Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Council PKT 10-05-1999 Special/Regular
CI T Y C 0 UNCIL MEE TING AGENDA OCTOBER 51~_9_99 COUNCILMEMBERS Ron Gintz, Mayor Jeanne Burbidge Jack Dovey Mary Gates Linda Kochmar Michael Park Phil Watkins City Manager David H. Moseley AGENDA FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers- City Hall October 5, ~ (www. c/.federa/-way, wa. us) SPECIAL MEETING -,6:00 p.m. CALL MEETING TO ORDER LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 p.m. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATION ae SPIRIT Award/Month of October Proclamation/Domestic Violence Awareness Month Public Safety_ D~¢nt Award/Commu~ty_ Grant Appreciation Oath of Office/City Manager David H. Moseley ** PUBLIC RECEPTION HONORING CITY MANAGER ** CITIZEN COMMENT PLEASE C~@MPLETB THE PINK .SLIP & PRESENT TO ~ DEPUTY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING. Citizens may address City Council at this tirne~ When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the ~um, adjust the microphone to proper ludght, and ~tate your name and address for the record. PLEASE LIMIT YQ~IR REMARKS TO THREE t3} ~$. The Mayor may interrupt citizen comments that continue too long, relate negatively to other individuals, or are otherwise inappropriate. over please ... Ve Vie CONSENT AGENDA Minutes/September 2i. 1998 Retmlnr Meetin? Voucher/October 5. 1999 Monthly Finsncisl Rmmrt]Month of Aumt~ 1999 Council Bill g229/Pnr-ka ~ Condemnntion/SW 3§6a' St CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Lodging Tax Advisory_ Committee A__upointmenia Lakehaven Water/Sewer DistriCt Comprehensive Water plan CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT EXECUTIVE SESSION Pending Litigation/Pursuant ~o Raw 42.30.110(1)(_i) ADJOURNMENT ** THE COUNCIL MAY ADD AND T, aiO~ ACTION ON OTHER ITEMs NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA ** PR OCLAMA TION 14fI-IEREAS, in the United States a woman is beaten every 15 seconds by an intimate partner; and WHEREA~, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 to 44 in the United States - more than car accidents, muggings and rapes combined; and WHEREAS, women of all cultures, races, occupations, income levels and ages are battered by partners; and WHERF~S, each year, medical expenses from domestic violence total at least $3 to $5 billion dollars, and businesses forfeit another $100 million dollars in lost wages, sick leave, absenteeism and non-productivity; and WHEREAS, 908 domestic violence related incidents were reported to the Federal Way Department of Public Safety in 1998; and WHEREAS, in response to the prevalence of domestic violence in this community, the Federal Way Domestic Violence Council has been working towards promoting victim safety, community awareness and abuser accountability through organization, education and outreach; NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Councilmembers of the City of Federal Way, Washington, do hereby proclaim the month of October 1999 as "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH", and urge aH citizens to recognize this critical problem facing our entire community, work to provide increased services to domestic violence victims and their children, and continue efforts to eliminate this crime which affects all of us in the city. SIGNED this 5th day of October, 1999. CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y Ron Gintz, Mayor Michael Park, Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge, Councilmember Jack Dovey, Councilmember Mary Gates, Councilmember Linda Kochmar, Councilmember Phil Watkins, Councilmember , MEETING DATE: October 5, 1999 ITEM# CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: ~X CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ N/A ExpenditureAmt: SN/A Contingency Reqd: SN/A ATTACHMENTS: Minutes of the September 21, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Official City Council Meeting Minutes for Permanent Record Pursuant to RCW Requirements. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Approve Official Minutes. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # I:\COVERCC- 5/14/96 DRAFT FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers - City Hall September 21, 1999 MINUTES CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Gintz called the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council to order in the Council Chambers, City Hall at 7:06 PM. Council Present: Mayor Gintz, Deputy Mayor Park, Councilmembers Burbidge, Dovey, Kochmar, and Gates. Councilmember Watkins was excused. Staff Present: City Manager Kenneth Nyberg, Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley, City Attorney Londi Lindell, Deputy City Attorney Bob Sterbank, City Clerk Chris Green and Deputy City Clerk Laura Ulanowski. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Dovey led the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATIONS ao Youth Commission Introductions/Certificates Councilmember Dovey introduced and presented certificates to new Youth Commission members Saeropda Kim, Joseph Seong, Sue Park, David Pearson, Loni Johnson, Michelle Vander Pol, Jevyn Knight, Philip Lee, Shioun Kim as regular members and Alison Bennett, Amy Williams and Sarah Strong as alternates.. bo Economic Development Update Economic Development Coordinator Debra Coates updated Council on various issues including design plans for the International District Gateway, the sign incentive program status, and downtown entry signs. Emerging Issues Federal Way Fire Department Administrator Jim Hamilton updated Council on the Emergency Management Services funding situation. Mr. Hamilton stated a task force has been implemented and a representative from Federal Way will be a member of the task force which will look at future funding options for EMS services. City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1999 - Page 2 IV. CITIZEN COMMENT Linda Hendrickson, Vice President of Federal Way School Board - thanked City Manager Kenneth Nyberg and Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley for all they have done for the School District and wished them both well in retirement. Sharon Wheat - stated opposition to construction of Texaco gas station and car wash in the Twin Lakes Shopping Center. H. David Kaplan - thanked both Kenneth Nyberg and Philip Keightley for listening to citizens concerns and always getting back with them in a timely manner. Bob Meyers, President North Lake Improvement Club - presented a letter to Council regarding a potential annexation area for their area and expressed concerns on growth. Hope Elder, Family Fest Chair for the 2000 Parade - asked for parade route improvements. Jim Burbidge - thanked City Manager Kenneth Nyberg for all he has done for the City of Federal Way. Jim Hamilton - Federal Way Fire Department - paid tribute to Kenneth Nyberg and Philip Keightley for fostering good relationships with the Federal Way Fire Department and the community. CONSENT AGENDA ao Minutes/September 7, 1999 Regular Meeting - Approved Municipal Court Judge Confirmation - Approved Council Bill #228/Weyerhaeuser Franchise Agreement - Approved Ordinance No. 99-349 COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. DEPUTY MAYOR PARK SECOND. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge yes Dovey yes Gates yes Gintz yes Kochmar yes Park yes Watkins excused VI. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Legislative Agenda COUNCILMEMBER GATES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE 2000 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND POSITION PAPER. COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY SECOND. City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1999 - Page 3 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GATES TO AMEND THE 2000 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND POSITION PAPER TO STATE THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT ON PAGE ONE BE REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING: "THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY SUPPORTS STATE LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH BROAD, COST-EFFECTIVE POLICIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, FINANCING, AND SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMS; COMBINED WITH ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY FOR LOCAL GOVERN1V[ENTS TO ADAPT THEIR STRUCTURES, FINANCES, AND SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMS TO UNIQUE LOCAL CONDITIONS." COUNCILMEMBER GATES FURTHER MOVED THAT THE POLICE OFFICER PRIVACY STATEMENT ON PAGE EIGHT BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE TERM "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" TO "PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIAL", INSERT THE WORDS, "UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE OFFICER" AFl'ER "ALLOWING PRIVATE ENTITIF_3 SUCH AS CREDIT AGENCIES TO WITHHOLD OFFICER NAMES AND ADDRESSES." THIS AMENDMENT WILL SERVE TO CLARIFY OUR CITY'S LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND OFFER OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS A LEVEL OF PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT THAT IS NECESSARY AND AFFORDED IN MANY OTHER STATES. DEPUTY MAYOR PARK SECOND. The amendment carried as follows: Burbidge yes Dovey yes Gates yes Gintz yes Kochmar yes Park yes Watkins excused The main motion carried as follows: Burbidge yes Dovey yes Gates yes Gintz yes Kochmar yes Park yes Watkins excused Added Agenda Item: MAYOR GINTZ MOVED TO SEND THE SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS BACK TO THE LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FOR CLARIFICATION. Councilmember Kochmar second. COUNCILMEMBER GATES MOVED TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA. DEPUTY MAYOR PARK SECOND. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge yes Dovey yes Gates yes Gintz yes Kochmar yes Park yes Watkins excused City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1999 - Page 4 The motion to send the sign code amendments back to the Land Use/Transportation Committee carried as follows: Burbidge yes Dovey yes Gates yes Gintz yes Kochmar yes Park yes Watkins excused VII. INTRODUCTION ORDINANCE Council Bill g229/Parke Property Condemnation (~ SW 356~ St. & SW 6~ St. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A REGIONAL STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTHWEST 356TM STREET AND BETWEEN 4TM AVENUE SOUTHWEST AND 8TM AVENUE SOUTHWEST, ALL WITHIN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, TOGETHER WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND RELATED WORK NECESSARY TO MAKE A COMPLETE IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONDEMNATION, APPROPRIATION, AND TAKING OF REAL PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFOR; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION. Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt presented background and details of the property and stated the City has commissioned an appraisal to pay the property owners fair market value for the property. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY TO MOVE ORDINANCE TO A SECOND READING/ENACTMENT AT THE OCTOBER 5, 1999 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE SECOND. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge yes Dovey yes Gates yes Gintz yes Kochmar yes Park yes Watkins excused VIII. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Dovey reported the Parks/Recreation/Human Services/Public Safety Committee will meet on September 27, 1999 at noon. Councilmember Burbidge attended a South County Transportation Board Meeting. Councilmember Gates stated the next Finance/Economic Development/Regional Affairs Committee will meet on October 1, 1999 at 11:30 AM and updated Council on regional issues. City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1999 - Page 5 Councilmember Kochmar thanked Councilmember Gates for her work on Sound Transit and stated a report from the Airport Cities Coalition will be forthcoming. Deputy Mayor Park thanked Kenneth Nyberg and Philip Keightley and asked them to enjoy their retirement and take care of themselves and their families. Mayor Gintz attended the Express Bus Service Kick-off on September 19, 1999 and stated the City now has door to door service from Federal Way to Bellevue. Mayor Gintz encouraged citizens to take public transportation. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Kenneth Nyberg thanked the citizens, staff and Council for their support on behalf of himself and Mr. Keightley, and stated he feels the new City Manager, David H. Moseley will serve the City well. Mr. Nyberg also thanked Council for the appointment of the Municipal Judge, David Tracy to the Municipal Court, stated Mr. Tracy will begin October 1, 1999, and introduced Mr. Tracy to the audience. Mr. Tracy thanked Council and staff for the opportunity to serve the City as Municipal Court Judge. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Federal Way City Council, Mayor Gintz adjourned the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council at 8:10 PM. Laura Ulanowski, Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE O tobe 5 1999 ITEM// It/" : c r , 'r CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: VOUCHER CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ 2,139,390.73 Expenditure Amt: $ 2,139,390.73 Contingency Reqd: ATTACHMENTS: VOUCHER LIST SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claims are just and due oblieations against the City of Federal Way, Washington, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claims. Manac~Y~elqt S~vices Dir-~-r~'~ CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # ORDINANCE # FIRST READING ENACTMENT READ RESOLUTION # I-* o DJ u~ {,.ri o o o o o < 0 oO O0 U ~0 O~ · 0 0 o 00 o o 0 0 E~ 0 0 H 0 0 U Q 0 O O0 OO mO oO O© 0 Z ~~~oo~oo~oo~ooo~o~~~o~ ooo~oo~ooooooooooo~oooooooooooooooo~oooooooooo U fl) 0 © 0 o o 1j o <:o o co 0 ~ <:o O< d) H H <:o 0 m <:o 0 cc, o ~ o o o o 0% W ~0 <o OCO ~'1 '..o ~0 0 o} 0~0~0 ~0~0~0~ ~H~H~ H~H~H ~H~H~H~ U < f~ 0 p~ 0 0 0 oO u~ Il II O0 <o 0 ~ o o o u~ <o Om 0 0 o 0 ~ © <:o Oco O~ O~ 0 0 C~OOh 000 ~...q ~ }--~ <m (D 0 mmm mmm <o Om o o o <:o 0 m <:o Om 0 o o U~ <:o 0o~ o o o O~ O0 O~ O0 O~ O0 0 0 0 H ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ oooooo ~ ~ ~ o ~ oooooo o o oooo o o oooo <:o Om o o o 0 0 ~© o o o 0 < 0 0 oO O0 0 0 o f~ WO O © 00co OO or./') [mo t~ Udc-4 mo 0< H Z ix) 0 ~0 Z 0~ Z ~0~ O, ~ 0~0 ~c~ 0 0 L'~ -,4-4 ~4 -,..] I-.4 c~ 0 O~ <:o Q uJ WH 0~ f~ O O t~ O L~ O'l L,q O0'1 m~ <m <:o 0c~ o~ ~o tx.) 0 <:o O~ o o o 0~ f~ H t~ OC0 o 0 o mt~ 0 m h~ oo 0 ¢j o m~ L~ 063 0 o o ko co L'q 0 <:o 0 co Q ~ o o o ~j mQ 2Z 0 ~O O O H O O O < <o O~ o o o o 0 0 0 o u] o o o o o o o o o 0 o 00 L,q m t~ 0L~ o o o o 0 U 00 o o o o o o <:o 0 0e Q uJ O~ H ¢ H 0 © o o o o < 0 i < 0 H 0 0 oO O0 <:o O~ o o o ~0 ~o O0 O0 <:o O~ o o o 0 ~D~ ©~ <o <o <o <o <o ~o O~ Om Om Om Om Om C~ 0 0 H- 0 0 oO © OO <o 0 ~ o o o o o O0 O0 <o ~0 o o (DO O0 mm mm <o Oc0 ~0 0 © H ~ ° oo o O0 ~ r. Dm ~ ~ m <o 0 c~ <o 0(~ ~. o o o ~3 o o uJ 0~ 0~ 0 0~ 0~ 0~ 0~ o oo oo o ooo o oo o ~ HH HHH ~ ~ o o o <o Oc0 O0 '-~ O< ~m 0 o o o 0 0 C} W < 0 oO u~ 0 0 0 O0 <:o 0 co o o 00 o o · D"J 0 o 0 ~J 0 t~ t~ Q CD LD ~0 ~t~ ~o 0oo C~.. Q ~ o oo oo (7/ol oo ooo2 Lnt~ '.oko HH <:o Oco Q ~ o o ~Z ~H 0 ~ ~0 0 0 Z L~ o o o o <:o 0 0o o o o 0~ <o <o <o O~ O~ O~ 000 o o o 0~ 0 H [13 L~ 0 0 o 0 <o Oeo o o o 0 ~ 0 O0 o o o o ~-' (D o o n < 0 U O 0 O © © W 0 oO ~] OO o o uJ ~0 <:o 0(~ o o 0~ ~ o ~ o oooooo <:o O~ ~ ~0 o o Ul ~,.~ mo 0 ~ .-4 o u~ · .~ "~~ .-0 ~ ~ 0 ~ m ~ © © <:o 000 ....} o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ H 0 WO 0 0 0 © 0 <:o 0 c~ o o o mz wo 0 0 ~Z t~ © u] o o o <:o 0 a3 o 0,-] ooo ooo 000 ZZZ mmm 0 {'3 f~ 0 0 C f~ 0 oO OO ~O o H 0 0::, o o o o 0'1 o o <~o 0 00 Q ~ 0 0 i-' -.4 0 co Q ~ o <o <o ~o <o <o o 0¢ Om Om Om O~ ~ Q 0 H Q Q O © :::r Q 0 oO OO ~1 ::::r ¢) :...< u~ o o LD mO 0 [-.q < o~ mm ~m O~ ~0 o o o o o 0 0 ~.1 H 0 O~ 0 0 r~ 0 m<: Qo ~o o < mmm t~ QZ 0 ~0 ,-r. 0 000000000000 000000000000 < 0 t~ Q Q Q 0 oO ~j OQ trJW O~ © < Z o o 0 o <cD O co ~H OQ 0000 ~H~ 0~00 ~H ~0~ O~ 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o Oco o o 0 o O0 0 0 O~ 0 0 co o CD CD H 0 ~ Z H HH mmm <o o 0o mc) 0 ~ {D CD ,-] < 0 H 0 0 O0 ~t ,..oct OO ~J~ L~:~ <:o O~ Q ~ o 0 UJ c> o mm <o 0 m Q uJ (~ o 0 <o Om C "--. <o 0 m o o uJ o Lq H <::o Om o o o 0 ~o <o Om o o QO o oo kD',D (.DO') O6) <::o Om o o c~ ;:'CH 0 0 Om 0 ~'1 ',.0 o o o <:o 0 m Q 0 0 O~ H uq o o ,,< c: <o Om Q o 0 ~ ,.-.] ;:~'H o oz ..~ o O co ooo mmm mmm <:o 0 m o o o o QO 0 Om C~ o o o 0 ~ <:o Om o o o ;~'H 0 ~ ¢~0 © U~ <:o 0 co Q L~ 0 0 0 0 co o o (2O o o o U 0.., 0 i < 0 Q U Q 0 0 o 0 p~ oO ..,,1 O0 U o o 0o H <o <o <o <o <o O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ ~ H < (DO o --J ;.3 --J (~ 0 ..~ r~ ('3 u~o <o o o 0 z W~ o o u1 -..1 o 0 <o O~ o o o o o o o kD 0 0 o 0 0 '~o <o OC~ .Co o o mO >, ~] ~-~ o co UdO O0 ~0 ¢ H 0 0 0 0 o o L~ O0 N (%- 0 ~ H U Q < ~ 0 ° H m 0 --..1 ¢l- uJ 00 ~2 · ~ oO o01 u1 II O0 o o O0 O~ o o H H mm mm mm oo o o o o ~ H 0 0 ~ o o o 0 t~ 0 0 U~ ~0 © O0 0 o o ['ri o o o mo ~o OU oo O0 UO <:m ~o O0 OU U ob.) O0 O0 o o <o <o <o O~ O~ Om Om 0< H 0 ~ H O~ ;~H © i LO 0 ce o <o 0 m ~)~ o o uJ CD ©0 0 0 © 0 © NH <:o 0 c~ o uJ o ~0 O0 0 0 0 © o <:o 0 co fl L~ 0 0 L~ O0 U < 0 H < 0 o 0 I~. ® 0 0 O0 O© 0 O~ co oo o~ <o 0 0o o -.4 0 I ~o 0 0 0 0 © o o u1 O~ 0 o H <0 000 · o kD 0 0 O© 0 0 '-~ oO o o 0 O~ Z H <:o 0 ce -4 0 l> 0 tx) 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ Z o ~ ~ 0 ~ · Z O~ 0 o oo ~ ~00 Z <o 00~ o o o ~0 Ot~ 0 0:-] 0 i 0 0 0 H < 0 f~ f~ U © 0 O oO ~ol O0 ~o 0 o 0 0 oO o L~ 0 H < 0 O ~) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~r O0 U <:o Om o o u~ o o 0 u1 o r~ < u] <go O~ o o o oo O0 o o ,..j o ko 0 <:o 0 o2 mo o~ 0 000 <:o 0 m oo oo 0~ oo~ mm <:o 0 0e 0 o o 0z ,'rJm m <go 0 co m 0 0 H 0 0 H 0 Z ? (2) © o <:o Om mO 0 ~ © 0~< o 0 X 0 0 0 <:o OC0 ¢"] -.4 0 O~ 0 ¢0 U ,5,5 U~ o~o~ HOHO z 0 ¢) 0 0 oO O0 ~o o ~-] i.-, ~a o o o o o o o o o o o ~C) H Cq ~ O0 0 O0 0 000 O0 < 0 H < U ct 0 0 oO O0 U <o 0 co o o o~ u~ 0 0 0 o o 0 00 o 0 L~ 0o o <1o o o ~0 0 O~ ,..j o o <o 00o f~ "-4 0 0 0'/ ~0 ~0 (bO O~ d) U~ 0 0 f~ (30 U~ oD <:o o o 0~ o mo o o O0 mm O0 u] o o o <:o 0 m ;'1 '4:) O~ 0 o o 00~ o <o Om C'} uJ CD ~D ~J <:o O~ o o <o O~ <o OCO ~J o o 0 f~ O 0 H 0 0 0 mO QO Q, ~DO ~0 0 0 0 U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U1 0 0 CD 0 0 0 -.4 0 0 U'l 0 O~ U < 0 co -.4 oJ 0 i o i oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~j ~rj ~j ~ %1 ~ ~J ~J ~J ~ ~J ~ ~J ~J < 0 < 0 oO 0 O© 0 cf' 0 -.4 o o ~0 ~0 0 0 <:o o o 0~ o o m o <:::o 0 ~ Q o o 0 ~ H U~ 0 mO WZ O- Cb H <:o 00~ o o Z f~ H mc: 0~ 022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <: 0 oO O0 0 Z o C~ ~q 0 © o <2o O~ PO 0 OO ~0 0 Z Q U~ o ct o -.3 C~ O~ O C~ t~ H 0 © ~q <o O~ 0 0 co o ~u © <o 0 ~o o o o 0- (~ H ..~ 0 C~ © < 0 U Q 0 O Q O O0 ~O ~o OO ~Q o o o o o Ln < 0 < 0 Q U Q I-1 ct 0 0 Q O oO ',.OCr K: OO ~O Lm Ltl Ln U1Ln U1 000 000 000 000 000 HH~J · . H~ <:o O~ Q ~ 0 o o ~o 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:o 0 ~ 0 o o 0 0 H 0 OO OO t.n u]Ln~ oo o00 ~',0 t~3 UJ <::o 0 ~0 0 0 o <o O ,,0 o o o Ln ~ H 0 0 H ~4~kD LOC) ~-~t~ <:o o 0 0 H 0 L~ 0 O0 0 %1 0 © ~U ;:,~H 0 0 r~ o t~ U1 o o Er] kD r~ <o 0 ~o :::r~ o o o o gJ 0 <:o 0 ~0 ::::r u~ o o o o 0 0 o o o o P O< 0 Z ~ H H ~] H Q < 0 O oO %Q o © OO mQ U <::o 0~o o o o o 0 <::o 0 ko o o o ,,~o 0 '...o o o o [-q © <::o O~ o o o ,-<tn o <DOC) ~O ,-q x~mm <~Hi Hmm Of 3 H 0 O0 0 0 0 r~ 0 <::o O~ o o o oTM, 0 O> o 0 r~ <~ <::o 0 ko ~:~ (b :,-,' o o o O <2) cD 12o <~o 0',.0 Q ~ o o o O~ © C~ ~q O~ o o o o [*,5 0 i mmm OOO H < 0 Q O oO fo t~ t~ ooo ooo o o o o o o 0 cf' <o O~ o o o o 0 ~ o o ~q 0~ ~o O~ o o u~ <:;o Om o o o c0 o o o o o o (~ <:o 0 ~o o o o o U~O ~H 0~' fl) <o 0 0 0 cb H 03 0 OH HO OH 0 b~ o 0 0 © © H 0 CO 0 0 0 0 < 0 0 0 o 0 p~ oO OO 0 ~) o o 0 0 <::o 0 ~ o o o <::o o o o ,<o 0 ~ t:r' on o o o <::o O~ o o o o <:o o o o o ~U o ~q 0 [-.q .< <:o m~ ;~0 0 coLn {DO O0 120[.0 mm << or-) mm <o o o o mo 2U 0 ~ Cb H U 0 M i r~ 0 oO ~ol <o 0',.o Q ~ ~'1 ko o o o L~ --.1 o o o ~Q 0 ~ ~0 0 O~ f~H H 0 O~ 0 O~ 0 WO 0 22 0 0 0 O ~ WO O H o b~ o 0 0 f~ =~H 0 b~ O O CD 0 ~O mo (bo o~ ~U-qH ~O m X 0 f~ < H H u~ ~q .