Tuesday, May 17, 2016

GREATER VERNON WATER 2012 MASTER WATER PLAN STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 am at the Regional District of North Okanagan, Boardroom

Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 - 10:00 am
Agenda

1. 2012 Master Water Plan Review – Draft Stakeholder Advisory Committee Report
to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee
− Staff report dated May 2016
RECOMMENDATION 3 Page 5
That it be recommended to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee the 2012 Master  Water Plan Review – Draft Stakeholder Advisory Committee Report dated May 2016 be received for information; and further,
That the following statements and recommendations as forwarded by the Master Water Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee be individually considered by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee in their review of the 2012 Master Water Plan:
I. That the request from the Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan to hire an independent engineering consultant to undertake a peer review of the 2012 Master Water Plan be postponed pending review of the 2012 Master Water Plan by the Committee. (Note, this recommendation was later addressed in recommendations XI, XII and XIII below).
II. That any option that includes the DCWTP as a potable water source will examine using UV and air scrubbing in the DCWTP Reservoir to support a filtration exclusion application.
III. That the final Master Water Plan option provide for the use of two water sources and two water treatment plants.
IV. That Options 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 be removed from the Options list based on the highest capital cost with lowest non-cost benefit ratio and not be considered in the Financial Planning Stage for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee review of the Greater Vernon Water 2012 Master Water Plan.
V. That the SAC is satisfied that all Options contained in TM9 (subject to variations) have adequately considered all feasible options available to meet Ministry of Health standards.
VI. That the staging of the treatment plants be changed so that MHWTP filtration is constructed first, noting that a filtration exclusion at DCWTP may be successful.
VII. That [regardless of the Option preferred, except Option 1] any separation should include sizing of the irrigation transmission main to allow for continued separation of domestic and irrigation water supplies and enable full separation in the future.
VIII. That alternative sources for irrigation be explored fully with the objective of reducing capital and operation costs.
IX. That a scheduled review of the MWP be completed every 5 - 10 years or prior to the construction of any significant capital project.
X. That the following points presented by the General Manager, Finance be considered by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee when finalizing the financial strategy of the Master Water Plan:
− Finalize the Option, then develop a financial strategy.
− Use existing reserves as a funding source in plan.
− Use grants as a funding source in plan.
− Use DCC’s as a funding source in plan.
− Use current revenue as a funding source – balance with renewal projects from year to year.
− Delay timing of major projects, where feasible.
− Increase annual contribution to reserves – balance with annual capital plan from year to year.
XI. That the SAC is satisfied with the level of detail provided in TMs 1 through TM8 supplemented by the additional information provided to the Committee within the SAC Question Papers provided throughout the 2012 MWP SAC review.
XII. That the SAC is satisfied with the engineering analysis provided in TMs 1 through TM8 supplemented by the additional information provided to the Committee within the SAC Question Papers provided throughout the 2012 MWP SAC review.
XIII. That the SAC is satisfied with the cost estimates provided in TMs 1 through TM8 supplemented by the additional information provided to the Committee within the SAC Question Papers provided throughout the 2012 MWP SAC review.
XIV. That the SAC put forth the following three (3) Options to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee for consideration:
a. Option 1 - the option with the lowest financial impact to water users based on the lowest Net Present Value (NPV) with no further separation;
b. Option 2 - the option with the highest benefit to cost ratio (NPV) with partial separation; and
c. Option 3 - the option with the highest benefit to cost ratio (NPV) that supports full separation.
XV. That the SAC select Option 2 being the option with the highest benefit to cost ratio (Net Present Value) with partial separation as their first choice moving forward with the 2012 Master Water Plan.
XVI. That the SAC select Option 1 being the option with the lowest financial impact to water users based on the lowest Net Present Value (NPV) with no further separation as their second choice moving forward with the 2012 Master Water
Plan.

No comments: