LUTC PKT 08-18-1997
Ú ÚA,i¿/
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
August 18, 1997
5:30 pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
AFPROV AL OF MINUTES
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit)
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A.
Lakehaven
i. Regional Water Supply
Don Wright, SKRW A (15 mill)
ii.
Water supply available to Lakehaven
Lynn Takaichi - Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants (15 mill)
Hi.
Financial/Budget Overview
Gary Atkin, Lakehaven (5 mill)
a.
b.
c.
Discussion: Lakehaven's Written
Responses to City Questions
Water (20 mill)
Sewer (20 mill)
General (5 mill)
Staff/Consultants/Commission
iv.
v.
Process/Schedule Q & A to Answer Balance of City Questions and Additional
Questions Gary Atkin, Lakehaven (5 mill)
vi.
Date/Time for Next Meeting to Answer Balance of City Questions and Additional
Detailed Questions (5 mill)
B.
Telecommunications
Bonnie Lindstrom, Don Largen (30 mill)
C.
Legislative Agenda
Daven Rosener, (15 mill)
5.
ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Ron Gintz
Mary Gates
City Staff:
Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
661-4116
I:\LU- TRANS\AUG 1 SLUT .AGN
)
/
,',,;;,
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportat ion Committee
AugustS, 1997
6:00pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Ron Gintz and Mary Gates; Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley;
Public Works Director Cary Roe; City Clerk Chris Green; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Senior Planner Greg Fewins;
Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm by Chairman Phil Watkins.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the July 21, 1997, meeting were approved as presented.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on items other than those included in the agenda.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. West Fork Rylebos Creek Rehabilitation Bid Award - The Committee mls/c recommendation of approval to Council at
the August 5, 1997, meeting, to award the West Fork Hylebos Creek Rehabilitation bid to Roadway Construction, Inc.,
in the amount of $66,281.19 including a 10% construction contingency. Roadway has performed satisfactory work
having successfully completed the Olympic View Park Stream Channel Stabilization in 1996 on time and under bid.
The project corrects stream stability problems in 830 feet of the West Hylebos by placement of rock and log weirs,
cascades and deflectors, and installation of vegetative bank stabilization measures. The project will include cooperative
work by the King Conservation District and World Conservation Corp., who will provide labor for noxious weed
removal and control, revegetation, and hand placement of some stream features, and by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service who prepared the revegetation plan.
B. Plannin~ Commission Vacancy - The Committee agreed that the vacancy created on the Planning Commission by the
resignation of Diana Noble-Gulliford would remain vacant until the application period has ended and applicants have
been interviewed. Her term would have terminated in September and the application process would ordinarily be
occurring at this time to fill the vacancy created by the expired term. It was also noted that Brian Johnson has resigned
as alternate due to his moving outside the City of Federal Way boundary.
5. FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held on August 18, 1997, at 5:30 pm in City Council Chambers. The September 1, 1997, meeting,
which falls on theLabor Day holiday, will be held on September 3, 1997, at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6: 17 pm .
I: \LU- TRANS\AUG5LUT.SUM
"'\'.;~
Lakehaven Questions
Index
Cover Memo
page 1
Questions for Lakehaven
page 3
Lakehaven Water Supply - answers
page 9
Lakehaven Water System - answers
page 17
Lakehaven Wastewater System - answers
page 47
Lakehaven Wastewater Program
page 57
Lakehaven Wastewater - Attachment B
page 103
. ". ',;,. .~¡
DATE:
14 August 1997
TO:
City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee
- Council member Phil Watkins, Chair
- Council member Ron Gintz
- Council member Mary Gates
Philip D. Keightley, Deputy City Manage~
FROM
SUBJECT:
Lakehaven questions
It was agreed at the July 30, 1997 LakehavenlCity Liaison Committee meeting that the Lakehaven
Utility District and the City of Federal Way would work cooperatively to answer the CitY's
questions regarding water supply, both water system and waste water (sewer) system maintenance,
operations and capital needs. The attached August 11, 1997 draft of questions based on City
Council input was submitted to Lakehaven.
Lakehaven retained consultants to answer the City questions and provide a greater degree of
objectivity. These consultants recently started working on Lakehaven's water and waste water
comprehensive plans, which are to be completed in late 1998. They have submitted the attached
answers to each question and have done an excellent job pulling the information together so
quickly. At the meeting the consultants plan to give a brief overview and then answer committee
questions. The consultants and the areas they will cover are:
1.
Water supply. Lynn Takaichi, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
2.
Water system. Milton D. Larsen, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
3.
Waste water system. Martin L. Penhallegon, PACE (penhallegon Associates Consulting
Engineers Inc.)
Recommendations
1. After each brief presentation, ask Lakehaven consultants, staff or Commissioners, as
appropriate, for clarifications of written responses to City questions or ask additional
questions.
2.
Determine if the Committee has additional questions that they would like answered. If so,
what questions and by what Committee meeting date. The consultants may be able to
answer some questions in greater depth in about two months although they will not have
many of the answers until they complete the comprehensive plans in 1998.
QUESTIONS FOR LAKEHA VEN UTILITY DISTRICT
August 11, 1997 draft
I.
WATER SYSTEM
A.
SUPPLY NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY
The demand for summer water determines the supply that needs to be provided by
the Lakehaven Utility District to assure sufficient water for existing customers and
to be able to certify water availability for all proposed development.
The following Lakehaven information indicates average water demands, average
firm water supply and net water supply surplus in MGD for 1997 and 2001. There
are similar projections beyond 2001 for average water needs:
Average water demand
Average Water Supply
- Aquifers
- Tacoma agreement
(1.8 MGD in summer)
- Auburn agreement
(0.61 MGD in summer)
Total supply
Supply surplus
1997
MGD
2001
MGD
10.80
11.90
8.70 8.70
2.10 2.10
0.00 2.90?
10.50 11.11
0.00 1.80?
Peak demands for 1997 and 2001 are 22.8 MGD and 27.6 MGD respectively. This
peak demand can be supplied by pumping above the 8.7 MGD average rate from
our aquifers but will likely result in drawing down ground water levels below those
recommended for long term stability.
1.
What additional firm water supply will be available? How much, when and
from what sources?
2.
What additional firm water supplies may become available? How much,
when and from what sources?,
3.
How many water availability certificates does Lakehaven issue each year
3
B.
since 1994 and for what quantities?
4.
Can Lakehaven continue to certify water availability for new development?
5.
Lakehaven has been involved for a number of years in securing additional
long term firm water supply. Why is it taking so long to reach an
agreement with Auburn? When will it be executed?
6.
Is the old SKRW NTacoma agreement for Pipeline 5 still valid? How
involved is Lakehaven in current negotiations on Pipeline 5? If a new
Pipeline 5 agreement is executed in the near future, how much firm water
will likely be available to Lakehaven, at what cost and how soon if
expedited to meet Lakehaven's current supply deficit?
7.
It appears difficult to obtain any significant quantities of long term firm
water commitments. Water supply commitments are likely to be best solved
by regional water planning. What is Lakehaven' s degree of commitment in
regional water planning? This includes Lakehaven's participation with the
South King County Regional Water Association's efforts for Pipeline 5 and
the Cascade Water Alliance being formed (formerly the Water Caucus,
Interim Water Group and New Entity). What assurances are there that
there will be active regional water planning participation by Lakehaven in
the future?
MAINTENANCE
The newspapers have reported preliminary budgets have been greater than final
approved budgets.
1.
What maintenance items in preliminary budgets have been deleted form
final budgets since 1994? What long term impact will this have onJhe
system?
2.
How many water valves and fire hydrants do you have in the system and
how many are exercised each year? What is the meter testing and
replacement program? How many feet of pipes are cleaned annually to
remove precipitants? Does Lakehaven have a maintenance program with
records for these and similar maintenance functions and how much is
annually budgeted to each category? How does this compare with industry
norms for these kinds of maintenance, optimal maintenance levels and what
budgets would be needed at optimal levels for each category?
3.
How many Pressure Reducing Valve (pR V) stations, wells, pump stations,
standby power stations, water tanks etc do you have? Does Lakehaven
4
,..'.
have a maintenance program with records for each and how much annual
budget does Lakehaven have allocated to each? How does this compare
with industry nonns for this kind of maintenance, levels of maintenance
based on age, life cycle scheduled replacement needs based on age, and
annual budgets necessary for this for each category?
4.
What is the water quality and testing program at Lakehaven? Has testing
show water meets water quality standards? What efforts are being made
and planned to minimize "brown" water ftom precipitants of manganese
and iron?
C.
CAPITALIMAJOR MAINTENANCE
The newspapers have reported the deferral of capital and major maintenance. Items
in the preliminary budgets have not been included in final approved budgets.
1.
Please provide records of all types of pipe by size and age in five year
increments. This will indicate how soon certain types and sizes of pipe need
to be replaced. For example, galvanized steel and asbestos cement (AC)
water mains usually need to begin to be replaced within about 35 to 40
years depending on such issues as their depth, soil type and soil stability.
A.
Does Lakehaven have a major maintenance program with records
of annual pipe replacement? What is the amount of annual budget
allocated or projected to each for 1995 through 2000?
B.
How do present levels of maintenance compare to the industry
norms for this kind of major maintenance? When should these pipes
optimally be scheduled for replacement, their optimal level of
maintenance depending on age and annual budgets necessary for
this? Would this require rate increases beyond inflation? -
2.
The newspapers have reported preliminary budgets have been greater than
final budgets.
A.
Have major maintenance and capital projects been deferred? If so,
what are these projects and when should they be scheduled for
construction to meet long term water needs? What annual funding
levels would be necessary and rates to fund them?
B.
What will be the long term effect on the system and the ability to
provide water for long term needs with the budgeted schedule? Will
future needs be met with present levels of funding without rate
increases beyond inflation?
6
F.
ll.
c.
Staffing levels district wide have been reduced from 118 in 1992 to
101 in 1997. Are there the necessary staffing levels to implement
programs and projects budgeted? Is this a cause or reason for
programs and projects being deferred as they cannot all be
implemented with existing staff in the budget year?
D.
What plans does Lakehaven have for the treatment of well water to
meet Federal water quality regulations? When are these scheduled?
What will be the cost of such facilities when needed?
E.
What plans does Lakehaven have for the treatment of Lake haven
well water that has been chlorinated or mixed with chlorinated
water from other agencies to improve water quality from the
resulting "brown" precipitation of such elements as iron and
manganese? When will these be needed and what will be the cost of
such facilities?
Do well heads meet water quality requirements and industry
standards for well head protection? What programs past and
proposed are programmed and do they meet the industry standards?
WASTE WATER SYSTEMS
The News Tribune on 8/12/94 indicated that Roger Brown stated a 30% sewer rate
increase may have to be considered in 1995. Sewer rates were increased 16.1% in 1994
and 7.1 % on 1/1/95. The News Tribune also indicated that preliminary budgets for 1996
and 1997 called for 13.5% and 12.8% rate increases over two years. These budgets were
passed with no rate increases.
A.
MAINTENANCE
Have the 1994 and 1995 rate increases or no rate increases since then
resulted in deferred maintenance? If so, what maintenance is being deferred
and what is the effect on long term systems viability and long term least
cost for operating the systems?
1.
Waste water treatment plants have increased operating costs and
diminished capacity if there is significant inflow and infiltration (I & I) in
the sanitary sewer pipes and side sewers and if storm or roof drains are
connected to sewers. Normally systems try to achieve about an 8 to 15 %
maximum 1&1 rate. What is the 1&1 rate for each sub area of each sanitary
sewer basin? What is the current 1&1 program and how much is budgeted
annually or projected for the program for 1995 through 20007 Are these
2.
&
B
sufficient to meet optimum needs and what may be needed?
3.
What maintenance records and programs does Lakehaven have for the two
treatment plants and the pump stations and how does this compare to
industry norms for such facilities? What is the annual budget and how does
that compare to industry norms for similar facilities?
4
What maintenance programs does Lakehaven have, such as removing
grease trom sewer lines below restaurants, TV camera logging of sewer
lines to check 1&1 rates and pipe replacement life etc.? What fTequency is
used or system percentage cleaned or logged per year? Does this meet
industry norms and are budget or projected amounts sufficient for each
maintenance category for 1995 through 2000?
5.
What preventive maintenance programs does Lakehaven have, such as for
pumps, motors) generators, telemetry etc.? Does this meet industry norms
and are the budgeted and projected amounts sufficient for each
maintenance category for 1995 through 2000?
MAJÒR MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL
1.
Have the 1994 and 1995 rate increases and no rate increases since then
resulted in deferred major maintenance and capital improvements? If so,
what has been deferred, when should they be optimally completed, what
are their costs and what will be the long term effect on the system to meet
future needs?
2.
Federal NPDES permits for the two waste water treatment plants could
require significant improvements. What are these improvements, what is
the likely cost of these improvements, when will these likely be needed, will
there be a need for a rate increase, and if so how much?
3.
-
What is the current peak flow and capacity of both waste water treatment
plants? Do these peak flows approach regulatory or long range need
capacities? If so, what improvements are needed) their costs and when
should they be made?
3.
Have there been violations of the two waste water treatment plants
NPDES permits? If so, how many, at what cost and what improvements
have been necessary? .
4.
The hillside above the Redondo treatment plant is prone to landslides. Has
Lakehaven recently had soils .and structural engineers evaluate the safety of
the hillside and the plant? How old is the retaining wall protecting the
plant, when should it be upgraded or replaced and what would be the cost?
--r
m
GENERAL
There is the often truthful statement of pay now or pay more later if one defers
maintenance or capital improvements. The maintenance is greater if it does not provide for
the optimum life of the item based on the cost of the maintenance as it ages and the cost
for replacement. Similarly the timing of capital improvements can be optimally structured
and funded.
1.
What is Lakehaven's policy direction on this subject?
2.
Are maintenance programs and capital projects in the Capital Improvement
Program being optimally timed and funded to meet long tenn needs at least cost. If
not, are restraints being placed on timing to keep rates down instead?
3.
Would you consider today's maintenance and capital programs more reactive or
proactive?
4.
What rate increases are anticipated in the next 5 years under current Lakehaven
budgets and policies? What would rates be if programs and projects possibly
deferred in current budgets but needed were implemented to meet long tenn
needs?
I:\utils2.mem
1;
.. ""
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
14 August 1997
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Lakehaven Utility District
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Subject:
Lakehaven Utility District Water Supply
KIJ 956006.00
The attached tables contain background information regarding water supply availability for
Lakehaven Utility District. Water supply availability is scheduled to be discussed at the City of
Federal Way City Council's Land UsefTransportation Committee Meeting on August 18. 1997.
The information contained in these tables is subject to modification during the Comprehensive
Water System Update process (1998).
MDL:nd
8mdl1 m.doc
Attachments
q
1997 WATER SUPPLY SCENARIO
Delivery Capacity
Winter Summer
(6 months) Annual (6 months) Peak
EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES
Groundwater 6.5 8.7 10.9 34.0 (28.0)
Tacoma 5.8 3.8(a) -1.:§ 1.8(b)
Total Water Supplies 12.3 12.5 12.7 35.8
PRODUCTION REQUIRED 8.7 10.6 12.5 25.4
Notes:
(a) Based on average of winter and summer capacity limitations.
(b) Additional capacity can be provided on an as-needed basis.
956006.00
/0
.,.".
2001 WATER SUPPLY SCENARIO
(WITH PIPELINE 5)
Delivery Capacity (mgd)
Winter Annual Summer Peak
EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES
Groundwater 5.6 8.7 11.8 34.0 (28.0)
Tacoma - -
- -
Subtotal - Existing 5.6 8.7 11.8 34.0
POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLIES
Auburn (firm) O(a) 0.6 1.2 1.7
(interruptible) 5.0 2.9 0 0
Pipeline 5 (without GW)(b) 7.2 5.0 1.9(c) 7.2
Subtotal- Potential (firm) 7.2 5.6 3.1 8.9
(interruptible) 12.2 8.5 3.1 8.9
TOTAL WATER SUPPLIES (firm) 12.8 14.3 14.9 42.9
PRODUCTION REQUIRED 8.9 11.9 14.9 28.6
Notes:
(a) Based on achieving the annual average demand limitation of 0.6 mgd with a summer demand
of 1.2 mgd.
(b) With groundwater, the Pipeline 5 delivery can be maintained at 7.2 mgd.
(c) Based on LUD's share of Howard Hansen Phase I.
956006.00
1 \
WATER SUPPLIES
Existing
. Groundwater
Interim
. Tacoma
Potential
. Auburn
. Pipeline 5
. ASR (OASIS)
Others
. Lower Green River Diversion
. Winter Water from Seattle
. Winter Water from Tacoma
. Wastewater Reclamation
. Pierce County (Lone Star)
. Desalination
DRAFT
13 August 1997
956006.00
t~
,'---' .;¡o,~
GROUNDWATER
Water Supply
.
19 active wells
.
Design Capacity: 34 mgd
.
Existing Pumping Capacity: 28 mgd
.
Largest Well: 3,000 gpm (4.0 mgd)
Aquifer
. Current Yield Estimate: 8.7 mgd (9,700 AFY)
.
Permitted Extraction: 20,193 AFY Primary
22,326 AFY Supplemental
29,425 gpm Maximum
DRAFT
13 August 1997
956006.00
(~
TACOMA INTERTIE AGREEM ENT
Water Supply
.
1.8 mgd (summer)
5.8 mgd (winter)
. Additional Water on As-Available Basis
Selected Terms of Agreement
.
Duration: Earlier of
1. 4 years (1999); or
2. Pipeline 5 (est. 2001)
. Good Faith Efforts to Negotiate Extensions
.
Buyback at MVPS (1999). LUD must construct new facilities.
DRAFT
13 August 1997
!4-
956006.00
" ." . ""n.." ,.;,.,. ':' .."
, . f,/
AUBURN INTERTIE AGREEMENT
Water Supply (1998-2003)
. WHPAA
0.61 mgd (average day)
1.68 mgd (maximum day)
.
Non-WHPAA (2001)
as-available basis
0 (summer)
5.0 (winter)
2.92 (average day)
5.0 (maximum day)
.
First in Time, First in Right (LUD 6th 1A)
Selected Terms of Agreement
.
Linked to WHPAA Annexation/Assumption Agreement
. Auburn Capacity Rights in LUD Storage
.
Intertie Facilities Required
DRAFT
13 August 1997
956006.00
I~
PIPELINE 5 AGREEMENT
Water Supply
. Capacity Rights
- 7.2 mgd (1/3 of 1/3 of 65 mgd)
.
Howard Hansen Phase I (HH P1)
- 1/3 of 1/3 of 10,000 AF
.
Expected Water Deliveries
- Surface Water Hydrology
- 7.2 mgd (winter)
5.9 mgd (historical average with HH P1)
1.9 mgd (summer with carryover storage only)
. Option for Supplemental Groundwater
Agreement
.
Partnership of SPU, TPU, and SKCRWA
. SKCRWA
- City of Kent
- Covington WD
- LUD
.
In Negotiation
DRAFT
13 August 1997
956006.00
1(.,
" ,."",\(
/
,/
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
14 August 1997
MEMORANDUM
To:
Lakehaven Utility District
From:
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Subject:
Response to City Memorandum dated 11 August 1997,
"Lakehaven Questions"
KIJ 966115.00
It was agreed at the 30 July 1997 Lakehaven/City Liaison Committee meeting that Lakehaven
Utility District and the City of Federal Way would work cooperatively to answer the City's
questions regarding water supply, maintenance, and the District's capital needs. This
memorandum answers the portion of the draft City questions list pertaining to water system
operations and service. These City questions and comments, hereinafter shown in italics,
were originally presented in a memorandum to the City Council dated 11 August 1997.
QUESTIONS FOR LAKEHA VEN UTILITY DISTRICT
dated August 11, 1997
I. WA TER SYSTEM
A. SUPPLY NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY
1. Q: What additional firm water supply will be available?
How much, when and from what sources?
Shown below are the average annual and maximum day water demand for
Lakehaven Utility District (District) and firm average water supply available in
million gallons per day (MGD) for 1997 and 2001. The projected demand may be
revised during the development of the Comprehensive Water System Plan, which
is scheduled for completion in 1998.
Year 1997 2001
(MGD) (MGD)
Projected Water Demand - Avg. Annual 10.6 11.9
Projected Water Demand - Max. Day 25.4 28.6
Firm Supply - Aquifers 8.7 8.7
- Tacoma Intertie Agreement 2.1 2.1
- Auburn Water Agreement - non,"WHPAA(a) 0.0 2.9
- Auburn Water Agreement - WHPAA 0.0 0.6
Total Supply 10.8 14.3
Net Surplus +0.2 +2.4
(a) WHPAA = West Hill Potential Annexation Area
,'7
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 2
Summer demands can be met through resting the aquifers during the winter.
allowing natural recharge. and aquifer storage and recharge. The average
annual demand and sustainable supply are the near-term controlling factors in
Lakehaven's ability to meet the needs of its customers. The reason for this is that
while demand follows a seasonal pattern. supply is not limited on a seasonal
basis. To understand this, a discussion on aquifer yield and the nature of the
Tacoma and Auburn agreements is necessary.
The safe yield of the District's aquifers is defined by the ability of the District to
sustain groundwater levels in its aquifers. Groundwater levels are monitored
according to annual net changes, not seasonal net changes (Le.. water surface
levels are permitted to decrease during summer months as long as they rebound
at least as much during the winter months).
Through modeling its aquifer system, the District determined that the sustainable
aquifer yield was 8.7 MGD. This yield corresponds to the water that the aquifers
can produce during a 10-year drought condition without causing groundwater
levels to decrease. This drought condition is based on average annual
precipitation and matches the 90th percentile worst drought decade locally on
record. Selection of this drought condition was not guided by regulatory
requirements.
The firmness of the Tacoma and Auburn water supply sources listed in the
previous table are contingent upon their existence in 2001. Neither of these
agreements are final through 2001 at this time. However, it is anticipated that
these agreements will be firm. The third Tacoma Intertie Agreement is firm
through 1999. If water from Pipeline 5 becomes available, the Pipeline 5
Agreement supersedes the Intertie Agreement. If Lakehaven's full allotment from
Pipeline 5 is not available and Tacoma has the water, the Intertie Agreeme.nt
continues past 1999.
In the Auburn Agreement, Auburn will provide 0.6 MGD firm water to meet the
needs of the West Hill Potential Annexation Area. In addition, Auburn will provide
5 MGD to Lakehaven year-round for 2 years and 5 MGD for 7 months per year for
the following 18 years. Although this water is not firm, it will be used to rest the
District's aquifers and would be available for aquifer storage and recharge.
2.
Q: What additional firm water supplies may become available? How much, when
and from what sources?
The following additional water sources have been identified:
.
Pipeline 5 - See A6
.
Green River Diversion - The District has applied for a 29,OOO-acre feet annual
water right to the Green River downstream of the Auburn gage.
(6
.,
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 3
.
Seattle (Highline Intertie) - The potential exists to purchase winter water from
Seattle for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) or use at the time of purchase,
thus leaving more water in the aquifer for use during the summer.
.
Tacoma - Additional winter water could be purchased for ASR or to rest the
District's aquifers.
.
Wastewater reuse.
.
Pierce County/Lone Star Sand & Gravel - When Pierce County purchased the
gravel pit they also obtained the 12 MGD water rights to the gravel operation's
wells.
.
Puget Sound - Desalinization.
3. Q: How many water availability certificates does Lakehaven issue each year
since 1994 and for what quantities?
In 1995, the District issued 85 water availability certificates for a water demand of
494 equivalent residential units (ERU). Based on 250 gpd/ERU, the water
quantity commitment in 1995 was 0.123 MGD.
In 1996, the District issued 96 water availability certificates for a water demand of
471 ERUs and a water commitment of 0.117 MGD.
Lakehaven issues certificates of water availability good for one year. However,
since in takes 3 to 4 years to get a plat through the platting process, the District
has honored certificates of water availability for 5 years on plats. Normally, 20
percent of the certificates of water availability issued expire each year.
4.
Q: Can Lakehaven continue to certify water availability for new development?
King County's ordinance 10095 § 9, 1991 states that "water availability shall be
consistent with a system's supply, provided, that a district shall not issue
certificates of water availability which when added to existing connections,
exceed the system's supply to two percent"
The District secured the third intertie agreement with Tacoma so that there would
be no deficit and the District could continue issuing certificates of water
availability. Analyses conducted concurrent with the acquisition of the third
intertie agreement indicated that the Di~trict's sustainable yield and peak supply
exceeded demand and that there was water available for three to four years at
the current growth rate without any additional supplies. There is no water deficit
for the near term, as indicated in the table under question A, 1.
fer
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 4
5. Q: Lakehaven has been involved for a number of years in securing additional
long term firm water supply. Why is it taking so long to reach an agreement with
Aubum?
Auburn did not have the water rights that allowed them to sell water to Lakehaven
until recently. Auburn also had to determine its needs and how much water they
were willing to sell. The agreement to purchase from Auburn is basically
completed but is held up by the Assumption Agreement for the West Hill Potential
Annexation Area. Currently, bond counsel is reviewing this agreement.
Q: When will it be executed
The District expects the Agreement to be completed by the end of this year.
6.
Q: Is the old SKCRWAíTacoma agreement for Pipeline 5 still valid?
It is the District's position that the 1985 SKCRWAfTacoma Agreement for Pipeline
5 is still valid. Tacoma's position is that the Agreement is not valid.
Q: How involved is Lakehaven in current negotiations on Pipeline 5?
The District is an active participant in current negotiations on Pipeline 5. Lynn
Takaichi (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants) has been assisting Lakehaven with these
negotiations for the last 2% years.
Q: If a new Pipeline 5 agreement is executed in the near future, how much firm
water will likely be available to Lakehaven, at what cost and how soon if
expedited to meet Lakehaven's current supply deficit?
Lakehaven has assumed a portion of King County Water District No. 111's
interest in Pipeline 5 and currently expects to receive as much as 5 MGD annual
supply from the project with a 7.2 MGD peak capacity. The District's share is
currently estimated to be $22 million. The earliest schedule provided by Tacoma
is 2001 for delivery of winter water and 2004 for summer water.
7.
Q: It appears difficult to obtain any significant quantities of long term firm water
commitments. Water supply commitments are likely to be best solved by regional
water planning. What is Lakehaven's degree of commitment in regional water
planning? This includes Lakehaven's participation with the South King County
Regional Water Association's (SKCRWA) efforts for Pipeline 5 and the Cascade
water Alliance being formed (formerly the Water Caucus, Interim Water Group
and New Entity).
Although the District allowed its membership in SKCRWA to lapse for one year
(1995), it rejoined SKCRWA and has been an active participant in Pipeline 5
;).0
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 5
negotiations. The District believes that its aquifer storage and recovery project,
OASIS, could have significant regional benefits.
Q: What assurances are there that there will be active regional water planning
participation by Lakehaven in the future?
Water will continue to be a serious issue for the region. Lakehaven will continue
to be involved in regional water planning efforts.
B. MAINTENANCE
1.
Q: What maintenance items in preliminary budgets have been deleted from final
budgets since 1994?
Based on individual staff records maintained since 1994, no maintenance items in
preliminary budgets have been deleted from final budgets. Several maintenance
items have experienced budget reductions from the preliminary budget.
In 1995, the net reduction made on departmental maintenance accounts between
the initially proposed budget and the final adopted budget was $60,791 spread
among 34 maintenance accounts. Reduction records were not available for the
1996 budgeting process. In the 1997 budget, the total reduction from preliminary
to final budget was $84,395. This reduction was spread among 27 departmental
maintenance accounts. Historically, Lakehaven has prepared the preliminary
budget based on 5-month projections. The final 1997 budget for maintenance
items was based on expenditures after 11 months in 1996 and more accurately
reflected actual costs.
Q: What long-term impact will this have on the system?
Current maintenance budget levels do not pose a risk to the long-term reliability
of the District's water system. It will be necessary to increase the maintenance
budget as additional capital facilities are constructed, particularly those related to
water quality improvements.
2.
Q: How many water valves and fire hydrants do you have in the system and how
many are exercised each year?
In 1995, approximately 10,000 valves were exercised as part of the District's
Valve-Turning Program. Approximately 10,000 valves were exercised in 1996.
Under this program, each District valve- is turned at least every other year.
In 1996, approximately 31 hydrants received maintenance from District staff.
Every hydrant in Lakehaven's water system that is also located within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Way Fire Department (formerly King County Fire District
d-l
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 6
No. 39) receives annual maintenance and inspection. This annual checkup
includes verification of location, cap lubrication, and flow testing.
Q: What is the meter testing and replacement program?
Large meters were tested in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1996, and the District plans
to test large meters in 1997. The District has conducted a meter replacement
program for large meters over the last several years to phase out the old
compound meters. The ongoing replacement program for 1 %- and 2-inch meters
is approximately 60 percent complete and will continue. The District has targeted
for replacement the 1 %- and 2-inch meters serving older apartment complexes.
Service lines and meters were changed concurrently.
The District plans to change-out the Sea-Tac Mall meters and upgrade to an
automated meter reading system. The District has a program to install remote-
read systems to minimize vault entry (confined space) danger.
Residential meters are changed when service lines are replaced and as they are
found to be out of service. Meters out of service are changed out as they're
found through billing.
