PREPARED BY RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.

WITH ASSISTANCE FROM

HANSFORD ECONOMIC CONSULTING

SUMMER 2020

TAP TALENT-ASHLAND-PHOENIX

WATER MASTER PLAN

City Council

Revie w

City Council

TAP WATER SYSTEM

MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

J:\Data\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 Reports\Table of Contents.docx TOC i

Table of Contents ES | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... ES-1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. ES-1

Background ............................................................................................................................................................... ES-1

Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................... ES-1

Summary of WMP Contents ..................................................................................................................................... ES-2

Existing TAP System .................................................................................................................................................. ES-2

Demands ................................................................................................................................................................... ES-3

Model Development and Operational Analysis ....................................................................................................... ES-3

Water System Capacity Analysis .............................................................................................................................. ES-4

TAP Facilities in Phoenix ....................................................................................................................................... ES-4

TAP Facilities in Talent .......................................................................................................................................... ES-4

Water System Supply Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. ES-5

Short-Term (2020 to 2030) .................................................................................................................................. ES-5

Long-Term (2031 to Build-Out) ............................................................................................................................ ES-5

TAP Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................................................................. ES-5

Financial Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... ES-6

IGA Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. ES-6

1 | EXISTING SYSTEM................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

History ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

TAP Agreements ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-2

2000 TAP IGA ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 1 (March 2002) ................................................................................................... 1-3

2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 2 (Unsigned) ....................................................................................................... 1-4

2000 TAP IGA Addendum No. 1 (May 2007) ......................................................................................................... 1-4

2006 Talent Ashland IGA (April 2006) ................................................................................................................... 1-4

MWC IGA TAP Regional Pump Station Maintenance Agreement (October 2000, Amended May 2002) ............ 1-4

2016 TAP RVCOG IGA for Billing ............................................................................................................................ 1-4

Other TAP Documents ........................................................................................................................................... 1-5

Existing TAP Facilities ................................................................................................................................................. 1-5

Transmission Piping ............................................................................................................................................... 1-5

City Council

TOC ii J:\Data\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 Reports\Table of Contents.docx

Storage Facilities .................................................................................................................................................... 1-7

Booster Pump Stations .......................................................................................................................................... 1-8

Metering .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-12

Telemetry ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-12

Remaining Useful Life Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 1-13

Pipes .................................................................................................................................................................... 1-13

Meters ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-14

Pump Stations ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-14

TAP Operation ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-15

Phoenix Operation ............................................................................................................................................... 1-16

Talent Operation ................................................................................................................................................. 1-16

Ashland Operation ............................................................................................................................................... 1-16

Operational Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 1-17

TAP System Management ....................................................................................................................................... 1-17

Management Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 1-18

Regularly Scheduled Water Audits ...................................................................................................................... 1-18

2 | DEMAND PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Existing Water Demands ........................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Future Water Demands ............................................................................................................................................. 2-3

Population ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-3

Demand Forecast .................................................................................................................................................. 2-4

3 | MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 3-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Hydraulic Model ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

Demand Data ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Extended Period Simulation Calibration ............................................................................................................... 3-2

Key Findings from EPS Model ................................................................................................................................ 3-2

Operational Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 3-3

Current Operational Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 3-3

Operational Analysis Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 3-3

Constant Speed Pumping Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 3-4

Operational Analysis Results ................................................................................................................................. 3-5

Benefits to Constant Rate Pumping ...................................................................................................................... 3-6

City Council

J:\Data\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 Reports\Table of Contents.docx TOC iii

Operational Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 3-7

Telemetry Improvements .......................................................................................................................................... 3-8

Monitoring and Control Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 3-8

Equipment and Software Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 3-10

Short-Term .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-10

Long-Term ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-10

4 | SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 4-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Pump Station Capacity .............................................................................................................................................. 4-1

Pump Station Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 4-1

Talent BPS Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 4-2

Talent BPS Improvement Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 4-2

Regional BPS Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 4-3

Regional BPS Improvement Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 4-4

Transmission System ................................................................................................................................................. 4-5

Transmission System Analysis Criteria .................................................................................................................. 4-6

Hydraulic Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 4-6

Transmission System Improvement Alternatives ................................................................................................. 4-7

