1. Oak Harbor Facilities Plan City Council Workshop March 9, 2011

2. Agenda Project Schedule Update Brief Review of Preliminary Alternatives Overview of Evaluation Process Proposed Alternatives and Sites Summary/Next Steps

3. Project Schedule Update

4. Overall Project Schedule

5. Planning and Preliminary Engineering Milestones Short List 4 Alts Identify Proposed Alt Approval to Submit Plan

6. Review of Preliminary Alternatives

7. 2 WWTP Process Options

8. 8 Candidate Sites(Public/US Navy Input + Technical Requirements)

9. 3 Candidate Outfall Locations Crescent HarborMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser Oak HarborLimited Shellfish Impact West BeachMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser

10. Matrix of Preliminary Alternatives13 Alternatives, 8 Potential Sites Oak HarborLimited Shellfish Impact

11. TBL+ Comparison of Alternatives

12. Technical and community objectives drive alternative selection Technical considerations: Reliable, safe, efficient treatment facility to meet current and future regulations Community feedback: Continue existing level of service Control costs Avoid open space/public impact Implement a long-term solution

14. T2

15. T3

16. S1

17. S2

18. S3

19. E1

20. E2

21. E3

22. F1

23. F2

25. * Criteria matching Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan Social Objectives

26. * Criteria matching Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan Technical Objectives

27. * Criteria matching Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan Financial Objectives

28. Financial analysis focused on comparing relative cost of alternatives “Conceptual level”* costs developed for 3 major components: Outfall3% - 5% of total Conveyance3% - 20% of total Treatment Plant80% - 90% of total * Expected accuracy is -50% to +30%

29. “Unit cost” of treatment compared with multiple local MBR* projects as check Blaine, WA Oak HarborDesign Capacity * AS facilities typically cost 8% to10% less than MBR

30. Other cost factors considered in comparative analysis Project Contingency: 30% Accounts for planning level uncertainty Washington State Sales Tax: 8.7% Allied Costs (Engineering, Legal, Admin): 25% “Soft” project costs not related to construction Escalation to Mid-point of Construction: 3% per yr Assumes bidding in 2014

31. 6 Alternatives are within 10% of lowestcost Alternative (3B) Alternative 3BLowest Cost

32. Proposed Alternatives & Sites

33. Windjammer Park SiteAlternative 1: MBR with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Low relative cost (~ 6% above lowest cost) Most efficient use of infrastructure Challenges Facilities located in/near Windjammer Park

34. Marina SiteAlternative 2A/B: MBR/AS with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Low relative cost (3% to 9% above lowest cost) Avoids facilities in/near Windjammer Park Challenges Inefficient use of infrastructure Marina impact (MBR) or US Navy property (AS)

35. Old City Shops SiteAlternative 3A/B: MBR/AS with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Low relative cost (0% to 6% above lowest cost) Avoids facilities in/near Windjammer Park Relatively efficient use of infrastructure Challenges Places facilities in neighborhood area

36. Beachview Farm SiteAlternative 4B: AS with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Low relative cost (~ 3% above lowest cost) Avoids facilities in parks/neighborhood areas Opportunity for beneficial reuse of effluent Challenges Inefficient use of infrastructure

37. Sites Proposed For Further Evaluation

38. Summary and Next Steps

39. Public Process Schematic

40. Full TBL+ Summary ofPreliminary Alternatives

41. AWindjammer B/E Marina FOld City Shops KPioneer IBeachview LNew Shops JNavy East MChevy Lot SITE

42. AWindjammer B/E Marina FOld City Shops KPioneer IBeachview LNew Shops JNavy East MChevy Lot SITE