Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board
Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board
Alternative Project Delivery - Texas Water Development Board
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Section 4<br />
• Rate stabilization<br />
• Off-balance sheet financing<br />
• Defeased $25 million in Municipal GO debt<br />
• $1 million of Metering System improvements<br />
Savings Anticipated: $ 9.9 million<br />
Present Status<br />
U.S. <strong>Water</strong> L.L.C. d/b/a North Brunswick <strong>Water</strong> L.L.C. began operating the City’s<br />
utilities in March 1996. Billing problems experienced during the transition initially<br />
caused some concern in early 1997. U.S. <strong>Water</strong> completed the installation of a new<br />
Automatic Meter Reading system. The contract has performed financially as<br />
anticipated.<br />
Currently, there is a pending County initiative by the Middlesex County Improvement<br />
Authority (MCIA) to solicit one private vendor for utility contract operations services<br />
for several municipalities. The City of North Brunswick is one of the participating<br />
municipalities in the MCIA solicitation. The City will have the option of terminating<br />
its contract with U.S. <strong>Water</strong> and repaying the balance of the loans and fees and<br />
participating in the MCIA contract or continuing with North Brunswick <strong>Water</strong> in the<br />
near future.<br />
City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities (“SPU”),<br />
Washington<br />
Background<br />
In the early 1990’s, SPU was facing the prospect of having to build water filtration<br />
plants for its reservoir supplies. SPU had begun design of a 120 mgd plant that would<br />
produce one third of SPU’s water supply using a conventional project delivery<br />
process. However, SPU’s new senior management was concerned about reducing cost<br />
and maximizing the value of water quality. SPU determined that DBO project<br />
delivery could potentially result in significant capital, operating and maintenance<br />
savings.<br />
No major water industry precedent for DBO project delivery for a major water<br />
treatment plant existed at the State of Washington. SPU and the City managers<br />
decided that if the DBO alternative project delivery method could produce 15%<br />
savings or more as compared to a conventional project delivery process, then the risk<br />
of a DBO would be worth pursuing.<br />
Facility:<br />
Developer:<br />
120 MGD Tolt <strong>Water</strong> Treatment Facilities<br />
CDM & Phillips Utilities Management Corp (“CDM-Phillips”)<br />
4-6 <strong>Texas</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Development</strong> <strong>Board</strong> B1381-Sect4