System Capacity Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 4-10

Talent System ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-10

Phoenix System ................................................................................................................................................... 4-10

5 | SUPPLY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................ 5-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Supply Level of Service Goals .................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Existing Supplies ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-1

Water Rights .......................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

MWC Wholesale Water Service Agreements ....................................................................................................... 5-2

Future Supply Options ............................................................................................................................................... 5-4

Expanding Regional BPS ........................................................................................................................................ 5-4

New MWC Supply in North Phoenix Road ............................................................................................................ 5-4

Ashland Supply to TAP ........................................................................................................................................... 5-5

Charlotte Ann Water District ................................................................................................................................. 5-7 City Council

TOC iv J:\Data\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 Reports\Table of Contents.docx

Recommended Supply Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 5-7

Short-Term (2020 to 2030) ................................................................................................................................... 5-7

Long-Term (2031 to Build-Out) ............................................................................................................................. 5-8

6 | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 6-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................................................. 6-1

Construction Costs ................................................................................................................................................ 6-2

Contingencies ........................................................................................................................................................ 6-2

Engineering, Legal, and Administration ................................................................................................................ 6-3

Project Prioritization & Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 6-3

Description of Improvements ................................................................................................................................... 6-3

Supply Improvements ........................................................................................................................................... 6-3

Pump Station Improvements ................................................................................................................................ 6-5

Pipe Improvements ............................................................................................................................................... 6-6

Other Improvements ............................................................................................................................................. 6-9

Cost Allocations ......................................................................................................................................................... 6-9

Financial Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 6-9

Other Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 6-10

Management Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 6-10

Regularly Scheduled Water Audits ...................................................................................................................... 6-10

APPENDICES

Appendix 1A 2000 TAP IGA – October 27, 2000

Appendix 1B 2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 1 – March 20, 2002

Appendix 1C 2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 2 – Unsigned 2004

Appendix 1D 2000 TAP IGA Addendum No. 1 – May 15, 2007

Appendix 1E 2006 Talent Ashland IGA for Emergency Water Service April 19, 2006

Appendix 1F MWC IGA TAP Regional Pump Station Maintenance Agreement – October 2000 & Amendment No. 1 –

May 7, 2002

Appendix 1G 2016 TAP RVCOG IGA for Billing

Appendix 1H TAP Cost Allocation Recommendations – 2017

Appendix 3A Model Calibration Graphs – May 2017, August 2017, October 2018

Appendix 5A MWC Wholesale Water Service Agreements – Ashland 2014, Phoenix 2016, Talent 2016

Appendix 5B MWC Wholesale Water Service Agreements Recommendations

City Council

J:\Data\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 Reports\Table of Contents.docx TOC v

Appendix 6A TAP Facility Capacity and Cost Sharing – 2020 – 2070

Appendix 6B Hansford Economic Consulting Financial Analysis – 2020

Appendix 6C TAP System Intergovernmental Agency Agreement Recommendations

ES | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\0_TAP-WMP-2019-EXEC SUMMARY.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:50 AM) ES-1

ES | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction The Cities of Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix, Oregon (Partner Cities) engaged the services of RH2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2) to prepare a Water Master Plan (WMP) for the regional Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix (TAP) water supply system (TAP System). This WMP represents the first long-range planning document for the TAP System and includes a summary of current management, operations and maintenance, and recommendations for long-term capacity and future management considerations. Infrastructure improvements are documented in a TAP System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which provides recommendations for improvements to meet existing and future needs of the TAP Partner Cities. It is anticipated that the TAP Partner Cities will develop a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) following completion of this WMP to include recommendations for cost sharing and provide long-term guidance to the TAP System management. This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the WMP findings and results, and recommendations for a new IGA.

Background In the late 1990s, the TAP Partner Cities collaborated in the development of a new water supply transmission project to provide domestic water from the Medford Water Commission (MWC) to their communities. The City of Talent (Talent) needed to replace its aging source of supply (water treatment facility on Bear Creek); the City of Phoenix (Phoenix) needed to supplement its existing supply from MWC; and the City of Ashland (Ashland) wanted access to a secondary emergency source of supply. In 2000, the TAP Partner Cities entered into an IGA to construct the TAP supply system from the MWC to Talent. Since then, several system improvements have been implemented, resulting in management and cost-sharing decision making. The system initially only supplied water to Phoenix and Talent until 2014, when Ashland installed additional transmission facilities to provide an emergency supply source for its community. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly apparent that an updated WMP for the TAP facilities would be beneficial to the Partner Cities as it is an essential supply for all three communities.