The District plans to continue testing large meters on an annual basis. The
outside meter tester provides the District annual meter testing reports. Based on
District meter replacement records, 367 meters were replaced and 419 meter
registers were changed out in 1996. Field work orders also included 114 service
line maintenance projects.
Q: How many feet of pipes are cleaned annually to remove precipitants?
The District has a crew assigned to pigging the mains. Over a 7-year period, the
District has cleaned an average of approximately 40 miles of pipe annually. The
District targets main cleaning in areas of concern from customer complaints, dirty
water records, and crew observations. Generally, the targeted areas are within a
2-mile radius of the wells with the greatest concentration of iron and manganese.
These mains are pigged on a 1-, 3-, and 5-year cycle. Lakehaven is one of the
few waters systems that actually cleans the pipe walls by pigging on a regular
basis.
Q: Does Lakehaven have a maintenance program with records for these and
similar maintenance functions and how much is annually budgeted to each
category?
Historically, hard-copy records have been kept at the water operations building by
various department staff and maintenance crew members to track each of the
maintenance programs previously discussed.
dd-.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 7
Annual budgets for maintenance programs are described in Attachment A. The
maintenance programs and in the answer to question 11.8.3 are funded through
several budget accounts, as shown in Attachment A.
Q: How does this compare with industry norms for these kinds of maintenance,
optimal maintenance levels and what budgets would be needed at optimal levels
for each category?
The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has no related publication
that reports industry norms for maintenance operations beyond preventative
maintenance (Le., no norms exist for proactive replacement schedules of mainline
piping).
AWWA was consulted regarding recommended maintenance intervals for valves,
hydrants, meters, and mains.
.
For valves, AWWA Manual M44 suggests annual inspections if possible and
more frequent inspections for valve sizes larger than 16 inches in diameter.
The District's valves are inspected every 2 years.
For hydrants, AWWA Manual M17 suggests annual inspections in non-
freezing climates and biannual inspections in freezing climates. The majority
of the District's water service area receives the recommended hydrant testing
frequency through the Federal Way Fire Department's annual testing
practices. Pierce County Fire District No.8 also tests their hydrants annually.
This includes the District's hydrants located in the City of Edgewood.
Perimeter fire districts, including the City of Auburn, the City of Pacific, and
the City of Milton, have yet to be contacted to determine whether the District's
hydrants in their systems are tested annually.
.
For meters, the inspection intervals vary depending on size and meter type.
AWWA Standard C700 provides recommended inspection intervals for
displacement-type, cold-water meters ranging from 0.5 inch to 2 inches in
diameter. Recommended inspection intervals range from once every 10
years for the smallest meters to once every 4 years for 2-inch meters.
AWWA Standard C701 addresses inspection of turbine meters ranging from
0.5 inch to 12 inches in diameter. In this standard, the most frequent
recommended inspection interval is annually and applies to meters greater
than 4 inches in diameter.
Based on these AWWA recommendations, the District's large meter testing
frequency is sufficient. The District's residential meter testing practices are
not conducted according to AWWA recommendations (Le., the District does
not implement any scheduled testing frequency for residential meters).
d~
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 8
.
For main cleaning, no standard or recommended cleaning interval exists; this
activity is entirely system-dependent. The District conducts a much more
aggressive main pigging program than most other water utilities.
Budget recommendations for each of these maintenance programs are not
issued by A WWA.
3.
Q: How many Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) stations, wells, pump stations,
standby power stations, water tanks etc. do you have?
The District water system includes 27 well sites (19 operational wells, 3 wells out
of service, and 5 wells yet to be developed), 12 storage tanks, 3 booster pump
stations, and 34 pressure-reducing valves. Auxiliary power is provided through 3
portable generators (one of which is owned and maintained by the water
operations department) and not via standby power stations.
Q: Does Lakehaven have a maintenance program with records for each and how
much annual budget does Lakehaven have allocated to each? How does this
compare with industry norms for this kind of maintenance, levels of maintenance
based on age, life cycle scheduled replacement needs based on age, and annual
budgets necessary for this for each category?
The District's maintenance program includes scheduled preventative
maintenance for each of these facility types. Like the valve, hydrant, and main
cleaning maintenance programs, records are kept by various water operations
staff members. It would be beneficial to maintain records on a centralized
database system in the future.
Budgets allocated to maintain these facilities are not categorized according to the
individual wells, pumps stations, storage tanks, PRV stations, and emergency
power generators. See Attachment B for further information on the maintenance
budgeted for each of these facilities.
The following paragraphs provide a more detailed description of the measures
taken to maintain wells, storage tanks, booster pump stations, and PRV stations.
Industry norms that can be used as a comparison to District maintenance
activities are indicated as they are available.
à4-
, "..
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 9
Wells
The District inspects each well pump on a 10-year cycle. Each inspection results
in either replacement of the pump or refurbishment as required. The District
assumes that the pump life cycle after refurbishment is the same as it would be
after replacement. The District's life cycle estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
.
The life cycle of a vertical turbine pump is 5 to 7 years if used every day.
.
Prior to the establishment of the Tacoma Chlorination Zone (TCZ), District
pumps generally operated on approximately half of the days in a calendar
year.
.
If a pump lasts 5 years for daily use, it is assumed that it will last 10 years if
used half as frequently.
The well pump inspection schedule is being reevaluated in lieu of water
operations changes caused by the creation of the TCl; establishing the TCl has
required that some well facilities now operate 80 to 90 percent of the days in a
year.
Industry norms were obtained based on recommendations made by area pump
manufacture representatives. Among the representatives that were surveyed, it
was suggested that vertical turbine pumps with submersible motors should last
approximately 7 years with a 3500 rpm motor and 10 to 15 years with a 1750 rpm
motor if the pumping conditions include relatively sediment-free water, a low-
corrosive environment, and a proper pump installation. Line-shaft vertical turbine
pumps should last considerably longer than pumps with submersible motors. A
1750 rpm line-shaft vertical turbine pump will last approximately 20 years.
Booster Pump Stations
Booster pump stations are being upgraded according to recommended
improvements furnished in the 1991 Comprehensive Water System Plan. These
upgrades are expected to be completed in 1997.
Manufacturer's representatives have indicated that a 1750 rpm booster pump
should last 20 to 25 years with 12 to 18 hours' operation per day. A 3500 rpm
booster pump should last 10 to 15 years.
Storage Tanks
Storage tanks are repainted according to a 10-year rotational schedule. This 10-
year rotational schedule is currently being reevaluated to see if it should reflect
cQ5
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 10
the longer anticipated life cycles of the coatings that have been used in recent
years.
Industry norms were identified through contacting the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) Headquarters. According to AWWA Standard D101, no
recommendations are issued by AWWA as to how frequently storage tanks
should be repainted. However, it was suggested that inspection intervals for
cold-water steel storage tanks should not exceed 5 years.
For a two-coat epoxy system specified by the District for interior surfaces of water
storage tanks, coating suppliers indicated typical coating life ranges of 8 to 12
years and 20 years-plus.
For an epoxy coating topcoated with a polyurethane exterior coating system
specified by the District, coating suppliers indicated a typical coating life of
12-plus years to 20-plus years.
PRV Stations
Each PRV station is inspected every other year.
A WWA was again consulted to provide industry norm information on PRV
maintenance. No maintenance interval or anticipated life cycle was provided by
A WWA for PRV stations. The factors influencing PRV life include the quality of
water, volume of water transmitted over time, and other operating conditions.
Each of these factors varies from system to system, making it difficult to identify
an industry norm.
Standby Power Stations
There are no standby power stations. Auxiliary power is provided by three
portable diesel-engine generators, all of which are shared by water and sewer
operations. Sewer operations have priority over water operations for using these
generators except in the event that standby reservoir storage is too low. The
telemetry system for water operations has its own allocated gas-powered
generator to maintain system monitoring capabilities during extended power
outages.
The diesel-engine generators lack a load bank. The District does not have a
regular exercising program for these generators.
There was no AWWA standard or recommendation for minimum auxiliary power
requirements that could be referenced to compare to the amount of auxiliary
power that is available to the District. Auxiliary power requirements are generally
inversely proportional to the amount of standby reservoir storage that is available
in the meter. Future District auxiliary power and standby storage requirements
~(O
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 11
4.
.. ..;:,'
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
will be addressed during the hydraulic analysis of the Comprehensive Water
System Plan Update (1998).
Q: What is the water quality and testing program at Lakehaven?
The following paragraphs describe the water quality monitoring measures that are
implemented to track source water quality (wells) and system water quality
(distribution system and storage tanks). Water quality monitoring results are
submitted to the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) as required. In
1998, EPA expects to finalize the Consumer Confidence Reports Rule that will
require water utilities to prepare and distribute annual reports to customers.
Wells
.
Inorganic and Physical Parameters - Complete analysis of primary and
secondary inorganic chemicals required every 36 months. The District
complies with DOH requirements. In addition, the District schedules
monitoring so that monitoring of each aquifer occurs annually.
.
Pesticides/Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) - Required to monitor every
36 months. The District complies.
.
Radionuclides - Required to monitor every 48 months for four consecutive
quarters or only one quarter if the initial samples is one-half the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL). The District conducted the initial monitoring in
1994. Only one quarterly round of sampling was required, as the results were
under one-half the MCL. In addition, the District conducted radon 222
monitoring which was not required. The next round of radionuclide monitoring
is scheduled for this month.
.
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) - Required initial monitoring quarterly for
first year (twice with no detects except THMs); reduce frequency to every 36
months with no detects.
.
Maximum Total Triha/omethanes Potential (MTTP) - Required to collect one
sample for each chlorinated well every 12 months. The District complies.
Distribution System
.
Total Coliform - Required minimum qf 100 routine samples per month. The
District exceeds DOH requirements and collects 130 to 140 samples/month.
Monitoring is conducted weekly.
.
Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) - Monitoring is not required by DOH. The
District analyzes 130 to 140 samples a month for HPC. Monitoring is
conducted weekly.
d-1
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 12
.
Tota/ Triha/omethanes (TTHMs) - One sample is required every three months
from the Chlorinated Zone. The District complies.
.
Lead & Copper - One sample is required from 60 residential sites during each
of two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. The District sampled 71
qualified sites in the spring of 1992 and 62 sites in the fall of 1992 for the
initial monitoring. In 1996, the District collected and evaluated additional
samples around the 305th Street tanks following a change in system
operation.
.
Asbestos - Required to sample for asbestos at a tap served by asbestos-
cement pipe once every nine years. The District complies. The District
monitored six wells, a fire hydrant site, and a tap in the distribution system in
1994.
Storage Tanks
.
Coliform & HPC - Routine monitoring of samples from the tanks are not
required. The District monitors tanks weekly as part of the bacteriological
testing.
Q: Has testing shown that water meets water quality standards?
Monitoring shows that the water quality meets the MCLs. No E coli or fecal
coliform have been detected in the distribution system since the bird was found in
a water tank in 1986.
The water quality at the tap exceeds the copper action limit. The elevated copper
is not present in the distribution system but is due to corrosion of copper -
plumbing and brass fixtures. The District has completed the required desktop
evaluation and piloted corrosion control. The District recently submitted the draft
Corrosion Control Plan to DOH for review. Based on the recommendations in the
Corrosion Control Plan, the District is changing the manner in which wells are
operated and brought on line to increase pH in the system and reduce the water's
corrosivity. After Well17B was brought on line in the northeastern part of the
distribution system last year, another round of tap sampling was conducted in the
area. Tap samples from homes that previously exceeded the copper Action
Level were all below the Action Level in the area receiving Well 17B water.
A number of wells exceed the secondary MCL for iron and/or manganese.
Secondary MCLs cover contaminants that are not health concerns; rather, they
cause aesthetic problems. See commènts below for additional discussion.
The District is chlorinating several wells that produce water containing hydrogen
sulfide. The chlorine is effective in oxidizing hydrogen sulfide and eliminating
rotten egg odors.
;;..3
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 13
Q: What efforts are being made and planned to minimize "brown" water from
precipitants of manganese and iron?
Within the last year, the District has piloted treatment at the following sites
.
Iron and manganese removal at Well19A
.
Iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia removal at Well 29
.
Manganese removal at Well 9 (ongoing)
Treatment at Well 19A will be required in order to place this well in service.
Based on the pilot testing results, the District is planning on conducting year-long,
full-scale demonstration treatment testing at Well 9. The implementation of
chlorination and corrosion control will exacerbate iron and manganese
precipitation, necessitating treatment at a number of sites.
C. CAPITAUMAJOR MAINTENANCE
1.
Q: Please provide records of all types of pipe by size and age in five year
increments. This will indicate how soon certain types and sizes of pipe need to be
replaced. For example, galvanized steel and asbestos cement (AC) water mains
usually need to begin to be replaced within about 35 to 40 years depending on
such issues as their depth, soil type and soil stability.
Pipe types are available from the as-built drawings; however, they are not kept in
a database.
In December 1993, the District completed a survey of water mains by type and
size. This information is summarized in Attachment C.
In 1996, the District completed a survey of water mains by size, type, and age in
the West Hill Potential Annexation Area only. This area is one of the older areas
of the District (younger only than old King County Water District No. 56 located
along Redondo Beach). Information developed by this survey is summarized in
Attachment D.
d-1
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 14
A. Q: Does Lakehaven have a major maintenance program with records of
annual pipe replacement?
Annual pipe replacement is not covered by the District's major maintenance
program; pipe replacement projects are considered capital improvements and
are in the Capital Improvement Program (see Attachment E). Amounts of
annual pipe replacement could be reported based on information that is
recorded for the District's Capital Improvement Project programs.
Q: What is the amount of annual budget allocated or projected to each for
1995 through 2000?
Historically, expenditures have been budgeted for AC main replacement
projects; however, many of those projects were deferred from 1995 and 1996
to subsequent years. The following table indicates what expenditures have
been budgeted historically and for the future for AC pipe replacement
according to the 1996 and 1997 Adopted Budgets for Lakehaven (1995
budgeted amounts for AC pipe projects were not available).
Year
Budqeted Expenditures for AC-Pipe Replacement{a){b)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
$813,100
$91,000
$699,900
$80,000
$0
($1,590,700)
($1,089,000)
($1,633,900)
($697,700)
($495,000)
Note:
(a) Numbers in parentheses denote all budgeted expenditures f~r either
AC pipe replacement or main relocation projects; relocation projects
automatically involve the replacement of the older pipe with ductile iron
pipe.
(b) Total length of AC pipe to be replaced is 35,960 feet.
The future budget allocated for District pipe replacement projects, whether
implemented as a capital improvement or major maintenance project, will be
reevaluated in the Comprehensive Water System Plan Update in 1998.
B. Q: How do present levels of maintenance compare to the industry norms for
this kind of major maintenance? When should these pipes optimally be
scheduled for replacement, their optimal level of maintenance depending on
age and annual budgets necessary for this?
AWWA was consulted to see if an industry norm exists for proactive AC pipe
replacement scheduling or for a value on AC pipe life. Upon review of
AWWA's collection of standards, manuals, and journal articles (as provided
30
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 15
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
in their WaterNet database), no industry norms were identified. An AWWA
resource engineer suggested that it is reasonable for AC pipe replacement to
be performed as needed based on system performance observations.
Highline Water District (HWD), the City of Auburn (Auburn), and the City of
Kent (Kent) were also contacted to find out how they are addressing the
replacement of their AC pipe. HWD addresses AC pipe replacement in a
similar fashion as Lakehaven. Their replacement projects are performed
reactively on an "as-needed" basis; they do not have a scheduled AC pipe
replacement program.
Auburn approached AC pipe replacement proactively from 1987-1991. They
replaced all AC pipe in their system within Auburn city limits with ductile iron
pipe. The impetus behind their replacement program was the concerns
raised by the DOH regarding asbestos leaching from the pipe walls into the
drinking water. The program was not implemented due to an apparent or
foreseen state of disrepair for the AC pipe in their system. Most of their AC
pipe was 25-35 years old when it was replaced. According to City staff, the
AC pipe that was inspected after replacement did not display signs of
deterioration.
Kent has a very small quantity of AC pipe in the distribution system that is
approximately 40 to 50 years old. Kent is currently replacing the AC pipe as
needed. Kent's concerns regarding the use of AC pipe are asbestos release
and safety of operations personnel working on the pipe. They have not
observed any significant deterioration on the interior or exterior of the AC
pipe. Neither have they observed a higher degree of leaks in the AC pipe
versus the rest of the system.
-
Suggesting a useful life for AC pipe is difficult. The reason why it is difficult
to suggest a useful life for AC pipe and for other pipe materials is that
material deterioration depends on several different factors that generally vary
from system to system. These factors include:
.
Aggressiveness Index of the water. This parameter is a modification of
the Langlier Index and calculated from the water's pH, alkalinity, and
hardness. AWWA Standard C401 indicates that water with an
Aggressiveness Index less than 10 (Langelier less than -2.0) is highly
aggressive and tends to dissolve the calcium in the pipe wall. Previous
work by Kennedy/Jenks found the service life of AC pipe in Yosemite to
be 40 years. The water at Yosemite had an Aggressiveness Index of 8.2
and a corrosion rate of 2.5 mils/year. In other installations with an
Aggressiveness Index less than 10, the pipe life has been as short as 5
years. The District's Langelier Index on flow-weighted basis is -1.4, which
is mildly aggressive.
S(
KennedylJenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 16
.
Aggressiveness of external water. AWWA C401 provides guidelines for
minimum soil pH values for Type I and II AC pipe for various water
conditions in the soil environment.
.
Soluble sulfates. Higher soluble sulfate concentrations in soils and water
are more aggressive to the pipe.
.
Environmental conditions such as the physical stability of the soils
surrounding the pipe, the seasonal freeze/thaw patterns of the soils, etc.
.
Surge pressures.
.
Quality of pipe installation, including foundation conditions, bedding, and
compaction.
.
Post-installation disturbances of the bedding and/or foundation such as
installation of nearby utilities.
Q: Would this require rate increases beyond inflation?
Since useful life is not readily known, this question cannot be answered.
2.
The newspapers have reported preliminary budgets have been greater than final
budgets.
A. Q: Have major maintenance and capital projects been deferred? If so, what
are these projects and when should they be scheduled for construction to
meet long term water needs? What annual funding levels would be
necessary and rates to fund them?
Attachment E lists the 1995-1997 budgeted capital improvement projects.
Projects that result in the replacement of AC Pipe in the system are noted.
For each project, it is indicated whether that project commenced during the
given budget year, was delayed to a designated future year, or indefinitely
deferred. For projects that were indefinitely deferred, a brief explanation
given by the District is shown.
Rates should not increase from the deferment of these projects if they
proceed unmodified in the future. Revenues required to implement deferred
projects have historically been generated in their respective budgets years.
For a project that was not implemènted, the collected revenues allocated for
that project are left unspent until that deferred project is started.
Rates should also not increase from the deferment of projects that results in
project scope modifications. Among the projects deferred indefinitely for the
sake of reevaluation, there is a chance that their scopes will be modified.
3:J-
KennedylJenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 17
However, the District explained that projects are being re-evaluated to see if
they should either proceed as planned, be downsized in scope, or be
eliminated completely. Other projects have been deferred to allow
coordination with the City's planned road improvement projects; these
projects, generally resulting in water main relocations, will proceed as
scoped. Finally, among the delayed projects listed in Attachment E, the
District staff did not identify any projects that experienced scope
modifications resulting from the delay.
B. Q: What will be the long term effect on the system and the ability to provide
water for long term needs with the budgeted schedule?
The long-term effect of historically deferring water system capital
improvement projects will be more apparent upon completion of the
Comprehensive Water System Plan Update (1998). Historically, there have
been no indicators of compromised system performance due to project
deferment.
Q: Will future needs be met with present levels of funding without rate
increases beyond inflation?
The question of whether future needs will be met with present levels of
funding without rate increases beyond inflation will be addressed in detail
during the financial planning phase of the Comprehensive Water System
Plan Update (1998). A comparison of Lakehaven's water rates with other
SKCRWA members and similar utilities is shown in Attachment F.
The 1997 Adopted District Budget's Financial Plan addressed a rate study
that was performed in 1995. (The results of this rate study are subject to
modification during the Comprehensive Water System Plan Update.) The
. Financial Plan states that "Any expenditures not covered by non-rate
revenue or current cash balances must be covered by Water and
Wastewater service rates." Based on the revenue requirements modeled in
1996 and the adopted rate changes in 1996 and 1997 (which were each 0%
change), the following rate increases were projected to be required in order
for the District to be able to afford anticipated expenditures.
3~
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 18
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Notes:
KennedylJenks Consultants
% Chanoe in Water Rates(a)
+0%
+0%
+10.47%
+2.61 %
+2.45%
+0.94%
+1.71%
+0.58%
+0.72%
+0.84%
(a) These projected rate changes will be re-evaluated in 1998 during
the Comprehensive Water System Plan Update.
One point of consideration related to future capital needs and rate increases
is that growth should pay for growth. Several of the capital improvement
projects are being planned to meet growth needs. This includes the Auburn
Intertie, Pipeline 5, and OASIS. These projects should be financed through
the collection of capital facility charges and connection fees and not through
revenue generated from water service rates.
The estimated project costs for these facilities are:
. Auburn Intertie: $1.7 million initial (District's share)
. Pipeline 5: $22 million (District's share)
. OASIS:
District only: $29.9 to $70.4 million through 2025 -
Regional Scenario: $53.8 to $112.9 million through 2025
Capital facilities for water quality improvements such as corrosion control,
iron and manganese removal, and disinfection benefit all customers and will
have an impact on rates.
C. Q: Staffing levels district wide have been reduced from 118 in 1992 to 101 in
1997. Are there the necessary staffing levels to implement programs and
projects budgeted? Is this a cause or reason for programs and projects
being deferred as they cannot all be implemented with existing staff in the
budget year?
Water Operations has lost one inspector. This has not impacted the District's
ability to implement programs and projects.
Water Operations has lost the equivalent of one full-time engineer since
1992. There are not enough staff members to complete the entire list of
54
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 19
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
capital projects and programs budgeted each year, and it is one of the
reasons why some programs and projects are being deferred. The District
has indicated that they are considering contracting out more of the work to
get it completed.
Projects are budgeted with the anticipation that only a portion of the projects
will be completed that year. It is the goal that every budgeted project and
program will be completed.
To determine which projects should be completed within a given year and
when, the list of budgeted projects and programs is rearranged in order of
top priority to lowest priority after the budget becomes adopted. This
reprioritization generally takes place according to the following unofficial list
of ranking criteria in order of most important to least important.
.
The project serves to reduce an immediate threat to water quality or
water supply reliability.
.
There is an opportunity to save money by coordinating the project or
program with a City project or program (e.g., coordinating a District main
replacement project with a City road improvement project).
.
The project provides minor system improvements (e.g., loop closure)
and/or preventative maintenance.
D. Q: What plans does Lakehaven have for the treatment of well water to meet
Federal water quality regulations? When are these scheduled?
Lakehaven is currently evaluating water treatment requirements as part of
the Comprehensive Water System Plan and the Corrosion Control Planning.
It is anticipated that the following rules being developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act will require the implementation of treatment at
Lakehaven:
.
Lead and Copper Rule: This rule is currently in effect. The goal of this
rule is to minimize the levels of lead and copper at the tap and reduce the
corrosivity of the water delivered to customers. The main concern in
Lakehaven's case is elevated copper due to the corrosion of copper
plumbing and brass fixtures. The recently completed draft report
recommends elevating the pH in the water distribution system. This will
be implemented by increasing the use of wells with elevated pH levels
and alkaline chemical addition at wells with lower pH levels. Tacoma is
responsible for pH adjustment in the portion of the distribution system fed
with Tacoma water. pH adjustment will catalyze the oxidation and
precipitation of iron and manganese in the water distribution system.
~C)
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 20
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
.
Groundwater Disinfection Rule: This rule is currently being developed.
EPA projects that the rule will be promulgated in 2001 with a January
2002 effective date. It is likely given the large number of septic tanks in
the area that groundwater disinfection and the maintenance of a
disinfectant residual in the distribution system will be required.
Chlorination will catalyze the oxidation and precipitation of iron and
manganese in the water distribution system.
The following rules may potentially impact Lakehaven:
.
Arsenic Rule: This rule is currently being developed. Health effects
research is currently underway. EPA projects that the rule will be
promulgated in 2001 with an effective date of July 2002. If the EPA
substantially lowers the arsenic MCL, arsenic removal could be very
expensive. No arsenic has been detected in the District's water system.
.
Disinfectants/Disinfection Bv-Products Rule (D/DBP): This rule is being
implemented in two phases. The effective date for the Stage I Rule is
scheduled for July 2000. This rule is not likely to have major cost impacts
on the District.
.
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR): An Interim ESWTR
is to be promulgated with the D/DBP Rule. The effective date for the final
rule is scheduled for January 2002. This rule may affect the cost of water
purchased from Tacoma.
It is anticipated that the following rules will not impact the District other than
increased monitoring requirements:
.
Radionuclides Rule
.
Sulfate Rule
Q: What will be the cost of such facilities when needed?
Costs were included in the 1991 Comprehensive Water System Plan for
corrosion control, groundwater disinfection, and iron and manganese
treatment. The costs were prepared in July 1989 based on a Seattle ENR
Construction Cost Index of 4790. The project costs in the 1991
Comprehensive Water System Plan are $10.4 million for corrosion control
and $23.1 million for disinfection and iron and manganese removal. The
August 1997 ENR Construction Cost Index for Seattle is 6364, or 33 percent
higher than in 1989.
The Draft Corrosion Control Report recommends modifications in system
operation and the construction of corrosion control facilities at Wells 10, 10A,
3(0
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
MEMORANDUM
14 August 1997
Page 21
15, and 15A. The District plans to conduct additional sampling and prepare a
feasibility study prior to the design of any corrosion control facilities.
Corrosion control facilities may also be required at Wells 18, 20, 20A, 23A,
and 25. This is a reduction in the number of corrosion control facilities
anticipated in the previous Comprehensive Water System Plan. This should
substantially reduce the construction cost. Likewise, it appears that there
may be savings in the cost of disinfection and iron and manganese treatment
facilities due to changes in the anticipated method of treatment.
E. Q: What plans does Lakehaven have for the treatment of Lakehaven well
water that has been chlorinated or mixed with chlorinated water from other
agencies to improve water quality from the resulting "brown" precipitation of
such elements as iron and manganese?
Iron and manganese removal is being investigated for Wells 9, 19A, and 29;
preliminary project costs are currently being developed. Planning for the
other wells with elevated iron and manganese will be included in the
Comprehensive Water System Plan.
Q: When will these be needed and what will be the cost of such facilities?
The amount and intensity of iron and manganese precipitation that occurs in
the District's distribution system will increase as corrosion control and
disinfection treatment are implemented. Identification of additional well sites
requiring iron and manganese removal treatment, a recommended
construction schedule, and the corresponding project costs will be refined in
the Comprehensive Water System Plan Update.
F. Q: Do well heads meet water quality requirements and industry stan~ards for
wellhead protection?
A recent site visit to Well 9, which is inactive, indicates that it lacks a sanitary
seal. This will be corrected before Well 9 is placed in service. All of the wells
with the exception of Well 7 (inactive) meet the sanitary control area
requirements. Well 7 is being used as an observation well.
Q: What programs past and proposed are programmed and do they meet
industry standards?
Currently, the District is developing a Wellhead Protection program that will
comply with all EPA and DOH regulations on source water protection. Buffer
zones around each well site were delineated in a June 1996 report prepared
by Robinson & Noble, Inc. DOH has indicated that the District has until July
1998 to prepare an inventory of sensitive areas and land use designations
within these buffer zones. It is anticipated that the Wellhead Protection
Program will meet or exceed industry standards.
