Staff Recommendation Factors of Importance for Formulation of Staff Recommendation oPublic Rank of Importance Survey oCommunity Impact Matrix oPublic's Preferred Option & Undergrounding Cost Acceptance Staff Recommendation Public's Rank of Importance Survey 1) Reliable electric service 16.2% 2) Option provides longest-term solution 15.3% 3) Least cost to build/minimize rate impact 12.6% 4) Proximity to residential homes (this includes apartments) 12.5% 5) Environmental impact 11.8% 6) Negative aesthetic impacts 11.7% 7) Proximity to schools, day cares, churches, hospitals, nursing homes 11.3% 8) Proximity to commercial businesses 8.6% Staff Recommendation Results of the Decision Matrix Analyzing Community Impacts vs. Benefits o Option A: -36,341 o Option B: -35,739 o Option B-2: -35,528 Staff Recommendation Survey for Public Opinion "Given the necessity for this project, if you must choose, which option would you prefer to see implemented?" oOption A: 76% oOption B: 17% oOption B-2: 7% "OK to raise rates for undergrounding lines?" oYes - 53% oNo - 47% Staff Recommendation Using this Feedback Staff is Recommending Option A. Undergrounding Options to Consider. oAll Transmission Lines to Exit the New Substation Underground and Make One Transition to Overhead on Each of the Three Segments oDistribution Lines along the Transmission Route will be underground Substation Substation Legend Infill Greek to Underground Sactlon It'll! Creek to Pemhe Underground Section Greek to Glindstana Underground Section Option A - Identified Routes Mill Creek Substation II I--I PRDVID CE Grindstone Substation Mill Creek to McBaine Underground Section Mill Creek to Perche Underground Section Mill Creek to Grindstone Underground Section Pm-rerPlant 1:51 59-133"? Transmission Lines TraJ1sn1.1ss1nn D1511-ilmimn Suhstafiuns Suhstafimis Lines Staff Recommendation Pub|ic's Rank of Importance 1} Reliable electric service 16.2% 2} Optien prevides lengest-term selutien 15.3% 3} Least cest te build/minimize rate impact 12.6% 4} Preximity te residential hemes (this includes apartments) 12.5% 5} Envirenmental impact 11.8% 6} Negative aesthetic impacts 11.7% 7} Preximity te scheels, day cares, churches, hespitals, nursing hemes 11.3% 8} Preximity te cemmercial businesses 8.6% Staff Recommendation Results of the Decision Matrix Analyzing Community Impacts vs. Benefits o o o o Option A: -36,341 Option B: -35,739 Option B-2: -35,528 Option A SRU: -31,608 Cost of Staff Recommendation Cost of Options Option A OH Option A UG Option B OH Estimated Solution Duration (Years) 20+ 20+ 10 to 20 10 to 20 10 to 20 10 to 20 20+ Total Miles of Transmission Line 12.07 12.07 9.96 9.96 12.81 12.81 12.07 Construction Cost/Mile Overhead $1,088,245 $0 $1,019,189 $0 $953,926 $0 $1,088,245 Construction Cost/Mile Underground $0 $7,613,800 $0 $7,613,800 $0 $7,613,800 $7,613,800 $13,135,117 $0 $10,151,122 $0 $12,219,788 $0 $9,445,967 $0 $91,898,566 $0 $75,833,448 $0 $97,532,778 $25,810,782 $13,135,117 $91,898,566 $10,151,122 $75,833,448 $12,21,788 $97,532,778 $35,256,749 Overhead Cost Underground Cost Total Option B UG Option B2 OH Option B2 UG Option A SRU Cost of Staff Recommendation Rate Impact of Options Option A OH Option A UG Option B OH Option B UG Option B2 OH Option B2 UG Option A SRU Construction Cost/Customer OH $283 $0 $219 $0 $264 $0 $204 Construction Cost/Customer UG $0 $1,983 $0 $1,636 $0 $2,105 $557 Total $283.43 $1,982.97 $219.04 $1,636.32 $263.68 $2,104.54 $760.76 Cost/Customer/Month over 20 Years OH $1.18 $0.00 $0.91 $0.00 $1.10 $0.00 $0.85 Cost/Customer/Month over 20 Years UG $0.00 $8.26 $0.00 $6.82 $0.00 $8.77 $2.32 Total $1.18 $8.26 $0.91 $6.82 $1.10 $8.77 $3.17 Construction Rate Increase OH 1.54% 0.00% 1.19% 0.00% 1.44% 0.00% 1.11% Construction Rate Increase UG 0.00% 10.81% 0.00% 8.92% 0.00% 11.48% 3.04% 1.54% 10.81% 1.19% 8.92% 1.44% 11.48% 4.15% Total ill Creek - Substation Grindstone Substation Legend Mill Creek to Mcfiaine Underground Section Mill Creek to Perche Underground Sectiun Mill Creek to Grindstune Underground Section Staff Recommendation Summary o Staff Recommendation of Option A with Some Undergrounding - Addresses 5 of the 8 public rank of importance issues with the top 2 included - 13% Better Public Impact Score - Solution increases the project costs by 270% above the Overhead only option Staff Recommendation Summary Continued - Transfers load to the 161 kV system and preserves current 69 kV capacity - 161 kV option more than double the power transmission capacity - Provides most economical, reliable & long term option - At their June 12 meeting, the Water & Light Advisory Board Endorsed Option A without undergrounding options. Columbia Water Light - Transmission Powerline Timeline I A IL SPRING 2009 Report Open house for JUNE 2017 Interested seller presented to Option A and Anticipated approached city council on Option preferred date of 10 Substanon Finished investigation Coungil directs is most ub|lcr1 meted line project locations identified' of Omioms for other staff to seek referrer; design Completion Wterested Dames" Site Property alternatives to I DECEMBER meetin held . project. Water 2015 2909 Light begin Anticipated W&i_ Advisory developing Report to City date of 09130" Council: Summary ?omfileted 2007 recommended "9ht'O1'WaV Need for stem . . SEPTEJM rojec ee . t0 CIW COUDCH back and Water acqulsmon improvements to edeet em Li ere identified d' Opefl. House 9 . or m_anCe 0 meetings held menda_t'0n for acquire Peach for Option proiect Ct. site. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 war 2010 Final route - FEBRUARY 201? Council work session 5919-CtlO"l I Mqdelmg Indicates I 2003 were I bl. project needs to be I Se a inc' hired reviewing project need DU I Compieted and I SQSSIOH deSCF|bll'ig and r0 Osed 50' tons hearing I . . . . to 5'te factors associated with I I to mE1mt.a.m I substation building a new eleerrie I basic system reliability routes new 161 l