Purpose This WMP addresses the following goals:

• Documents the existing TAP System facility information.

• Confirms future supply demands for the 40-year planning horizon.

• Assesses the condition and capacity of the existing system for future planning.

• Identifies operational constraints and recommends operational adjustments for improved efficiency.

• Develops options for meeting or revising the MWC Purchase Agreements to achieve compliance.

• Develops a CIP to meet future demands and major facility replacements.

City Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TAP WATER MASTER PLAN

ES-2 J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\0_TAP-WMP-2019-EXEC SUMMARY.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:50 AM)

• Evaluates TAP System financing options to guide the allocation of operational, maintenance, and capital costs between the Partner Cities.

• Provides recommendations for developing a new TAP IGA between the Partner Cities.

Summary of WMP Contents A brief summary of the content of the chapters in this WMP is as follows:

• The Executive Summary provides a brief summary of the key elements of this WMP.

• Chapter 1 presents the water service area and describes the existing water system.

• Chapter 2 identifies existing water demands and projected future demands.

• Chapter 3 describes the hydraulic model development and operational analysis.

• Chapter 4 describes the system capacity evaluation.

• Chapter 5 discusses the water supply analysis.

• Chapter 6 presents proposed improvements, estimated costs, and implementation schedule.

• Appendix 6A evaluates the financial impacts of the TAP CIP on each Partner City and discusses financing options.

The appendices also provide additional information, including IGA documents, recommendations for updating the MWC wholesale water purchase agreements, and recommendations for a new

IGA.

Existing TAP System The TAP System delivers water from MWC to the Partner Cities through several miles of large diameter transmission pipes and a series of pump stations. The original TAP System included construction of the Regional Booster Pump Station (BPS), the Talent BPS, Phoenix’s Eastside Reservoir, Talent’s Belmont 2 Reservoir, and transmission piping extending from the MWC meter to these facilities. In 2014, Ashland physically connected to the TAP System by extending transmission piping from Talent to Ashland in Highway 99 and constructing the Ashland TAP BPS. Although these facilities are all related to the TAP System, not all of the original TAP facilities benefit all the Partner Cities. Therefore, the WMP includes clarification of the current TAP facilities (or “assets”) and identifies the benefiting city or combination of cities as described in Chapter 1. For example, the two storage facilities initially constructed with the TAP infrastructure are no longer considered to be part of the TAP System. Distinguishing TAP System assets from individual city assets is critical in assessing cost sharing for operations and maintenance. Chapter 1 describes the TAP System transmission, storage, pump station, telemetry, and metering facilities, as well as the general system operation.

Chapter 1 also summarizes the existing IGAs between the Partner Cities, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG), and MWC. Through a series of IGAs over the years, the Partner Cities have established maintenance and management of the TAP System. However, due to several recent changes in operations (including Ashland’s use of the TAP System), some of the IGAs are outdated and changes are recommended.

City Council

TAP WATER MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\0_TAP-WMP-2019-EXEC SUMMARY.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:50 AM) ES-3

Demands Chapter 2 presents the demand projections of the TAP System for use in evaluating long-term supply needs and infrastructure capacity. The total system demands are based on the city-wide demand projections developed for Talent and Phoenix in their most recent individual WMPs, and Ashland’s expected use of the TAP supply, which is projected to increase from 2.13 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2020 to 3.0 MGD by 2030. Table ES-1 summarizes the demand projections used for this WMP. It is important to note that these demands represent the average demand projections for Talent and Phoenix; actual demands may vary. By buildout, the TAP demands are anticipated to increase to close to 11 MGD, representing a 65-percent increase.