MDL:nd (8mdI1m.doc)
,?J~
Attachment A
lakehaven Utility District Water Revenues and Expenditures: 1993-1997
VJ
c.q
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
(See Note 1) (See Note 2) (See Note 3)
MAINTENANCE FUND
Total Revenue $ 5,792,496 $ 6,215,357 $ 7,041,898 $ 7,101,112 $ 7,089,868 $ 6,648,146
Subtotal - Water Sales $ 5,555,399 $ 5,891,541 $ 6,398,467 $ 6,624,447 $ 6,691,421 $ 6,232,255
Subtotal - Interest Income $ 127,852 $ 267,192 $ 583,179 $ 430,166 $ 350,190 $ 351,716
Subtotal - Other Income $ 109,245 $ 56,624 $ 60,252 $ 46,499 $ 48,257 $ 64,175
Total Expenditures $ 2,969,240 $ 2,957,802 $ 2,894,915 $ 3,380,716 $ 4,016,569 $ 3,243,848
(See Note 5)
Subtotal - Department (See Note 4) $ 2,969,240 $ 2,762,802 $ 2,763,702 $ 3,267,355 $ 3,886,569 $ 3,129,934
Subtotal - Major Maintenance $ - $ 195,000 $ 131,213 $ 113,361 $ 130,000 $ 113,915
CONSTRUCTION FUND
Total Revenue $ 711,645 $ 1,713,615 $ 1,273,027 $ 982,379 $ 695,932 $ 1,075,320
Interest Income $ 44,727 $ 23,525 $ 46,144 $ 45,993 $ 45,000 $ 41,078
Other Income $ 666,918 $ 1,690,090 $ 1,226,883 $ 936,386 $ 650,932 $ 1,034,242
Total Expenditures $ 1,696,684 $ 914,398 $ 865,536 $ 956,400 $ 5,880,300 $ 2,062,664
Labor and Benefits $ 110,285 $ 179,703 $ 168,100 $ 197,700 $ 384,500 $ 208,058
Supplies $ 8,483 $ 124,635 $ 68,742 $ 119,100 $ 166,200 $ 97,432
Services $ 1,569,433 $ 607,087 $ 628,059 $ 636,500 $ 5,315,600 $ 1,751,336
Taxes and Other Regulatory $ 8,483 $ 2,973 $ 635 $ 3,100 $ 14,000 $ 5,838
Bond Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
August 1997
A1
966115.00
Attachment A
lakehaven Utility District Water Revenues and Expenditures: 1993-1997
.v
..0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
(See Note 1) (See Note 2) (See Note 3)
REVENUE BOND FUND
Total Revenue $ 99,879 $ 71,170 $ 78,488 $ 65,422 $ 65,289 $ 76,050
Assessment Interest $ 15,656 $ 12,010 $ 7,716 $ 9,362 $ 8,322 $ 10,613
Other Interest Income $ 53,473 $ 31,973 $ 51,761 $ 38,000 $ 39,810 $ 43,003
Assessment Principal $ 30,750 $ 27,187 $ 19,011 $ 18,060 $ 17,157 $ 22,433
Total Expenditures $ 467,869 $ 582,122 $ 563,857 $ 609,101 $ 613,631 $ 567,316
Existing Debt Services: Assessment Bonds $ 78,136 $ 77,638 $ 77,549 $ 80,172 $ 81,038 $ 78,907
Existing Debt Services: Non-Assessment Bonds $ 307,961 $ 305,995 $ 306,184 $ 315,973 $ 320,446 $ 311,312
Public Works Trust Fund $ 81,772 $ 191,438 $ 173,298 $ 206,421 $ 212,147 $ 173,015
Bond Amortization Expense $ - $ 7,051 $ 6,826 $ 6,535 $ - $ 4,082
Notes:
1. These are actual 1993, 1994, and 1995 revenues and expenditures as published in the 1995, 1996, and 1997 Adopted Budgets, respectively.
2. These are projected 1996 revenues and expenditures as published in the 1997 Adopted Budget.
3. These are budgeted 1997 revenues and expenditures as published in the 1997 Adopted Budget.
4. Department expenditures include the maintenance of Source of Supply, Pumping, Transmission mains and Distribution mains.
5. The Actual 1996 Department Expenditures for the Maintenance Fund were provided by District Staff.
August 1997
A2
966115.00
Attachment B
lakehaven Utility District Water Maintenance Fund - Department Expenditures
Actual Expenditures for Selected Budget Sections: 1995-1996
~
C:J
1995 1996
Source of Supply $841,076 $1,373,538
. Salaries and Benefits
. Supplies
. Services
. Intervgov. Services
. Lakehaven Center
. Cross Connections
. Water Samples
. Water Quality
Pumping $644,786 $ 601,846
. Pumping Labor
. Maintenance of Equipment
. Maintenance of Structures
. General Operations
Transmission & Distribution $ 789,386 $ 744,205
. Maintenance of Reservoirs and Standpipes
. Maintenance of Mains
. Maintenance of Services
. Maintenance of Meters
. Maintenance of Hydrants
. Operations (Salaries, Supplies, Services)
August 1Qq7
966115.00
Diameter
(inches)
~
-
Unknown
1.0
1.5
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
20
24
Asbestos
Cement
[ft]
0
0
125
0
90,973
492,239
308,687
51.935
153,092
1,459
13,696
0
0
0
Attachlllent C
lakehaven Utility District
Water Main Inventory by Pipe Diameter and Material
(Created December, 1993)
Ductile
Iron
[ft]
0
0
0
0
51,,773
90,876
420,718
22,1,56
143,352
7,319
41,734
6,636
G,B93
0
PVC
Permastran
Galvanized
Steel
[ft]
110
0
8,722
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Steel I Copper I Unknown
[ft] [ft] [ft]
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 456 510
0 0 0
0 0 1,190
120 0 2,150
0 0 7,919
0 0 1,251
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 2640
~ . .~ ~
~ u . H'~ ~, .. "
~ u --
~ uu ~~ u
~~ ~~"'~ m
~~ ~~ ,~. ~ ~~, 'u'
~ ~~ ,. ~~ ~,~
~ ~~ . ~~ ~. . ~
~ . . ~~ ~ ~.
""""¡,112,207~ ~794,757 115,712 .0, ~.. :....5,676: ':o;,',~:¡o:';':""""":'-"8,832 'n
':~;"54:'16% ~'~,' ~ 38.70% .::,;+,,;':'5.64% ';':. '.'~ , "'.0~28% :..':;;:':¡~f"':"":';OA3%
August 1997
[ft]
[ft]
0
290
13,930
940
33,085
2,989
52,695
1,988
9,796
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
2,587
0
2,739
0
0
0
0
0
966115.00
Attachment D
Lakehaven Utility District
Age Analysis of Asbestos-Concrete (AC) Pipe in the Water System
(Sample Population represents the West Hill Potential Annexation Area) - (See Note 1)
~
iJ
Age (Years) Number of AC Mains Age Distribution
0-5 1 1%
5-10 0 0%
10-15 34 40%
15-20 1 1%
20-25 4 5%
25-30 14 16%
30-35 1 1%
35-40 31 36%
40-50 0 0%
>50 0 0%
86 = total number of pipes sampled
Notes:
1.
The West Hill Potential Annexation Area is located in former King County Water
District #64 (KCWD #64). The existing Lakehaven 578 Pressure Zone is comprised of
former KCWD #64. Only the portions of former KCWD #56 located along Redondo
Beach (in the Northem part of the Disbict) contains older AC pipe than former KCWD #64.
August 1 q97
966115.00
AttachlJlent E
Lakehaven Utility District Adopted Water Capital Improvement Programs: 1995-1997
Implementation History
4=.
VJ
Started In Budget Year? Start Year. Delayed Indefinitely deferred? Reason lor Indefinite delerral?
Capital Improvement Program Title
1995
LUD Water Comp Plan No 1997 No
3201337 Booster, Well17A Upgrade; Well 21 Upgrade Yes; No; No 1996,1997
Well 29129A Production Drilling - Phase II No 1996
12th PVSW 3O4th Trans. Extension No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
Panther Lake Recharge Yes
Well 178 Site Development - Phase III Yes
Repair/Rehab Reserve This Is only necessary in an emergency.
Pipeline 5 Connection No 20017
Aubum Intertle No 1998
312th Booster, Well 23 Upgrade Yes; No 1997
Well 18 Electrical Upgrade No - Yes Project is being re-evaluated.
Overslzing Payments Yes
WD56 ULiD 3 Replacement (AC Pipe) No 1998
South 348th Street Relocation (AC Pipe) Yes
South 356th Street Relocation - Phase II (AC Pipe) No - Yes Project is linked to City road project schedule.
South 312th Street Relocation (AC Pipe) No 1998
SW 336th Street Relocation (AC Pipe) No 1997
Redondo Beach R~d Relocation (AC Pipe) No 1996
SR 1611348th to 36Oth Streets Relocation (AC Pipe) No 1996
Monitor Well 28M No 1996
Enhanced Natural AquIfer Recharge No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
334th & 18th lie No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
Sealac Mall TIe No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
1995 Distribution Improvements (AC Pipe) No (See Note 1)
Corrosion Control Feasibility Study Yes
1996
Well 15115A Electrical Upgrade No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
Pipeline 5 Construction No 20017
Pipeline 5 Connection No 20017
Monitoring Well 28M Yes
Well 29129A DrilUng - Phase II Yes
Well 29129A Site Development - Phase III No 1997
Tacoma Intertle No.3 No - Yes Only Implemented in the absence of Auburn Water.
Auburn Intertle Yes
Seattle Intertie No - Yes Only Implemented In the absence of Auburn Water.
Corrosion Control Feasibility Study - Continuation Yes
SW 336th Street Relocation (AC Pipe) No 1997
South 312th Street Relocation (AC Pipe) No 1998
Redondo Beach Road Relocation (AC Pipe) Yes
WD56 ULiD 3 Replacement (AC Pipe) No 1998
August 1997
E1
966115.00
Attachment E
Lakehaven Utility District Adopted Water Capital Improvement Programs: 1995-1997
Implementation History
-Ç:
.Ç..
Started in Budget Year? Start Year - Delayed Indefinitely deferred? Reason for indefinite deferral?
Capital Improvement Program Title
12th PVSW 3O4th Trans. extension No - Yes Project is being re-evaluated.
Seatac Mall l1e No - Yes Project is being re-evaluated.
35th AveJS. 334th Water Main Replacement (AC Pipe) No - Yes
295th/12th Avenue SW Water Main Replacement (AC Pipe) No - Yes
South 356th Street Relocation - Phase II (AC Pipe) No - Yes Project is linked to City road project schedule.
Enhanced Natural Aquifer Recharge No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
LUD Water Comp Plan Yes
RepalrlRehab. Reserve This is only necessary in an emergency.
Well 16 Upgrade No - Yes Project is being re-evaluated.
OASIS Project No - Yes Project Is linked to regional water supply demand timing.
1997
Well 15115A Electrical Upgrade No - Yes Project is being re-evaluated.
Well 29129A Site Development - Phase III No 1997
Tank Removals -16th Ave."C" & Auburn Heights No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
ASR Testing No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
Auburn Intertle - Continuation deferred to 1998
SW 336th Street Relocation (AC Pipe) Yes
South 312th Street Relocation (AC Pipe) No 1998
Redondo Beach Róad Relocation - Continuation (AC Pipe) Yes
WD 56 LID #3 Replacement No 1998
12th PVSW 3O4th Trans. Extension No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
Seatac Mall l1e No - Yes Project is being re-evaluated.
35th AveJS. 334th Water Main Replacement (AC Pipe) No - Yes
295th/12th Avenue SW Water Main Replacement (AC Pipe) No - Yes
334th & 18th TIe No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
South 356th Street Relocation - Phase II (AC Pipe) Yes
23rd Ave. South Water Main Relocation (AC Pipe) Yes
SR 161/Enchanted PrkwyW.M. Relocation (AC Pipe) Yes
Military Road South Water Main Relocation (AC Pipe) Yes
Telemetry System Upgrade Yes
Corrosion Control Feasibility Study - Continuation Yes
Enhanced Natural Aquifer Recharge No - Yes Project Is being re-evaluated.
LUD Water Comp Plan - Continuation Yes
RepalrlRehab Reserve This is only necessary in an emergency.
Administration Building Remodel Yes
MIS Projects Yes
I
Note:
1. This program was split Into separate capital improvement programs In 1996.>
August 1S
115.00
ATTACHMENT F
1996 WATER RATE COMPARISON
-F-
11
Single Family Monthly Rate
Number of Connections (1000 CF) Cost Mean
In Outside for Daily Flow Water Water
AQencv Residential Commercial Jurisdiction Jurisdiction 10,000 CF (MGD) Source Treatment
Lakehaven Utility 23,758 1,532 $11.02 $11.02 $156.31 10.3 GW/Purchase H2S0"
District
City of Auburn 10,500 2,500 $12.53 $17.17 - 7.2 GW/Sprinos CI2
City of Kent 7.701 2.974 $16.40 $22.20 $167.30 8.6 GW/Sprinos Cb. F, Fe&Mn
Highline WD 15.326 1,012 $25.70 $25.70 $227.34 7.0 GW/Purchase Ch, Fe&Mn
Kino County WD 111 3.789 0 $25.80 - $292.00 1.5 GW Ch, SeQ
Covinc.¡ton WD 10,002 204 $18.85 - - 2.5 GW Ch Fe&Mn
Black Diamond 659 21 $24.20 - $170.00 0.2 Surface Cb
Enumclaw 4450 390 $12.96 $18.10 - 2.9 GW -
Soos Creek W&SD 17,524 616 $19.76 $24.70 $283.06 3.5 Surface/Purchase -
City of Bremerton 13,250 1,163 $9.48 $14.21 $78.18 8.5 GW/Surface CI2
City of Lacey 14,043 0 $14.11 $20.22 $116.41 5.4 GW/Purchase -
Lakewood WD 16,000 - $10.46 - - 8.5 GW CI2
City of Olympia 14.100 1,500 $12.10 $18.05 $96.65 9.0 GW/Surface CI2
City of Renton 9,746 2,866 $26.04 $39.06 $178.77 6.5 GW/Surface Cb, F. H2SO4
City of Tacoma 74,408 5.235 $13.09 $15.70 $101.60 65.5 Surface/GW C12. F
Notes:
CF - cubic feet, MGD - million gallons per day, WD - Water District, W&SD - Water
& Sewer District, GW - Groundwater, CI2 - chlorination, H2SO4 - hydrogen sulfide
removal, F - fluoridation, Fe&Mn - iron & manganese removal, Seq - iron &
manganese sequestering
~.
I
"
¡
.
:¡
5.
~
~,
L
August 1997
966115.00
;.
14, August 1997
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Lakehaven Utility District .~
Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers. Inc~C/
RESPONSE to City Memorandum dated 11 August 1997,
"lakehaven Questions"
TO:
Subject:
It was agreed at the 30 July 1997 lakehavenlCity liaison Committee meeting that
lakehaven Utility District and the City of Federal Way would work cooperatively to
answer the City's questions regarding wastewater operations, maintenance, and the
District's capital needs. This memorandum answers the portion of the draft City
questions list pertaining to wastewater system operations and service. These draft
City questions and comments, hereinafter shown in italics, were originally presented
in a memorandum to the City CounCil dated 11 August 1997.
Attached hereto are the following exhibits, which are intended to provide supporting
documentation and additional detail that may be of interest to the City:
Attachment A - Operations Program of the Sewer Division
Attachment B - Wastewater Budget Information
Attachment C - Wastewater Rate Comparison
ti1
II. WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
General Information
Lakehaven Utility District's wastewater system consists of approximately 275 miles of sanitary
sewer lines, 6,500 sanitary sewer manholes, 27 pumping stations, 8 siphons and 2 secondary
treatment facilities which have a combined average flow of 6.6 million gallons per day. All critical
system facilities are equipped with telemetering equipment to aid in the District operation of the
system and provide adequate warning of operational problems prior to system failures.
Approximately 21,000 sanitary sewer connections are served by the District, 95% of which are
residential. Topography of the District necessitates division ofthe district into 40 separate drainage
basins for collection and transport of wastewater for treatment. Although the majority of
wastewater is treated by the District's two existing plants, wastewater from small areas around the
perimeter of the District is transported to other agencies for treatment and disposal. This is
accomplished in accordance with interlocal agreements with adjacent agencies.
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance of the wastewater system is accomplished by District staff in
accordance with the "Operations Program of the Sewer Division" which was prepared in 1995 and
is included as Attachment A. An estimated 30 employees are dedicated to this portion of overall
operation of the District. In accordance with State and Federal requirements, certain staff members
are certified for operation of the facilities and portions of the system that they are responsible for.
Currently, approximately 12 wastewater certifications are held by District staff members. In
addition to certification requirements, the District is obligated to operate its wastewater collection
and treatment system in a manner consistent with the specific requirements of NPDES permits for
each of the two treatment facilities.
System Evaluation
Lakehaven is currently completing an analysis of its wastewater system and preparation of
Comprehensive Plan in accordance with all applicable requirements and regulations governing the
preparation and .adoption of such documents. The Comprehensive Plan will include identification
of existing and projected population, employment and flows and an analysis of the existing
system's ability to collect, convey, transport and treat the anticipated flows. A primary function of
the Comprehensive Plan will be to provide the District's Board of Commissioners and staff with a
guideline for future operation and development of the system. A detailed Capital Facilities Plan,
with cost estimates and recommended schedules, will be prepared and will aid the District in its
decisions regarding future projects and related revenue requirements. Much of the information
requested in the City of Federal Way's July 31, 1997 memo to the District will be generated as part
of the comprehensive planning effort, which is expected to be complete in late 1998.
Budaeting
The District prepares annual budgets for both the Water and Sewer System which include all
activities related to operation and maintenance of each system as well as combined systems
activities. Attachment B provides a historical summary of the revenues associated with the
4g
operation and maintenance of the sewer utility. This information is provided only for the purpose
of generally identifying revenue and spending trends. It is noted that fluctuations in spending
trends occur for many reasons and do not necessarily reflect project deferments or increases. For
example, changes in staffing levels and/or staff replacements can result in significant cost savings
to the District without having an impact on the amount of work which is accomplished. Similarly,
staff reductions may result in increased costs of outside services but may result in little or no
change in operations procedures or the associated costs.
Sewer System Rates
The District's most recent increase in sanitary sewer rates was effective as of January 1, 1995. A
comparison of the District's rates to those of other similar jurisdictions is included as Attachment
C. Please note that there are wide variety of variables which can impact rate setting. These
include the growth potential of the District and associated with connection charges, the nature of
facilities which are operated, where the system is in terms of life cycle of the system, District
policies and philosophies regarding ULlD's and other forms of new connections, and the land use
characteristics of the area which is served in terms of the types and quantities of flows generated.
The jurisdictions selected for this comparison were chosen based on several criteria. These criteria
include the size of the utility, its proximity to the District, the types and volumes of flow they
generate, and the types of facilities that they operate. The information presented in Attachment
C was derived from the "AWC 1996 Tax and User Fee Survey, Water Sewer and Garbage Fees-
Part IV", published by the Association of Washington Cities in conjunction with the American Public
Works Association and the City Engineers Association of Washington. This survey included 243
agencies which provide sanitary sewer services within Washington. Of the agencies polled,
Lakehaven ranked 136th from the least expensive single family sewer rate, and ranked 6th from the
top in number of connections served.
4~
Response to Julv 31.1997 Memo from the City of Federal Way
The following responses are directly correlated to the above referenced memorandum from the City
of Federal Way.
A.
MAINTENANCE
1.
Have the 1994 and 1995 rates increases or no rate increase since then
resulted in deferred maintenance?
lakehaven Utility District budgets annually for routine maintenance such as line
cleaning, repairs of plant and facilities, etc. This is generally accomplished through
the District's Maintenance Fund, although specific projects are sometimes
considered significant enough to be are included in the District's Construction Fund
budget.
As indicated in Attachment B, in recent years, the Maintenance Fund has included
specific categories for different types of maintenance. These categories include
general administration, pumping maintenance (which includes routine maintenance
of the entire collection system), maintenance of each treatment plant, and major
maintenance items.
Major maintenance is a relatively new (started in 1995) category in the budgeting
process and is further addressed in Section II B of this response to City questions.
No routine maintenance has been deferred and, as indicated in Attachment B,
overall expenditures for maintenance has increased steadily from 1994 through
1996. Budgeted amounts for 1997 indicate a slight decline in maintenance
expenditures.
If so, what maintenance is being deferred and what is the effect on long term
viability and long term least cost for operating the systems?
In that no routine maintenance items have been deferred, this question is not
applicable. However, the comprehensive planning process may reveat specific
system issues which could result in increased maintenance recommendations.
2.
Wastewater treatment plants have increased operating costs and diminishing
capacity if there is significant inflow and infiltration (/ &1) in the sanitary sewer
pipes and side sewers and if storm or roof drains are connected to sewers.
Normally, systems try to achieve about 8 to 15% maximum I & I rate. What is
the I & I rate for each sub area of each sanitary sewer basin?
The I & I rates for various areas of the District will be estimated as part of the
ongoing comprehensive planning effort. I & I estimates will be derived from
historical pump station and weather data. Using the latest computer technology for
modeling wastewater systems (Hydragraphics Software), a simulation of the
District's sanitary sewer system will be created. The computerized system model
50
will provide the basis for determining any system deficiencies and assist in
determining if certain areas of the District are experiencing significant I & I and/or
capacity issues. The model will also provide the capability to determine the impact
of projected growth on major system facilities. It is anticipated that information from
the system modeling portion of the comprehensive planning effort, including
estimated I & I, will be available in early 1998.
What is the current I & I program and how much is budgeted annually or
projected for 1995 through 2000? Are these sufficient to meet optimum needs
and what may be needed?
The District's current I & I program has included documentation of pump station
flows in relation to weather patterns for further analysis and refinement into a more
detailed I & I study and program. This information will be used in the
comprehensive planning process as discussed above. Additional efforts to reduce
I & I include strict policies against illegal connections to the system such as roof
drains and storm drains, and repair of pipeline segments and manholes which are
identified as significant contributors to I & I.
Under the District's current budgeting and accounting system, I & I reduction can
be accomplished in several different ways. In some instances, I & I reduction is
accomplished through pipeline replacements and/or rehabilitations, which can be
classified as individual capital improvements projects or paid for out of the
repair/rehab reserves that are set aside in the construction fund budget each year.
The 1997 Capital Improvements Plan includes $200,OOO/annually for repair and
rehab work.
Another method of financing I & I reduction is through the major maintenance
portion of the maintenance fund. The District's 1996 budget included a specific
major maintenance project for I & I and estimated that $15,000 would be spent
annually in 1996 and 1997, with an increase to $100,000 annually for 1998 through
2000. This type of set aside is not included in the 1997 budget.
Until completion of analysis of the system, as detailed above, there is n9 way of
projecting whether or not the District's existing I & I program is adequate for all
areas of the District. Based on past District reports, there is reason to believe that
certain areas of the District, generally where older pipes are in service, are
experiencing more I & I than is desirable. This is very typical in older pipes and
typically results in accelerated pipeline rehabilitation or replacement programs. As
the comprehensive planing process progresses, the rates on I & I will help identify
whether or not rehabilitation or replacement will be required and will assist in
determining the level of expenditures which is appropriate for the Lakehaven
system.
3.
What maintenance records and programs does Lakehaven have for the two
treatment plants and pump stations and how does this compare to industry
norms for such facilities?
~,
" ""'.""""""U',',-:,<."':<..~
Maintenance is performed on the treatment plants and stations in accordance with
equipment manufacturer's written recommendations and procedures, as provided
by manufacturers at the time of construction. A summary of routine maintenance
procedures is contained in the "Operations Program of the Sewer Division"
contained in Attachment A.
Routine and preventive maintenance for the treatment plants is accomplished and
monitored in accordance with all appropriate state and federal regulations governing
the operation of wastewater treatment facilities. The existing maintenance program
is organized and conducted using a manual planning/scheduling system managed
by senior maintenance staff. The system used by Lakehaven is comparable to that
used by many comparably sized agencies. Lakehaven intends to eventually replace
the manual system with a computerized system, A proprietary computerized
planning/scheduling system was tried by the District two or three years ago but was
found to be very labor-intensive to install and maintain.
Periodic maintenance and monitoring records have been provided to the District's
consultants for evaluation as part of the comprehensive planning process.
Recommendations regarding maintenance and monitoring may be forthcoming as
part of that process, although preliminary investigation indicates that no significant
issues exist with the current treatment plant maintenance operations and
procedures.
Please refer to Question 5 for specific information regarding pump station operation
and maintenance.
What is the annual budget and how does that compare to industry norms for
similar facilities?
Maintenance and operation of treatment plants and pumping facilities is very
specific in terms of the actual facilities designed and installed and the operating
budgets associated with maintenance of such facilities. It is virtually impossible to
compare operation and maintenance budgets of various agencies becau~e of the
wide range of variables which might impact costs. These variables include specific
permit requirements under which a facility operates, the volumes and type of flow
being handled, cost of electricity and other services, etc. The most effective guide
for determining if adequate maintenance funds are being expended for maintenance
is review of the actual programs being completed. As mentioned above, the
Lakehaven Utility District maintenance program for its treatment plants and pumping
facilities is well within industry norms.
Please refer to Question 5 for specific information regarding pump station operation
and maintenance.
5J-
,-,
4.
What maintenance programs does Lakehaven have, such as removing grease
from sewer lines below restaurants, TV camera logging of sewer lines to
check I & I rates and pipe replacement life, etc.?
The District maintains a specific listing of areas to be cleaned or otherwise
maintained on a regular basis. This listing has been developed by the operations
staff based on past conditions in the system and is utilized to schedule specific
maintenance activities in order to prevent problems in the system and extend the
useful life of the system. Specific facilities included in this program are coded to
identify the frequency of maintenance requirements and include areas requiring
main cleaning due to grease discharged into lines, problem areas due to pipe
alignments, maintenance requirements for siphons, etc. Currently, the District TV's
all new construction but does not have a program for TV'ing existing lines to identify
potential problems unless a specific problem or reason to believe there may be a
future problem exists.
What frequency is used or percentage cleaned or logged per year?
The entire lakehaven system was cleaned approximately 10 years ago and
approximately 10 to 15% of the District's lines receive some type of specific
attention each year. These lines are primarily those which have known potential for
problems and are included in the routine maintenance list, or facilities which exhibit
some indication of a potential problem. An example is the area around Sea-Tac
Mall, which requires routine cleaning due to grease buildup from the high
concentration of restaurants in the area. Currently, there is no program for TV'ing
or cleaning lines which are not included in the routine maintenance list. Due to the
numerous pump stations within the lakehaven system, one approach to setting up
a specific program would be to utilize existing pump station records to prioritize
existing facilities for further inspection. This type of information will be available
from the data collection and analysis to be accomplished as part of the
comprehensive planning effort.
Does this meet industry norms and are budget or projected amount sufficient
,for maintenance category sufficient for 1995 through 2000?
Optimally, sanitary sewer lines should be inspected at least once every ten years
to identify potential problems with joint breaks, root intrusion, sags in lines etc. A
similar schedule should be maintained for manhole inspection. TV inspection of
sewer lines has become relatively affordable to larger utility systems in recent
years. As such, many districts, especially those with older pipelines, have initiated
TV programs as a means of identifying preventive maintenance and/or prioritizing
rehabilitation and replacement. A ten year interval program for line and manhole
inspection would be appropriate for Lakehaven.
Identification of industry norms in terms of dollar amounts is impossible due
variables such as the amount of pipe involved, the age of pipe, if TV equipment is
used I etc.
~~
, "d".'"'","' ","'.,,:¡.J.
5.
What preventive maintenance programs does Lakehaven have, such as for
pumps, motors, generators, telemetry, etc.?
The District's current pump station maintenance program includes regular weekly
or bi-weekly station checks, periodic wet well cleaning, and annual complete
preventive maintenance program for all of equipment in each of the 27 existing
pump stations. A log sheet for each station is maintained by operation and
maintenance staff. Completion of the log sheets requires flow checks for each
pump, telemetry system review and identification of repair and rehabilitation work
items which are required. Wet wells are cleaned periodically (once every two to four
months depending on specific station requirements). Annual maintenance on pump
station includes complete inspection and performance of any maintenance required.
Typical annual maintenance are: grease motors, inspect pumps, electrical checks,
clean sumps, check de-humidifiers, completer check of telemetry equipment, etc.
This yearly preventive maintenance is recorded on checklists for each station and
any required improvements, rehabilitation, or replacements are noted with
explanations regarding why and when they should be completed.
Does this meet industry norms and are the budgeted amounts sufficient for
each maintenance category for 1995 through 2000?
Generally speaking, the District's current maintenance program for pump stations
is consistent with industry norms in terms of the activities performed and frequency.
There is no way of evaluating this in terms of actual dollars spent because of the
different types of budgeting and accounting methods by utility systems and due
variables such as size, age and type of facilities and salaries of employees
performing the work.
B.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL
1.
Have the 1994 and 1995 rate increases and no rate increases since then
resulted in deferred major maintenance and capital improvements?
, ,
Several projects were not included in the 1997 final budget which had been
anticipated in preliminary budgets. These include I & I rehabilitation, pump station
control panel replacements, field telerJ:letry modifications, Lakota Creek dredging
and other miscellaneous repair and rehab work. Although these items are not
critical to the operation of a safe and reliable utility system, they are items which will
presumably require funding in the future. The 1997 budget does include a number
of projects (Le. disinfection upgrade water reclamation, pump station rehab, etc.)
planned for the period 1997-1999. These preparatory work for these projects
appears to following a logical sequence for completion within the time line.
If so , what has been deferred, when should they be optimally be completed,
what are their costs and what will be the long term effect on the system to
meet future needs?
t;tf
Evaluation of all previously proposed but not yet completed projects will be
completed as part of the comprehensive planning projects. Until that analysis can
be completed to quantify the nature and extent of previously presumed system
needs, no evaluation of the timing and impact of project deferment can be made.
2.
Federal NPDES permits for the two wastewater treatment plants could require
significant improvements. What are these improvements, what is the likely
cost of the improvements, when will they likely be needed, will there be a
need for a rate increase, and if so, how much?
A review of the new NPDES permit (June 26, 1997) for the Lakota Treatment Plant
does not indicate the need for any major plant process changes. The permit now
stipulates a chlorine residual requirement which will require changes to the
disinfection process. It is likely that the Redondo Treatment Plant NPDES permit
renewal will include a comparable chlorine residual requirement. In 1995, a
disinfection system evaluation was performed for the two treatment plants and
recommended a UV disinfection system as the best alternative to achieve future
permit requirements. This study also addressed changes in the Uniform Fire Code,
and Clean Air Act ( Risk Management Plan). The plant modifications are included
in the 1997 CIP for implementation in 1998-1999.
3.
What is the current peak flow and capacity of both wastewater treatment
plants?
