28/97). Tipping fee for municipal solid waste non-contract users is $76.80 per ton. Attachment: City of Sequim contract amendment N: PWKS/LIG H]~,POWM\SWCOS98\uac 121001 _A.wpd SECOND AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CONTRACT THIS AMENDMENT to the solid waste disposal contract dated December 19, 2000 is made and entered into by and between the City oi' Port A~geles, a mmlicipal corporation, hereinafter called'the "City", and the City of Sequim, a municipal corporation, hereinai~er called the "Conlractor". WHEREAS, the City and Contractor are parties to a solid waste disposal contract in effect until December 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City and Contractor have agreed to extend the solid waate disposal contract through December 31, 2006; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Contractor hereby agree that the solid waste disposal contract dated December 19, 2000 shall be emended as follows: 1. Paragraph 2, Terms of Contragt, is hereby amended to read as follows: The'term of this contract shall commence on January 1, 2002 and continue until December 31, 2006 or until the Port Angeles Landfill closes. This contract shall temdnate in the event that the City gives 90 days written notice of termination to the Contractor. 2. Paragraph 3, Consideration, is hereby amended to read as follows: The Contractor shall pay the sum of $63.00 for each ton of acceptable waste delivered to the Port Angeles Landfill pursuant to this contract. Acceptable waste that requires special handling will be charged the special rate as set forth in PAMC 13.56.020C. The parties further agree that if the current standard landfill disposal price per ton is increased or decreased, the rate applicable to the Contractor shall remain at the same reduced level that the Contractor is currently charged in proportion to the revised landfill disposal rote. 3. Assi_lmment. A new paragraph shall be added to the contract to read as follows: This contract may be assigned to a private collection company without the prior consent of the City. DATED this day of ,2001. CITY OF PORT ANGELES CITY OF SEQUIM Michael Quinn, City Manager Name: Title: ATTEST: ATTEST: Becky J. Upton, City Clerk City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Craig D. Knutson, City. Attorney . City Attorney F AAGR EEM ENTS &CONTRACTS~equim2ndamelld.con.wpd Novembe/.26, 2001 (I [:16am)