Table ES-1 TAP Demand Projections

Year

Phoenix Talent Ashland Tal/Phx

MDD

(MGD)

All TAP

MDD

(MGD)

ADD

(MGD)

MDD

(MGD)

ADD

(MGD)

MDD

(MGD)

ADD

(MGD)

2020 0.80 2.26 0.82 2.18 2.13 4.44 6.57

2030 0.93 2.63 0.92 2.45 3.00 5.08 8.08

2040 1.10 3.13 1.06 2.82 3.00 5.95 8.95

2070 1.48 4.22 1.36 3.64 3.00 7.86 10.86

ADD – Average Day Demand MDD – Maximum Day Demand

Model Development and Operational Analysis The TAP System is operated to meet the requirements of each Partner City. However, over the years, three operational issues have arisen that were evaluated in Chapter 3. These include:

1) using stored water volume from neighboring cities’ reservoirs during peak TAP water use; 2) reaching or exceeding the MWC Water Service Agreement maximum flow rates; and 3) Phoenix’s reliance on a secondary supply that requires pumping twice (compared to the TAP supply that only requires pumping once).

To assess these and other operational issues, a hydraulic model of the TAP System was developed that represents the operation of all TAP facilities. The model was used to evaluate several demand conditions and found that adjusting operations to constant-rate pumping (rather than pumping to maintain reservoir levels) resolves several operational issues and allows delay of capital improvements. Talent and Phoenix staff has agreed to adjust pumping operations to constant-rate pumping to avoid impacting each other’s storage and to reduce peak flow rates on

City Council

ES-4 J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\0_TAP-WMP-2019-EXEC SUMMARY.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:50 AM) the MWC system. Chapter 3 provides recommendations for implementing constant-rate pumping.

The third operational issue of Phoenix’s supply system is discussed in Chapter 5.

Water System Capacity Analysis Chapter 4 presents the capacity analysis of the TAP System infrastructure. The ability of each water system component to meet the established reliability and redundancy criteria was analyzed for existing and future demand conditions. The analysis identified several significant capacity limitations of the TAP System to meet anticipated demands. The Talent BPS and piping currently are unable to provide Talent’s maximum day demands (MDD) and Ashland’s supply concurrently.

Additionally, the Regional BPS and transmission piping do not have adequate capacity to provide the anticipated demands by 2030. Several alternatives were evaluated to address these capacity limitations. The final recommendations agreed upon by the Partner Cities are described in the sections that follow and include pump station expansions and securing a new supply from the MWC. This will require significant coordination with the MWC. The identified solutions may require further refinement over time. The two options for addressing capacity of the Talent BPS and meeting Ashland’s supply needs are both costly and will require additional decision-making beyond this WMP; for this reason, both options are presented in following sections.

TAP Facilities in Phoenix

System capacity recommendations in Phoenix are as follows:

• Balance Demand and Timing: Balance demands and timing of use among all Partner Cities until additional capacity can be achieved.

• Short-Term Regional BPS Expansion: Replace one 50 horsepower (hp) pump with a 125 hp pump at the Regional BPS (by approximately 2022).

• New North Phoenix Road Supply: Begin development of a new MWC supply in N. Phoenix Road (by approximately 2030).

o Refer to Chapter 5 for further details on this new supply.

o Assumes Phoenix abandons the Experiment Station Road BPS and associated infrastructure by 2040.

• Transmission Pipe Improvements: Install pipes recommended in Table 4-9.

TAP Facilities in Talent

System capacity recommendations in Talent are as follows:

• Additional Talent BPS Pump Capacity Testing: Confirm hydraulic limitations (if any) on existing pumps.

• Balance Demand and Timing: Balance demands and timing of use among Talent and Ashland until additional capacity in the Talent BPS can be achieved.

• Option 1: Expand Talent System to Supply Talent and Ashland o Expand Talent BPS to meet build-out MDD for Talent and Ashland.

o Install pipes recommended in Table 4-7.

City Council

J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\0_TAP-WMP-2019-EXEC SUMMARY.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:50 AM) ES-5

• Option 2: Construct a Dedicated Ashland BPS o Expand Talent BPS to meet Talent MDD.

o Install a dedicated Ashland BPS in Talent.

o Install pipes recommended in Table 4-8.

Water System Supply Evaluation Chapter 5 presents the existing supplies and recommended long-term supply strategy for the TAP System. The TAP water supply has three main limiting factors: 1) water rights held by the TAP Partner Cities; 2) MWC wholesale water service agreements; and 3) infrastructure capacity.

The Partner Cities each hold water rights in Lost Creek Reservoir (or the Rogue River) that are delivered through MWC to the TAP System. At the time of this WMP, the Partner Cities are actively participating in a regional water rights strategy and IGA with the MWC and other regional wholesale water purchasers. It is assumed that the resulting IGA will ensure that each TAP Partner City is not limited by water rights; therefore, water rights were not evaluated in this WMP.

MWC prepares wholesale water service agreements with each Partner City that establish the terms of the water supply, including maximum flow rates. These agreements are renewed every 5 years to adjust to growing demands. If all the Partner Cities were to currently use the TAP System to meet peak demands at the same time, the TAP System would exceed the peak flow rates established in the current agreements. However, the Partner Cities have not been operating in this way, and it is assumed that the Partner Cities will negotiate updated maximum flow rates with MWC in the next water service agreement updates (assumed to be in 2021). Recommendations for future MWC water service agreements are included in Appendix 5B.

As noted earlier, the TAP System will require more supply capacity as soon as 2030 to meet growing demands. To meet the supply needs for all TAP Partner Cities, the following supply strategy is recommended.

Short-Term (2020 to 2030)

• Expand Regional BPS.

• Update TAP System to allow Ashland to supply Talent and Phoenix during non-peak supply periods.

• Coordinate with MWC for a new MWC Supply in N. Phoenix Road.

Long-Term (2031 to Build-Out)

• Develop a new MWC supply in N. Phoenix Road.

• Abandon Phoenix’s Experiment Station Road BPS Supply.

TAP Capital Improvement Plan The TAP System recommendations identified throughout the WMP are documented in a prioritized CIP presented in Chapter 6. The proposed projects were developed from the system analysis and supply analysis, as well as several meetings with Partner Cities staff, to address current and future

City Council

ES-6 J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\0_TAP-WMP-2019-EXEC SUMMARY.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:50 AM) water demand conditions and to maintain system reliability. It is important to note that this WMP represents the latest decision-making given current conditions and may likely change in the future as conditions and priorities change.

A summary of the CIP is developed and presented in Table ES-2. This summary provides total probable costs and a brief description, and prioritizes each capital improvement based on recommended year of implementation. Both Options 1 and 2 for addressing the Talent BPS and Ashland supply from Talent are included in the CIP. The total CIP is approximately $15M to $17M depending on the selected option. Project priorities should be considered flexible to accommodate budgetary constraints and other factors that may affect project implementation. Further details about the recommended CIP projects are presented in Chapter 6. Other general recommendations also are provided in Chapter 6.

Financial Analysis Hansford Economic Consulting, LLC (HEC) performed a financial analysis for implementing the capital improvements and ongoing TAP System operations and maintenance (Appendix 6B). RH2 and HEC developed a cost-sharing methodology that assigns costs of all capital projects to the benefitting Partner Cities based on capacity share and common industry methodologies (Appendix 6A). The cost-sharing method assumes capital project costs are allocated based on owned capacity of a facility, while depreciation, operations, and maintenance are based on actual usage of facilities in the previous year. Because the TAP System capital improvement costs were not previously known, these costs were not included in the individual city’s recent Water Master Plan updates. Similarly, allocating funds to pay for operations, maintenance, and depreciation are mostly new to the Partner Cities. HEC evaluated the impacts of the additional TAP costs on each City for the next 10 years. These significant costs are predicted to impact water rates, particularly for Ashland and Talent. Some costs may be deferred if demand requirements are less than the assumptions used in this WMP. The financial analysis also provides funding strategies to implement the CIP.

IGA Recommendations With the completion of the first TAP WMP, a new IGA is recommended to improve management of the system and capture the latest understanding between the TAP Partner Cities, the capacity needs of each, and cost allocations to operate and maintain the TAP System. The recommendations stem from a review of the existing IGAs, understanding of the TAP infrastructure and operations, and financial considerations resulting from the TAP WMP. Recommendations (Appendix 6C) are provided for clarifying roles and responsibilities, management, and cost sharing of capital expenditures, operations, maintenance, and depreciation. The IGA should reflect the current agreeable relationships between the Partner Cities but also include language and methods so that if future conflicts arise, the IGA provides clear guidance. Additionally, the new IGA should be flexible enough to accommodate changes in the system and city staff without requiring significant amendments. It is assumed that the new IGA will require City Council approval by each Partner City. Through the process of updating the TAP Partner Cities IGA, the need for an updated IGA with RVCOG also may be identified.

City Council

J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\0_TAP-WMP-2019-EXEC SUMMARY.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:50 AM) ES-7

Environmental Impacts The Partner Cities are striving to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Ashland has a Climate Energy Action Plan. Phoenix and Talent both recently submitted Water Management and Conservation Plans which discuss their conservation goals and actions. Water conservation and reduction in GHG emissions were considered when developing the projects proposed in this Plan to align with the goals of the Partner Cities.

<Insert Table ES-2>

Council

TAP Water Master Plan

SHORT-TERM

2020-2030

MID-TERM

2031-2040

LONG-TERM

2041- Buildout

New MWC Connection in N Phoenix Road MWC Coordination & Hydraulic Study 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ Cost to be refined with MWC.

Pipe Improvements 7,051,000$ 2,871,000$ 3,053,000$ 1,127,000$ Some cost sharing with development Master Meter Connection 325,000$ 325,000$ -$ -$

S-2 Ashland Non-Peak Supply Connection 163,000$ 163,000$ -$ -$ Construct bypass modifications to supply water from Ashland to Talent and Phoenix through existing TAP mains.

PS-1 Regional BPS Programming Updates 35,000$ 35,000$ -$ -$ Requires SCADA (HMI), Phoenix Shop BPS Programming, and Regional PLC Programming. Updates to the operator interface, current local logic, and weak peripheral communication are assumed to be completed prior to this project.

PS-2 Regional BPS Short-Term Expansion 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ Replace 50-hp pump with 125-hp pump PS-3 Talent BPS Small Pump Installation 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ Talent already has a pump at the shop. Costs for creating a third bay and installation of pump.

PS-4 Talent BPS Programming Updates 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ -$ Requires SCADA (HMI) and Talent BPS Programming. Updates to the existing HMI are assumed to be completed prior to this project.

Talent BPS Generator Upgrade (Option 1) 350,000$ -$ -$ 350,000$ Provides backup power for Ashland and Talent demands.

Talent BPS Generator Upgrade (Option 2) 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Provides backup power for Talent demands only.

PS-6 Talent BPS Additional Hydraulic Analysis 12,000$ 12,000$ -$ -$ Additional testing and hydraulic analysis to confirm pump station hydraulic limitations.

PS-7 Talent BPS Seismic Upgrades 70,000$ 10,000$ 60,000$ -$ Costs from Talent Seismic Plan. Includes further building study and possible structure to protect pumps.

Talent BPS Expansion for Talent and Ashland (Option 1) 403,000$ 225,000$ 178,000$ -$ Talent BPS Expansion for Talent Only (Option 2) 178,000$ 178,000$ -$ -$

PS-9 New Ashland BPS (Option 2 Only) 2,050,000$ 2,050,000$ -$ -$

P-1 ODOT Bridge Pipe Relocation (Coleman Creek in Phoenix) 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$ P-2 24-inch Pipe Seismic Upgrades (Highway 99 Phoenix ) 1,221,000$ -$ -$ 1,221,000$ E 4th St to Oak St. Pipe may be at risk and is recommended for restrained joint pipe or earthquake pipe.

Talent to Ashland Pipe Improvements (Option 1) 4,510,000$ 1,486,000$ 1,373,000$ 1,651,000$ Talent to Ashland Pipe Improvements (Option 2) 4,795,000$ 4,640,000$ 155,000$

O-1 Future Water Master Plan Updates 450,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ O-2 Telemetry Summary Report 15,000$ 15,000$ Summarize existing telemetry systems and update topology graphics for TAP system.

O-3 IGA Development 50,000$ 50,000$

15,130,000$ 5,817,000$ 4,814,000$ 4,499,000$

17,140,000$ 10,974,000$ 3,418,000$ 2,748,000$TOTAL OPTION 2

Note: Option 2 Projects are shown in italics

P-3

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

TOTAL

TOTAL OPTION 1

BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS

PIPE IMPROVEMENTS

PS-5

PS-8

S-1

TOTAL PROJECT

COST

NOTES

PROJ.

NO.

SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS

Table ES-2 Capital Improvement Plan

PROJECT TIMING

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

J:\Data\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 Reports\TAP WMP CIP Summary.xlsx 8/19/2020City Council

1 | EXISTING SYSTEM

J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\1_TAP-WMP-2019-CH1 INTRODUCTION AND EXISTING SYSTEM.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:56 AM) 1-1

1 | EXISTING SYSTEM

Introduction In the late 1990s, the Cities of Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix (TAP Partner Cities) collaborated in the development of a new water supply transmission project (TAP System) to provide domestic water from the Medford Water Commission (MWC) to their communities. Since then, several system improvements have been implemented, resulting in management and cost-sharing decision making. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly apparent that an updated Water Master Plan (WMP) for the TAP facilities would be beneficial to all TAP Partner Cities, as it is an essential supply for all three communities.

The WMP addresses several goals:

• Documents the existing TAP System facility information;

• Confirms future supply demands for the next 40-year planning horizon;

• Assesses the condition and capacity of the existing system for future planning;

• Identifies operational constraints and recommends operational adjustments for improved efficiency;

• Develops options for meeting or revising the MWC Water Service Agreements to achieve compliance;

• Develops a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to meet future demands and major facility replacements;

• Formalizes the TAP System financing to guide the allocation of operational, maintenance, and capital costs between the TAP Partner Cities; and

• Provides recommendations for developing a new TAP Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the TAP Partner Cities.

While all three TAP Partner Cities have independent WMPs in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-61-060, which satisfies the cities requirements for planning by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and touch on their individual needs from the TAP System, this WMP was developed to look at the TAP system as a whole and incorporate the needs of all TAP Partner Cities collectively.

History A water supply intertie between MWC and the TAP Partner Cities had been discussed for several years but was not thoroughly vetted until a multi-jurisdictional committee (TAP Committee) was formed in 1996. In the same year, the TAP Partner Cities entered into a four-party agreement with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) to develop the TAP System. The City of Talent (Talent) needed to replace its aging source of supply (water treatment facility on Bear Creek); the City of Phoenix (Phoenix) needed to supplement its existing supply from MWC; and the City of Ashland (Ashland) wanted access to a secondary emergency source of supply.

RVCOG and the TAP Partner Cities solicited engineering services, acquired property, and secured funding for the project. Both Phoenix and Talent were awarded U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grants and other loans; Ashland funded the project with its Public Utility Fund. Construction of the original TAP project was completed in 2001. The system initially only supplied water to Phoenix and Talent until 2014, when Ashland installed additional transmission facilities to provide an emergency source of supply for its community. City

Council

CHAPTER 1 TAP WATER MASTER PLAN

1-2 J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\1_TAP-WMP-2019-CH1 INTRODUCTION AND EXISTING SYSTEM.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:56 AM)

At the time of this WMP the TAP System supplies water to serve all of Phoenix and Talent. TAP augments Ashland’s domestic water supply on an emergency basis. The TAP Partner Cities have recently resumed meeting on a monthly basis to support management of the system.

TAP Agreements Several contractual documents were developed for the management and construction of the TAP facilities.

The TAP Partner Cities initially entered into an IGA with RVCOG to provide administrative and contracting services for construction of the facilities. In 2000, the three cities entered into a three-party IGA (2000 TAP IGA) for use and management of the TAP System. Since then, the 2000 TAP IGA has been amended twice, and includes an addendum. The documents assumed to continue to be relevant to the TAP System are listed below and described in the following sections:

• 2000 TAP IGA – October 27, 2000 (Appendix 1A).

• 2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 1 – March 20, 2002 (Appendix 1B).

• 2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 2 – Unsigned 2004 (Appendix 1C).

• 2000 TAP IGA Addendum No. 1 – May 15, 2007 (Appendix 1D).

• 2006 Talent Ashland IGA for Emergency Water Service – April 19, 2006 (Appendix 1E).

• MWC IGA TAP Regional Pump Station Maintenance Agreement (October 2000) and Amendment No.

1 (May 7, 2002) (Appendix 1F).

• 2016 TAP RVCOG IGA for Billing (Appendix 1G).

• TAP Cost Allocation Recommendations – 2017 (Appendix 1H).

At the time of this WMP it is assumed that the latest governing documents (that have superseded or amended previous documents) include the 2000 TAP IGA Addendum No. 1, the 2006 Talent Ashland IGA, the 2016 TAP RVCOG IGA, and the MWC IGA TAP Regional Pump Station Amendment No. 1.

2000 TAP IGA

The 2000 TAP IGA includes agreements for engineering services (“Exhibit A” – not included), for construction (“Exhibit B” – not included), and for maintenance of the Regional Booster Pump Station (RBPS)(“Exhibit C” MWC IGA TAP Regional Pump Station – Appendix 1F). The 2000 TAP IGA established a percentage share of the construction, operations, maintenance costs, and capacity of the system to be allocated to the three parties. Table 1-1 shows the original allocation from the 2000 TAP IGA. The percentages were established to meet the peak day demand (PDD) for Phoenix and Talent and 25 percent of the average day demand (ADD) for Ashland.

City Council

TAP WATER MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION AND EXISTING SYSTEM

J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\1_TAP-WMP-2019-CH1 INTRODUCTION AND EXISTING SYSTEM.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:56 AM) 1-3

Table 1-1 2000 TAP IGA Cost and Capacity Allocation

City Flow-Based Percent of

Capacity (%)

2050 Capacity Allocation (MGD)1

ADD PDD

Talent 58.83% 1.858 3.972

Ashland 19.39% 1.600 1.600

Phoenix 21.78% 1.406 3.012

1MGD = Millions gallons per day (MGD)

The 2000 TAP IGA cost allocation was appropriate for the original construction of the TAP System; however, it does not accurately reflect the beneficial use of each facility for each city. For this reason, the 2000 TAP IGA also identified the responsibility and ownership of TAP “Project Components” for future maintenance as listed in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 2000 TAP IGA Breakdown of Capacity Allocation by Pipeline/Facility

Size Type/Name City: Allocation

24-inch MWC to Phoenix Pipeline All Cities: Flow-based percent of capacity

12-inch Phoenix Pipeline “A” Phoenix: 100%

12-inch Phoenix Pipeline “B” Phoenix: 100%

16-inch Talent Pipeline “A” Talent: 100%

1.0 MG1 Phoenix Eastside Reservoir Phoenix: 100%

1.0 MG Talent Belmont 2 Reservoir Talent: 100%

3,500 gpm2 Regional BPS All Cities: Flow-based percent of capacity

Talent Shop Booster Pump Station (BPS) Talent: 100%

Phoenix Shop BPS Phoenix: 100% 1Million Gallons (MG) 2Gallons per Minute (GPM)

It is important to note that the flow-based percentage for each City currently differs from the original agreement. Recommended future cost sharing will be discussed in Chapter 5.

Lastly, the 2000 TAP IGA allocated management of the TAP system to RVCOG, and several additional agreements were in place between the cities and RVCOG (later superseded by the Addendum to the TAP IGA signed in May 2007 in the following sections).

2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 1 (March 2002)

Amendment No. 1 (Appendix 1B) amends some minor issues and revises the capacity allocation slightly (rounding to whole numbers for PDD allocation: 4.0, 1.6, and 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) for Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix, respectively). The amendment reduces the role of RVCOG in ongoing management and maintenance. The amendment also adds language allowing for future reallocation of the

City Council

1-4 J:\DATA\TAP\1019-158 WMP\10 REPORTS\1_TAP-WMP-2019-CH1 INTRODUCTION AND EXISTING SYSTEM.DOCX (9/17/2020 7:56 AM) respective capacities and adds responsibilities to Ashland when it connects to the TAP System to upsize the pumps at the RBPS unless the pumps require replacement.

2000 TAP IGA Amendment No. 2 (Unsigned)

All copies held by RH2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2) of this amendment (Appendix 1C) are unsigned and not dated. The amendment assigns responsibility to Ashland when it connects to the TAP System to contribute funding towards a generator that was purchased for the RBPS.

2000 TAP IGA Addendum No. 1 (May 2007)

The 2007 May…