The current flow characteristics of the two plants are as follows:
Lakota Treatment Plant
Design Flow
1995 Average Flow
Allowable peak flow by permit
10 mgd (million gallons per day)
3.9 mgd
22 mgd
Redondo Treatment Plant
Design Flow
1995 Average Flow
Allowable peak flow by permit
5mgd
2.7 mgd
13.8 mgd
Do these flows approach regulatory or long range need capacities? If so,
what improvements re needed, their costs and when should they be made?
The current plant flows are within allowable permit values. The NPDES permits
require the District to initiate plans for increasing plant capacity when plant flows
exceed 85 percent of permit limits. The timetable for such planning will be
determined in the comprehensive planning effort.
4.
Have there been violations of the two wastewater treatment plants NPDES
r;;S-
permits? If so, how many, and at what cost and what improvements have
been necessary?
NPDES permit violations occur at Redondo Treatment Plant once or twice each
winter. Because of the dilute nature of incoming wastewater during wet weather,
the plant is sometimes not able to comply with the permit requirement of removing
at least 85 percent of suspended solids. This circumstance occurs in many
locations in the Pacific northwest and other wet weather locations. It can be
symptomatic of excessive I & I in the collection system.
Lakehaven Utility District recently received an award from the State Department of
Ecology for "Excellence in Operations and Maintenance" at the Lakota Plant. The
Lakota treatment plant has had only three permit violations in the recent past, all of
which all of a temporary or unusual nature. A brief process upset three years ago
resulted in violation of the suspended solids limit. In January, 1997 storm damage
caused the solids dewatering portion of the plant (which does not have backup
power) to be without power for a five day period. Despite attempts to control the
solids inventory in the plant, the suspended solids discharge limit was exceeded.
5.
The hillside above the Redondo treatment plants prone to landslides. Has
Lakehaven recently had soils and structural engineers evaluate the safety of
the hillside and the plant? How old is the retaining wall protecting the plant,
when should it be upgraded or replaced and what would be the cost?
There are two existing retaining walls on the hillside above the Redondo Treatment
Plant. The retaining wall just east of the administration building at the Redondo
treatment plant was construction in 1982, at the time the plant was upgraded. The
most easterly retaining wall was installed in 1992 to prevent hillside erosion and
potential damage to the treatment plant. Because of the steepness f the hillside on
the site, and the impact to the system if a major slide were to occur, the District has
retained the services of geotechnical and civil engineers to determine potential
problems and if any movement has occurred in the immediate vicinity of the
treatment plant. Recommendations of the geotechnical engineer have included tree
removal and hydro seeding and have been implemented by the District. Monitoring
both of the retaining walls and the hillside are an ongoing effort. It is anticipated
that, within the next year, the extent of any additional mitigation or repairs which
may be required, and the timing of any recommended improvements will be
determined.
s-~
ATTACHMENT B
LAKE HAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT
WASTEWATER BUDGET INFORMATION
IO~
MAINTENANCE FUND - SEWER
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Annual
Actual Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Average
Revenue
Sewer Charges 6,770,123 7,880,749 8,630,704 8,828,739 8,815,112 8,185,085
Interest Income 40,968 27,937 40,979 57,590 64,519 46,399
Other Income 111,422 62,873 57,341 72,357 53,591 71,517
Total Sewer Maintenance Revenue 6,922,514 7,971,559 8,729,024 8,958,686 8,933,222 8,303,001
Expenditures
Admin & General
Salaries & Benefits 436,092 542,853 556,346 454,670 497,490
Supplies 421 961 1 ,489 200 768
Services 754,830 873,740 942,448 795,453 841,618
Lakota - Maintenance
Salaries & Benefits 141,413 148,590 159,269 214,244 165,879
Supplies 61,798 36,443 39,673 17,000 38,729
Services 22,549 11,624 10,526 9,000 13,425
Lakota - Operations
Salaries & Benefits 718,765 654,227 674,299 599,008 661,575
Supplies 159,105 201,782 157,046 123,859 160,448
Services 527,133 512,563 627,907 655,389 580,748
Lakota - Pretreatment
Supplies 1,529 1,373 877 850 1,157
Services 2,010 115 1,656 1,500 1,320
Redondo - Maintenance
Salaries & Benefits 49,767 62,281 59,172 73,075 61,074
Supplies 28,680 11,440 20,848 10,000 17,742
Services 0 35,033 11,152 8,500 13,671
Redondo - Operations
Salaries & Benefits 289,318 262,719 310,917 287,379 287,583
Supplies 29,775 36,139 36,742 37,830 35,122
-
Services 228,128 237,810 253,151 253,ß69 243,240
Pumping - Field Maintenance
Supplies 35,466 63,476 62,559 24,000 46,375
Services 21,053 134,969 43,844 25,900 56,442
Pumping - General Operations
Salaries & Benefits 247,214 343,911 382,029 449,756 355,728
Pumping - Field Operations
Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Services 105,385 101,844 114,269 122,663 111,040
Pumping - Vehicles
Supplies 16,922 19,023 19,340 14,000 17,321
Services 9,865 19,685 12,091 10,000 12,910
~pital Expenditures 63,350 65,350 63,961 340,980 133,410
1V1ajor Maintenance 0 18,722 0 4,681
Total Sewer Maintenance Expenditures 4,022,994 3,950,568 4,396,673 4,561,611 4,529,125 4,292,194
(0)
CONSTRUCTION FUND - SEWER
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Annual
Actual Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Average
Revenue
Interest Income 44,727 171,534 239,352 234,585 190,000 176,040
Other Income 669,918 1,275,068 729,878 497,422 482,000 730,857
Total Sewer Construction
Fund Revenue 711,646 1,446,602 969,230 732,007 672,000 906,297
Expenditures
Salaries & Benefits 133,306 307,893 70,178 65,000 98,100 134,895
Supplies 10,254 128,584 9,092 36,900 124,500 61,866
Services 1,897,041 696,240 72,354 1,192,500 3,125,200 1,396,667
Other Costs 10,254 1,407 565 11,500 53,000 15,345
Total Sewer Construction Fund
Expenditures 2,050,855 1,132,718 152,189 1,305,900 3,400,800 1,608,492
REVENUE BOND FUND - SEWER
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Annual
Actual Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Average
Revenue
Assessment Interest 249,508 188,282 153,132* 136,529 148,659 175,222
Interest Income 5,605 19,773 55,350* 50,133 7,335 27,639
Assessment Principal 476,508 384,580 240,958* 262,949 286,009 330,201
Total Sewer Revenue Bond
Fund Revenue 731,621 592,635 449,440* 449,611 442,003 533,062
Expenditures
Debt Service 3,183,748 3,212,752 3,229,049* 3,221,433 3,125,983 3,194,593
Total Sewer Revenue Bond
Fund Expenditures 3,183,748 3,212,752 3,229,049* 3,221,433 3,125,983 3,194,593
Note:
The information in this Table was derived from lakehaven Utility District past budgets and, in some cases, is unaudited. Some
Interpolations have been made from Information provided by the District to achieve the goal of this Table, which is to provide an
overall summary of the level of expenditures for various budget categories over a five year period. The purpose of this information
is for comparison only and It is not Intended for any other use.
Due to changes in the budgeting process since 1993, detailed information regarding 1993 expenditures is not available for
maintenance fund. The information provided for 1993 is intended only to give a comparison of overall expenditures for that year.
* Indicates that projections were used for these numbers (1996 expenditures from the construction and revenue bond funds). Actual
expenditures were not available at the time of this budget summary.
/ oro
ATTACHMENT C
LAKEHA VEN UTILITY DISTRICT
WASTEWATER RATE COMPARISON
107
~ ~ <- ~ ~
- ~
._-"--~~. <
'f~\~~Ejtj~T"" '.
Lakehaven Utility District 20,156 977 $21.55 $21.55 $139.45 6,600,000 1995 Secondary
City of Tacoma 74,259 3,512 $24.89 $27.40 Not known 31,350,000 1996 Secondary
City of Everett 18,434 1,711 $20.75 $20.75 $272.00 15,000,000 1995 Primary/
Secondary
SW Suburban Sewer District. I 11,986 1,242 $12.50 $12.50 $228.03 6,500,000 1994 Secondary
City of Puyallup 6,388 729 $33.21 $33.25 $216.95 3,683,000 1994 Secondary
- I' City of Bellingham 14,457 3,126 $24.25 $36.38 $257.93 11,060,000 1994 Secondary
'> II City of Vancouver
~ 36,182 1,818 $14.50 $21.80 $169.00 18,000,000 1996 Secondary
City of Yakima 19,320 2,920 $20.43 $37.92 $143.02 1,270,000 1996 Secondary
Alderwood Water District 15,311 2,109 $20.00 $20.00 $266.00 2,100,000 1995 Secondary/
Metro
City of Kent 8,399 2,730 $24.24 $24.24 $323.00 6,742,438 Secondary/
Metro
City of Bellevue 28,491 2,214 $29.20 $29.20 $120.10 15,000,000 I 1996 I Metro
City of Olympia 9,750 1,200 $29.35 $29.35 $326.11 7,500,000 I 1992 I Secondary
Source: "AWC Tax & User Fee Survey, Water, Sewer & Garbage Fees", Association of Washington Cities in Conjunction with City Engineers Association of
Washington, and American Public Works Association - Washington State Chapter.
f:
ATTACHMENT A
OPERATIONS PROGRAM
OF THE
SEWER DIVISION
fJ1
OPERATIONS 'PROGRAM
OF THE
SEWER DIVISION
MARCH 6, 1995
-
fJ'ð
OPERATIONS PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE/RESPONSIBILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TRAINING-PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION ................................
General...............................................""
Wastewater Treatment Plant Certification. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Collection System Certification """"""""""""",""""
Personnel Certification Table """"""""""""""'"
SYSTEM FACILITIES AND CONTROL ..................................
FIELD............. ...........................................
Pump. Stations """""""""""""""',""""""""'"
Pump Stations Description """"""""""""""""""
Pump Station System Control ..................................
Pump Station/Siphon Information Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Collection System ...............................................
Collections Description """"""""""""""""""'"
TREATMENT PLANTS ............................................
lakota ....................................................... 15
LakotaTreatmentPlantDescription """"""""""""""" 15
lakota System Control .........................'...............16
lakota Conditions and Performance .............................. 16
NPDES Effluent Permit Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 6
lakota Performance Parameters ........................".... 17
Redondo ."""".......................................';-'.....
RedondoTreatmentPlantDescription............................ .
RedondoSystemControl.....................................,
RedondoConditionsandPerformance............................,
, NPDESPermitEffluentRequirements .....;..................
RedondoPerformanceParameters ""'....................,
lABORATORY/PRETREATMENT .......................':.............
Laboratory ....................................................
laboratoryDescription .......................................
Pretreatment Description............................... ...........,
List of Significant Industrial Users ..........................
G(
5
7
7
7
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
15
15
15
18
18
18
19
19
20
21
21
21
21
21
MAINïENANCEANDOPERATIONSTASKS........................."'"
FIELDCREWDESCRIPTION.........................................
COLLECTIONS...................................................
Collection Crew Description .................'.......................
Goal ....................................................
WorkloadTable ............................................
Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Tasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pipeline cleaning ......................................
Manholes .............................'..............
Air-Vac's............................................
Inflow/lnfiltration """""""""""""""""""
Smoke testing ........................................
PUMPSTATIONS................................................
Pump Stations Crew Description """""""""""""""""'"
Goal............................. . ....... ., ..... . " .. '"
Workload Table """"""""""""""""""""""
Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Tasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Telemetrycheck """""""""""""""""""
Wet Well Cleaning ..................;..................
Station Check """"""""""""""""""""
Corrective Maintenance ...............................,.
ELECTRICAL ...................................................
ElectricalCrew .................................................
Goal................ """""'" ..........., ..... ......
Workload """""""""""""""""""""".""
SPECIAL PROJECTS....................................... -'-."""
Special Projects Crew.................................... """'"
Goal............... """"""""" ""'" ..... . ... ...
Workload ..,.............................................
PLANT MAINTENANCE...................................... ......
Plant Maintenance Crew Description ....................~.............
Goal................................................... .
Workload ................................................
LAKOTA PLANT OPERATIONS ......................................
Lakota Plant Crew Description .......................................
Goal.. ... """"" . . ... """""'" ...... "" . . .. . . ...
Workload ................................................
&;0
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
.24
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
REDONDO PLANT OPERATIONS .....................................
RedondoPlantCrewDescription .....................................
Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Workload ................................................
LABORATORY/PRETREATMENT OPERATIONS. . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laboratory ....................................................
Goal....................................................
Workload """"""""""""""""""""'.""'"
Monitoring Requirements-Lakota ..........................
Monitoring Requirements-Redondo .........................
Pretreatment Crew Description ......................................
Goal....................................................
RECORD KEEPING "'0""""""""""""""""""""""
APPENDIX..............................................""'"
ReportMatrix .............................................
The History of Lakehaven Utility District """"""""""""'"
'-
.'
b(
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
36
38
38
38
39
40
41
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE/RESPONSIBILITIES
District staff includes the Director of Operations, Engineer III, WWTP Plant Supervisor, Senior
Wastewater Operations Specialist, Water Quality Supervisor, Pretreatment Coordinator, Lab
Technician, Senior Operator, Operator III, Operator II, Utility Worker, Janitor, Operations
Coordinator, Maintenance Supervisor, Maintenance Foreman, Instrument Technician,
Maintenance Persons III, Plant Maintenance Person III, Maintenance Persons II, Plant
Maintenance Person II, Maintenance Persons I. Individual staff responsibilities are summarized
in this section.
The Director of Sewer Operations, who reports to the General Manager of the District, has
responsibility for the planning, operation and maintenance of all sewer division facilities. The
Director coordinates with other divisions of the District and assists or acts as project officer
on some improvement projects.
The WWTP Supervisor. has the responsibility for the operation of the Redondo treatment
plant. This is a highly experienced level of sewage treatment plant operations.
The Senior Operations Wastewater SDècialist, has the responsibility for?
The EnQineer III, has responsibility for design review for Developer Extension, performs in-
house studies and coordinates with consultants on projects,
The Senior ODerator, performs a variety of operational tasks at a highly skilled level.
Supervises other operators in the operations of the sewer plant.
The Operator III, performs a variety of highly skilled operational tasks. Operates pumps,
control and power equipment. .
The Operator II. performs a variety of operational tasks.
The Utility Worker, assists operational personnel in the treatment plant.
The Maintenance Supervisor has supervisory responsibility for the operation and maintenance
of the pumping stations, collection system and maintenance of all districtelect[jcal e-quipment.
Plans and coordiantes with other sections for required maintenance and projects.
The Plant Maintenance Foreman has supervisory responsibility for the maintenance of the
treatment facilities.
The Instrument Technician, is responsible for repair, maintenance and installation of all of the
District electrical and instrumentation equipment.
The Maintenance Person III, under general supervision, performs a variety of tasks at a highly
skilled level in order to operate and maintain pump stations and collection system. Acts as
a lead-person on projects. Operates automotive and power equipment and does related work
as required.
5
~L
The Plant Maintenance Person III, under general supervision, performs a variety of tasks at a
highly skilled level in order to maintain the waste water plants, Acts as a lead-person on
projects. Operates automotive and power equipment and does related work as required.
The Maintenance Person II, under general supervision, performs a variety of tasks at a skilled
level in order to operate and maintain wastewater pump stations and collection system.
Operates power equipment in construction and maintenance operations.
The Plant Maintenance Person 11, under general supervision, performs a variety of tasks at a
skilled level in order to maintain plant equipment. Operates power equipment in construction
and maintenance operations.
The Water Quality Analyst, supervises and performs-lab analysis as required by the sewage
treatment plant's NPDES permit using standard methods established by EPA and DOE. This
is a experienced level of work in technical lab analysis for a sewage treatment plant.
The Pretreatment Coordinator, is responsible for maintaining the Pretreatment Program.
The Laboratory Technician, performs various routine' lab analyses as required and collects
samples.
The Operations Coordinator II, coordinates activities and information between sections of the
Sewer Division, performs purchasing duties, and clerical tasks. Assists the WWTP Supervisor
as requested.
The Janitor, cleans the Lakota Administration, Lakota Maintenance, and Main Office Buildings
from 5:00 pm to 1 :30 am.
\0.
..-
6
~?
TRAINING - PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION
General
The Sewer Division of lakehaven Utility District encourages its employees to attend classes
to obtain certification and to upgrade their knowledge. The District provides financial support
for classes, seminars and workshops in all areas of expertise relating to the employees' jobs.
The District also maintains a library of pertinent books for study and help is available for
anyone requesting it.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Certification
The wastewater operator certification program is mandatory in Washington. This program
establishes minimum requirements and standards by which operators of treatment plants are
examined and certified as to their competency. The assigned classification of the treatment
plant, which is ,based on the complexity of the wastewater treatment process, determines the
required grade level for the person in responsible charge of the 'plant. The certification
program is divided into five classifications:
Group IV
Group III
Group II
Group I
OIT - operator in training
The lakota Plant is classifieq as a Group IV treatment plant. Redondo plant is classified as
a Group III plant. Personnel certified as wastewater operators by the State of Washington are
summarized in later in this document.
Each certified operator must demonstrate continuing professional growth in the field for
certification renewal. It is the operator's responsibility to see that this professiò!:1al growth
requirement is satisfied, and the District's responsibility to allow the opportunit¥ for the
- oper-ator to accomplish this. The professional growth requirements for wastewater certified
operators can be obtained by various means, including:
Accumulation of a minimum of three (3) continuing education units (CEU's) through
completion of short courses, correspondence courses and other courses offered
through community colleges, attendance at workshops and/or seminars.
Advancement to a higher level of certification examination.,
Achievement of certification in the Wastewater Certification Program.
7
r;,tf
Collection System Certification
The wastewater collection certification program is a voluntary program for people in the
wastewater industry. It is designed to show levels of competence in wastewater collection.
There are five levels of certification as follows,
Group IV
Group III
Group II
Group I
OIT
OIT, Operator-in-Training, is the lowest level. Groups 1-3 levels require experience in the
field from 6 months to a minimum of 2 years for the Group 3. The Group IV requires previous
certification in the level 3, management training, and experience in field operations.
As with the operator certification program anyone certified must complete professional growth
requirements of 1 CEU per year to maintain their certification.
~
8
&5
-
- ..,
NAMI
--.. --.--
--- .-
-._.
Jon lllll
,,__.n
-----""----- -. --'
Anderson, Tracy
Asbury, Brian
Bolam. Joe
Briggs, Carol
Brown, Steve
Buss, Terry
Castaneda, Joseph
Castanza, Joel
Cook, Gary
Elkins, Sid
Fujimoto, Richard
Gauthier, Richard
Hasse, Dale
Harris, Lynn
Hays, Jon
Housley, Jack
Keltner. Lynn
Kern, Russell
Kerns, Ross
Koda, Randy
Kuipers, Dan
May, Melanie
McCoy, Barbara
McCoy. Ron
Ming, Michael
Moreland. Howard
Myers, Bob
Newell, Jim
Schumacher, lee
Schumacher, Pam
Sherwood, Jason
Stump, Bernie
Timm, Melva
Warford, TIm
Windh. DeAnna
Yoder, Gene
MPIII
Pretreatment Coord
MPIII
Operator II
Utility Worker
Coord II
Utility Worker
Relief Op III
lab Tech
MPIII
Senior Operator
MPII
MPII
lab Tech
Senior Operator
Utility Worker
Operator III
MPII
MPI
MP III
MPIII
WQ Analyst
Utility Worker
Operator III
Operator III
Electrical/lnstr, Tech
Senior Operator
MPII
WWTP Supervisor
Operator III
MPI
Majnt Foreman
Operations Specialist
Operator II
Operator III
Majnt Supervisor
1
Personnel Certification Table.
_0,.
, ' .", ."' " " ',' , ,
WASTEWATEIt COllECTION" . OTÙi:R "
CI:IH1FICAliON .
WASTEWA1'ER OPf.MTOIt
CElHIIICA liON
'..
OIT
II
III
-
IV
II
III
IV
1;1'
AC
AC
WDM,
WTOl
CP,AC
\.
-
CP
eee
WDM.Water District ManagerlWTO1-Water Treatment Op IICCC- Cross Connection Control Specialist AC-Asbestos Certitied I CP-Competent Person
,. A=Class A, ß=Class B, (TI = Tanker, (H) = Hazardous Materials
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~G
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
-
x
x
x
,
x
x
.....
"-
COl
..
CLASS
AU I
1\
An.11I
Bm
Am
Am
Am
Am
Am
ACT)
Am
II
SYSTEM FACILITIES AND CONTROL
FIELD
Pump Stations
Pump Stations Description
The Sewer Division operates and maintains 28 pump stations, seven on-site
generators, three portable generators, and seven grinder stations (serving single family
residences). -""-
Pump Station System Control
The automated control system utilized by the District is designed to provide pump
control to keep wet well levels from overflow and to prevent the sewage from
becoming septic. This is supplemented by a telemetry system, located at Lakota,
which provides monitoring information. Control of wet well levels is achieved by using
bubblers, ultrasonic, float controls and one sensing probe. Telemetry system has
backup power through the lakota plant, monitoring only.
The following information is communicated to the monitoring panel at Lakota from the
telemetry system;
.
.
Pump 1 run (log running times)
Pump 2 run (log running times)
Pump 3 run (log running times)
Intrusion
High wet well
Low wet well
Pump 1 fail (derived from check valve)
Pump 2 fail (derived from check valve)
Pump 3 fail (derived from check valve)
Power failure
Communication failure
Generator run
Generator fail
Air system fail.
Water Seal fail
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
~1
Pump Station/Siphon Information Table
~
0<;1
STA. # DESCRIPTION / ADDRESS PUMPS TO: DETENTION TIME PIPE SIZE PUMP COMMENTS
FOR OUTPUT 80
A VERAGE FLOW GPM
5 CAMELOT STATION 6 30 MINUTES 15"G . 8"FM 540 100KW Onsite
S. 298th & 36th Piece S. 421 Gen
6 S. 288th STREET AUB/RED SIPHON 45 MINUTES 21"G. 16"FM 1516 300KW Onsite
S. 288th & 32nd Ave S.
7 REDONDO WATERFRONT REDONDO WWTP 2 HOURS 18"G.14"FM 575 100KW Onsite
Redondo Beech Dr. & 421 Gen
Redondo Way S.
8 NORTH REDONDO STATION 7 4 HOURS 12"G. 18"G 599 420.421 Gen
South 280th & Redondo
Beech Dr.
9 SOUTH REDONDO STATION 7 2 HOURS 8"G . 8"G 313 420.421 Gen
28714 Redondo Beech Dr.
10 TWIN LAKES LAKOTA TRUNK 20 MINUTES 8"G . 8"G 1855 175KW Onsi.te
SW 320th & 35th Ave SW 20"FM Wtr. Shop Gen
11 TWIN LAKES #5 STATION 10 . J. HOURS 8"G . 4"FM 110 420,421, WS Gen
31401 36th Avo. SW
12 KILO . STATION 5 1 HOUR 12"G . 6"FM 276 420,421 Gen
37th Ave S. & S. 340th St.
13 VISITATION RETREAT LAKOTA TRUNK 1 HOUR 6"G . 4"FM UNKNOWN 420,421 Gen
31st Ave SW & SW Desh Pt ,i
Rd
..!'.'
19 WEYERHAEUSER LAKOTA ,TRUNK 2 HOURS 8"G . 8"FM 392 WEYER CO Onsite
HEADQUARTERS
11
~
-D
STA. # DESCRIPTION I ADDRESS PUMPS TO: DETENTION TIME PIPE SIZE PUMP COMMENTS
FOR OUTPUT',
, A VERAG E FLOW GPM
S. 336th St & 26th Ava S.
22 WEST CAMPUS LAKOTA TRUNK 30 MINUTES 12"G . 12"FM 1124 300KW Onsite
S. 348th St & 9th Ave S. WS Gen
23 DASH PT. LAKOT A TRUNK 2 HOURS 12"G - S"Sip. NA
SIPHONS/FLUSHING ST A
4300 SW Dash Pt Rd
24 WEYCO / 1 st AVE PS LAKOTA TRUNK 1 HOURS B"G. 6"FM 369 60KW Onsite
1st Ava S & S 33"t 421 Gen
26 ULiD 40 STATION 6 6 HOURS B"G - 8"FM 243 420,421 Gen
27th Ava S & 5 2S4th St
2B DELCO TACOMA 1 HOUR 10"G. 10'FM 893 421 Gen
21st Ave SW & SW 34Sth St
30 KINGCO ESTATES STATION 6 1 HOURS S"G. S"FM 241 420,421 Gen
37th Ava S & S 2S4th St
31 STAR LAKE / ULID 41A STATION 6 1 HOUR 12"G. S"FM 652 421 Gan
37th Ave S & S 279th St
32 WEDGEWOOD WEST III STATION 10 2 HOURS S"G. 6"FM S7 421 Gen
SW 337th St & SW 43rd Ava
33 ULID 53 STATION 22 2 HOURS 12"G. 10"FM 706 175KW Onsite
12th Ave S & S 359th St 421 Gan
34 SCHADE PALISADES LAKOTA TRUNK 24 HOURS B"G . 2"FM UNKNOWN 420,421 Gen
39th Ave SW & SW 310th St . I '.
..
35 NICHOLSON PLACE STATION 8 2 HOURS B"G . 6"FM 258 421 Gen
I 47th Ave S & S 30Sth St \
12
-1
C)
STA. # DESCRIPTION I ADDRESS PUMPS TO: DETENTION TIME PIPE SIZE PUMP COMMENTS
FOR OUTPUT ",
A VERAGE FLOW GPM
36 ULID 52 LAKOT A TRUNK 4 HOURS 8"G . 8"FM 276 421 Gen
12th Ave SW & SW 296th St
37 EMERALD FOREST LAKOTA TRUNK 2 HOURS 1 O"G . 8"FM 339 421 Gen
18t Ave S & 352nd St
38 aUAIL RUN 1111 SUBSTA. 38 LAKOTA WWTP 2 HOURS 8"G . 6"FM 111 421 Gen
33rd PI SW & SW 316th St
39 WOODMONT NORTH BEACH STATION 8 6 HOURS 8"G. 2 1I2"FM 67 421 Gen
26431 7th Ave S
40 RAINIER VIEW TACOMA 2 HOURS 30"G . 4"FM 421 Gen
S 368th St & 29th Ave S
41 FOREST HILLS STATION 6 2 HOURS 8"G . 4"FM 421 Gen
5235 S 279th St
42 ALDERGLEN TACOMA 2 HOURS 10"G . 4"FM 421 Gen
25th Avo S & S 355th PI ,
Private STATION 30
SIPH. # DESCRIPTION I ADDRESS PIPE SIZE COMMENTS
1 MEREDITH SIPHON # 1 6"
84th Avo S & S 293rd St I
2 MEREDITH SIPHON #2 4" & 8"
'h
84th Avo S & S 296th 5t I
13
STA. # DESCRIPTION I ADDRESS PUMPS TO: DETENTION TIME PIPE SIZE PUMP COMMENTS
FOR OUTPUT "
A VERAGE FLOW GPM
3 MILTON SIPHON #1 4" & 12"
S 369th St 24th Ave S
4 MILTON SIPHON #2 S"
S 387th St & 22nd Ave S
5 MILTON SIPHON #3 6" & 6ft
S 379th St & 16th Ave S
6 AUBURN / REDONDO 8ft & 18ft
SIPHON
S 2S8th & 12th Ave S
7 SOUTH BEACH I REDONDO S"
SIPHON
SW 3rd & 292nd SW
. ~ - each unit
p
-!"
-..
p
y
"'- "
, ,'r'1
14
H
J
K
L
I M
N
0
P
l 8
c I 0 I E I F I G
LAKEHAVEN
UTILITY DISTRICT
SEWER FACiliTIES &
BOUNDARIES MAP
--1
2
-
3 .
#36
0
4
5
6
7
MIDrAY
SEIŒR
D1STRlCT
CITY OF KENT
SEWER
0
1
2
I. !nHO If
3
4
0
LEGEND
I.OIŒHoWOI ocsnacr BOUNONn'
SEWER SEJMC( AA£A -
SEWER IIM<S > ,cr [)W.f
SEWER IIM<S It' ..., UNXR
FOlIC( ......
SIPHOH
~ $TAllON
~ $TAllON """OCR
#39
_ø.tAIE SFHOH 1.OC411ON
<j~\J
<sO
(j ~«,
\?\J
REDONDO
WWTP
9
c
r
r:.
1-1
~I
9
10
ITIC IT
~ 11
0
u
-.
-.:¡:j
"-It:
Ol,
~CI¡ 12
v
I. U2HO IT
13
14
I. auTIC IT
15
v
1;:
t;
<ì:Q; )v
...;;
0",
>.'"
h 17
t;
n I~f'.
10
11
12
~
N
~
..
od
>
<
:I:
...
..
..
13
15
w
E
14
s
I
1/4 1/2 114 I
ICALE IN WILEI
2
0
17
0 1000
sooo
SCALE IN FEET
10.000
Collection System
Collections Description
The collections systems consists of 250 miles of pipeline, 6500 manholes, 10 air-vac
vaults, and seven siphons.
To facilitate line cleaning the District has been divided into 40 gravity basins. Each
basin has a maximum of two exit points for the sewage flow to the next basin or to
a treatment plant, with a few areas near the perimeter of the District which discharge
flow to Metro, Midway Sewer District, and Tacoma (through Pierce County and
Tacoma transmission lines).
TREATMENT PLANTS
Lakota
Lakota Treatment Plant Description
Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant is a complete-mix activated sludge facility with
an average design flow of 10 MGD, and peak design flow of 22.2 MGD. The flow for
1994 was 3.65 MGD. Treatment begins with coarse screening and grit removal,
followed by primary sedimentation and scum removal. The primary sedimentation
effluent is further treated by a complete-mix activated sludge process followed with
secondary clarification. Effluent from the secondary clarifier is disinfected with
chlorine before discharge to Dumas Bay in the Puget Sound through a deep water
outfall. The outfall extends 2400 feet offshore and is 180 feet below the surface of
the water. Sludge from the secondary clarifiers is thickened by dissolved air flotation.
Thickened secondary sludge and primary sludge are heated, mixed and anaerobically
digested, then dewateredby filter belt press. The dewatered solids (biosolids) are
transported off-site and delivered to land sites through a contract with Northwest
Cascade that is valid until April 30, 1997. -
System Units
Screening Removal (Rags are ground and returned to flow)
Grit Removal
Primary Clarification
Aeration Basins (complete mix)
Secondary Clarification
Disinfection
Dissolved Air Flotation
Anaerobic Digestion
Belt Press Dewatering
Biosolids Disposal
Odor Scrubbers (Packed Tower)
15
7~
,-'.'
The Lakota plant site includes administration and maintenance buildings. The
administration building provides space for the plant and collection system monitoring
equipment, the analytical laboratory, offices, employee locker rooms and lunchroom.
The maintenance building provides space for collection and plant maintenance
equipment, offices, shop area and garage for the larger trucks.
Lakota System Control
The Lakota Plant is monitored by a SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)
system. The SCADA system also allows some control of pumps, and valves. This
allows personnel to monitor the condition of the plant and make changes in pumping
rates, on/off times etc to increase the efficiency of the operation.
Lakota Conditions and Performance
The foll9wing table outlines the performance objectives as ~equired by the Lakota
NPDES permit, effective from June 3. 1990 to June 1. 1995
PARAMETER UNITS MONTHL Y WEEKL Y AVERAGE
AVERAGE
Carbonaceous BOD Ibs/day 2086 3338
mg/I 25 40
Suspended solids Ibs/day 2503 3755
mg/l 30 45
Fecal coliform organismsl1 00 ml 200 400
pH standard Shall be within the range of 6.0 - 9.0
NPDES Effluent Permit Requirements
In addition to the specific discharge limitations. the NPDES permit. describes and stipulates a
number of other conditions for permit compliance, including:
.
Influent and effluent monitoring. including the Puget Sound receiving water
.
Marine sediment monitoring, effluent particulate analysis and outfall evaluations
.
Full industrial pretreatment program
.
Accidental spill prevention program
.
Sludge management program
16
~+
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
AERATED
GRIT REMOVAL
SCREENING
GRIT
RAGS
-------1
TREATMENT FLOW
LAKOTA WWTP
______FIQ~~~__-----------ï
THICKENER UNDERFLOW
--------------ì
I
PRIMARY Î
PRIMARY SLUDGE
SEDIMENTATION
w Ow
wt9
t9 ~o
o
AIR ACTIVATED ::) w:)
-1 <:)-1
Þ SLUDGE (/) DISSOLVED a(/)
0 AIR FLOATATION
w THICKENING
I-
« BELT PRESS
> DEWATERING
I-
u
«
z
ex::
:)
I- WASTE
w
SECONDARY ex:: ACTIVATED
SEDIMENTATION SLUDGE BIOSOLIDS
FOR ULTIMATE
DISPOSAL
CHLORINE
CONTACT
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
TO DUMAS BAY
I-]L;
I.AKFLOW /RSl./2-2\ -95
lakota Performance Parameters
for year of 1994
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
TREATED QUANTITIES Wastewater, million gallons 1,332.865
Solids, pounds 2,722,932
CBOD, pounds 2,212,103
Waste Activated Sludge, pounds 1,478,508
Total Sludge to Digester, pounds 3,656,854
EFFICIENCY RATE Removal of suspended solids, 92.4
percent
Removal of carbonaceous BOD, 95.8
percent
Usage of methane gas produced, 26
percent
PRODUCTS Dewatered biosolids, wet tons 4,686
Dewatered biosolids, dry tons 709
Methane gas, cubic feet 28,329,998
INFLUENT DAILY Wastewater flow, mgd 3.651
AVERAGE
Suspended solids, mg/l 245
CBOD, mg/l 199
EFFLUENT DAILY Suspended solids. mg/l 18.25
AVERAGE
CBOD, mg/I 8.2 ---
Fecal coliform, organisms/100 ml 10
pH 6.9
Chlorine residual .61
17
~~
, ",,~(,
Redondo
Redondo Treatment Plant Description
The Redondo Wastewater Treatment Plant is a bio-tower plant designed for an average
flow of 5 MGD, peak flow design is 13.8. Flow for 1994 was 2.45 MGD. Treatment
begins with coarse screening and grit removal, rags are ground up and returned to the
flow. This is followed by primary sedimentation and scum removal. The primary
sedimentation effluent is further treated by a bio-tower (trickling filter) process
followed with secondary clarification. Effluent from the secondary clarifier is
disinfected with chlorine then dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide before discharge to
Poverty Bay in the Puget Sound through a deep water outfall. The outfall extends
1030 from the shore and is 130 feet below the surface of the water. Sludge from the
secondary clarifiers is returned to the primary clarifiers. Secondary and primary sludge
are heated, mixed and anaerobically digested, then dewatered by belt press. The
dewatered solids (biosolids) are transported off-site and delivered to Northwest
Cascade for composting by a contract that is valid until April 30, 1997.
System Units
Screening with grinding
Grit Removal
Primary Clarification
Bio-towers
Secondary Clarification
Disinfection
Dechlorination
Anaerobic Digestion
Belt Press Dewatering
Biosolids Disposal
Odor Scrubbe..r (Packed Tower followed by carbon adsorbtion)
"
.'
~", ' ,,'..
'- ....-"
"
Redondo System Control
The Redondo Plant has an alarm panel that monitors the key equipment in the facilities
and gives an alarm if any trouble is sensed. Operators take daily readings on all of the
key equipment.
18
'1'1
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FLOW
REDONDO WWTP
GRIT
RAGS
GRIT REMOVAL
SCREENING
-----...1
-_____ÐLT~I~__---------,
I
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRIMARY.
SEDIMENTATION
PRIMARY SLUDGE
SECONDARY SLUDGE
w
e?
0
:::>
--.J
if)
>-
0:::
<!:
0
z
0
u
w
if)
Ow
we?
~o
w:::>
G--.J
o if)
BELT PRESS
DEWATERING
SECONDARY
SEDIMENTATION
" .
BIOSOLIDS
FOR ULTIMATE
Dt3POSAL
CHLORINE
CONTACT
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
TO POVERTY BAY
'1~
REDF"LO\1' /RSL/2 -21 -95
Redondo Conditions and Performance
The following table outlines the performance objectives as required by the Redondo
NPDES permit, effective from Oecemeber 20, 1988 to Oecemeber 18, 1993.
NPDES Permit Effluent Requirements
-.
PARAMETER UNITS MONTHLY WEEKLY AVERAGE
AVERAGE
Carbonaceous BOD Ibs/day 978 1,565
mg/I 25 40 ..-..
Suspended solids Ibs/day 1-,242 1,863
mgl1 30 45
Fecal coliform organisms/100 ml 200 400
pH standard 511all be within the range of 6.0 - 9.0
In addition to the specific discharge limitations, ttìe NPOES permit describes and stipulates a
number of other conditions for permit compliance, including:
.
Full industrial pretreatment program
.
Sludge management program
19
~1
Redondo Performance Parameters
for year of 1994
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
TREATED QUANTITIES Wastewater, million gallons 895.092
Solids, pounds 1,978,243
BOO, pounds 1,239,201
Secondary Sludge, pounds -----
Total Sludge to Digester, pounds 1,213,306
EFFICIENCY RATE Removal of suspended solids, 90.7
percent
Removal of carbonaceous BOO, 90.7
, percent
Usage of methane gas produced, 76.7
percent
PRODUCTS Dewatered biosolids, wet tons 980.1
Dewatered biosolids, dry tons 156.21
Methane gas, cubic feet 1,193.6
.
INFLUENT DAILY Wastewater flow, mgd 2.452
AVERAGE
Suspended solids, mg/I 256
CBOD, mg/l 166
EFFLUENT DAILY Suspended solids, mg/I 24
AVERAGE
-
CBOD, mg/l 14. 7-~-
Fecal coliform, organisms!100 ml 6
pH 6.9
Chlorine residual .47
20
Y;ò
lABORATORY ¡PRETREATMENT
laboratory
laboratory Description
The majority of the NPDES and process control testing for both plants is done at the lakota
Main laboratory. Each plant has small process control labs for testing pH, DO and other
parameters that need to be done Quickly or are done as an operational control test.
Pretreatment Description
There is a pretreatment program which has been assigned a crew of one (Pretreatment
Coordinator).
list of Significant Industrial Users
.. _on""]
SIU lOCATIONS CHEMICALS USED
"-"--- '..------------.-'-'-'
Weyerhauser Technology 32901 Weyerhauser Way S acids, alkalies, oil &/or
Center greases, paints,
solvents/thinners
..
21
2?(
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS TASKS
FIELD CREW DESCRIPTION
The Field Crew presently has ten (10) full time positions; three (3) for Pump stations, two (2)
for Collections, two (2) for Electrical and two (2) for Special Projects, and one Supervisor.
Each Section is responsible for a certain amount of Preventive and Corrective Maintenance,
as well as projects that have been assigned to them. The following sections give a brief
description of the goal of each section and the workload that has been associated in
maintaining that goal.
During the months of July and August a review of the field equipment and structures is
performed to determine if any large scale repairs are necessary. Examples of large scale
repairs are complete rebuilding õf pump station (pumps, ventilation, MCC replacement, control
replacement, replacement of level control, etc), gravity main replacement or repair. If repairs
are needed then a submittal of a cost and labor analysis is given along with regular budget
report to management for their review and approval. After completion of the budget and
acceptance by the board the CIP and regular budget is reviewed by operations and workload
is scheduled over the next 1 2 months. Some of this work is contracted out while other
projects are completed in house.
COLLECTIONS
Collection Crew Description
The Collection Crew (two people), are responsible for the operation and maintenance of 250
miles of gravity sewer lines, (25) forcemains and all the necessary equipment that is
associated with it. They are also responsible for the equipment used to operate and maintain
the Collection System.
Goal
The goal of the Collection System Section is to reduce the possibility of overflows
while staying aware of the amount of time and effort that is being expended and make
necessary adjustments. To operate in a manner that is saf.e.and comply with all District
Policies and Procedures. Keep facilities safe .for the public.
22
~2---
Workload Table
Safety Classes (2) persons 1 x mo @ 1 hr (104 hrs)
(PM) Line Cleaning (2.5) persons 1 week per month (1200 hrs)
(PM) Air Vac's (2) persons 2 week per year (160 hrs)
(CM) Manhole Raise to Grade (2.5) persons 2 months per year (866 hrs)
(PM) TV New Construction (2) persons 1 day per week (832 hrs)
(PM) Clean Sedimentation Basin (2) persons 1 week per year (80:hrs)
(CM) Service Calls (1) person 2 x week @1/5 hr each (52 hrs)
(PM) Paper Work (1) person 2 hrs per week (104 hrs)
(PM) Trucking Sludge (1) person 1 x week x 3 (156 hrs)
(PM) Infiltration Gallery (2) persons 2 x per year @16 hrs (32 hrs)
* * * * * *TOTAL HOURS 3586 PER YEAR * * * * * *
Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Tasks
The above mentioned list is all of the normal preventive and corrective maintenance
that scheduled throughout the year. This scheduled maintenance is reviewed
throughout the year for its cost effectiveness. The Collection Crew also perform a
variety of other tasks which need to be done only once. Some of these tasks include
emergency repairs of forcemains, manhole lids, plugged sewers (main and side
sewers), storm drain cleaning, assisting other crews (Water and Sewer Division).
Pipeline cleaning;
Pipeline in the collection system is coded according to how frequent lines need
to be cleaned of grease and debris accumulations. -
A-1 lines = Once every month
Code-1 lines = Once every four months
Code-2 lines = Once per year
If a line hasn't been coded by above designations then no cleaning or TV
inspections are performed.
New collection systems pipelines are given a final inspection by TV camera and
are visually inspected to meet current specifications before final acceptance.
23
~~
Blocked lines are inspected after blockage is removed and the line is cleaned.
After the TV report is complete, a determination is made to the type of
maintenance needed or repairs scheduled.
Manholes
Collections manhole lids are raised to grade after being paved over by City
and/or county during the summer months. Approximately 80 manholes are
. completed per summer.
Comprehensive manhole inspections are done once per every 10 years to obtain
a reasonable accurate view of the integrity of the system. The inspections
includes a visual evaluation of manholes and channels to look for current or
potential problems. The inspector looks for such things as debris on the ladder
rungs indicating previous back-ups, trees roots that may be growing into the
line, housing developments that may overflow if the manhole plugs etc.
Facilities maps are also reviewed and updated to current conditions.
Air-Vac's
Air-Vac's are cleaned and checked for operation once every 4 months.
Inflow/Infiltration
Collect information from rain gauges, SCADA system, and pump station log
records to analyze the effect of inflow and infiltration on the collection and.
treatment systems.
Smoke testing
Smoke testing is performed in areas that are believed to be high in inflow
and/or illegal connections. Testing is performed when time allows.
PUMP STATIONS
Pump Stations Crew Description
The Pump Station Crew consist's of three persons. Their primary responsibility is the
operation and maintenance of 28 Pump Stations. The Stations range in size from 5
horsepower to 150 horsepower. Three (3) of these Stations are submersible, the rest are dry
24
~t
pit. The Stations range in age from 1 to 34 years. The larger Stations (1 + MGD) are the
oldest. The crew is also responsible for maintaining 7 submersible Grinder Stations that serve
individual homes. They maintain all of the equipment they use with the exception of their
vehicle.
Goal
The purpose of the Pump Station Crew is to keep the integrity of each Station at a
point where the possibility of sewage overflows is limited. To operate in a manner that
is safe and follow all policies and procedures as directed by the District and Regulatory
Agencies. ,.. .
Workload Table
Station check and generators 2 persons x 1 day/week (832 hrs)/year
Cle~m wet wells 3 persons x 1 : day/week (1248 hrs)/year
Perform preventive maintenance 3 persons x 2 months/year (1038 hrs)/year
* * * Electrical check 1 x year
* + *Telemetry check 2 x year
* + * Pump check 1 x year
+ + +Clean dry well sumps 1 x year
+ + + Clean dehumidifiers 1 x year
* * +Clean check valves 1 x year
* + *Operate isolation valves 24 x year
Clean/check grinder stations 3 persons x 2 weeks/yr (240 hrs)/year
Safety meetings 3 persons x 1 hr/month (288 hrs)/year
-
Repair/rebuild Pumps, telemetry problems, 3 persons x 3 months/yr (1557 hrs)lyear
check valves problems,etc.
Inspection of plans and new pump stations 1 person x 2 months/yr (346 hrs)'v.ear
Remaining spent on projects such as Station (519 hrs) * * +TOT AL 6068 HOURSIYEAR
10 rehabilitation, Milton
Access road, fuel tanks, etc.
The hours reflected in the workload are approximate. Some years we will be more into
corrective maintenance as compared to preventive maintenance as with all other sections of
Field Maintenance. The Pump Station Crew receives help and gives help to other sections in
accordance with the priority of the work.
25
g5
Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Tasks
All pump station sites are checked twice per month, major stations are checked once
per week. Wet wells are cleaned periodically, once every two to four months
depending on the frequency of cleaning needed. Once per year pump stations are
inspected and necessary maintenance performed such as: grease motors, inspect
pumps, electrical checks, clean sumps, check dehumidifiers, etc. Telemetry system
inspections are performed twice per year.
Telemetry check
Telemetry checks are performed to insure the operation of the telemetry is
working correctly. This work requires personnel to check all 16 points of
information for each of the pump sites and siphon sites in the district.
Wet Well Cleaning
Wet wells are cleaned to remove grease and debris from the tank. If {eft
without cleaning the pumps would end up clogging more frequently, pump
control systems (ex. float, bubbler) would become non-operational and odors
would be excessive.
Station Check
Station checks are done on a scheduled bases to insure the reliability of the
station. Pump operation, sump pump check, dry well ventilation, and other
equipment is checked to insure that the station will remain operational and safe.
Corrective Maintenance
The purpose of corrective is to make repairs on failing equipment and or
-structures. These repairs when complete enable station to operate in a efficient
and safe manner. Some of these repairs include overhauling pumps, replacing
and/or cleaning ventilation systems, replacing contacts in pump electrical
starters, repairing leaks in structures of the stations. Repairs such as; dry well
ventilation, pump repair or replacement, isolation valve repair or replacement
are done throughout the year on an as needed basis.
26
~~
... "0 ,-UI
ELECTRICAL
Electrical Crew
The Electrical Crew, is responsible for the maintenance of all electrical equipment within the
District. Some sections have skillful personnel available that may assist the electrical crew
thereby reducing the overall labor needed from the electrical crew.
Sewer Pump Station Crew performs the electrical maintenance and repair and utilizes the
Electrical Crew's help with new installations and capital improvements. Lakota, Redondo,
Administration Building and Lakehaven Center rely exclusively on- .th~.:_Crew for all
maintenance, repair, new installations and capital improvements. Water Operations (Water
Shop Building and Well Sites), require the Crew's lead on repair, most new installations and
most capital improvement projects.
Goal
The goal of the Electrical Crew is to adequately maintain all of the District's Electrical
and Instrumentation equipment insuring it's reliability and safety for personnel and
equipment. To maintain and install equipment to the Districts standards while reducing
maintenance labor, costs, calibration requirements to a minimum. Operate in a manner
that is safe and complies with all District Policies and Procedures. Comply with all
state, local and federal codes.
Workload
Since the start-up of Lakota almost five years ago, the crew spends 90 to 95 percent
of the time on essential repairs, new installations and capital improvement projects.
There is currently no preventative maintenance program (due to existing workload) for
any of the District electrical equipment and instrumentation, (except for sewer pump
stations which is performed by the Pump Station Crew).
SPECIAL PROJECTS
Special Projects Crew
The Special Projects Crew consists of two people. Their primary responsibilities are;
maintenance of all 9 stationary generators and 3 portable generàtors, planning out and
completing any special projects that are assigned (many of these tasks and assignments
require special knowledge and experience), assisting other Sections as necessary, hauling
sludge for the lakota Plant, and Manhole Inspection Program for Collections
27
f;7
".,-_....w."...,.~".._~-
Goal
Keep all generators in good operating condition, to insure reliability and longevity.
Operate in a manner that is safe and follow all District Policies and Procedures.
Workload
Vehicle Inspection 1 person x 52 wks/yr = 52 hrs/yr
Generator PM 2 person x 8 hrs/generator x 1 2 generators = 192 hrs/yr
Haul Sludge 1 person x 9 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = 468 hrs/yr
Change Motor Oil (water 2 person x 80 hrs/yr = 1 60 hrs/yr
wells)
Safety Meetings 2 person x 1 2 times/yr @ 1 hrs each = 24 hrs/yr
...."" "total hrs 844 hours per year~""""
The balance of the hours available are spent working on projects and helping other Sections
in accomplishing their goals.
PLANT MAINTENANCE
Plant Maintenance Crew Description
The Plant Maintenance Crew consist of four people, the Plant Maintenance Supervisor, the
Plant Maintenance III (Lead) and two Plant Maintenance II's.
Goal
Keep the equipment at Lakota and Redondo Treatment Plant in good repair to maintain
there efficiency and longevity.
Workload
Lakota has 485 pieces of equipment and Redondo has 320. Lakota averages 68
preventive maintenance tasks a year and Redondo averages 60. Lakota averages 5-8
unschedules maintenace work orders per week while Redondo averages 3-5 per week.
The Plant Maintenance Crew is responsible for system modifications and new
installations at the plant.
28
?;g
".. .. ..-'u.....' ....".,
LAKOTA PLANT OPERATIONS
Lakota Plant Crew Description
The Lakota Plant Crew consists of 11 people: Three Senior Operators, one Operator III/Relief,
three Operator Ill's, two Operator II's, one Utility Worker, and one Janitor. The crew reports
to the Director of Sewer Operations. There are two shifts; 6:00 am to 4:30 pm and 7:30 to
6:00 pm. Each shift is on 4/10's (four 10 hour days).
Senior Operators are responsible for overseeing their individual crews and for maintaining the
plant parameters set forth by the Director of Operations.
The Janitor tasks are to clean the Lakota Administration Building and the Office area of the
Maintenance Building two days a week, one day a week is spent on the Redondo
Administration Office and the remaining two days are spent cleaning the Main Office on 1 st
Ave S. The Janitor works from 5:00 to 1 :30.
Goal
To operate the plant to achieve maximum treatment at the lowest reasonable cost.
Workload
TASK AREA ASSIGNED TO
OPERATOR LEVEL
Depth of Blanket test General Start-up 1-2-3
Check graphs, chlorine, RAS, air, digester, etc General Start-up 2-3-4
Check Wasting, Blower and Return programs General Start-up 2-3-4
Check out process alarms General Start-up 2-3-4
-
Check and reset Make-Up units. and Exhaust Fans General Start-up 2-3.4
-
Hose floors General Start-up 1-2-3.4
Check on transferring to Holding Tank General Start-up 2-3-4
Check all equipment General Start-up 1-2-3-4
Drain water traps and sediment tanks on gas lines General Start-up 1-2-3
Rotate mixers General Start-up 2-3-4
,
Rotate boilers General Start-up 2-3-4
Secure dialer and alarms General Start-up 2-3-4
Unlock gates General Start-up 1-2-3-4
Purge RAS lines Generel Start-up 1-2-3
29
(/q
TASK AREA ASSIGNED TO
OPERATOR LEVEL
Chock end mix polymers. ferric chloride Generel Start-up 2-3-4
Control panel checks Generel Start-up 1-2-3-4
Rnel clarifier checks Gen~rel Start-up 1-2-3-4
Clean samplers and check Generel Start-up 1-2-3
Check on Meintenance Work Orders General Start-up 3-4
Read end update tog book General Start-up 1-2-3-4
Record polymer data. Generel Start-up ..l-2~3.4L
Check odor control chemicals General Start-up 1-2-3-4
Check and start up process equipment General Start-up 1-2-3-4
Check OAFs and collect samples General Stert-up 1-2-3-4
Rotate RAS pumps General Start-up 2-3-4
Cleaning manual berscreen Heedworks 1-2-3-4
Check grit, empty if necessary Headworks 1-2-3
Hose Parshell Flume Heedworks 1-2-3
Hose out chemical drums Headworks 1-2-3
Grit pumping Headworks 2-3
Clean out septage tanks Heedworks 1-2-3
Hose bar screen and grinders Heedworks 1-2-3
Uquid Process, DO, pH, temperature Lab 1-2-3
Process sample collection Primary sludge, OAFs, and Belt press Lab 1-2-3
Main lab sample run Leb 1-2
Digester sample runs Leb 1-2
-
Process lab Leb 2-3-4 -
.- -
Settlometers test, microscope examination Lab 2-3-4-.
Digester COl, Temperature, pH run Lab 1-2-3
..-.
Hose channels Uquid Process 1-2.3
-
Skim Chlorine Contact Basin Uquid Process 1-2-3
Check headers and adjust Uquid Process 3-4
,
Chlorinate scum Uquid Process 1-2-3
Hose gear chains liquid Process 1-2-3
Clean and Calibrate Anàlyzer Uquid Process 2-3-4
Skim and pump scum liquid Process 1.2.3
30
c¡:o
TASK AREA ASSIGNED TO
OPERATOR LEVEL
Outside deck cleaning Uquid Process 1.2.3
Skim and check flushing water on secondary clarifiers Uquid Process 1-2-3
Clean and calibrate ORP and pH probes Uquid ProCesS 1-2-3
Valving operation Uquid Process and 2-3-4
Solids Process
Steam clean and back flush sampler linas Uquid Process 1-2-3
Hose sumps Uquid Process 1-2-3
..
Pump down various tanks and cloG" out Uquid Process and 1-2-3
So/ids Process
Change chlorine cylinders Uquid Process 1-2-3-4
Rotate process water pumps Uquid Process 2-3-4
Clean and calibrate probes Uquid Process 2-3-4
Chemical ordering, recieving and distribution Miscallaneous 2-3.4
Inventorying chemicals. supplies, etc Miscellaneous 1-2-3-4
Janitorial duties Miscellaneous 1-2-3-4
Creek checks Miscellaneous 1-2-3-4
Misc - telephone, tours, meetings. etc Miscellanaous 1-2-3-4
Check brine tank Miscellaneous 1.2-3
Generata maintenance work orders Miscellaneous 3-4
Run generator Miscellaneous 3-4
Ordering operetor supplies Miscellaneous 3-4
Data entry Miscellaneous 1-2-3-4
Report generation Miscellaneous 2-3-4
-
Laundry Miscellaneous 2-3 -
Vehicle inspections, cleaning and gasing Miscellaneous 1-2-3
Safety training and meetings Safety 3-4
Belt press operation and clean up Solids Process 2-3-4
Truck driving Solids Process 3
OAF operation Solids Process 1-2-3-4
Jar tests for polymers Solids Process 2-3-4
31
Cf¡
REDONDO PLANT OPERATIONS
Redondo Plant Crew Description
The Redondo Plant Crew has five people. A Wastewater Plant Supervisor oversees the entire
operation of the plant. Two Operator III, one Operator, and a Utility Worker. The working
hours are 7:00 to 3:30 with a five day work week whieh is staggered so that there is always
two people at the plant including weekends.
Goal
The goal of Redondo treatment plant is to treat the incoming waste-water to a level
that meets the NPDES requirements and is safe for discharge to the Sound
Workload
Please refer to the Workload Table for Lakota.
LABORATORY/PRETREATMENT OPERATIONS
Laboratory
The laboratory includes four persons. A Water Quality Analyst is responsible for overall
operation of the laboratory. Two laboratory technicians run the bulk of the laboratory testing,
(please see monitoring requirements). A Utility Worker who also runs the tests required by
the NPDES permit.
Goal
Perform all lab analysis as required by the plant's discharge permit and operation
utilizing standard methods established by EPA and/or DOE. Maintain high quality
control and safety standards.
Workload
The following table outlines the tests that the NPDES permit requires the plant to
perform. Along with the tests are the associated routine cleanlh"g', preventive
maintenance of lab equipment, sample handling, chemical preperation,'rècord keeping,
supplies procurment, etc.
32
CJ)-
Monitoring Requirements - Lakota
I MO~ITOmNG REQUIREMENTS - LAKOTA ]
.
TESTS SAMPLE POINT SAMPLING FREQUENCY SAMPLE TYPE
Flow, MGD influent continuous recording
effluent continuous recording
waste activated continuous recording
sludge, (WAS)
return activated . continuous recording
sludge, (RAS)
Temperature raw sewage daily grab
digesters continuous recording
pH raw sewage daily grab
final effluent daily grab
primary effluent daily grab
digesters daily grab
8006 raw sewage daily 24 hr comp
final effluent daily 24 hr comp
primary effluent 2/week 24 hr comp
CBOD6 raw sewage daily 24 hr comp
final effluent daily 24 hr comp
-
primary effluent 2/week 24 hr GGmp
TSS raw sewage daily 24 hr comp
final effluent daily 24 hr comp
primary effluent daily 24 hr comp
aeration basin mixed
liquor, (MLSS) 3/week ' 24 hr comp
RAS 3/week grab
Total Solids raw sludge weelçly grab
digested sludge weekly grab
33
q~
r._:
_0'
TESTS
Chlorine
Residual
Chlorine
Usage
Fecal
Coliform
Total
Ammonia, N
(NH3 + &
NH.
Nitrate, N
(No3-)
Nitrite. N
(No2°'
Dissolved
Oxygen
Settleable
Solids
Settleability
SVI
MCRT
.-
.
~(j",[rÇJ~ING nEat)I,RE~E"'TS ," lAKOTA
SAM~lII'1IG FREQUENCY
S,~,!VIPLg P.QINT
final effluent
effluent
raw sewage
MlSS
final efflue"1t
raw sewage
MlSS
final effluent
raw sewage
MlSS
final effluent
raw sewage
final effluent
primary effluent
raw sewage
firal effluent.
primary effluent
MlSS
MlSS
.-
..
-
daily
-
daily
daily
2/week
2/week
daily
2/week
2/week
daily
2/week
2/week
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
34
qt.f
-- o. .. .... ~:J
----..;:=
SAMPLE TYPE
-
grab
report
grab
""_.0 .
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
grab
,
grab
grab
calculation
-
',',
[ -. ,- '. "1
MONITOI'UNG REQUIREMENTS - LAKOTA
--- ..
TESTS SAMPl[ POINT "S;(\M,PlING"FREOIJ.f.NCY. SAMr.lE.:'f.Vrf.:.
Food/Mass daily calculation
Volatile MLSS 3/week 24 hr composite
Suspended
Solids
Volatile primary sludge weekly grab
Solids
digester sludge weekly grab
Volatile Acids primary supernatant - 3/week grab
holding tank overflow 3/week grab
Alkalinity raw sewage 3/week grab
primary supernatant 3/week grab
Gas Analyses primary digester daily grab
& Volume
Sludge secondary clarifiers daily electronic
Blanket
Pounds to waste line weekly average
Waste
Biomonitoring final effluent 6/year 24 hr comp
(1 )
after 1 st year 4/year 24 hr comp
Heavy Metals influent 1/year 24 hr comp
(2)
final effluent l/year 24 hr comp -
dewatered digested sludge l/year 24 hr comp
Priority influent l/year 24 hr camp
Pollutants (3)
final effluent l/year 24 hr comp
dewatered digested l/year 24 hr camp
,
FOOTNOTES:
(1) See special condition S3 of the NPDES Permit:
(2) Priority Pollutant Metals include As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Zn, and Total Cr.
(3) Organic Pollutants shall be those listed in Table II of appendix 0 of 40 CFR Part 122.
35
qc;
Monitoring ReQuirements - Redondo
I MONITORING REQUIRE~~NTS - RI:DONDO I
.. , .
TESTS SAMPLE POINT MINIMUM SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
-,._- -.
Temperature raw sewage daily orah
digester daily grab
pH raw sewage daily grab
final effluent daily grab
primary effluent daily grab
towðr effluent daily grab
digester daily g'rab
Flow effluent daily continuous
recording
Chlorine Residual final effluent daily grab
~issolved Oxygen raw sewage daily grab
final effluent daily grab
primary effluent daily grab
tower effluent daily grab
BO06 and CBO06 raw sewage 4/week 24 hr comp
final effluent 4/week 24 hr comp
primary effluent 1/week 24 hr comp
tower effluent 1/week 24 hrcomp
Settleable Solids raw sewage daily grab..
,.(".
final effluent daily gra_b"~"
primary effluent daily grab
Suspended Solids raw sewage 4/week 24 hr comp
final effluent 4/week 24 hr comp
tower effluent 4/week 24 hr comp
primary effluent 4/week 24 hrcomp
Total Solids raw sludge 1/week grab
36
Cj(P
"'
..-.--.....- -- __n_- --. _nO' .0 --. u l
[ ----
MONITOHING HEUUIHEM~NlS . REDONDO
_n.. - --
TESTS SAMPLE POINT MINIMUM SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLING
FREQUENCY
digested sludue 1 /week grab
Volatile Solids raw sludge l/week grab
digester sludge l/week grab
Gas Analyses & - primary digester, daily grab
Volume
Alkalinity primary supernatant 3/week grab
Volatile Acids primary supernatant 3/week grab
Fecal Coliform effluent 4/week grab
Bio.monitoring final effluent 1 24 hr comp
Heavy Metals influent 2 24 hr comp
final effluent 2 24 hr comp
digested sludge 2 grab
Priority Pollutants influent 3 24 hr comp
final effluent 3 24 hr comp
digested sludge 3 24 hr comp
Nitrogen (NH3-N influent 4 24 hr comp
and total)
final effluent 4 24 hr comp
digested sludge 4 24 hr comp-
FOOTNOTES:
(1 ) See special condition S3 of the NPDES Permit.
(2) Priority Pollutant Metals include As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Zn, and Total Cr.
(3) Organic Pollutants shall be those listed in Table II of appendix D of 40 CFR Part 122.
37
C¡1
Pretreatment Crew Description
The Pretreatment crew consists of one person who expends one quarter of his time on
Pretreatment. (The rest of his time is spent in Operations).
Goal
To meet the requirements as set forth in the lakota and Redondo NPDES Permits and
to protect the treatment plants plus recieving waters from toxic chemicals.
Workload
Develop, write, execute and administer Pretreatment Agreements. Inspect, as
necessary, commerciallindustrial facilities for compliance with District . Pretreatment
regulations and/or specific Pretreatment Agreement. Provide technical assistance,
answer questions, etc. for commerciallindustrial users regarding pretreatment.
Sample, as necessary, commerciallindustrial users and/or lakota and Redondo for
random sampling, Agreement compliance, and Permit compliance.
RECORD KEEPING
Evaluation of system performance is an integral part of the Sewer Division operation. A listing
of the reports that are generated is in the appendix of this manual under Wastewater Division
Reports and Forms.
38
erg
APPENDIX
ReportMatrix ..................................................
The History of Lakehaven Utility District ................................
39
c¡q
40
41
Report Matrix
;:';¡
40
100
WASTEWA
~ION REPORTS AND FORMS MATRIX
NAME
PJUMAI\Y
DES'I1NAnON
PURPOSE OP REPORT
.....
PROCESS SUPUII'm!NDAm' NO11F1CAnON OF SUPUII'm!NDAm'OP PROCESS CHANOE
READINOSLOO P!.ANT SUPERVISOR KANOS BY V AJlIOUS METERING DEVICES AJlOUOND LAKOTA. SU VES AS BACI(-UP IN CASI! COMlt1'l1!R. SYSTI!M PA!LS
SAMPLEIlLOO P!.ANTSUPEJlVtSOR CONPIIUo(AnON CHECI( ON SAMPLE:P. OPERAnON
WAS'Œ AND REI'VRN RAT!! CAl..CtIl.AnONS PLANT SUPUVtSOR WO RJOH!œT TO D ETERMINI! AM 0 UN'!' 0 P ILUDO I! TO W ASTI!
YSI D.O. MEI1!R P!.ANT SUPUVISOR CALlBRAnON SHEIIT POll. YSI D.O. METER
S ERVtC!! REPORT MAJ '( ' S UPERVtSOR
I YI!AA INSPl!CIION M&lO NORM WELTER '
TV INSPl!CIION RANDY
ELECTRICAl.. DI!PAJln.ŒNl' SCH!!Dt.I.I! HOWAJlD AND DAN'S WEEK
SAFTRONlCVPDP AP AMET1!IlS HOWAJlD
STAnON ELECI1UCAI.. ¡mPEC110N MAINTSUPI!IWISOR I!LI!CI'IUCAl..INSPEC110N OP PUMP STAn ON
EQUIPMENT IU!CORD
MAIm' ANANC!! WOIU:: ORDER BERl'III! STUMP NO11F1CA nON TO P!.ANT MAJ '( ' OF 1'1 Em ED P. EP AI II.
PREVENT ATtVB MAlNATENANC!! SCHEDULI!
PREVENTtVI! MAlNT£NANCI! SHEET - PUMP A VAL VI! INSPECT ON
PUMP STAnON ALAJUo(S MAJ '( ', SUPERVISOR nAClCALUMS FROMTEL&lETRY PANEL
PtIMP STAnON nowcœa: MAJ '( ' SUPERVtSOP.
PUMP STAnONLOO SHEET 1O1! BOLAM PUMP STAnON OPERAnON CHECK
PUMP STAnONS YI!AIU. Y AVERAGES REPORT MAJ '( ' SUPERVISOR
TELEMIITI!IUNO CHECltUST
P A CS tMIU! ~ MI1T AL
0 ENEJlAL CO~ FORM
BELT FILTER PRESS DATA SHEET PLANTSUPUVISOR PUFORMANCI!OPTHI! BELT PP.ESS OPERA nON
BELT FILTER PltESS POLYMER DATA SHEET P!.ANTSUPuVtSOP. FOLYMERUSAOI!TP.AoaNO
BIO$a.IDS DISPOSAL DATA SHEET P!.ANT SUPUVtsOR nACIONG OP THI! DISPOSJL OP BIO$OLIDS
BIO$a.IDS DISPOSAL SUPS WElGHlNO ILIPS PORSLUDOI! TRUCta
~ DATA SH!œT P!.ANT SUPERVtSOP. StIMMAIlY OF tMroP.TAm' PROCESS CONn.a.INPORMAnON
DAILY LOO PLAm'SVPUVtSOR DALY lOU1INALOPIMroP.TANTINFORMAnON
DAILY JU!ADINGS - COI'tTACf CHAMBU PUMP ROOM PLAm'SUPERVtSOP. HOt1lU. Y M!:I'I!:R. READINGS
DAILY JU!ADINOS -EAST ODOR CONTR.a. ROOM PLAm' SUPUVtSOP. HOt1lU. Y M!:I'I!:R. JU!ADINGS
DAILY READINGS - MASTER FORM PLAm'SUPUVISOR OVEJlVtI!W OF DALY OPERA110N OF P!.ANT
DAILY READINGS - MECHANICAl.. Bun-DING PLAm'SUPUVtSOP. HOURI. Y METER READINGS
DAILY READINOS .. PRlMAAY PUMP ROOM PLAm'SUPERvtSOR HOURI. Y METER READINOS
DAILY P.EADINOS - SECONDAJlY PUMP ROOM P!.ANT SUPUVtSOP. HOURI. Y METER P.EADINGS
DAILY READINGS -SOUDS HANDLING BLDO PLAm'SUPERVtSOP. HOt1lU. Y M!:I'I!:R. P.EADINGS
PLOW CHAAT PLAm'SUPERVtSOR CONTINUOUS CHAA'I1NG OP THE INCOMING FLOW AT REDONDO
wwrr MONITORING REPORT ' DOl! COMPLlANC!! REPORT FOR NPDES PEIlMrr
ACCIDENT CHI!CICLIST POP.M SAFEI'Y OPFICEP. CHt!CIO..lSTTO INSURI! PP.OPEIl PP.OCEDUP.ES AJlE POu.OWED
CONFINED SPAC!! ENI'I\ Y LOG SAFEI'Y OFFICER CHt!CIO..ISTFOR ¡mURING COP.RECt' PROCEDURES FOR El'rnY OP CONFINED SPACES IS FOu.OWED
EMPLOYE!! SHOT RECORD SAFEI'Y OFFICER JU!CORD OF SHOTS P.I!CtEVED BY OPI!RAnON EMPLOYEES
HOTWORKPI!RMrI' SUPUVISOR CHt!CIO..ISTFOR INSURING CORRl!cr PROCEDURES FOR PUPORMANC!!OP HOT WORK IS FOLJ.OWED
IN Ct D ENr REPORT SAFEI'Y OFFICER FORM FOR REPOP.'I1NG ANY TYPE OF SAFEI'Y RELATI!D INCtDEI'n'
MONTH!.. Y SAFEI'Y EQt1I?MENr INSPI!CI'ION -lJJCOT A SAFEI'Y OFFICER SAFEI'Y EQUIPMENT CHt!CIO..IST - LAKOTA
MOI'miL Y sAFEI'Y EQUIPMENT INSPI!CI'ION - REDONDO SAFEI'Y OffiCER SAFEI'Y EQUIPMENT CHECXLIST - REDONDO
SAFEI'Y MElmNG A'ITENI>ANC!!LlST SAFEn' OFFICER I RECORDS OF A'ITENI>ANC!!TO MEIIT OHSAAND WlSMA P.Eouu.nONS
SAFEI'Y SUOOESTtON FORM SAFEI'Y OffiCER FOP.M FOP. SUOOES'I'ING SAFE:t'Y IDEAS
IJ'NSAFI! CONDmONIPROCI!DVU P.EPORT SAFEn' OFFICER NO11F1CAnON OP AN I./NSAFI! AcrOR CONDmON FROM ANYONI!TO THI! SAFE1'Y OFFICER
L A I LIGHT DUTY JOB DESClUmON
MAJ '( ' ANANC!! S IJMMAP. Y MAJ '( ' SUPERVtSOP.
::J
~
WASTEWA'
SiaN REPORTS AND FORMS MATRIX
NAME
PRIMAAY
DESTINATION
PURPOSE OF REPORT
::),
OVERTIME R!!PORT DIRI!CTOR OP OPERATIONS REASONS POll. OVERTIME
PRESS CONTACrJI,EPORT DIRECI'OR OF OPERATIONS INPORMATION ON CONTACTWrm MEDIA
omœ SU7PU1!S IU!QUEST FORM
PO T1'.ACKlNG PORM TERRY BUSS
OUOTE SHEEr POll. DRUM CHEMICALS
QUOTE SH1!I!:1' - SEWER DIVISION ACCOWl1NG ;
EMERGENCY'IN70RMATION SHEEr EMERGENCY FILE CONFIDENTAL INfORMATION 11{A T MAY BE USED ONi. Y IN CASE OP EMERGENCY
['!'EMS USED FOR T1'.ACKlNG INVENTORY
lJ.UNDRY COUNT T1'.ACX UNIFORMS TO DIm!RMINE IP EMPLOYEE OR VENDOR LOST
LONG DISTANCE LOG - PICK-uP CHECKLIST TERRY BUSS CHI!CICLIST FOR COu.ECI1ON OP PHONE LOGS
PlJ.NT'TO~ MAINT ANDOPS NO'I1F1CATIONTO PREPARE FOR TOUR
RADIOS NEEDING REPAIR
TIME SHEEr CHEClCLlST TERRY BUSS CHI!CICLIST FOR COu.ECI10N OF TIME SHEEn
TOOt..s INVENT'ORY
UNIFORM IU!QUEST FORM
VEHlo.E INUECnONLOO
WASTEWATER SPlUJPROBLEM - CAU. RECEIVE FORM PRE-TRI!A'lMENT INFORMATION ABOUT A SPIlL
ALKALINITY OPSLUDGE BENCH SH1!I!:1' WOA ALKALINITY WORJaHEEr FOR LAXar A AND REDONDO
AMMONIA WQA WORJaH1!l!:1' POll. AMMONIA 11!ST
BOD~OD BENOtSHEEr WQA WORJaHEET' FOR BOD AND CBOD CALClJI.ATIONS FOR BO11{ !'!..ANn
a. RESIDUAL BENCH SHEET' WOA WORJaHEET' FOR CHLORINE RES IDUAL CALCtU TIONS
FECAL caJ1ORM MP METHOD WOA WORJaHEET' FOR CALCULATION OP FECAL ca..IFORMS (I SHEET FORLAXarA, 1 FOR REDONDO\
LAXarA MAIN DATA SHEET PLANT SUPERVISOR LOG SHEErFORRESULn OF ALl. 'mETESn DONE FORLAXarA
NI11'.A'rE BENCH SHEEr WQA WORJaH1!l!:1' POll. NITRATES PORLAXarA
,NITRITE 1N02\ BENCH SHEEr WOA WORJaKE£l' FOR CALCULATING NmrŒS
I oH BENCH SHEEr WOA WORJaKE£l' POll. RECORDING..H AND 'ŒMPERATt1IlE OP DIGESTERS
REDONDO MAIN LAB DATA PLANT SuPERVISOR LOG SKE£I' POll. RESULn OP ALl. nil! TEsn DONE POll. REDONDO
SAM PLE RECEIPT LOG WOA LOO SKE£I'TO RECORD'I1Ml!, PlJ.CE AND PERSON COIJ.ECnNGIlU!CŒVlNG SAMPLES PROM 1JJCOTA
SAMPLE RI!CI!II'TLOG WOA LOG SHEEr TO RECORD'I1Ml!, PlJ.C!!. AND PERSON COu.ECnNGIIU!ClEVlNG SAMPLES PROM REDONDO
SAMPLE RI!CI!II'TLOG WOA LOO SKE£I'TO RECORD'ItM1!, SAMPLE It) AND PERSON COu.ECI1NG/IlECIEVING SAMPLES PROM DAF AND BELT PRESS
Sf:rn.I!ABLE Sa.ros BENCH SHEET WQA WORJaKE£l' POll. RECORDING SEiI1.I!ABLE SOLIDS TEST POll. LAXarA
SUSPENDED SOUPS WOA WORJaHEEr POll. CALCULATING SUSPENDED SOLIDS FOR 1JJCOTA AND REDONDO
TOTAL It vou:m..E SCUDS OF WA TFNW ASTF:N ATER ( ~ \ WOA WORIaHEEr FOR CALCULATING 'mE ~ Sa..IDS OF A SLUDGE SAMPLE lEX. PRI SLUDG~-
TOTAL It VOLA't1LE SOLIDS OPWATFNWASTEWATF1I.. (MOA.\ WOA WORIaKE£l' FOR CALCULATINO 'mE MOA. OF A LIQUID SAMPLE lEX. MLSS\
VOLATILE ACIDS WOA WORJaHEEr FOR CALCULATION OF V<XA TILE ACIDS OP DIOESTERS POR1JJCOT A AND REDONDO
AD ROYCE CALIBRATION PLANT SUPERVISOR CALIBRATION WORJaHEErPOR DO PROBES IN AD
BELT PRESS DATA SHEEr ' PLANT SuPERVISOR BELT PRESS OPERATION
BOILER )U.JI.M LOG PLANT SUPERVisOR T1'.ACICS BOILER ALARMS
CH1.0RINELOG PLANT SuPERVISOR T1'.ACKlNG OP CHLORINATION OPERATION
CREEK CHI!CIC PLANT SUPERVISOR CHECK SHEET FOR CONDmON OP CREEXAND SEDIMEl'(TATION BASIS
DAII. Y LOO PLANT SUPERVISOR DAILY 10UltNAL OP IMPORTANT INPORMATION
DAII. Y PROCESS FIELD DATA PLANT SUPERVISOR T1'.ACICS DO. DKo 'rEMP AND DOB'S
DAII. Y PROCESS LAB DATA PLANT SuPERVISOR T1'.ACICS SEiI1.0MEI'ER DATA
DAII. Y PROCESS LAB WORJaHEET PLANT SuPERVlSOIl A WOA SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND SEiI1.I!ABILm TESn PERPORMED BY on CR.JrN
DIOESTER eotn1la.. ROOM LOO PLANT SUPERVISOR DAILY RECORDOP DIGESTERLEVEU AND GAS PRODUcnON
FLOW CHART PLANT SuPERVISOR COtmNt10US CHARTING OP'mE INCOMING FLOW ATLAXar A
HANNA DR!oŒI1::R PLANT SuPERVISOR CALIBRATION SHEET FOR HANNA ..R METER
ODOR SCRUSBD. CHEMICAL DRUM CHANOES PLANT SuPD.VlSOR T1'.ACX USAGE OP ODOR SCRUSBD. CHEMICALS
ODOR S CR us B ER CHEMt CAL D II. l1M CHAN a ES PLANT SUPERVISOR T1'.ACX USAGEOP ODOR SCRUSRER CHEMICALS
ORION D.O.!oŒI1::R PLANT SuPERVISOR CALIBRATION SHEET FOR ORION D.O. METER
ORION oH METER PLANT SUPERVISOR CALIBRATION SHEET FOR ORION oH METER
POLYMER USAGE SHEET PLANT SuPERVISOR T1'.ACICS USE OP POLYMER POll. DAFTTANJa
PRlMAAY SLUDGE PUMPING PLANT SuPERVISOR SHEET TO AlD,",E CALIBRATION OP DENsm MIm!RS
\
r.
r;
MEMO
FROM:
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Kathy McClung, Deputy CDS Director ~
TO:
DATE:
August 13, 1997
REi
Telecommunications Ordinance
Attached is the Planning Commission recommendation for
telecommunication facilities. The Planning commission conducted
a workshop on July 9th and public hearings on July 16th and 30th.
All providers and other interested parties were notified of the
public hearings and several participated.
Don Largen, consultant from McConnell Burke will be making the
presentation to the Committee. The staff recommendation is to
recommend approval to the full council.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Findings
2. Draft Ordinance
3. Staff Report
.,',
[OLCS ON Di/Y~]
9S:tT 3fil L61ZT/RO
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Planning Commission
DA'l'E;
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 7, 1997
CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT VAUGHAN, CHAIR.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
- WIRELESS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I.
BACKGROUND
In early 1996 the, u.s. legislature passed the Federal
Telecommunications Act. Among other things the Act states that
local jurisdictions may not act in a manner that would preclude
wireless communications facilities from being sited within their
boundaries and that they may not discriminate between the
different service providers. However, the Act does specifically
affirm a local jurisdiction's authority to regulate the siting
and development of these types of facilities.
During the time the Federal Telecommunications Act was being
drafted and enacted, the Federal government auctioned off more
blocks of radio frequencies to allow more providers into the
market, furthering the Federal goal of making such services
available to more people. Where there was formerly two providers
in the puget Sound region there are now at least six.
II.
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS
The planning Commission held a public hearing on July 16, 1997,
which was continued on July 30, 1997. The City's consultant and
City staff provided the Commission with an overview of issues and
draft regulatory provisions. The hearings were attended by
industry representatives from all but one of the providers
licensed to operate in this region. All representatives provided
written and/or oral testimony. The hearings were devoted to a
section-by~section review of the recommended regulatory language
contained in the July 9, 1997 consultant staff report,
The City's consultant and City staff have prepared a draft
wireless communications ordinance, the provisions of which are to
be included in Chapter 22, zoning Code. The draft ordinance is
attached to this document.
1
LO'd
ÞS:ÞI 301 L6-GI-~OB
¡.
[OLCS ON XHIX~]
9S:tl ~ L6/~1/80
I I I. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
The following list summarize the major code amendments reviewed
by the Commission during this code revision process.
Definitions for wireless telecommunications facilities and
components.
A prioritized list of preferred locations based on use and
zoning district.
Requirements for mitigating the visual effects of wireless
telecommunications facilities through screening, camouflage,
and appropriate site design.
Establishing appropriate review process for different size
facilities as follows:
In OP, OPl-4, CP-l, CC-C, CC-F, BC, BP, zoning
districts, and SE and RS adjacent to the freeway:
1. Process I if the facility is collocated on an
existing wireless facility;
Process III for all new free-standing facilities;
except .that,
Process IV for a lattice tower accommodating four
or more providers.
Establishing heights as follows:
a. No more than IS' above the roof proper if located on an
~xisting nonresidential structure;
1.
2.
3.
4.
a.
2.
b.
5.
b.
c.
d.
80 'd
In SE, RS, MF, PO, and BN zoning districts:
1.
Process III if the facility meets the underlying
height limit;
Process III if the facility is located on an
existing nonresidential structure or collocated on
an existing wireless facility, and is less than
15' above the existing structure;
Process IV if the proposed facility is a new free-
standing structure.
3.
2.
3.
The minimum necessary
standing facility;'
The minimum necessary up to 120'
accommodates two or more providers;
up
to
lOa'
a
new
free-
for
if
a new facility
120' to 150' for a new lattice tower that accommodates
four or more providers.
2
SS:ÞI 3nl L6-G¡-~n~
.,....
[OLe£ ON nl/X~]
9£:tT ælL L6/GT/RO
6.
7.
8.
Establishing minimum application requirements.
Encouraging the collocation of facilities'where feasible.
Requiring the removal of a facility upon its discontinued
use.
9.
Requiring verification of a facility meeting
requirements for EMF emissions.
Establishing time limits on the approved permit.
the minimum
10.
IV.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission bases its recommendation of adoption of
the proposed amendments to the FWCC relative to wireless
communications facilities based on the following findings:
1.
Whereas, the City of Federal Way has received and expects to
receive requests to site wireless telecommunications
facilities within its municipal borders; and
2.
Whereas, the City of Federal Way finds that it is in the
public interest to permit the siting of wireless
telecommunications facilities within its municipal
boundaries; and
3.
Whereas, it is necessary to institute appropriate
regulations to ensure minimum impact to the visual and
aesthetic character of the community during the siting and
development of wireless telecommunications facilities; and
4.
Whereas, the Federal Way SEPA responsible official has
issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on June 17, 1997;
and
5.
Whereas, the proposed amendments are consistent with the
provisions of the Private Utilities chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Whereas, the proposed code amendments would not
affect the public health, safety or welfare.
~~~~
Federal Way Planning Commission
60 'd
6.
adversely
3
SS:ÞI 301 L6-GI-ÐO~
[OLCS ON Ya/Il] 9S:tT 3TIl L61ZT/90
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
CHAPTER 22 OF THE FEDERAL WAY ZONING CODE,
PERTAINING TO LAND USE AND ZONING, ADOPTING
NEW REGULATIONS FOR THE SITING AND
DEVELOPMENT OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES.
A.
WHEREAS amendments to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) text are
authorized pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-216 and 22-217 pursuant to Process IV
review; and
B.
WHEREAS the Federal Way City Council has considered a proposed
change to the FWCC regarding wireless communications facilities relative to their
location and site development; and
C,
WHEREAS the Federal Way City Council, pursuant to FWCC 22-517,
having determined the Proposal to be worthy of legislative consideration, referred the
Proposal to the Federal Way Planning Commission as a priority item for its review and
recommendation; and
D.
WHEREAS the Federal Way City Council adopted a wireless
communication facility permit moratorium on May 6, 1997 to provide the Planning
Commission and City staff ample time to research and develop appropriate regulations;
and
E.
WHEREAS the City of Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a
ORD#
. PAGE 1
"7n ' I
f/
/C'hT ~n¡ ~-/T-~nw
, .
[OLC£ ON YM/X~] 9£:tT3lll L61ZT/SO
Declaration of Nonsígnificance'; and
F.
WHEREAS the public and industry representatives were given opportunities
to comment on the Proposal during the Planning Commission review; and
Go
WHEREAS the Federal Way Planning Commission, having considered the
Proposal at public hearings during 1997 on July 16 and July 30 pursuant to FWCC
Section 22-523, and all public notices having been duly given pursuant to FWCC
Section 22-521; and
H.
WHEREAS following the public hearings, the Planning Commission
submitted to the land Use and Transportation Committee of the City Council its
recommendation in favor of proposed zoning text amendments adding sections to the
FWCC as noted previously; and
I.
WHEREAS the Federal Way Land Use and Transportation City Council
Committee met on
, 1997 to consider the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and has moved to forward the Proposal. with amendments, to the full City
Council; and
J.
WHEREAS there was sufficient opportunity for the public to comment on the
Proposal; NOW, THEREFORE,
-
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findim~s. After full and careful consideration, the City Council of the
City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the Proposal and the
proposed amendments to the Federal Way City Code eFWCC"):
ORD#
PAGE 2
[-
~
£0 'd
£S:vI 301 L6-ZI-ÐOB
[OLCS ON ~/Xl] 9S:tl3lll L6161/80
1.
The Federal Way City Council adopted the Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan in order to comply with the state's Growth Management Act; and
2.
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains policies that call for the
development of regulations to address the siting and visual impacts of wireless
telecommunications facilities in policy PUP19; and
3.
The Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of
Nonsignificance on June 17. 1997; and
4.
The proposed code amendments would not adversely affect the public
health. safety Of welfare; and
5.
The Planning Commission, following notice thereof as required by RCW
35A.63.070, held public hearings on the proposed regulatory amendments and has
considered the testimony, written comments, and material from the public by and
through said hearings.
Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-217 and based upon
the Findings set forth in Section 1. the Federal Way City Council makes the following
Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of
the Proposal:
1.
The Proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals
and policies:
A.
PUP19
The City should modify the zoning regulations to
address the siting, screening, and design standards for wireless/cellular
facilities, substations, and antennae facilities in such a manner as to allow
ORD#
. PAGE 3
hn 'J
b
CC'hT ~n' ~-/T_~nw
[OLCÇ ON Ya/X~] 9Ç:tT ffill L6/~T/80
for reasonable and predictable review while minimizing potential land use
and visual impacts on adjacent property.
The Proposal bears a substantial relationship to the public health. safety
2.
and welfare because it implements the policy of minimizing the visual effects of
wireless telecommunications facilities.
Section 3.
Amendment. The Federal Way Zoning Code. Chapter 22, is
amended to provide as set forth in Attachment A which is attached and by this
reference is incorporated herein.
Section 4.
The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and
severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or
portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or
circumstance. shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the
validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
(5) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this
1995.
day of
ORD#
, PAGE 4
SO'd
~7
ÞS:ÞI 3nl L6-GI-~n~
. r
[OLCS ON !HIll] 9S:tT 3TIl L6/6T/80
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, MAHLON S. PRIEST
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN. CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
ORD#
PAGE 5
on "'¡
X
b~:b' ~nr JR-?'-~nH
[1£C£ ON XMIXl]
CC:CT NOH L6/TT/SO
ATTACHMENT A
ARTICLE I.
IN GENERAL
Sec. 22-1. Definitions.
Antenna(e): Any system of electromagnetically tuned wires,
poles, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used to
transmit or receive electromagnetic waves between
terrestrial and/or orbital based points, includes, but is
not limited to:
1. Omni-directional (or "whip") antenna (e) transmits
and receives radio frequency signals in a 360 degree radial
pattern.
2. Directional (or upanell') antenna (e) transmits and
receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional
pattern of less than 360 degrees.
3. Parabolic antenna (e) (or dish) antenna (e) is a
bowl-shaped device for the reception and/or transmission of
communications signals in a specific directional pattern.
4. Ancillary Antenna is an antenna that is less than
12 inches in its largest dimension and that is not directly
used to provide personal wireless communications services.
An example would be a global positioning satellite (GPS)
antenna.
Collocation: The placement and arrangement of multiple
providers' antennae and equipment on a single support
structure or equipment pad area.
EMF: means Electromagnetic Field, which is the field
produced by the operation of equipment used in transmitting
and receiving radio frequency signals.
Equi~nent Shelter: The structure associated with a PWSF
that is used to house electronic switching equipment,
cooling system and back-up power systems.
Personal Wireless Services means commercial mobile
services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier
wireless exchange access services, as defined by federal
laws and regulations.
Personal Wireless service Facility (PWSF) means a
wireless communication facility, including a microcell, that
is a facility for the transmission and/or reception of radio
frequency signals, and which may include antennas, equipment
shelter or cabinet, transmission cables, a support structure
to achieve the necessary elevation; and reception and
transmission devices and antennas.
LO'd
7
ZE:El NOW L6-1I-~nij
"',-",,"~'"
["[gC~ ON nIlX.L]
CC:CI NOW L6/11/g0
MicrocelL means a wireless communication facility
consisting of an antenna that is either: (i) four feet in
height and with an area of not more than five-hundred eighty
square inches; or (ii) if a tubular antenna, no more than
four inches in diameter and no more than six feet high.
Minor Facility means a wireless communication facility
consisting of up to three antennas, each which is either (i)
four feet in height and with an area of not more than five-
hundred eighty square inches; or (ii) if a tubular antenna,
no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six
feet in length; and the associated equipment cabinet that is
six feet or less in height and no more than forty-eight
square feet in floor area.
Support Structure: Any built structure, including any guy
wires and anchors, to which antenna and other necessary
associated hardware is mounted. Support structures may
include the following:
1. Lattice Tower
consists of a network of
tower which is usually
section.
2 , Guy Tower a support structure such as a pole
or narrow metal framework which is held erect by the use of
guy wires and anchors.
3. Monopole a support structure which consists of
a single steel or wood pole sunk into the ground and/ or
attached to a concrete pad.
4. Existing Nonresidential Structure existing
structures to which a PWSF may be attached with certain
conditions.
a support structure which
crossed metal braces, forming a
triangular or square in cross-
Article XIII.
Supplementary District Regulations
Section 22-966.
Personal Wireless Service Faci~ities (PWSF)
(A) Purpose. This section addresses the issues of location
and appearance associated with personal wireless service
facilities'. It provides adequate siting opportunities through a
wide range of locations and options which minimize safety hazards
and visual impacts sometimes associated with wireless
communications technology. The siting ,of facilities on existing
buildings or structures, collocation of several providers'
facilities on a single support structure, and visual mitigation
measures are encouraged to maintain neighborhood appearance and
reduce visual clutter in the City.
2
on OJ
Ie
?~:~l NOU IR-II-~n~
[1£c£ ON nI/Xl]
CC:C1 NON L6/11/S0
(B) Definitions. Any words, terms or phrases used in this
section which are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
set forth in Section 22-1 of this Code.
(C) Prioritized Locations. The following sites shall be
considered by applicants as the preferred order of locations for
proposed PWSFs, including antenna and equipment shelters. In
requesting a particular location the applicant shall document, to
the City's satisfaction, why a location in each higher priority
location and/or zone is not being proposed, In order of
preference based on an assessment of feasibility the sites are as
follows:
1 . EXISTING BROlillCAST, RELAY I AND TRANSMISSION TOWERS: On
any existing site or tower where a legal wireless
telecommunication facility is currently located
regardless of underlying zoning.
2. PUBLICLY-USED STRUCTURES: Attached to existing public
facilities such as water towers I utility structures,
fire stations, bridges, and other public buildings
within all zoning districts that are not utilized for
recreational purposes.
3. BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND CITY CENTER ZONED SITES:
Structures or sites used for research and development,
commercial, and office uses. The preferred order of
zoning districts for this category of sites is as
follows:
BP - Business Park
CP-l Corporate Park
OP through OP-4 Office Park
CC-C City Center Core
CC-F City Center Frame
BC Community Business
PO Professional Office
BN Neighborhood Business
4, RESIDENTIAL ZONES: Structures or sites which are not
used wholly for residential use; except that no PWSF
will be allowed on vacant residential lots. Where the
installation complies with all FCC and City regulations
and standards, institutional structures, places of
worship, and other nonresidential sites may be
considered.
5 . RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES: PWSF attached to res iden t ial
structures are permitted only on multi-family
structures in multi-family residential zoning
districts.
3
60 'd
II
EE:EI NOW L6-11-~n~
" ,., ""j
[ISCS ON nI/XI]
CC:CT NON L6/TT/SO
6. NEW FREE-STANDING PWSF STRUCTURE: Newly erected structures
where there is no feasible opportunity to collocate or
locate on an existing structure or facility.
(D) Development Standards. The following development
standards shall be followed in the design, siting, and
construction of a personal wireless service facility.
1. PWSFs shall be screened or camouflaged through
employing the best available technology. This may be
accomplished by use of compatible materials, location,
color, stealth techniques such as, but not limited to
artificial trees and hollow flag poles, and/or other
tactics to achiéve minimum visibility of the facility
as viewed from public streets or residential
properties.
2. PWSFs may be mounted on nonresidential buildings
and structures with a Process III administrative review
under the following conditions:
a. The PWSF consists of a microcell or a minor
facility.
b. The combined antennas and supporting
structure shall not extend more than 15 feet above
the existing or proposed roof structure. Antennas
may be mounted to rooftop appurtenances provided
they do not extend beyond 15 feet above the roof
proper.
c. The antennas are mounted on the building such
that they are located and designed to minimize
visual and aesthetic impacts to surrounding land
uses and structures and shall, to the greatest
extent practical, blend into the existing
environment. Panel and parabolic antennas shall
be completely screened from residential views and
public rights-of-way unless meeting the provision
of Chapter 22-960(b) (2).
3. New free-standing PWSFs shall conform to the
following site development standards:
a. Placement of a freestanding
denied if placement of the antennas
5 tructure can meet the appl icant . s
network location requirements.
b. Monopoles shall be the only free-standing
structures allowed in the City; EXCEPT that a
lattice tower may be used to accommodate the
collocation of four or more providers as part of a
joint permit application.
PWSF shall be
on an existing
technical and
4
n T . J
/2-
ÇÇ~ÇT ~nu IR-¡¡-~nH
[TSC£ ON X1I/X~]
CC:Cl NOW L6/11/S0
c. A free-standing PWSF, including the support
structure and associated electronic equipment,
shall comply with all required setbacks of the
zoning district in which it is located.
d. Free-standing PWSPs shall be designed and
placed on the site in a manner that takes maximum
advantage of existing trees, mature vegetation,
and structures so as to:
1. Use existing site features to screen as
much of the total PWSF as possible from
prevalent views; and/or,
2. Use existing site features as a
background so that the total PWSF blends into
the background with increased sight
distances.
e. In reviewing the proposed placement of a
facility on .the site and any associated
landscaping the City may condition the application
to supplement existing trees and mature vegetation
to more effectively screen the facility.
f. Support structures, antennas, and any
associated hardware shall be painted a
nonreflective color or color scheme appropriate to
the background against which the PWSF would be
viewed from a majority of points within its
viewshed. Proposed color or color scheme to be
approved by the Hearing Examiner or Community
Development Director as appropriate to the
process.
4. Electronics equipment enclosures shall conform to
the following:
a. Equipment enclosures
underground if practicable.
b. If above ground, screening of PWSF equipment
enclosures shall be provided with one or a
combination of the following materials: fencing,
walls, landscaping, structures, or topography
which will block the view of the equipment shelter
as much as practicable from any street and/or
adj acent properties. Screening may be located
anywhere between the enclosure and the above
mentioned viewpoints. Landscaping for the purposes
of screening shall be maintained in a. healthy
condition.
shall
be
placed
5
II 'd
13
Þ£:£I NOW L6-II-~nij
[ISCS ON :rn/X~]
CC:Cl NON L6/11/80
c. No wireless equipment reviewed under this
Section shall be located within required building
setback areas.
5. Security fencing, if used, shall conform to the
following:
a. No fence shall exceed 6 feet in height as
stipulated in Chapter 22-l565(a).
b. security fencing shall be effectively
screened from view through the use of appropriate
landscaping materials.
c- Chain-link fences shall be painted or coated
with a nonreflective color.
6. The City shall consider the cumulative visual
effects of PWSFs mounted on existing structures and/or
located on a given permitted site in determining
whether the additional permits can be granted so as to
not adversely effect the visual character of the city.
7. No wireless equipment shall be used for the
purpose of mounting signs or message displays of any
kind.
(F) Use Zone Charts, Height and Permit Process.
1. The final approval authority for applications made
under this section shall be defined by the appropriate
permit process as outlined in the Use Zone Charts, Article
XI, District Regulations.
2. Allowed heights shall be established relative to
appropriate process as outlined in the Use Zone Charts,
Article XI, District Regulations.
(G) Application Requirements. Permit applications made
under this Section shall include the following minimum
information in addition to that required for the underlying
permit review process:
1. A diagram or map showing the primary viewshed of
the proposed facility.
2. Photosimulations of the proposed facility from
effected properties and public rights-of-way at
varying distances.
3. A coverage chart of the proposed PWSF at the
requested height and an explanation of the need for
that facility. The explanation shall include an
analysis of alternative sites and why the requested
site is preferred over other possible locations
6
7T 'j
Þ~:~I NOU :~II-~nB
[T£C£ ON TII/X.L]
CC:Cl NOW ¿G/ll/S0
4. An inventory of other PWSF sites operated by the
applicant that are either in the City or within one
mile of its borders, including specific information
about location, height, and design of each facility.
5. A site/landscaping plan showing the specific
placement of the PWSF on the site; showing the
location of existing structures, trees, and other
significant site features; and indicating type and
locations of plant materials used to screen PWSF
components.
6. Documentation of efforts to collocate on existing
facilities.
7. Other information as deemed
Community Development Director.
necessary
by
the
(H) Collocation.
1. A permittee shall cooperate with other PWSF
providers in collocating additional antenna on support
structures and/or on existing buildings and sites
provided said proposed collocatees have received a
permit for such use at said site from the City. A
permittee shall allow other providers to collocate and
share the permitted site, provided such shared use
does not. give rise to a substantial technical level
impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a
competitive conflict or financial burden).
2. A signed statement indicating that the applicant
agrees to allow for the potential collocation of
additional PWSF equipment by other providers on the
applicant's structure or within the same site location
shall be submitted by the applicant as part of the
permit application. If an applicant contends that
future collocation is not possible on their site, they
must submit a technical study documenting why.
(I) EMF Standards and Interference.
1. The applicant shall comply with Federal standards
for ,EMF emissions. Within six months after the
issuance of its operational permit, the applicant
shall submit a project implementation report which
provides cumulative field measurements of radio
frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas
installed at the subject site. The report shall
quantify the EMF emissions and compare the results
with established Federal standards. Said report shall
be subject to review and approval of the city for
consistency with the project proposal report and the
7
E I 'd
IS;
SE:EI NOW L6-11-~nB
[HiC!; ON nr/X~]
CC:Cl NOW L6/11/90
adopted Federal standards. If on review, the Ci ty
finds that the PWSF does not meet Federal standards,
the City may revoke or modify the permit. The
applicant shall be given a reasonable time based on
the nature of the problem to comply with the Federal
standards. If the permit is revoked, then the
facility shall be removed.
2. The applicant shall ensure that the PWSF will not
cause localized interference with the reception of
area television or radio broadcasts. If on review of
a registered complaint the City finds that the PWSF
interferes with such reception, the city may revoke or
modify the permit. The applicant shall be given a
reasonable time based on the nature of the problem to
correct the interference. If the permit is revoked,
then the facility shall be removed.
(J) Facility Removal.
1. The operator of a PWSF shall notify the City upon
the discontinued use of a particular facility. The
PWSF shall be removed by the facility owner within 90
days of the date the site I s use is discontinued, it
ceases to be operational, the permit is revoked, or if
the facility falls into disrepair and is not
maintained. Disrepair includes structural features,
paint, landscaping, or general lack of maintenance
which could result in safety or visual impacts.
2. If the provider fails to remove the facility upon
90 days of its discontinued use, the responsibility
for removal falls upon the landholder on which the
facility has been located.
(K)
Permit Limitations.
1. A permit for a PWSF shall expire 10 years after
the effective date of the permit approval. A
permittee wishing to continue the use of a specific
PWSF at the end of the 10 year period must apply for
an application to continue that use at least six
months prior to its expiration. The renewal
application will be under a Process I administrative
review. In ruling on said renewal the City shall
consider all then existing regulations effecting the
application that are appropriate to the technology and
use.
8
Þ r . r1
/£
SE:El NOW L6-11-~n~
[HC£ ON nIIXI]
CC:CT NOH L6/TT/gO
2. Five years after the date of the City's approval
of a PWSF the permittee or assignee shall submit a
written staterne~t summarizing its current use and
plans, if any, for that facilityisite for the next
five years to the best of their knowledge.
3. An approved permit shall be valid for one year
from the date of the City's approval, with opportunity
for a one year extension. If not used within one
year, or within the extension period, the permit shall
become null and void.
9
91 'd
17
9E:El NOW L6-11-9nB
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Planning Commission
DATE
July 9, 1997
APPLICANT
City of Federal Way
PROPOSED ACTION
Text Additions to Chapter 22, of the Federal Way
City Code to. regulate Wireless Communications
Facilities.
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE
Don Largen, AICP
Planning Consultant
McConnelVBurke, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
use the attached working draft of this staff report as
basis upon which the Commission develops a
recommendation of proposed wireless
communications facilities regulations for City Council
consideration.
INTRODUCTION
A number of code revisions have been identified and prioritized by the City Council for
completion during the Planning Commission's 1997 work program. The issue of siting
telecommunications facilities has recently bèen made a priority by the City Council and a
moratorium was adopted on May 5th, 1997 to allow the City time to develop appropriate
regulations. This staff report is intended to give the City a starting point for discussion of issues
and drafting of an ordinance.
BACKGROUND
With the passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the entry of a number of new
providers into the telecommunications market, and the rapid changes in communications
technology wireless communications facilities have taken on a new importance as a land use
issue. Some industry representatives have suggested that the Telecommunications Act
significantly preempts local land use authority. Our experience indicates that this is not the case.
¡ç-
and it is our position that wireless communications facilities can and should be regulated as any
other land use or utility. We have found it is important to plan early and develop clear and
effective regulations which allow for rapidly changing technologies.
The various providers are in competition with each other and market their product in tenns of the
type and 'quality of service' they can offer compared to others. 'Quality of service' is a function of
signal quality (signal strength and clarity), number of dropped calls (network coverage), and the
number of blocked calls (network capacity). With each permit application it can be assumed that
the applicant will be trying to maximize the site's potential in these three attributes.
While the Telecommunications Act says a jurisdiction cannot preclude the siting of these
facilities, it does not say that a provider must be allowed to maximize the potential of each given
site. This relates directly to issues of height since as the height drops so does the amount of
coverage and signal strength due to barriers such as trees and buildings, and, therefore, the
quality of service of that particular site. It appears that as long as a provider is being allowed
access to the community, the issue of quality of service rests with the provider. At the same time
the City's regulatory structure cannot be so restrictive as to significantly preclude a 'reasonable'
provision of the service.
Wireless services are rapidly becoming an integral part of our society's communication network.
These services take on an variety of forms each aimed at providing a particular type of
communication service. Such services are increasingly important in providing emergency
communication services, access to educational programs and infonnation, data transfer and
access, and communications to and from remote areas. They are also beneficial to small
businesses and families by making access to clients and family members more flexible and
immediate.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Below we have summarized key issues relating to the regulation of wireless communications
facilities.
A.
Consistent Terminology and Definitions
Since the passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act there has been a proliferation of terms
and definitions used to describe these particular communication facilities. Cellular towers,
wireless commu~ication facilities, personal wireless facilities, personal communication service
facilities, and others have all been used somewhat interchangeably in discussions and regulations
we have been involved with. It is important that an ordinance use definitions that are clear and
consistent so that an ordinance is specific to the type of communications installation being
regulated.
In March of this year the State legislature passed SHB 2044, which basically established several
definitions for regulating these types of telecommuni~ations facilities. The State definitions
reflect those found in the Federal act. These definitions are as follows:
2
/1
.
PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES - means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless
services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services, as defined by federal laws
and regulations.
.
PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICEFAClLITY (PWSF) - means a wireless communication facility,
including a microcell, that is a facility for the transmission and/or reception of radio frequency
signals, and which may include antennas, equipment shelter or cabinet, transmission cables, a
support structure to achieve the necessary elevation, and reception and transmission devices
and antennas.
.
MICROCELL - means a wireless communication facility consisting of an antenna that is either.
(i) four feet in height and with an area of not more than five-hundred eighty square inches; or
(ii) if a tubular antenna, no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet high.
.
MINOR FACILITY - means a wireless communication facility consisting of up to three
antennas, each which is either (i).four feet in height and with an area of not more than five-
hundred eighty square inches; or (ii) if a tubular antenna, no more than four inches in diameter
and no more than six feet in length; and the associated equipment cabinet that is six feet or
less in height and no more than forty-eight square feet in floor area.
Since these definitions occur in both the State and Federal statutes it makes sense to use
these definitions in order to be consistent with industry standards. Using these definitions
may also add to the defensibility of the ordinance should it be challenged. We will use
these definitions in the remainder of this report so as not to confuse terminology.
Defining other facility elements will also be necessary to make the ordinance clear and
specific in its application. Below we suggest several other definitions that we have found
to be useful in other jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt the definitions found in Sate and Federal statutes.
2) Adopt the following additional definitions to clarify specific elements of
a PWSF:
Antenna(e): Any system of electromagnetically tuned wires, poles, rods,
reflecting discs or similar devices used to transmit or receive -
electromagnetic waves between terrestrial and/or orbital based points,
includes, but is not limited to:
1. Omni-directional (or "whip") antenna(e) transmits and receives
radio frequency signals in a 360 degree radial pattern.
2. Directional (or "panel") antenna(e) transmits and receives radio
frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360
degrees.
3. Parabolic antenna(e) (or dish) antenna(e) is a bowl-shaped device for
the reception and/or transmission of communications signals in a
specific directional pattern.
4. Ancillary Antenna is an antenna that is less than 12 inches in its
largest dimension and that is not directly used to provide personal
wireless communications services. An example would be a global
positioning satellite (GPS) antenna.
3
..ü
¿J-c7
. -
Collocation: The placement and arrangement of multiple providers'
antennae and equipment on a single support structure or equipment pad
area.
EMF: means Electromagnetic Field, which is the field produced by the
operation of equipment used in transmitting and receiving radio frequency
signals.
Equipment Shelter: The structure associated with a PWSF that is used to
house electronic switching equipment, cooling system and back-up power
systems.
Support Structure: Any built structure, including any guy wires and
anchors, to which antenna and other necessary associated hardware is
mounted. Support structures may include the following:
1. Lattice Tower - a support structure which consists of a network of
crossed metal braces, forming a tower which is usually triangular
or square in cross-section.
2. Guy Tower - a support structure such as a pole or narrow metal
framework which is held erect by the use of guy wires and anchors.
3. Monopole - a support structure which consists of a single steel or
wood pole sunk into the ground and/or attaChed to a concrete pad.
4. Existing Nonresidential Structure - existing structures as specified
in Section (to be detennined) to which small antenna may be
attached with certain conditions.
B.
Collocation
The intent of collocation is to encourage several providers to use the same structure or site to
keep the number of PWSFs to a minimum as a means to reduce the overall visual effects
throughout the community. Such a regulatory provision is recommended since certain wireless
technologies (i.e. digital or PCS systems) utilize weaker signals and require more facility sites.
In addition, as the number of subscribers increase it is likely that the providers will need to
increase the number of sites to increase network capacity.
Generally, collocation on existing broadcast and relay towers should be encouraged by fewer
standards and less complex permit procedures. The City may consider requesting feasibility
studies associated with an application for a PWSF which demonstrates that locations on existing
structures have been explored as a siting alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
Incorporate the following provisions into the ordinance:
A) A permittee shall cooperate with other PWSF providers in collocating
additional antenna on support structures and/or on existing buildings and
sites provided said proposed collocatees have received a permit for such use
at said site from the City. A permittee shall exercise good faith in
collocating with other providers and sharing the permitted site, provided
such shared use does not give. rise to a substantial technical level
impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or
4
c?(
".
financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether a permittee
has exercised good faith in accommodating a new applicant, the City may
require a third party technical study at the expense of the permittee.
Failure to comply with this provision may result in a termination of the
permit.
B) A signed statement indicating that the applicant agrees to allow for the
potential collocation of additional PWSF equipment by other providers on
the applicant's structure or within the same site location shall be submitted
by the applicant as part of the permit application. If an applicant contends
that future collocation is not possible on their site, they must submit a
technical study documenting why.
C) A lease agreement with the landholder that allows the landholder to
enter into leases with other providers.
c.
Appropriate Locations
An important part of the ordinance will be to designate appropriate locations for PWSF sites.
These can be specified as particular zoning districts, types of structures, or both. The regulations
can be made more effective by prioritizing the designated locations in order of City preference.
In general, attachment of antennas to existing nonresidential structures and buildings primarily
within industrial, manufacturing, business park, and commercial zoning districts should be
preferable to new broadcast and relay towers or monopoles. It is generally accepted that new
towers or monopoles are not appropriate on residential properties and should not be allowed due
primarily to aesthetic considerations.
Below we have suggested a prioritized list based on several other regulations we are familiar
with. The following sites should be considered by applicants as the preferred order of locations
for proposed PWSFs, including antenna and equipment shelters. In order of preference based on
an assessment of feasibility the sites would be as follows:
1. Existing Broadcast, Relay, and Transmission Towers: On any existing site
or tower where a legal wireless telecommunication facility is currently located
regardless of underlying zoning.
2. Publicly-Used Structures: Existing public facilities such as water towers,-
utility structures, fire stations, bridges, and other public buildings within all
zoning districts that are not utilized for recreational purposes.
3. Business, Commercial and City Center Zoned Sites: Structures or sites used
for research and development, commercial, and office uses. A suggested
prioritized list of zoning districts is as follows:
BP - Business Park
CP-I - Corporate Park
OP through OP-4 - Office Park
CC-C - City Center Core
CC-F - City Center Frame
BC - Community Business
4. Residential Zones: Structures or sites which are not used wholly for residential
use; except that no PWSF will be allowed on vacant residential lots. Where the
installation complies with all FCC and City regulations and standards,
5
':;2.--
institutional structures. places of worship. and other nonresidential sites may be
considered.
5. Residential Structures: PWSF attached to residential structures are permitted
only in multi-family residential zoning districts.
6. New PWSF Structure: Newly erected monopoles where there is no feasible
opportunity to collocate or locate on an existing structure.
7. In requesting a particular location the applicant shall document why a location
in a higher priority location and/or zone is not being proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Incorporate a prioritized list of allowed PWSF sites into the proposed
regulations based on the land use list discussed in this section.
D.
Visibility and Development Standards
PWSFs are composed of two or more of the following generic parts that can be viewed separately
relative to regulation:
a - Antenna (including mounting brackets); panel, dish, tubular, or whip;
b - Support Structure (including mounting platforms); monopole, lattice tower, etc.;
c - Equipment Shelter; shed, cabinet, vault, etc.;
d - Security Barner; fences and/or walls.
Each of the above elements pose a different challenge in tenns of reducing their visibility
aesthetic impact. Security barners can be screened and/or constructed of materials compatible
with the surroundings. Equipment shelters can also simply be screened or constructed of
compatible materials. They may also be placed underground, which several communities require
where it is technically feasible. Panel and dish antennas can be painted colors to blend with their
surroundings and in some instances screened from view. Whip and tubular antennas present
narrow, vertical profiles and can be mounted on existing power and light poles in a manner that
makes them unobtrusive.
Our experience suggests that much of the aesthetic problems with PWSFs has to do with the
supporting structure. There are stealth technologies available for support structures that can be
successful in some site circumstances. For example, artificial trees have been used as well as
hollow fiberglass flag poles with antenna and conduit located inside. However, the most direct
approach to minimizing the visual impact of tall support structures is to limit their use. To
support that appròach it may be advisable to allow microcells and minor facilities on existing
nonresidential structures under an administrative review with guidelines. The proposed pennit
process for PWSFs are shown in Attachment A of this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Incorporate the following provisions into the draft ordinance.
A. PWSFs should be screened or camouflaged through employing the best
available technology. This may be accòmplished by use of shelters, compatible
materials, location, color, stealth technologies such as, but not limited to
6
, .."
.)3
artificial trees and hollow flag poles, and/or other tactics to reduce visibility of
the facility as viewed from public streets or residential properties.
B. PWSFs may be mounted on nonresidential buildings and structures with a
Process II administrative review under the following conditions:
1. The PWSF consists of a microcell or a minor facility.
2. The combined antennas and supporting stnJcture shall not extend more
than 12 feet above the existing or proposed roof structure. (note: Chapter
22-1047 should probably be updated to include this provision as an allowed
height exception under appropriate review.)
3. The antennas are mounted on the building such that they are located a
maximum distance from surrounding residential structures and/or public
streets. Panel and parabolic antennas shall be completely screened from
residential views and public rights-of-way unless meeting the provision of
Chapter 22-960(b)(2).
C. New free-standing PWSFs shall conform to the following site development
standards:
1. Placement of a freestanding PWSF shall be denied if placement of the
antennas on an existing structure can meet the applicant's technical and
network location requirements.
2. Monopoles shall be the only free-standing structures allowed in the City.
Applications proposing lattice towers or guy towers shall be denied.
3. Monopoles shall be setback from all residential uses and school property
lines a distance equal to the height of the monopole plus the height of any
antennas, and shall comply with all required setbacks of the zoning district
in which it is located.
4. Applications shall document that the proposed monopole and any mounting
bases are designed to withstand wind and seismic loads.
5. Monopoles shall be designed and placed on the site in a manner that takes
maximum advantage of existing trees, mature vegetation, and structures so
as to:
a. Use existing site features to screen as much of the total PWSF as
possible from prevalent views; and/or,
b. Use existing site features as a background so that the total PWSF
blends into the background with increased sight distances.
6. In reviewing the proposed placement of a facility on the site and any
associated in-fill landscaping the City may alter the application to
supplement existing trees and mature vegetation to more effectively screen
the facility.
7. Monopoles, antennas, and any associated hardware shall be painted a
nonreflective color or color scheme appropriate to the background against
which the PWSF would be viewed from a majority of points within its
viewshed. Proposed color or color scheme to be approved by the Hearing
Examiner. .
D. Electronics equipment enclosures shall conform to the following:
1. Equipment enclosures shall be placed underground if technically feasible.
2. Screening of PWSF equipment enclosures shall be provided with one or a
combination of the following materials: fencing, walls, landscaping,
structures, or topography which will block the view of the equipment
shelter as much as practicable from any street and/or adjacent properties.
Screening may be located anywhere between the enclosure and the above
mentioned viewpoints. Landscaping for the purposes of screening shall be '
maintained in a healthy condition.
;¡.
7
=-:) 7
I.
, ",
3. No wireless equipment reviewed under this Section shall be located within
required building setback areas.
E. Security fencing, if used, shall confonn to the following:
1. No fence shall exceed 6 feet in height as stipulated in Chapter 22-1565(a).
2. Security fencing shall be effectively screened from view through the use of
appropriate landscaping materials.
3. Chain-link fences shall be painted or coated with a nonreflective color.
F. The City shall consider the cumnlative visual effects of PWSFs mounted on
existing structures and/or located on a given permitted site in determining
whether the additional permits can be granted so as to not adversely effect the
visual character of the city.
G. No wireless equipment shall be used for the purpose of mounting signs or
message displays of any Iånd.
E. Facility Removal
There apparently have been instances where a particular facility is no longer needed and has been
abandoned by the provider. Changes in technology may also render many installations obsolete,
particularly those requiring tall support structures. In such cases the facilities should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Incorporate the following provisions into the draft ordinance.
A. The operator of a PWSF shall notify the City upon the discontinued use of a
particular facility. The PWSF shall be removed by the facility owner within 90 days
of the date the site's use is discontinued, it ceases to be operational, the permit is
revoked, or if the facility faIls into disrepair and is not maintained. Disrepair
includes structural features, paint, landscaping, or general lack of maintenance
which could result in safety or visual impactS.
B. A lease agreement with the landholder that specifies that if the provider
fails to remove the facility upon 90 days of its discontinued use, the responsibility for
removal falls upon the landholder.
F.
Application Requirements
Accurate and complete information about the proposed facility is necessary to evaluate whether
or not a particular location is necessary to the applicant's network or is the most reasonable or
feasible location' for that specific installation. It is also important to get an accurate picture of the
visual impact on the surrounding area. Permit application should include information that is
specific to these type of facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
All PWSF permit applications shall include the following minimum
information in addition to that required for the underlying permit review
process:
A. A diagram or map showing the viewshed of the proposed facility.
8
~ s,-
B. Photosimulations of the proposed facility from effected properties and public
rights-of-way at varying distances.
C. A map showing the service area of the proposed PWSF and an explanation of
the need for that facility. The explanation shall include an analysis of
alternative sites and why the requested site is preferred over other possible
locations
D. A map showing the locations and service areas of other PWSF sites operated by
the applicant and those that are proposed by the applicant that occur within a
three to four mile radius of the proposed facility.
E. A site/landscaping plan showing the specific placement of the PWSF on the site;
showing the location of existing structures, trees, and other significant site
features; and indicating type and locations of plant materials used to screen
PWSF components.
F. A copy of the lease agreement with the underlying landholder.
G. Documentation of efforts to collocate on existing facilities.
F. Other information as deemed necessary by the planning director.
G.
Additional Considerations
1.
Health
The Telecommunications Act specifically prohibits a local jurisdiction from regulating PWSFs
based on perceived health issues. The Federal government has adopted 11iinimum standards for
EMF radiation that apply to all such facilities. While the City can not regulate PWSFs based on
health concerns it can require applicants to verify that their installations meet the minimum
Federal standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Incorporate the following provisions into the draft regulation.
A. The applicant shall comply with Federal standards for EMF enùssions. Within
six months after the issuance of its operational permit, the applicant shall
subnùt a project implementation report which provides cumulative field
measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas-
installed at the subject site. The report shall quantify the EMF emissions and
compare the results with established Federal standards. Said report shall be
subject to review and approval of the City for consistency with the project
proposal report and the adopted Federal standards. If on review, the City finds
, that the PWSF does not meet Federal standards, the City may revoke or modify
the permit. If the permit is revoked, then the facility shall be removed.
B. The applicant shall ensure that the PWSF will not cause localized interference
with the reception of area television or radio broadcasts. If on review of a
registered complaint the City finds that the PWSF interferes with such
reception, the City may revoke or modify the pernùt. If the permit is revoked,
then the facility shall be removed.
9
;)~
2.
Permit Limitations
As mentioned earlier the communications industry is undergoing rapid technological change and
innovation. This may render some sites obsolete and require removal of the facility. One way to
ensure that City stays current about a provider's intentions and responsibilities is to specify
permit time limits that include a periodic review. Below is a sample of language that specifies
the limitations on approved permits.
SAMPLE
A. A permit for a PWSF shall expire 10 years after the effective date of the permit
approval. A permittee wishing to continue the use of a specific PWSF at the end of
the 10 year period must apply for an application to continue that use at least six
months prior to its expiration. In ruling on said renewal the City shall consider all
then existing regulations effecting the application.
B. Five years after the date of the City's approval of a PWSF the permittee shall submit
a written statement sununarizing its current use and plans, if any, for that facility/site
for the next five years to the best of their knowledge.
C. The permit shall become null and void if not utilized within one year of the date of
the City's approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Incorporate language into the draft ordinance that specifies any
limitations on approved permits.
CONCLUSIONS
Communication innovations are providing benefits to nearly all segments of our society and there
is an increasing demand by City residents, businesses, schools, and government for these
services. The recommendations contained in this report are not intended to place unreasonable
barriers to the siting of the facilities within the City. Rather, they are intended to offer guidelines
so that PWSF development is done in a manner that is sensitive and appropriate to the
community setting and character.
10
,...-:..'-'..-
J)
ATTA
.\1ENT A
USE ZONE CHART - SE, RS, MF, PO, BN
MINIMUMS Maximums
Required Yards
USE Process Lot Size Front side Rear Lot COy. Height Land- Signs Parking SPECIAL REGULATIONS & NOTES
scaDe
Personal See note See note See See See See See See See N/A 1. Minimums and maximums for these
Wireless 2. 1. note 1. note 1. note I. note 1. note 3. note 5. note 4. items will be in accordance to the
Service underlying zoning for each of the listed use
Facility districts.
2. The review process used will be as
follows:
a. Process m if the PWSF meets the
underlying height limit of 35'.
b. Process III if the PWSF is collocated
on an existing nonresidential structure or
existing PWSF and it is less than 12' above
the existing facility or structure.
c. Process IV if the PWSF is a new
free-standing structure.
3. Maximum allowed height for a new
free-standing PWSF shall be the minimum
necessary to provide the service up to lOa',
plus any bonus granted under Chapter 22-
1047. A PWSF shall be allowed up to 120'
if there are two or more providers.
4. Signs are not allowed on a PWSF.
5. All PWSF shall be landscaped and
screened in accordance with Article XVII
and the provisions of the PWSF
development regulations. At a minimum
10' of Type III landscaping shall be
required.
~
'X\
1
.'
ATTACHMENT A
.,
USE ZONE CHART - OP, OP 1 - 4, CP-l, CC-C, CC-F, BC, BP, SE & RS adjacent to freeway
MINIMUMS Maximums
Required Yards
USE Process Lot Size Front side Rear LotCov. Height Land- Signs Parking SPECIAL REGULATIONS & NOTES
sc~
Personal See note See note See See See See See See See N/A 1. 'Minimums and maximums for these
Wireless 2. 1. note l. note]. note l. note]. note 3. note 5 note 4. items will be in accordance to the
Service underlying zoning for each of the listed use
Facility districts.
2. The review procesl used will be as
follows:
a. Process I if the PWSF is collocated
on a existing PWSF.
b. Process IT! for all new free-standing
PWSF.
3. Maximum allowed height for a new
free-standing PWSF shall be the minimum
necessary to provide the service up to ] 00'
plus any bonus granted under Chapter 22-
1047. A PWSF shall be allowed up to 120'
if there are two or more providers.
4. Signs are not allowed on a PWSF
5. All PWSF shall be landscaped and
screened in accordance with Article XVII
and the provisions of the PWSF
development regulations. At a minimum
10' of Type IT! landscaping shall be
required.
~
"'\)
2
;,'.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Aug. 11,1997
Council Public Safety/Human Services Committee
Daven Rosener, Community/Government Relations Specialist
City's 1998 Legislative Agenda and Position Paper
Attached you will find a copy of the proposed 1998 Legislative Agenda and Position Paper.
Please note that the following items in the documents will need this committee's review:
Legislative Agenda
Page 2, Finance/Economic Development, Item 6
Page 2, Public Works, Item 1
Page 4, Utilities, Items 1, 2
Position Paper
No related items added this year
Background:
Each of these papers serves the same mission, communicating our legislative intent to Olympia.
The Agenda is the city's first line of issues, the issues that are at the top of the city's agenda. The
position paper contains important issues that are not necessarily of the highest priority for the city.
As a matter of process, I have taken last year's agenda and have modified it. New items are
underlined.
Review Schedule:
These documents will travel to each of the Council Committees in coming weeks, and will come
back to you for full Council review in the next month or so. I thank you for your input and
assistance.
Committee Review
Aug. 7 - Public Saf~ty and Human Se1v.i:ces CommIttee Review - DONE
Aug. 18 - Parks and Recreation Committee Review
Aug. 18 - Land Use and Transportation Review (tentative)
Aug. 28 - Finance and Econ. Dev. Committee Review
Full Council Review
Sept. 16 (tentative)
Recommendation:
1) Recommend additional items for inclusion in the Legislative Agenda and Position Paper.
2) Recommend items that should be removed from'the Legislative Agenda and Position Paper.
3) Provide direction as to priority of items submitted or added.
c:
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
",', ,','
Finance/Economic Development
1.
The City opposes the imposition of requirements or additional obligations that are not
accompanied by requisite funding. '
2.
The City opposes any erosion in its financing sources and strongly encourages the
Legislature to maintain Criminal Justice Funding and other grant programs which
support local program operation.
3.
The City opposes any redirection of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) that restricts
or lessens MVET support for local programs including sales tax equalization, public
health, criminal justice, the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), and transit
and transportation funding for cities.
4.
The City supports legislation to define the calculation of cost recovery fees of records
retrieval from municipal electronic information systems.
s.
The City supports government partnerships with the private sector for the purposes of
promoting quality governmental services and economic vitality.
.6....!!.. The city supports the creation of an economic development program by the state
legislature that would provide new funding and other tools for communities.
Public Works
L. The City of Federal Way supports legislation to clarify that maintenance activities
performed by agency temporaries or under a small public works contract (as defined
by Chapter 39.12 RCW) are exempt from prevailing wage reqJ1irements.
Regulatory Reform/Growth Management
1.
The City supports practical solutions to private property disputes that address specific
concerns of property owners, including, continued regulatory reform. These
solutions should not change the constitutional definition of takings, place an undue
financial burden on tax payers, or diminish local governments' ability to protect
public health, safety and welfare.
2.
The City supports legislation to allow local comprehensive plans to be amended more than
once each year.
3.
The City supports legislation which further coordinates and streamlines land use
decisions and permitting under the GMA as well as under the State Environmental Policy
2
4.
Act and the Shorelines Management Act. Such legislation should balance the benefits of
statewide uniformity with the need for local communities to govern themselves.
The City supports legislation recognizing the need for local flexibility in effectively
implementing the GMA and requiring Growth Planning Hearing Boards to defer to local
decisions, policies and processes implementing the goals of the GMA when these actions
are consistent with the GMA.
Communications
1.
The City opposes legislation which would preempt local authority over pole attachments,
cellular tower siting, cable refranchising, and telecommunications charges.
Law and Public Safety
1.
2.
3.
~
~
6...!!
The City supports civil service reform for police officers that allows cities to streamline
hiring processes, diversify workforces, and recruit, retain, terminate and reward
employees.
The City supports model ordinance legislation for adult entertainment consistent with
the provisions of the City's adult entertainment ordinance which have been sustained
through numerous court appeals.
The City supports enabling legislation to allow the impounding of vehicles of individuals
caught driving with a suspended license.
The city supports legislation that would do away with the current limit of $SO per day
that can be assessed as jail costs against a person convicted of a misdemeanor. The
city would support legislation that would allow the city to impose a calculated amount
representing the city's actual costs of incarcerating the individual.
The city supports legislation that would make arbitrators in binding interest arbitration with
police and fire personnel to consider the following factors in making an award: (1) the
city's financial ability to meet the costs of the contract, giving due consideration and
weight to other competing city services and priorities as determined by the City Council;
(2) local labor market conditions, and (3) internal equity with other city employees.
The City supports legislation that would authorize the city to impound a vehicle driven by
a person whose license is suspended and/or has failed to a,ppear at court, and give
municipal courts and district courts the authority to hear impound appeals. By taking the
3
car, the city may better be able to collect outstanding fines. In addition, the impoundment
may serve as a worthy deterrent to law violations which may result in sm¡pension or
revocation of a driver's license.
Utilities
L
The City supports efforts to affirm the duty of private utilities to include bearin2 the
cost of relocating their facilities within city rights-of-way when requested by a city.
2.....
The City opposes any legislation that would erode the ability of a city to take over a
utility district.
Electric Industry Regulation
The City supports energy utility regulation based on the following principles:
A. Local governments should retain the authority to manage industry facilities
within the public right of way and the authority to tax the utility providers.
B. Electricity service should be available to customers at prices that are
reasonable and affordable.
C. A non-economic bypass and the inappropriate shifting of costs of the electric
system between or among customers do not constitute fair and efficient
competition. Customers of continuing monopoly service should benefit, at
least, not be harmed, from choices made by customers with access to
competitive options.
D. The long-term safety, integrity, reliability and quality of the bulk electric
system and retail electricity service should not be jeopardized.
E. Consumers should be afforded a broad range of choice in electricity service
and pricing options.
Development of competitive electricity markets should not undermine
environmental protection, energy efficiency, resource diversity and
technological innovation.
The public should maintain a voice in the industry's regulatory process and the
ipterests of customers should continue to be balanced with the opportunity for
shareholders to earn fair returns.
F.
G.
KEY: * Items reaffirmed by Staff / ** From A WC and staff / Underlined items are new items
to the agenda.
4
Position Paper
1998
General Policy
The City of Federal Way supports state legislative efforts to encourage cost-effective regional
policy planning and delivery of government services, balanced by local program implementation.
These efforts must be focused on eliminating duplicative services and preserving local control over
service delivery. The City also supports legislation which enhances local flexibility to address
issues of local concern. The City opposes legislation which mandates increased local costs or
which results in an inappropriate diminution of local authority over local affairs.
General Local Government
Home Rule
The City of Federal Way strongly supports the adoption of a constitutional home rule
amendment which would guarantee decision-making authority for local matters at the local
level. The City also urges the Legislature to refrain from enacting legislation that adversely
impacts the concept of local self-government or restricts the ability of cities and towns to
exercise existing power.
Mandates
All local governments have been impacted by the elimination and reduction of various
federal domestic aid programs. Changes at the state level have also affected local
government revenue options. Equally important are the growing number of mandates
passed from the federal and state governments to local governments; mandates which are
not accompanied by additional resources. Delivering public services requires a strong state-
local partnership, and local revenue needs must be recognized when new programs are
enacted or if the state revenue system is restructured. The citizens of Washington
recognized this necessity in approving section 6 of Initiative 62, codified as RCW
43.13S.060, which directs the Legislature to refrain from imposing unfunded mandate
requirements on local governments. As well, elected city officials are most qualified to
determine which services to provide, and the manner in which they should be provided.
The City strongly urges the Legislature to cease imposition of additional financial or
operating burdens on cities unless such mandates are compelled by an overriding state
interest and are accompanied by financial resources to accommodate the costs of
compliance.
Voter Registration Maintenance Costs
State law presently allows counties to charge cities to maintain voter registration records.
This law, passed in 1987, when the counties took over voter registration from the cities,
did not include a sunset provision to eliminate the charge when the transition was
1
.,'",',,' ",'..,""""
complete. Furthennore, these charges are not unifonn, ranging from $.22 to $1.SS
per voter. State law does set a $.30 maximum charge for smaller cities, but does
not specify a charge for larger cities. King County collects over $1 million in voter
maintenance fees each year, which should more than cover the cost of minor data
entry changes. The City supports legislative changes which would standardize this
charge in a manner which accurately reflects the cost of maintaining voter records.
Bidding Procedures and Limits
The City supports efforts to streamline state laws and regulations governing the bidding
process, giving cities greater flexibility in bidding procedures and limits.
Public Records
The City firmly supports the right of the public to have access to the records and
operations of local government. The City supports legislation to define. the calculation of
cost recovery fees for records retrieval from municipal electronic information systems.
Cable Television and Telecommunications
The City supports legislation that protects the right of local government to assess franchise
and other fees, to negotiate franchise agreements, and exercise other controls on the
operation of telecommunication business in the public rights of way.
Passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act will affect the ability of cities to:
. receive compensation for the use of public right of way,
. negotiate local cable television rates and services,
. authorize taxes on telecommunications services,
. legislate and implement community zoning, and
. approve siting of wireless stations.
Emergency Communications
The City opposes the creation of a E- 311 non-emergency communications system. Rather,
efforts should be made to further educate the community about the use of the existing E-
911 system and each of the jurisdictions existing, 7-digit non-emergency lines.
Finance and Economic Development
Tax Increment Financing
Tax increment financing allows cities to pay for the infrastructure costs related to
development or redevelopment projects by earmarking the tax revenues attributable to the
increase in tax receipts over current receipts in the apportionment district. The tax
increment would be dedicated to paying the debt service on the bonds issued. After the
bonds have been retired, the tax increment' would be distributed in the same manner as
2
other non-increment property taxes. The overriding benefit of tax increment financing
districts would be to facilitate quality and comprehensive development, and redevelopment
of our community.
Voted Excess Levy for Capital Improvement Bonds
Municipalities should be authorized to seek voter approval for an excess property tax levy
to fund capital facilities projects. The levy could be used for projects on a pay as you go
basis or for debt service on bonds. The levy would not be tied to one project, but could
be used to realize any of the projects in the adopted facilities plan. The bonds would be
unlimited general obligations of the City. Voter approval would be by simple majority.
Benefits of this option include the development of a comprehensive community tax policy
to deal with its infrastructure needs using a multi-year business plan approach.
State Tax Roll Back/Expenditure Limitation Efforts
The City expects their governments to be wise stewards of public funds, and concurrently
be responsive to increasing service demands. As well, the City receives significant support
from state collected-locally shared revenues. The City opposes efforts to alter state fiscal
operations which would have a negative impact on the City of Federal Way.
Pass Through of Collection Costs
The City of Federal Way currently uses collection agencies and other resources to assist
with the collection of delinquent debts. Unlike District and Municipal Courts, cities do not
have the authority to pass these expensive collection costs onto the debtor for the
outstanding debt. The City supports legislation which would allow cities to pass onto the
debtor all costs associated with the collection of any delinquent debts.
Public Works Trust Fund "
The Public Works Trust Fund, established by the Legislature in 1985, has benefitted many
local governments with dependable, long term funding for repair and reconstruction of
local public works systems. Much of this construction is completed during the summer
months to avoid inclement weather. However, project funding must be secured prior to
advertising and awarding a project, a process "that takes several months. The Legislature
is now required to approve the annual list of projects, but has never deleted a project
from the Public Works Board's approved list. Expediting the approval process would
facilitate the construction of these projects by the following summer construction season.
The City therefore supports removal of the approval by the full Legislature from the
annual Public Works Trust Fund approval process.
Sales Tax Exemption for Public Park and Public Cultural Arts Facility Construction
Construction of public works projects is presently exempt from local and state sales taxes.
The same rationale for exempting public wòrks projects from sales taxes also applies to
3
the construction of public parks and cultural facilities. Taxing citizens to build a public
facility and then taxing them again for construction seems a poor use of time and
resources. Further, exemption of public park and cultural facility construction would be
a very minor exemption in the overall state and local sales tax revenue picture. The City
supports legislation which would exempt public park and public cultural arts facility
construction from state and local option sales taxes.
Water Resource Management
Addressing water resource management issues will require increased intergovernmental
coordination among local and regional governments and the state. The City supports continued
state financial assistance for water supply, wastewater management, groundwater protection, and
storm and surface water facilities and programs. These programs are especially important in
complying with state and federal water quality standards (NPDES, National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System). The City also supports retention of the authority of local water districts to
manage their assets, participating in regional planning as appropriate to provide and protect for
the current and future water needs of their customers.
Flood Damage Reduction
The City contains a number of flood prone areas, both developed and undeveloped which
require specialized planning. Recent proposed flood damage reduction legislation was
flawed, partially due to the fact that is was based on an overall flood way approach, which
does not consider all flood prone areas in the state. The City supports comprehensive flood
damage prevention planning accomplished at the local level as a partnership among
impacted cities, the county, state and affected area interests. Each flood prone area is
unique and should be planned for accordingly. Locally developed and adopted flood
damage protection plans must seek to establish a balance between the need for
appropriately designed growth and the need to reduce further flood damage.
Community Development
Regional Planning, Annexation Law, and Land Use RegulationlRegulatory Reform
The City supports current State law regarding annexations. The City also supports
retention of city authority to review the impacts of an annexation on the overall operation
of the City and to make the final determination regarding acceptance of petitions for
annexation. The City supports legislation that would reduce boundary adjustment
requirements, clarify franchise relationships between trash and garbage haulers, expedite
transfer of property tax from the County to the City, and provide direction for land use
and permitting functions in newly annexed areas.
4
The City also suppons practical solutions to private property disputes that address specific
concerns of property owners, including regulatory reform if necessary. These solutions
should not alter the Constitutional definition of takings, place an undue financial burden
on taxpayers, or diminish local governments' ability to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of their communities.
Growth Management
The State Growth Management Act creates challenges for state, county and cities. To meet
these challenges, the Legislature must continue to monitor the efforts of local agencies,
and address any necessary additional refinements to the Act in an effective and timely
manner. Such refinements may include clarification of the role and responsibilities of the
state in developing policies and capital plans in conformance with locally adopted
comprehensive plans, assuring the adequacy of funding sources to provide adequate
infrastructure, urban services, housing and employment opportunities within urban growth
areas. The Legislature must also act to provide sufficient time, technical and [mancial
resources to cities completing growth management planning.
The City continues to support the Growth Management Act as an essential and responsible
planning tool. The City supports:
.
the continued provision of adequate state funds to the Department of Community,
Trade and Economic Development to aid cities in meeting their growth
management planning responsibilities.
.
legislative measures to insure that special purpose districts and ports are required
to prepare capital facilities plans that are consistent with the required planning done
by cities and counties.
.
legislation that further defines, coordinates, simplifies and streamlines land use
decisions and permitting under the GMA as well as under the State Environmental
Policy Act and the Shorelines Management Act. Such legislation should balance
the benefits of statewide uniformity with the need for local communities to govern
themselves.
.
legislation authorizing GMA-planning cities to adopt technical amendments to their
GMA plans and regulations more than once a year.
.
legislation recognizing the need for local flexibility in effectively implementing the
GMA and requiring Growth Planning hearing Boards to defer to local decisions,
policies and processes implementing the goals of the GMA when these actions are
otherwise consistent with the GMA.
5
'.,' ," ,v,w~"'........-
Finally, the City opposes any legislation which would allow for the siting of major industrial or
commercial facilities outside of urban growth areas.
Forest Permits
The Department of Natural Resources is presently authorized to issue Class IT and Class
ill Forest Practice Permits, which allow logging without review by municipal authorities
within urbanized areas contained within city limits or designated urban growth boundaries.
Class IV permits, however, do require municipal authority review. The past practice of
issuing these permits has precluded city governments from providing appropriate controls
to deal with the erosion and sedimentation in those permitted areas. As well, the
uncontrolled logging of parcels within an urban area has precluded local government from
providing regulations to help insure that the property properly transitions into appropriate
urban development. Therefore, the City supports state legislative efforts to require that all
Forest Practice Permits issued within the city limits or within the designated urban growth
boundary be subject to the same local government review process now provided in the
consideration and issuance of Class IV Forest Practice Permits. Alternatively, cities should
be allowed to adopt and enforce land clearing, significant tree protection and related issues
for Class IT and ITr forest permits.
Criminal Justice
The City opposes legislation and/or efforts to remove the authority of municipalities to provide
local law enforcement services, regardless of the potential for service contracting. The City also
opposes actions or legislation which would transfer incarceration responsibilities .from the state
or county to municipalities without additional funding.
Criminal Justice Funding
The Washington State Legislature has recognized the need for additional funding support
from local criminal justice agencies when they enacted the City/County Criminal Justice
Assistance Act. The issues facing cities, crime and limited fiscal capacity, which were
present when the Act was approved are still present today. Given that this funding sunsets
in 1997, the City supports Legislative reauthorization of the Act.
Radar Testimony
Current state law requires law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to utilize the
testimony of expert witnesses, when the defense specifically requests said witness,
to introduce the speed readings of radar detection devices. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration has established minimum performance specifications
for speed measuring devices that create reliability sufficient to justify their
acceptance. Many traffic infractions were decriminalized to create a uniform and
expeditious system for adjudication, yet these expert testimony requirements have
6
r\
cost the City thousands of dollars each year, and causes unnecessary dismissals
and delays. The City supports legislation allowing for the admission in court of the
readings of speed measuring devices without the need for additional expert
testimony if. the device satisfies specific requirements established by the
Legislature. The City would also support alternative legislation which would allow
the City to impose the cost of witness fees in cases where the infraction is found
to have been committed.
DWI Court Costs .
The City supports legislation to strengthen DWI laws. The City also supports legislation
to allow recovery of necessary public expenses, including detention costs, which result
from incidents involving drunk driving convictions.
Juvenile Offenders
The City supports legislation revising the current juvenile disposition standards to provide
stronger sanctions for chronic, misdemeanor behavior for juvenile offenders and to permit
the court greater discretion to impose detention or some form of secure treatment in cases
of juvenile offenders who have prior criminal history.
Liquor Licenses
The City strongly supports any efforts to make the liqJ1or license application process more
accessible to the public. A public hearing process would improve access by the community
and would encourage greater input and comment from an interested parties.
Juvenile Law
The City supports legislation which makes parents more accountable for their juvenile
offender children.
Empty Chair Defense
The City supports legislative action related to tort reform to clarify that it is not the
defendant's requirement to mandatorily join all potential" At Fault" entities into litigation,
or risk losing ability to apportion fault to the third party(s). Any move to the-contrary
would shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant in proving fault.
Drug Seizure Funds
The City supports efforts to enhance the ease with which cities can apply for and receive
drug seizure funds and particularly supports the expansion of the definition of what those
funds can be expended upon to include all law enforcement functions.
DWI Legislation
The City supports legislation to reduce the blood/alcohol standard in DWI cases to .08.
The City also supports legislation to allow municipalities to recover costs associated with
emergency and detention expenses which occur as a result of DWI convictions.
7
,
C," .',' ,', !..',
High Crime Law Enforcement Grants
The City sQpports efforts to make grants available to cities with high crime problems last
a longer period of time. Have the grants tied to performance rather than solely on a hitting
an arbitræ:y high-crime threshold. Presently, cities that have 12S percent of the state
average for eight ~ific crimes receive ~pecial grant funds. But the funding disappears
when the city's crime levels drop below 125 percent.
Police Officer jurt4;diction
As a part of the state's certification of police officers, make officers able to enforce the
state's laws anywhere in the state. This would reduce the liability for cities with officers
who assist with incidents outside the city's borders. As it stands now, jurisdictions must
exchange letters giving consent to officers to enforce law outside of their jurisdictions.
Youth ~nd Education Programs
Child Abuse
The City supports funding for programs designed to prevent child abuse/neglect.
Child Care
The City support budget provisions to enhance the Department of Social and Health
Services ability to enforce its day care licensing requirements, to improve support services
for daycare providers, and to ensure the accessibility to child care for all citizens. The
City will carefully monitor legislation clarifying its role in regulating the' siting and
operation of daycare facilities.
Funding of Youth Programs
The City supports legislation improving funding to local governments for initiating and
expanding youth services.
City/School District Cooperation
The City supports state programs which recognize city/school district cooperative efforts'
to address locally identified youth issues.
Solid Waster Recycling and Hazardous Materials
The transportation, handling, storage, and disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials
continues to be important. The City supports approaches to waste disposal that are environmentally
sensitive and advocates recycling efforts and aggressive waste reduction. Specifically the City
supports: '
8
'. """'"U"".',"-~".,"'4".,""'"
As the state moves forward with its emphasis on regional growth management and
planning, the implications of activities with a statewide impact, such as the Airport
expansion, should be planned and executed on a statewide basis. The City supports State
action which would include affected communities in the study of SeaTac airport expansion,
and State actions which would explore the feasibility of a new regional airport sited outside
the SeaTac area, or outside the four county puget Sound Region.
As a transportation alternativ~, the City also supports development of high speed rail along
the Cascade corridor between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia. The use
of high speed rail in these areas could reduce the number of commuter flights flown
between cities in this region.
Trails Funding
Present Trails Network funding can only be spent in rights-of-way. The rules governing
this funding should then be amended to allow expenditure of the funds on trails and paths
outside of street right-of-way.
Recognition of and Respect for Diversity
The City of Federal Way is committed to upholding the basic principles and values on which our
nation was founded, including respect for individual rights, tolerance of differences. A number
of groups who do not share these values are active nationally. The City supports aggressive
protection of the civil liberties of all Washington citizens.
Health and Human Services
Public Health Care
The City supports legislation passed during the 1993 Legislative Session which makes
counties responsible for the delivery of public health services through the appropriation of
additional motor vehicle excise tax revenues previously dedicated to cities. Further, the
City would urge resistance to any efforts to repeal or amend the provisions of the 1993
legislation.
Domestic Violence
The City supports refinements to current domestic violence law which will afford
additional protection to victims and enable improved enforcement and prosecution of
domestic violence cases.
10
Family Services Restructuring
The City will monitor legislation with respect to family services restructuring. The city
supports amendments which enhance the City's role in reviewing and approving
community network comprehensive plans, and ensuring continued city input in the
operation of such networks, including bench marking program effectiveness, and avoiding
the supplanting of local human services funds.
School District-City Partnerships
The City supports legislation that will minimize barriers to cities and other local
governments partnering with school districts to provide community programs, and to
jointly develop land owned by school districts.
11
" ,." .. ",' ,; ,,", ',,'" ..""i
As the state moves forward with its emphasis on regional growth management and
planning, the implications of activities with a statewide impact, such as the Airport
expansion, should be planned and executed on a statewide basis. The City supports State
action which wouid include affected communities in the study of SeaTac airport expansion,
and State actions which would explore the feasibility of a new regional airport sited outside
the SeaTac area, or outside the four county Puget Sound Region.
As a transportation alternativ~, the City also supports development of high speed rail along
the Cascade corridor between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia. The use
of high speed rail in these areas could reduce the number of commuter flights flown
between cities in this region.
Trails Funding
Present Trails Network funding can only be spent in rights-of-way. The rules governing
this funding should then be amended to allow expenditure of the funds on trails and paths
outside of street right-of-way.
Recognition of and Respect for Diversity
The City of Federal Way is committed to upholding the basic principles and values on which our
nation was founded, including respect for individual rights, tolerance of differences. A number
of groups who do not share these values are active nationally. The City supports aggressive
protection of the civil liberties of all Washington citizens.
Health and Human Services
Public Health Care
The City supports legislation passed during the 1993 Legislative SessiQ1) whieh makes
counties responsible for the delivery of public health services through the appropriation of
additional motor vehicle excise tax revenues previously dedicated to cities. Further, the
City would urge resistance to any efforts to repeal or amend the provisions of the 1993
legislation.
Domestic Violence
The City supports refinements to current domestic violence law which will afford
additional protection to victims and enable improved enforcement and prosecution of
domestic violence cases.
10
Family Services Restructuring
The City will monitor legislation with respect to family services restructuring. The city
supports amendments which enhance the City's role in reviewing and approving
community network comprehensive plans, and ensuring continued city input in the
operation of such networks, including bench marking program effectiveness, and avoiding
the supplanting of local human services funds.
School District-City Partnerships
The City supports legislation that will minimize barriers to cities and other local
governments partnering with school districts to provide community programs, and to
jointly develop land owned by school districts.
11