< 0 O 0 0 oO OO mo <o <o O~ O~ o o o o o o t~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ;:~ C~O QC} C~,-] O0 O0 O:Z: m ~ o o 0 0 0 ~ < <o o o WO 0 0 < <o o o o O~ U~ 0 O0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 <o 0 O0 <o 0~o Q ~ mZ 00~ 0 <o 0,.o Q o o o O~ <o Om o o o O~ WO R~ ~U o o o o to,./:) O~ U < 0 0 oO O0 OQ U~O ~' , OQ 0 H ~0 <o O~ 0 H < 0 0 oO © OO ~o <o O~ o 'o <::o 0 ~ o o -'~ ~o~ mmm <o 0 ~ o O~ "-r' 0 0 o o ,..q o o o <:o ~U WH O~ 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <o <o <o O~ O~ O~ O~ 0 0 O~ O~ · . ~ ..~ .. ~ > ~ 0 <o 0 ~0 o o 0 0 U) H 0 0 o o o o OO o o o o o o CD U < Cz, 0 0 f~ Q 0 oO b~ OO <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o <o O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O < 0 ~ 0 o o oO O0 f~ o o O' ..~ mm mm mm o o ~0 OU 0~0 ['r1 ~ 0 O~ "~D ~0 U o o o o o o <o 0 H~ <:.. ~ (Dm o o o 0 ~ (D < 0 H < 0 Q fl) 0 ct oO '.ol 0 ~ o o L~ 0 '4:) o uJ o m f.~ wo 0 ~ <o 0 ko 0 0 o o o o o 0 ~o o o mo 0 0 02 U t~ o <:o 0 m 0 c4 0 Z © Z <:o 0 ,.o ~'1 kD 0 Ltl 0 0 b~ ~0 <::o 0 o fi) ~,. 20 O0 OZ OZ H Z 0 0 0 © o o0 o <::o 0 Er'u] o o o mO © H ~<~ mc) 0 ~0 o o mo 2U ~Z 0 0 ~ o o o o o o o <:o 0 ~o Q ~ o o o 0 <:o 0 ~.o Q ~ o 0 o 0=~ H Z ~J LTJ o o 0 uo ~-~. ¢~'~. o ~'H 0 ~q ¢%0 o O~ co o o o f~ < 0 f~ (1 0 0 0 oO %Q o O0 <o o ~-' o .4 O- n. ~[~ H ~. ~0 0 0 L~ H 0 L~ ~0 O O 0 0 0 H L~ H L~ Ix) tZJU O0 0 f~ 0 H 0 © © o o o o 0 0 oO o o'~ O~ f~ O0 0~ H L~ O 0 0 H <o 0~o 0 I-¢ 0 0 O0 L'rj 0 <:: L-cJ 0[~ o o o o o o <o O,.o U20 ;~H 0 ..~ 0 0 ~j rr 0 0 0 L~ gj II o 0 OO 0 O~ 0 H C~ 0 ~Z ¥ © © 0 D H ~Z 0 © 0 ~o o o o mo O0 OZ 0 ~'q '~"0 mm << mm ',D O0 o c0 <o 0~0 :::tm M~ o o o o 120 0 i O~ 0 0 © 0 <1o 0 ~.~ C--. o o o O~ ~0 Z o o 0 0 0O3 o o 0 0'.o o o o o o "~ 0 <:o O~ o o ~r < 0 0 0 ~U O0 U u~ o o u~ ~n WO ~Z ~0 O:3:: ~H o o o o o o o o o o o o U 0 O cr 0 0 0 oo O0 ~<~0 0 H O- ~ :--] II,IH OD'] 0 O~ O~ O~ O~ ~0 ~H ~0 ~ H 0 © ~ 0 ~m ~ q ~ ~ 0 mo oZ 0~ wo ~H ~ 0 0 0 ..~ ,.~ ..~ 0 0 H ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ H 0 ~ H mo cB H 0 0 WO O~ O~X 0 mO 0 ~ m 0 m 0 0 cr 0 0 ~t O O oO ~nw o tx) uQ <o 0~o 0- 0 o o o o <:o 0~o o o o ~j o Ln 0 <o 0',o o o u'~ o <:o 0~, o o u~ o <o O~ o o <::o o o u3 o o u] O' f~ u~ u] o o 0 2U O~ ['r1 0 0 0 © <:o O~ o o OH O~ 0 0 0 0 ¢: 0 oO II O0 U ~ cu -4 o'~ ~ ~ o co ~ (D 0 ::E (n oo o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o OD o H 171 H ~ L'rJ ~j i:'rJ ~J ~ U < ~) 0 o 0 ::I2 © 0 O (~ 0 ©0 ~ol 0 MEETING DATE: October 5, 1999 ITEM# CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: August Financial Report CATEGORY: X CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ATTACHMENTS: August Financial Report SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Month of August 1999 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: To be reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee during their meeting on October 1. 1999. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY ('IT}' ('LERK 'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # 1st READING ENACTMENT READ ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF ~ " A City for All of Us" 1999 Projected Revenues & Expenditures 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Revenues --e-- Expenditures Overview 1 Significant Events 1-2 General Government Revenues 2-5 Expenditures 5-7 Supplemental Schedules 8-12 Attachment A 13 August 1999 Monthly Financial Report OVERVIEW The Monthly Financial Report is intended to provide an overview of financial activity that has taken place in the reporting period. This report focuses mainly on activity incurred in the following operating funds: General, Street, Arterial Street, Utility Tax Projects, Solid Waste & Removal, Paths & Trail, Surface Water Management, Strategic Reserve, Airport Strategic Reserve, Debt Service, and Dumas Bay Centre. The Summary of Sources and Uses (Attachment A) captures financial activity through August for the years 1994 through 1999. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Municipal Court Startup Mr. David Tracy has been selected as our new Municipal Court Judge. Mr. Tracy has over 20 years experience in the legal field and currently serves as a protein in several area District Courts. Recent Contributions/Grant~' The City recently received a contribution from the Weyerhauser Corporation in the amount of $1,000 to assist in the production and distribution of the Emergency Management brochures being put together by the Public Works and Community Development departments. The City was also awarded a grant from Target Stores in the amount of $500 to assist with the purchase of software to automate the pawn program. Currently, local pawnshops submit a hardcopy of all their transactions to our Police department each week, which are then entered manually into the records system by volunteers. The automated system will allow the information to be transferred directly, more efficiently and accurately. Our computer records will contain detailed information on all property, allowing us to search for property based on the description given by victims or other agencies. Ci~. of Federal Way August 1999 Monthly Financial Report New Cio, Manager The City Council voted unanimously to appoint David Moseley from the City of Ellensburg as our new City Manager. Mr. Moseley has served as the City Manager of the City of Ellensburg since 1995. He previously served as the Town Administrator for the Town of Steilacoom from 1992 to 1995. Prior to that he was Director of the Department of Community Development for the City of Seattle from 1984 to 1990. He holds a Masters of Divinity in Counseling from Golden Gate Theological Seminary and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Willamette University in Salem Oregon. He is expected to begin October 4~h, and has requested weekly meetings to be scheduled with each department Director. C/0, Manager & DepuO' CiO' Manager Farewell There will be a reception for the City Manager and Deputy City Manager prior to the Council meeting on Tuesday September 21s~, at 5:30 p.m. This will be a public event to say farewell to Ken and Phillip. Mayor Gintz will act as host and several selected guests have been invited to speak. There will also be a staff luncheon held on Wednesday, September 22 at Steel Lake Park. And the last opportunity to wish them well will be at a farewell reception on Thursday, September 30th at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES General governmental revenue collections through August total $26,176,069, which is $3,475,751 or 15.3% above the year-to-date budget ($22,700,317). Of this amount, $1,036,142 is related to Utility taxes and REET that are reserved for the payment of debt service. When compared to 1998, revenues have increased by $2,229,867 or 9.3%. Attachment A provides a comparison of year-to-date revenues by major sources for 1999 with comparative figures for the past 5 years. REVENUE SUMMARY BY MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES Pedod Ending August 31,1999 YTD Actuals YTD Actuals Adopted Year-to-Dete % YTD OvenqUnder) As % of Current Budget Actuals Collected Budget YTD Budget YTD Budget* Month Actuals Property Tax 6,634,350 3,557,241 536% 3,557,241 00% 18,063 Sales Tax 8,605,426 6.214,084 722% 5,631,728 582,356 10.3% 855,198 Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 651000 15,631 240% 15,631 na 5,689 Criminal Justice Sales Tax 1~362,747 959,673 70.4% 889,253 70.420 7.9% 140,559 Gambling Tax 509,600 956,389 187 7% 388,904 567,485 145.9°/~ 106086 Utility Tax 4,633,769 3599,582 777% 3.220,595 378,987 11 8% 403,267 Real Estate Excise Tax 1200,000 1,445,579 120 5% 788,424 657,155 83.4% 194,853 FranchiseFees 494255 353,299 71 5% 376.623 (23,324) -6 2% Licenses& Permits 123201 107,823 87 5% 104,585 3,238 3 1% 11 ~357 Intergovernmental 4,576,430 3.374.296 73 7% 3.063,517 310,779 10.1% 253,758 CD Building Permits & Fees 853,193 983,353 1153% 578,355 404,998 70 0% 134784 CD Pass Thru Fees 62,799 na 62,799 na 4,591 PW Permits & Fees 239,573 155,674 650% 155.853 (179) -01% 23,777 PW Pass Thru Fees 40,345 na 40,345 na 8,916 SWM Fees 3,120,302 1,710,775 548% 1,710,775 0.0% 89,786 Refuse Fees 148,524 99,048 66 7% 99,016 32 0 0% 12208 Admin Fees 168.478 112,320 66 7°/~ 112,320 00% 14040 Fines&Forfeits 714r000 586.150 82 10/~ 487,680 98,470 202% 75,755 Recreation Fees 551,343 462,468 83 9°/~ 406,424 56,044 138% 62,745 Knutzen Theatre Operations 59030 24,597 41.7°/~ 39 353 (14.756) -37.5% (3,164'. Dumas Bay Centre Operations 429,609 312941 72 8°/~ 274,950 37,991 138% 40,514 Public Safety 138,432 223298 161 3% 92,288 131,010 142 0% 24456 Interest Earnings 1,040~139 718,407 69 1°/ 606,505 111,902 185% 140.975 Miscellaneous Revenue 139.765 100297 71 8% 100,297 00% 36372 Subtotal Operations 35,807~166 26,176069 73.1% 22,700318 3,475,751 15 3°/, 2654,585 Interfund Transfers 6,003289 00%[ 13~o~ Other Financing Sources 1,123,307 2,332,378 207 6% 2,332,378 na 81 402 Total Revenues 42,933.762 28.508,447 66 4% 25032696 3.475,751 2,735987 * Shows actuals as % of year-to-date budget For example. 50% means actual revenues were half of what was budgeted for that period City of Federal Way August ! 999 Monthl? Financial Report COMPARISON OF 1999 OPERATING REVENUES - BUDGET TO ACTUAL $40000 000 $35000000 $30000,000 $25000000 $20000000 $15000000 $10 000.000 $5 000 000 $- 5,348,528 Jan Feb 26,178,069 23,521,484 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug $ep Oct Nov Dec Property tax' Property tax revenues collected through August total $3,557,241, which is an increase of $175,976 over 1998. Actual taxes received in the current month total $18,063. Sales Tar Sales tax received through August of $6,214,084 is $582,356 or 10.3% above the year-to-date budget ($5,631,728). Compared to 1998 year-to-date, sales tax increased $583,113 or 10.4%. Sales tax received in the month of August totals $855,198 that is $150,816 or 21.4% above the adopted budget estimate. Compared to August 1998, sales tax increased $172,935 or 25.3%. Retail sales continue to remain the largest source, accounting for 64.6%' of all sales tax collections. Year-to-date retail sales tax collections are up $420,478 or 11,7% over 1998, attributable to an overall increase in retail activity. COMPARISON OF SALES TAX COLLECTIONS BY SIC CODE GROUP YTD Through August Component 1997 1998 1999 Change from 1998 Group Actual Actual Actual $ Change % Change :tetad Trade $ 3528858 $ 3591 822 $ 4012299 $ 420478 11 7% erwces 515477 543 512 573.645 30 133 5 5% ;onstruct,on/Contract 384998 381 932 583900 201 968 52 9% Nholesahng 302 647 332621 365612 32 991 9 9% rransp/Comm/Utlhty 239 340 238.667 246 489 7 822 3 3% ~anufacturing 266327 300 454 207 779 (92675) -30 8% Government 72 063 90 284 86 234 (4 050) -4 5% :~n/lns/Real Estate 64 509 75 777 79 890 4113 5 4% )ther 56 682 75 901 58 235 (17 666) -23 3% Total $ 5,430,902 $ 5,630,971 $ 6,214,084 $ 583,113 10.4% Taxable Sales $ 638,929,681 $ 662,467,129 $ 731,068,712 $ 68,601,582 10.4% SALES TAX COMPARISON by AREA YTD Through August Change from 1998 Group 1997 Total Sales Tax $5,452,438 S 348th Retail Block 862,787 SeaTac Mall 687,885 Major Auto Sales 254,834 S 312th to S 316th Block 55,413 Pavilion Center 91.787 Hotels & Motels 27,323 1998 1999 $ Change ~% Change $5,630,970; $6,214,084 $583,115 i 10.4% 922.674 1,024,387 101.713 11,0% 642,559 674,390 31,831 5.0% 242,890 267,706 24,816 10.2% 56,553 60,487 3,933 7.0% 89.489 84,419 (5,069) -5.7% 26,053 28,076 2.023 78% Year-to-date construction and contracting activity, which accounts for 9.4% of sales tax collections, is up $201,968 or 52.9% compared to 1998 activity. This increase is further reflected in the City's building permit trends. Manufacturing activity through the end of August has generated $207,779 in revenues. This is down $92,675 whe: compared to 1998. This is due to a major manufacturing company' reporting sales tax on a quarterly basis for part of 1998 versus monthly in 1999. They are also in the process of moving out of the area, so their sales tax remittance has been decreasing each month. Transp/Comm/Utility sales taxes collected total $246,489, which is an increase over 1998 of S7,822 or 3.3°~i,. This is due to an overall increase in cellular communication activity, ',vhich is also reflected in the increase in cellular utility tax revenues. The City's largest retail center, South 348it' retail center, which generates over 16% of the City's sales tax has experienced a growth of 5101,713 or 11.0% compared to 1998, due to increased activity for all retail establishments in the center. SeaTac Mall is showing an increase of S31.83 I x~hen compared to 1998 activity. Thi is a timing difference, due to two majo City of Federal Way August 1999 Monthly Financial Report REAL ES TA TE EXCISE TAX REVENUES 1997- 1999 1997 1998 i 1999 1999 Budget Month Actual Actual i~ ' BUdge~ * -' - ACtuM ~ $ variance ~ $ Variance' $ 146325 $ 163211 $ 56816 $ 289269 $ 232454 4091% 94 719 t 19717 60 317 65 939 5622 9 3% 101 508 82116 110 335 80862 (29473) -26 7% 132.678 166.282 104 765 203522 98757 94 3% 186 187 189 860 104661 169610 64 949 62 108 060 270672 118511 162569 44 058 37 2% 120432 295736 125,954 278,955 153001 121 231 911 324962 107066 194 853 87787 82 181 490 137,949 105825 0 0°A 151 333 204439 91 969 0 0% 216381 143877 93419 0 0°A January February March April May June Ju~y August September October November December 188999 132448 120 363 - 0 0% TOtal $ i,7i3,$97: $ 2068058 $ 1200000:$ i~579 ~ $ $$7 155 f 834% Est. REValue $ 342.739,440 $ 413,611,516$ 240,000,000 $ 289,115,808 $ 131,430,984 na · Represents monthly mstor~ca~ patterns for the 1999 Adopted Budget retailers not reporting for the current month in 1998. Real Estate Excise Tax For the year-to-date comparison, real estate excise tax continues to exceed prior year's collections. Through August, revenues total $1,445,579, which is $657,155 above budgetary estimates ($788,424). For the current month, we received $194,853 or 82.0% more than the monthly estimate ($107,066). This increase is due to sales of residential apartments, commercial and retail space and the increase volume of single residences. Utility Tax Utility tax received through August total $3,599,582, which is $378,987 or 11.8% above the monthly budget estimate. Compared to 1998, utility tax receipts have increased $576,571 or 19.1%. Cellular taxes exceed the budgetary estimates by $142,806 or 57.8%, which is consistent with prior months in 1999. This is due to an increase in the number of cellular communication companies in our area, as well as an overall increase in cellular activity. State Shared Revenue State shared revenues are exceeding budgetary estimates by $310,779 or 10.1%. Included in intergovernmental revenue is criminal justice sales tax of $959,673, which is also exceeding budget by $70,420 or 7.9%. Criminal justice-high crime has collected $173,087 through August. This revenue is based on the Cities 1997 crime rate and determines distribution amounts for July and October 1998 and January and April 1999. We are not budgeted to receive any high crime revenue in 1999, based on the 6998 crime rate statistics. We received the second and final distribution from the state of $5,598 to assist with the additional costs of implementing and enforcing the new DUI legislation. Total assistance came to $16,506. Fines & Forfeitures Year-to-date Fines and Forfeitures are exceeding budgetary projections by $98,469 or 20.2%. Revenues are exceeding budget by $4,064 or 5.7% for the month of August· Buihling Permits & Platt Check Fees Building permit revenues were up $404,998 or 70.0% when compared to UTILITY TAXES Year-to-date (thru AugusO 1997 1998 1999 1999 Budget Actual Actual Total Budget ~ YII'D Budget ~ Actual $ Variance ; % Variance Electric Gas Garbage Cable Phone Storm Dramage Cellular Pagers Total 853 197 1 296264 274914 426187 145642 198 397 214 828 291 816 410 532 641 593 78 373 56 848 166 574 261 242 4 950 7 341 $ 2,149,010$ 3,179,687~$ 1800058 1267~629 1374144 $ 519109 411504 470968 315276 209 101 212589 465 876 305 122 349 335 955 375 688 267 712 563 179 259 84 469 83716 387416 246966 389 772 11 400 7 537 6 494 4,633,769 $ 3,220,595 $ 3,599,582 $ 106515 84% 59464 14 5% 3488 1 7% 44 213 14 5% 24296 3 5% (753) -0 9% 142 806 8. 57 8% (1 043) 'V -13 8% 378,987 ' 11.8%I year-to-date budget ($578,355). This does not include pass through revenues of $62,799 transferred from the deposit account for expedited and environmental review. Revenues collected for expedited review are currently not included in the budget. Expenditures related to the expedited services also are not included in the budget, but will be included in the mid- biennial budget adjustment. Significant among the commercial permit activity is Capitol One and Waremart. Building permits, which includes mechanical, plumbing and clear/grade permits, total $485,728 through the end of August. Plan check fees collected for the month of August total $37,758, which is above budgetary projections by $19,152 or 102.9%. We continue to see plan check fees from Courtyard Village and Quadrant/East Campus Corporate Park. Community Development deposits made by applicants requesting both building and planning expedited review total $104,707. Through August, deposits of $53,721 have been transferred to expedited review and inspection fee revenue, leaving a balance of $50,986. Environmental review deposits collected from applicants total $33,884. Through August, deposits totaling $9,078 have been transferred to revenue, leaving a remaining balance of $24,806. ROW Permits and Fees Overall Public Works permits and fees collected through August total $155,674, which is $180 below the adopted budget. This does not include pass through revenues of $40,345 transferred from the deposit account for expedited review. Public works deposits made by applicants for expedited review total $104,056 through August, deposits totaling $40,345 have been transferred to revenue, leaving a remaining balance of S63,711. Recreation Fees are exceeding budgetary expectations by $56,044 or 13.8%. This is due to softball program revenues collected through August of $96,088, which is well above budget estimates by S31,088 or 37.8°~0. Also soccer program revenues total S20,305, 4 Ci.~ of Federal WaF August ! 999 Monthly Financial Report GAMBLING TAX BY ACTIVITY YTD Through August 1997 Actual 1998 Actual 1999 Actual Change from 1998 Activity % $ % $ % $ $ Variance % Variance Games 08% $ 1,896 1.0% $ 2,018 0.5% $ 4,422 $ 2,404 na Punchboards 1.5% 3,465 0.0% 1.1% 10,262 10,262 na Pulltabs 82.0% 193,533 82.1% 174,370 23.8% 228,217 53,847 30.9% Cardrooms 15.7% 37,109 16.5% 34,938 74.7% 717,031 682,093 1952.3% Bingo 0.0% 41 0.5% 1,014 0.0% 20 (995) -98.1% Total 100.0% $ 236,044 100.0% $212,340 100.0% $ 959,951 $ 747,611 352.1% Table reflects reporting activity through July. which is $3,305 or 19.4% over the annual budget of $17,000. Gambling Tax' Gambling tax collections are up $567,485 or 145.9% over the budgetary estimate ($388,904). The increase is $744,048 when compared to 1998 largely due to increased activity at one major card room establishment and the increase in card room rates from I 1% in 1998 to 20% in 1999. Police Services Revenue collected through August total $223,298. This amount includes Traffic School revenues of $40,450, Explorer program donations of $2,204, interest earnings of $3,649 and Police Security services of $105,208. Also included is $56,468 of state seizure revenues, which are designated for that specific program. The remaining balance of $15,319 is made up of miscellaneous revenues such as weapons permits, copies and fingerprinting. $43,136 in grant revenues were received for the first and second quarter, but are included in other financing sources. Traffic School, Explorer program and state seizure revenue is not currently included in the budget, but are usually added in the year-end budget adjustment. Other Financing Sources of $2,332,378 consist mainly of interfund operating transfers in the amount of $2,185,232. Also included are grant revenues for Public Safety of $43,136 and Solid Waste of $27,515. The remaining balance of $76,495 includes a $75,000 contribution to the City's overlay project from the City of Tacoma, and $1,495 of contributions to the many Human Services programs. GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES General governmental expenditures through August total $_2,167,.~.~9 or >9.,~'/o of the annual operating budget ($37,404,400). Operating expenditures are below the year-to-date budget ($22,628,989), by $461,650 or 2.0%. When compared to 1998, expenditures are up $3,391,499 or 18.1%. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Period Ending August 31, 1999 Y'rD Actuais YTD Actuals Adopted Year-to-Date % YTD (Over)/Under As % of Current Budget Actual$ Expended Budget YTD Budget YTD Budget* Month Actuals City Council 219,841 151,163 688% 183,789 32.626 178% 12~808 City Manager 587,110 377,768 643% 399,409 21,641 5 4% 49,158 Court Contract 499,472 257~298 515% 295,361 38,063 129% 36,998 Municipal Court 300,000 21,652 na 21,652 na 5,865 Management Services 1,953.969 1,113,396 57.0°/, 1,118,522 5,126 0 5% 163,815 Civil/Criminal Legal Services 542,356 823,405 151 8% 825,196 1.791 02%~ 112,846 Community Development 3,048,376 1,942,334 63 7% 2,015248 72.914 36°/ 342,089 Public Safety 12,049,356 7,837,644 65 0% 7.923.806 86.162 1 1% 1,060.362 Jail Services 875,000 807,577 923%: 526,628 (280,949) -533°/ 145,168 Parks & Recreation 3.065.364 2,011.509 65 6% 2,074,956 63,447 3 1% 339,946 Dumas Bay Centre Operations 467,436 315,482 675% 300,825 (14,657) -4 9% 43,198 Knutzen Theatre Operations 159,030 69,298 43 6% 106,020 36,722 34 6% 11,516 Public Works Operations 3,444,273 1,942,600 56 4% 2,184,554 241.954 11 1% 338,405 PWAsphalt Overlay Program 2,018.311 1,030,017 51 0% 1,030,017 0 0% 596,522 Solid Waste & Recycling 299,727 151,404 50 5% 185,983 34,579 186% 19.154 Snow & Ice Removal 55,076 17,045 30 9% 34,175 17,130 50 1% 13,928 Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 65,000 0 0% na Surface Water Management 1,749,884 1,030,503 58 9% 1,135,604 105,101 9 3% 132,913 Debt Service 5,293,482 2,267,244 428% 2,267,244 0.0% Subtotal Operations 36,693,063 22,167,339 604% 22,628,989 461,650 2 0% 3,424.691 Interfund Transfers 8,421,571 0 0%Ina Other Financing Uses 2,480,127 6.235,781 251 4%' 6,235,781 1 6%ha 9,687 Total Expenditures 47,594.761 28,403,120 59 7% 28.864770 461,650 3,434,378 Shows actuals as % of year-to-date budget For example. 50% means actual expenditures were half of what was budgted for that period 5 City of Federal Way August 1999 Monthly Financial Report COMPARISON OF 1999 OPERATING EXPENDITURES - BUDGET TO ACTUAL $40,000,000 ~ , $35,000.000 ~ $30,000,000 '~ $25,000,000 = $20,000,000 ~- i Cumulative 1999 $15,000,000 ; !Actual Experu:litures $10,000,000 [ 3,978,42~ $5,000,000 22,167,339 18,742,648 15.995,970 11,371,609 9,197,402 8,977,248 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Civil/Criminal Legal Services spending is below the budgetary estimate by $1,791 or 0.2%. Court Contract expenditures paid through July total $257,298, which is below the year-to- date budget ($295,361) by $38,063 or 12.9%. The budget is based on historical trends for the last seven years of the court contract. CommuniO, Development Operations has expended Sl,942,334 or 63.7% of its annual appropriation ($3,048376). Through August, they are below their budget by $72,914 or 3.6% of the year- to-date budget ($2,015,248). Other services and charges expended total $409,252, or 60.9% of the total budget S671,938. Internal service fund charges are only 45.9% expended, due to an estimate of the second quarter maintenance and operations charges being posted. Once the actual expenditures have been posted, this percentage should be higher. Parks Operations expenditures total $2,011,509 which is $63,447 or 3.1% below the year-to-date budget estimate ($2,074,956). This is 65.5% of its annual appropriation. This is due to Iow expenditures in services and charges ($345,202), which makes tip 25°,/0 of their operating budget ($3,065,364). Invoices for contracted services incurred during the summer, such as athletics umpires and camps, will not be received and processed until the summer is over. Also, services and charges, which include utilities, will increase in the winter months due to the extended use of field lights in the winter months. Through August, temporary help totals $187,007 or 79.0% of its annual budget ($236,768). This is an expected increase in temporary and seasonal help, which are needed to assist with the maintenance and operation of the parks during the busy summer season. The Parks Department recently purchased three John Deere gators, one that is outfitted with a field groomer, to assist with the maintenance of Celebration Park. Dumas Bay Centre operating expenditures total $315,482 or 67.5% of the revised budget ($467,436). Operating revenues through the current month total $312,941, which is $37,992 above the budget estimate ($274,950). The Dumas Bay Centre has recovered 99.2% of all operating costs as of the end of August. The Knutzen Family Theatre has operating expenditures through August of $69,298 or 43.6°,/0 of the adopted budget ($159,030). The current expenditure saving is $36,722 or 34.6% of the year-to-date budget ($106,020). This year-to-date budget is a straight- line allocation of the annual budget, due to the fact that we do not have a history with which to base future fluctuations in spending. Operating revenues collected total $24,597, which is 42% of the annual budget. This is below the year-to-date budget, which is also a straight-line allocation, by $14,756 or 37.5%. Public Works Operations is below the August budget estimate ($2,184,554) by $241,954 or I1.1%, and has expended $1,942,600 or 56.4% of its annual appropriation ($3,444,273). This is due to the delay of invoices for intergovernmental expenditures, such as King County traffic maintenance and WSDOT state highway maintenance. Through August we have paid out $208,642 or 39.3% of the annual budget ($531,544). Savings can also be found in salaries and benefits, which are only 56.0% expended. The total expended through August is $808,207. This saving can be attributed to several vacancies within the department that are in the process of being filled. Ci~ of Federal Way August ! 999 Monthly Financial Report The new Streets Maintenance program recently purchased a New Holland 8160 Flail Mower through LOCAL (Local Option Capital Asset Lending) program. This program, offered by the State Treasurer's office, allows local government agencies to obtain the lowest cost financing for equipment purchases by pooling funding needs into larger offerings of securities. They will also be purchasing a 10-yard dump truck in November, using the same program. Snow and Ice Removal has expended $17,045 through the month of August. Included in this total is the recent capital purchase of a Swenson Sander for a 10-yard truck. This purchased was needed due to the termination of the Snow and Ice Interlocal Agreement between Lakehaven Utility District and the City. Due to the savings realized from a relatively warm and wet 1998/1999 winter, staff projects the fund will stay within budget as the year progresses. SWM Operations are below projections by $105,101 or 9.3% of the August estimate of $1,135,604. Intergovernmental expenditures total $47,115 which are only 43.8% of the total budget ($107,500). This is also due to the delay of invoices from King County for water utility billing, and a portion of the WSDOT charges for state highway maintenance. Police Services have expended S7,837,644 through August, which is $86,162 below the budgetary estimate of $7,923,806. Salaries & benefits, which are 67% of their total budget (excluding temporary help, overtime & termination pay), totaled $5,630,463. This is 64.9% of the annual budget ($8,681,503). Overtime Police security totals $52,925 through August, but is offset by revenues collected for the services provided Jail Service is above August budget estimates ($526,628) by $280,949 or 53.3%. The total expended of $807,577 does not include payments for July and August services. Other Financing Uses total $6,235,781 or 57.2% of the annual budget ($10,901,698). The majority of which is made up of interfund operating transfers totaling $6,177,826. The remaining $57,955 relates to City Manager's Contingency allocated toward the office reconfiguration earlier this year. Operating Expenditures By Category The chart below shows operating expenditures and financing uses through August 31, 1999 by category or object code. Salaries, which comprises 29.4% of the operating budget, is at 66.9%. Included in this number are temporary help, seasonal help, overtime pay, overtime Police security, termination pa5' ant' incentive pay. Other services and charges has only expended 56.4% of its annual budget ($4,467,200), with savings in Parks and Recreation, Solid Waste and Recycling, and Surface Water Management. Capital outlays, which includes $1.4 million for the arterial streets overlay project, is at 46.9%. Of the $ 1,015,771 of expenditures through August, $981,242 can be attributed to the overlay project. It is anticipated that the overlay project will meet budget projections as the year progresses. Internal service fund charges are currently at 52.2%. This year-to-date total of $1.85 million includes the collection of replacement reserves for eight months, actual maintenance and operational charges for the first three months of the year and an estimate for the maintenance and operational expenditures for April through July. Actual maintenance and operations expenditures for April through August will be recorded in September. 2ode Operating Expenditures/Uses by Category As of August 31, 1999 Adjusted Year-to-date Item Budget Expend % Expend 100 Personnel Services 14,210,094 9,512,422 66.9% 200 Benefits 3,119,874 2,172,057 69.6% 300 Supplies 702,691 476,836 67.9% 400 Other Services and Charges 4,467,200 2,520,559 564% 500 Intgvtl SrvsFFaxes 3,705,564 1,979,048 53.4% 552 Interfund Contributions 10,390,479 6,266,066 60.3% 561 Residual Equity Transfers 703,261 345,336 49.1% 600 Capital Outlays 2,167,808 1,015,771 46.9% 700 Debt Service-Principal 3,371,239 1,286,239 38.2% 800 Debt Service-Interest 1,922,243 981,004 51.0% 900 Interfund Svc Pmts 3,545,645 1,850,533 52.2% Total Operating Expenditures/Uses 48,306,098 28,405,872 58.8% Ci~. o, f Federal Way August 1999 Monthly Financial Report MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES L LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUES 1997. 1999 1997 f998 1999 1999 Budget Month Actual Actual Budget * Actual $ Varfance % Variance January $ 623.386 $ 638 862 $ 667688 February 902478 949276 941 601 March 640967 714640 667002 April 582547 575596 601 682 May 660733 655.396 706570 June 669058 769.461 686513 July 678 567 645475 656290 Augusl 694 702 682263 704382 September 735617 850295 788 583 October 657 100 761 561 714 775 November 687585 739,326 714770 December 793528 800,018 755570 Total $ 8,326,269 $ 8,782,170$ 8,606,426 raxable Sales$ 979,561,007 $ 1,033,196,412 $ 1,012,403,059 $ 711432 $ 43744 66% 1 013425 71 824 76% 717005 50003 7 5% 633 460 31.778 5 3% 783051 76481 10 8% 772812 86299 12 6% 727 701 71 411 109% 855198 150816 214% 0 O% 00% 00% 0 0% $ 6,214,084 $ 582,356 10.3' $ 731,068,734 $ 68,512,499 10.3' COMPARISON OF SALES TAX COLLECTIONS BY SIC CODE GROUP For lhe Month of August Component 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 t999 Change from 1998 Group Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual $ Change % Change {etail Trade !Services IConstruction/Contract /Vholesaling rransp/Comm/Utility VJanufactudng 3ovemment :in/Ins/Real Estate )ther Total Taxable Sales $ 403929 $ 46,577 44,087 31,582 32,318 26,408 7.076 7,100 4.688 $ 603,768 $ 441 841 47,075 43,597 36,017 31.206 29,642 7,719 6,264 7762 651,123 454.743 $ 43328 66.8O9 35,886 23,771 34,O72 10927 2,817 676,546 $ 439,924 $ 55,963 29,722 40,592 28,401 34,450 8,801 6,031 6539 650,423 $ 437,042$ 397385 $ 61,653 81.068 52,152 50.619 50.403 37,237 29.874 40.640 13,466 37Q79 10,866 13,~94 9050 12~983 8659 11,659 673,166$ 682,263 $ 536 052 S 88362 95883 55,623 29,277 13,uu¢ 15,285 12549 9101 855,198 $ 138667 34 7294 9 0% 45,265 89 18387 49 (11,362) -28 0°/, (24 014} 64 8°,~ 1.690 12 4°/, (433) -3 3°/, (2558) -21 9°/ 172,935 25.3~/ 25.3"/ $ 71,031,176'$ 76,602,706 $ 79,893,647'$ 761520,318 $ 79,195,982 $ 80,266,231 $ 100,611,558 $ 20,345,327 SALES TAX ACTIVITY BY SiC CODE YTD through August 1999 Manufacturing 3.3% Trans/Com/Util Wholesaling 40% 59% Constr/Contract 94% Se~ices 92% Government 1 4% Fin/Ins/Real Estate 1.3% Other 09% Retail Trade 64 6% Ci.tv o.f Federal Way August ! 999 Monthly Financial Report Actual Actual STATE SHARED REVENUES 1994 - 1999 1996 i 1997 1998 Actual I Actual Actual Budget * Actual $ Variance Motor Vehicle Exc~se Tax ~.amper Excise Tax .iquor Profits Tax _iquor Excise Tax ;rim Just Low-Pop/DCD ~nm Just Hgh Crime ~.qualizatlon _ocal Grim Just :uel Tax Feb L~c Fees 3UI - C,bes Total 945.690 $ 985 442 $ 722920 $ 13775 13942 13728 242.475 201241 210903 183099 172655 163778 193,202 257968 268 220 227766 184 917 196846 620012 433 037 278 432 688 269 712790 718 436 1.127660 1096042 1 085 784 416162 403 523 395 024 ' 4,658,i¶0 i4~481,$57 4,054,071 ! Change from prior year 61.7% ~ -4.2% ! -g.1%i 679 644 $ 714 607$ 714733 $ 780.195 $ 65462 9 2~ 13556 14004 14105 14353 248 1 8~ 202197 269619 226503 210950 (15553) ~9~ 167 244 172236 174,662 199795 25133 14 4~ 149503 95955 79640 106696 27.056 340% 208 609 227 674 173087 173087 284 207 283 210 283520 309669 26149 9 828968 878 427 889 253 959673 70 420 7 9~ 1127 286 1 108186 1 140539 1 124.708 (15 831) -1 4% 418194 431493 429 815 438.337 8522 2 0% 16506 16506 na 4'079'408; 4'i95'411 ; $'952;Tt'0 ' 4'$~3;969 I38i~i99 ! 9.6% 0.6%: ZS*/,, ~ -$.8% 3,3%/ n/ai rda nVeh Lic Fees · Fuel Tax F1Criminal Justice [] Equalization 1Liquor I-I MVET $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 ~2,500,000 $2,O0O,OOO $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- STATE-SHARED REVENUES 1994-1999 1997 Actual 1998 Actual UTlUTY TAXES 1997- 1999 1999 1999 Budget Total Budget YTD Budget ' Actual $ Variance % Variance January 125 150 431 810 435822 435 822 494 610 $ 58 788 13 5% February 118 633 460 440 464082 464 082 479 716 15 634 3 4% March 139 684 429 076 402257 402 257 469 241 66984 16 7% April 404 907 415 919 421480 421 480 480 522 59 043 14 0% May 431 710 401 428 420 867 420 867 463 233 42366 10 1% June 320 663 373 909 395 979 395 979 419 563 23 584 6 0% July 294 086 348 201 347 329 347 329 389 429 42 101 12 1% August 314 176 318 905 332 780 332 780 403 268 70 488 21 2% September 310 675 322 551 337 196 October 326 801 348 206 360 671 n/a November 365 280 326 729 380702 n/a December 401 119 351 629 400546 n/~ Total $ 3,552,885$ 4,528,803$ 4,699,709 $ 3,220,595 $ 3,599,582 $ 378,987 11.8% City of Federal IYap August 1999 Monthly Financial Report GAMBLING TAX REVENUE 1997- 1999 1999 1999 Budget 1997 1998 Budget Actual $ Variance % Variance January $31,616 $28,182 $51,135 $90,589 $39,454 77.2% February 34,403 21,305 54,874 98,054 43,180 787% March 30,346 23,182 65,483 104,139 38~656 59 0% April 36~041 29,498 64,427 130,470 66,043 102 5% May 31,106 19,025 56,745 144,773 88,028 155 1% June 29,421 20,121 26,947 145,105 118,158 4385% July 26~096 34,691 33,606 137,172 103,566 308 2% August 17,016 36,336 35687 108,540 72,853 204 1% September 18,454 36,915 27,174 0 0% October 23,907 50,005 32.313 0 0% November 20,591 51,544 27,718 00% December 19~766 48,147 33,491 0 0% Total $318,763 $398,950 $509,600 $958,843 $569,939 146.5% FINES & FORFEITURES By Month Budget $569.871 $599,488 $613.226 $639,830 $680,000 $714,000 1999 Change from Adopted Month Budget Actual $ Vadance % Variance 1994 1995 Actual Actual 1996 1997 1998 Actual Actual Actual January February March April May June July August September October November December $35198 49,447 44,493 56,501 512O2 57984 41965 65,794 48268 50450 46068 44828 $58.898 33042 38296 54415 49,764 56220 69336 54,319 53,235 50022 50281 40104 $50,642 $36755 $60696 $50540 56,197 38,609 67000 54512 47205 46,673 84,432 59851 51,752 51,192 57,881 63.806 54538 52978 73,670 62,101 46811 50903 65060 63,881 48681 53016 81666 61,299 63.650 65748 63201 71691 35.218 56 801 72 363 58 952 41486 56376 74 815 59 518 33604 45810 57001 55157 30269 67590 33327 52693 $64790 $14251 68187 13,674 87418 27,567 86409 22,603 61806 -295 75,375 11494 66411 5112 75755 4064 28 2% 25 1% 46 1% 35 4% -0 5% 180% 8 3% 5 7% Total $592,198 $607,932 $560,053 $622,462 $791,112 $714,000 $586,150 $98,469 20.2% % Change 2.7% -7.9% 11.1% 27.1% -9.7% Included ~n Fines & Forfeitures are remitlances from Dmtrict Court for "Shared Court Costs" and "Court Record Services" FINES AND FORFEITURES YTD Through August $70o,0oo I i $586,150 s6oo,ooo ~ S503,604 - ~ $500,000 , $402,584 $200,000 il- - $414,290 $419,476 $395,874 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 10 CiO2 o.f Federal Way August 1999 MonthlF Financial Report Civil Penalties Traffic & Non-Parking Parking InfratJons Dill & Other I~sd Criminal Traffic Misd False Alarms Offer To~al R~ES&~ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Budget YTD Budget 1999 $ Var % Var 3,224 1,773 2,588 1,246 3.897 4,593 289,471 298,496 281,679 252,801 375.618 490,294 4,322 7,248 15,670 16,006 21,308 17.762 42,366 46.047 42,991 50,929 57,649 78,574 19,257 17.986 15,455 19.380 29,503 36.390 13,699 10.960 15,260 18.851 42,471 31 519 2.850 7,425 17.956 5,440 4.050 9.952 27,395 24,355 27,877 31,221 19.108 44.915 402,584 414,290 419,476 395,874 2,836 4,481 1,645 58.0°/~ 334,471 333,620 (851) -0 3°/~ 14,567 42,575 28,008 192.3°/~ 53,675 71,325 17.650 32 9°/c 23,813 36,644 12,830 539o/¢ 24,101 67.626 43,525 180 6% 6,257 23,689 17,431 2786% 27,960 6,190 (21,769) -77 9°/< 1~J4 Actual BUILDING PERMITS/ZONING FEES/PLAN CHECK FEES 1994 - 1999 1995 : 1996 i 1~97 1998 ~_ 1999 1999 Budget Actual ~ Actual Actual Actual Budget Actual $ Variance $ Variance January February March April May JuRe July August September October November December Total $ 47671 34~376 52296 30950 63 273 36508 53.636 65038 39732 69015 36.428 60.208 42,525 71.299 67062 58.683 38435 60354 70370 43,435 49 954 81867 36051 $ 48383 $ 26.306 $ 44 823 48297 51060 50280 65217 64655 60072 37.509 42 402 45163 49613 59.934 $ 81 164 95.791 95.510 55,171 57030 50.474 56.879 61,053 48152 32684 48716 54 814 $ 53165 $ 77561 $ 24 396 33.057 45879 67.315 60.598 106.758 144686 130374 92585 122 107 100O67 72 243 60 446 77897 74 057 75731 87~461 78077 71521 75143 67 393 62480 69 822 104 383 43937 148530 70633 101.203 27 146 169.384 93,653 167,539 80.078 138,177 60100 139,375 67.854 45 9% 72 7% 90 7% 36 7% 123 7% 91 6% 77 0% 94 9% 0 O% 0 O% 0 O% OO% S 597,433 ] S 660,116 $ 585,397 S 742,538 i $ 1,030,483 S 853,193 S 1,046,152 ] $ 467,797 Exp thru August 973 525 1 120558 1 177 781 1 414728 1 374 036 1 574 502 1 567 297 na ns Recovery Rabo 38 2% 37 1% 34 9% 39 0% 46 8% 36 7% 66 7% na nr: YTD Recovery Rabo 41 6% 39 0% 34 0% 35 7% 37 8% 36 9% na na n~ DBuilding Permits IPlan Check Fees []Zoning Fees [] Electric $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $1oo,o00 $50,000 $- BUILDING PERMIT/ZONING/PLAN CHECK FEES 1994-1999 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999- 1999-Act Adp II City o.f Federal Way August ! 999 Monthlv Financial Report PUBUC WORKS PERMITS/PLAN REVIEW/EXPEDITED REVlEW/~NSPECTION FEES 1994-1999 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 Budget $ 16198 $ 22397 $ 12719 $ 7041 $ 16188 $ 16959 $ 19293 $ 2.334 138°/~ 10 580 6797 23 627 8 583 8 437 13802 19 402 $ 5600 40 8826 11 568 10708 26504 12347 15,722 43177 $ 27455 1746~/~ 25439 11 224 14751 9079 19977 24592 16 849 $ (7'743) -31 6955 18991 21158 9551 26621 17954 25 087 $ 7133 39 70, 39 839 7 131 8 283 9977 26 339 21 273 28 875 $ 7602 35 70, 8 374 9726 29 676 12 353 21 002 19 635 10643 $ (8992) -45 80, 19584 9 339 18 645 27438 34634 25914 32 693 $ 6 779 26 2% 9 997 9 006 15 252 26 180 42540 19 191 0 0% (32125) 22059 14041 15049 32348 13147 00% 11 036 27799 13,524 18019 33531 20 759 00% January February March April May June July August September October November December 20 147 22638 14 832 19049 32 460 22 623 - 0 0% Monthly Average 12.071 14 890 16 435 15 735 25 535 19 298 24 502 5 021 na Permits/Plan Review/Expedited Review/Inspection Fees Through August 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999-1999- Adp Act BZoning/Subdiv Fees FIPW Expedited Plan Review FIPW Inspection Fees BPlan Review Fees BROW Permits 12 A'rTACHMENT A CITY OF FEDERAL WAY SUMMARY OF SOURCES AN'D USES OPERATING FUNDS Through August 1994 - 1999 Sources/Uses ........ A~ctuals ..... 1999 Revi_sed Budget ~ Actuals Through Through 1996 1996 1997 1998 Annual August ' August Variance Favorable (Unfavo,'We) Dollars ($): Pert Beginning Fund Balance $12,181,738 $11,403,627 $10,331,541 $10,396,188 $16,128,342 $17,254,368 $17,254,368 $17,264,368 $ Operating Revenues Property Taxes Sales Tax Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Criminal Justice Sales Tax Intergovernmental Real Estate Excise Tax Gambling Taxes Utility Taxes Frees & Forfeitures Building Permits/Fees-CD Pass Through Fees-CD ROW Permlts/Fees-PW Pass Through Fees-PW Licenses Franchise Fees Recreation Fees Dumas Bay Centre '(nutzen Family Theatre nterest Earnings Admln Fee-SWM & Solid Waste SWM Fees Refuse Collection Fees ~olice Services Other 2948120 5039354 688269 3.969841 1013831 218545 414290 371 612 129752 51802 274805 282.057 68820 405,866 1 661370 100039 491.633 2,974128 3128.653 5230 851 5339.807 3,437981 3 381265 5.430902 5630.971 712790 718436 828.968 878426 3748.767 3,335635 3250.440 3 316.982 617,500 906 928 1121 820 1612556 241293 198112 236 044 212 341 458 501 2 298 259 3023 011 419476 395875 553 605 487678 415777 410 710 546278 643 482 6634.350 3557.241 8605 426 5631,728 65000 15,631 1 362.747 889253 4576430 3063517 1200000 788424 509600 388904 4 633 769 3220595 714 000 487680 853193 578355 97173 135.773 110 527 165544 239 573 155853 44368 44719 35 526 401.457 348354 450320 314257 330117 338 164 158,324 233 999 209,486 290329 327 426 510968 103.264 108,489 110660 1584399 1456470 1 625,811 95700 83 892 98103 149 407 96519 620 948 1,052666 51415 286,689 273,115 147,469 490,271 100256 1624407 97~958 123 201 104585 494255 376,623 551343 406424 429609 274 950 59030 39,353 1 040 139 606 505 168 478 112,320 3120302 1 710,775 148 524 99016 138 432 92288 139 765 100 297 3.557,241 6.214084 15,631 959.673 3.374 296 1,445 579 956389 3 599 582 586 150 983 353 62,799 155,674 40345 107,823 353,299 462,468 312941 24,597 718.407 112,320 1.710775 99,048 223,298 100 297 582 356 70.420 310 779 657.155 567,485 378 987 98,469 404 998 62799 (180) 4O,345 3,238 (23,323) 56044 37992 (14,756) 111901 32 131010 00' 10 3% 0 O% 7 9% 10 1% 83 4% 145 11 8% 20 2°/~ 70 0% n/8 -0 1% n/8 31% -6 2% 13 8% 13 8% -37 5% 18 5% OO% OO% OO% 142 O% OO% 565234 589832 Total Operating Revenues 18,130,006 18,094,669 18,610,369 21,618,646 23,880,478 36,807,166 22,700,317 26,176,068 3,476,761 16.3°/, Operating Expenditures City Council City Manager Court Contract Municipal Court-Start up Management Services Civil/Criminal Legal Services Corem Developement Services Police Services Jail Services Parks & Recreation Public Works City Overlay Program Snow & Ice Removal Soltd Waste Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Surface Water Management Debt Service Dumas Bay Centre Knutzen Famdy Theatre (1) 126,412 259,592 144,697 143.242 144.308 300,036 308.536 154,095 155,610 737,776 848,491 966,457 657.510 699.945 814.691 2305,757 2391,524 1.752474 5,489557 5,432839 5925248 410307 307.262 383.280 2128516 2081806 2089778 1 652561 1,858 898 1603728 220 064 265075 368736 5789 3067 39,296 84327 100.819 188009 157,074 158.220 375,957 381.879 185,442 272,612 922,607 1.026335 800.839 1,047339 1,713517 1725566 6,375325 7.245,619 447.917 503.140 1760639 1863748 1 900293 2 050 541 1 019314 450 794 51057 29 787 365091 174 703 183,788 399,409 295,361 21,652 1118,522 825,196 2.015248 7923,806 526 628 2O74 956 2184.554 1030 017 34.175 185983 219,841 587.110 499,472 300.000 1,953,969 1253692 3.048,376 12049356 875.000 3065364 3444273 2 018 311 55076 299727 65000 1749884 5.293 482 467 436 159030 151163 377768 257,298 21,652 1,113,396 823,405 1942.334 7,837,644 807577 2 011,509 1,942,600 1,030017 17,045 151,404 326251 216411 38063! 5,126 72914 86.162 (280949) 63447 241,954 17130 34579 752626 907011 951075 981.085 884691 1.135604 1030503 105 101 484.208 512373 649,943 719,379 1040824 2267244 2267 244 129415 200523 222006 273335 258711 300,825 315,482 (14,657) 106 020 69298 36722 17 8% 5 4% 1~ q% 0 2°/~ 3 6°/~ 11% -53 3% 31% 11 1% 0 O% 50 1% 18 6% n/a 9 3% OO% -4 9% 34 6% Total Operating Expenditures 16,689,114 16,207,006 16,663,176 18,048,871 19,114,609 37,404,400 22,628,989 22,t67,339 461,660 2.0% Operating Revenues overl(under) Operating Expenditures 2,640,892 1,887,662 2,047,184 3,469,774 4,766,969 (1,697,234) 71,328 4,008,730 3,937,400 6620.1°/, ::)ther Financing Sources 3 304 280 2347 802 7126 596 2332.378 2 332378 0 0% Other Financing Uses 3 065 141 840210 2 492 657 1 755 968 6 355 174 10 901 698 6 235 781 6235781 0 0~/~ 111 484 188505 213 050 296 991 285 378 191 274 103239 73358 100 000 971 893 362 100 470 902 Ending Fund Balance Sohd Waste 294 316 Snow & Ice 103530 Arterial Street 1 563 848 477375 Utdlb/Tax 2 120030 2 177 359 SWM 2 016 324 t 702890 1077,666 1 566522 2 276 459 1 321 384 Path & Tra~ls 29 109 39 284 50 210 6 153 12555 21598 Strategtc Reserve 2 150560 2 104 645 2 050 477 2022389 2 025496 2 000 000 Debt Service 1 657 809 1 936 991 1 618 909 2986 805 5283 482 4 447 344 Dumas Bay Centre 562 661 157 897 115 131 <33 742 13 286 (0) Pohce 1 031 439 1 082207 786 441 669 334 P3 300 000 300 000 300000 Interfund Loans 60 000 10000 10 000 10 000 10 000 Unreserved 3505694 4116161 4295286 6515205 3532267 879275 Total Endin~ Fund Balance 279002 87015 887,223 3919880 756443 18729 2.015513 4767341 103 435 748 150 300000 10 000 3466962 $11,667,489 , $12,460,979 $ 9,886,068 $16,414,274 $17,236,237 $12,211,672: $13,422,293 $17,369,696 n/a n/a nfa n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ? n/a nla n/a $3,937,401 , 29.3°/, Note 1 These expenditures occur primarily dunng the wrater months 9~4/99952 AM MEETING DATE: S¢'pt~mhe~.-2,~,q-999 ITEM# CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: SW 356th St. Regional Storm Water Storage and Treatment Facility Property ...................................... ..................................................................................................................................... CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Condemnation Ordinance; SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Acquisition of property to enable operation of the closed depression as a regional storm water storage and treatment facility is part of the City's adopted CIP for 1999. The properties are located in a natural closed depression which historically and currently receives storm water runoff from a large upstream tributary basin. In furtherance of the C IP, staff has reviewed several alternative solutions to existing flooding and predicted flooding problems within the tributary basin. These alternatives are reported in the attached closed depression analysis by KCM, Inc. dated March 1999. The report concludes, and staff concurs, that the best alternative solution is the acquisition of appropriate property rights within a significant closed depression and that property be designated, operated, and maintained as a regional storm water storage and treatment facility. The acquisition of property rights to the elevation of 320 feet - recommended alternative #5 - as indicated by the report involves the purchase of strip easements from six separate lot owners and the fee simple acquisition of one entire lot (the Parke property - explained below) within and along the closed depression. To date the purchase of the strip easements has proceeded in a cooperative manner. In the event that the other property owners refuse our purchase offers, we will return to Council in the future to seek adoption of a condemnation Ordinance if necessary. Mr. Parke's property requires full fee simple purchase and negotiations have not been fruitful. Fee simple purchase is required because most of his property - including the area surrounding the house and his barn - are within the 100-year floodplain, i.e, his property is at the bottom of the closed depression. During the preceding two years, the City was a defendant in a lawsuit brought by Mr. Parke, alleging that, by its approva, of the Bellacarino Woods subdivision, the City had inversely condemned his property because some drainage from Bellacarino Woods flowed there during heavy storm events. The City made several offers to settle the lawsuit by purchasing Mr. Parke's property at fair market value or building a new house for him on the portion of the same property located above the closed depression. The offers were refused, and Mr. Parke's attorney made clear that Mr. Parke did not wish to sell his property under any circumstances. Staff is therefore requesting that the Council adopt the attached Ordinance condemning the property. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Move Ordinance APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COl INC1L ACTION: APPROVED DENIED __.TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION k :\council\agdbills\ 1999\covercc COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A REGIONAL STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTHWEST 356TM STREET AND BETWEEN 4TM AVENUE SOUTHWEST AND 8TM AVENUE SOUTHWEST, ALL WITHIN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, TOGETHER WITH ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AND RELATED WORK NECESSARY TO MAKE A COMPLETE IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONDEMNATION, APPROPRIATION, AND TAKING OF REAL PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFOR; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION. WHEREAS, in 1991 King County prepared The Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan ("Plan"), which identified drainage complaints dating back to 1974 and originating within the drainage basin located in the vicinity of SW 346th Street and SW 363rd Street, and extending from 6th Avenue SW to about 20th Avenue SW ("the Basin"); and WHEREAS, the Plan called for a "SW 356th Street Drainage Study," to conduct hydrologic modeling of several closed depression and complete preliminary engineering design of a storm water drainage system to solve local flooding of structures in the areas within and surrounding closed depressions within the Basin; and ORD # , PAGE 1 WHEREAS, in 1992 King County commissioned the firm of Brown & Caldwell, and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants under contract with Brown & Caldwell, to conduct the SW 356th Street Drainage Study; and WHEREAS, Brown & Caldwell recommended that the County or City of Federal Way consider purchasing property below the elevation 320 feet and located within the closed depression in the vicinity of SW 356th Street between 4th Avenue SW and 8th Avenue SW; and WHEREAS, as part of its 1995 adoption of its GMA Comprehensive Plan, the City Council adopted a 6-year, Surface Water Management Capital Improvement Program ("CIP"), which included monies for acquisition of property within the closed depression; and WHEREAS, acquisition of property to enable operation of the closed depression as a regional storm water storage facility was approved by the City Council as part of the Surface Water Management's 1998-2003CIP, was adopted as Table VI-4 in the City's December, 1998 GMA Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way commissioned KCM, Inc. to further study the options of either purchasing property within the closed depression, for use as a regional storm water storage facility, or utilizing other engineering techniques to reduce the potential for flooding; and WHEREAS, in March 1999 KCM, Inc. prepared its SW 356th Street Closed Depressions Analysis, which analyzed five alternatives and concluded that purchasing property within the closed depression subjected to flooding up to the 100-year recurrence frequency is the least cost option that provides the desired level of protection from flooding; and ORD # , PAGE 2 WHEREAS, City staff have recommended, based on the KCM Analysis, that the City purchase property within the closed depression, to allow the closed depression to function as a regional storm water storage facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(5)(a), the acquisition of any right to real property is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public Necessity. The public health, safety, necessity and convenience demand that a closed depression located within the City of Federal Way and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A hereto be operated and maintained as a regional storm water storage facility, and that certain property be condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for such purposes. The failure to operate and maintain the closed depression as a regional storm water storage facility could eventually result in the flooding of structures within the closed depression below the elevation of 320 feet, contribute to runoff and flooding within a different drainage basin which drains to the already overtaxed Hylebos Creek channel, subject the City to litigation (albeit not meritorious), and/or result in a building moratorium which prevents the City of Federal Way from meeting annualized household growth targets set pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Section 2. Condemned Property. The City Council of the City of Federal Way, after reviewing the planned improvements, hereby declares that the parcel located within the City of Federal Way and legally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and as shown on the parcel map set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and ORD # , PAGE 3 incorporated herein by this reference ("Property") shall be and hereby is condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for the purposes of installing, operating, and maintaining a regional storm water storage facility within the closed depression, including but not limited to storm drains, culverts, berms, spillways, outlet works and/or pipelines, together with: (a) all necessary appurtenances and related work to make a complete improvement in accordance with City standards; (b) the right to make all necessary slopes for cuts and fills upon adjacent lands in the reasonable original grading and maintenance of the regional storm water storage facility; and (c) temporary easements to enable installation of said improvements; with all of the foregoing and the Property being taken, damaged and appropriated subject to the making or paying of just compensation to the owner thereof in the manner provided by law. Section 4. Condemnation Legal Action. The City Attorney or other attorney selected by the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to file all necessary actions and proceedings provided by law to condemn, take and appropriate the Property in order to carry out the provisions of this ordinance, and is further authorized in conducting said condemnation proceedings and for the purpose of minimizing damages, to stipulate as to the use of the Property and as to the reservation of any right of use to the Property owner(s), provided that such reservation does not interfere with the use of the Property by the City as a regional storm water storage facility. The City Attorney is further authorized to adjust the amount of the Property condemned herein, in order to minimize damages, provided that said adjustment does not interfere with the use of the Property by the City as a regional storm water storage facility. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of ORD # , PAGE 4 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 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this __ day of October, 1999 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ATTEST: MAYOR, RON GINTZ 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. K:'~ORDIN\CONDMreg.356 ORD # . PAGE 5 Exhibit A Closed Depressior' % Closed Depression at ,o, ~~' Elevation 320 Map Date: September 1999 City of Federal Way 33530 First Way S, ,:ederal Way V,'~ 98003 ,253) 66~-,~000 7hts mad is intended for use as a ~raphical representation Oi'iLY The City of Federal Way makes no uarranty as to its a~uracy EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CONDEMNED PROPERTY Lot 1, King County Short Plat Number 177014 recorded under Recording Number 7703110466, said Short Plat being a subdivision of Che west half of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT therefrom the south 270.00 feet thereof; TOGETMER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities over that portion of the west half of the northeast quarter of said Section 30, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of the east half of said west half, with the north margin of Southwest 356~h Street; thence north 77°23'15'' east along said north margin, 50.40 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 feet; thence northwesterly along said curve, through a cent~=i angle of 75°54'41'' an arc length of 33.12 feet to a line that is parallel with and distant easterly 30.00 feet from said line; thence north 01028'34" east along said parallel line, 477.81 feet, more or less, to the north line of the south 270.00 feet of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 30; thence north 88°55'16" west along said north line, 30.00 feet to said west line; thence south 01o28'34" west along said west line, 485.81 feet to the point of beginning. Key: Condemned Property Map Date: September 1999 City of Federal Way L'3530 First Way S, %deral Way, W~, 98003 253) 661 4000 This map ~s intended for use as a ]raphical representation ONLY The Oity of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy ? xhibit C Condemned Property j t £ VAflON 320 tus¢,rs/mikes/!aw~xh;ba aml SW 356TH STREET CLOSED DEPRESSION ANALYSIS March 1999 ] J ] Prepared for: City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Prepared by: KCg KCM, Inc. 1917 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1027 (20t3) 443-5300 Prwect#2840108 SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS ] ] ! l Title Page No. e 0 e Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................... 1 Previous Analyses ........................................................................................... 1 HSPF Modeling Analysis ................................................................... 5 Major Model Components ............................................................................... 5 Precipitation/Evaporation Data ............................................................. 5 Soil Data ................................................................................................. 5 Land Use ................................................................................................. 5 Subbasin Delineation ............................................................................. 5 Results ............................................................................................................. Alternatives .......................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 .................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 2 .................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 3 ............... ................................................................................... 10 Alternative 4 .................................................................................................. 10 Alternative 5 .................................................................................................. 11 Alternative 6 .................................................................................................. 14 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 15 Reference~ .......................................................................................... 17 Appendices A. HSPF Input Data Files B. Topography of the Depression Area l ... TABLE OF CONTENTS No. SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis LIST OF TABLES Title Page No. No. Stage Frequency Analysis for the SW 356th Street Closed Depression ....... 8 Parcels Containing Elevation 320 Feet ........................................................ 12 Estimated Construction Cost for Alternatives ............................................. 15 LIST OF FIGURES Title Page No. ] ] ] ] Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... 2 Subbasin Delineation for HSPF Model .......................................................... 6 HSPF Modeling Schematic--Case 3; Existing Conditions ............................ 7 Impacted Parcels ........................................................................................... 13 ii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 ] ] I ] ] 1 KCM has reviewed previous hydrologic analyses of the SW 356th Street closed depression and its drainage basin. Numerous analyses have been performed in this basin, primarily in association with residential developments. King County recognized the need for further analysis of the basin in the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan (King County, 1991). The County identified the basin as a problem area (Project Number 2451) and recommended further study. This report summarizes the previous analyses, with an emphasis on the most current. It describes key modeling information, identifies alternatives, and summarizes the conclusions found. BACKGROUND The 354-acre drainage basin of the SW 356th Street closed depression is almost evenly divided by SW 356th Street. It extends from about 6th Avenue SW to about 20th Avenue SW, between about SW 346th Street and SW 363rd Street (see Figure 1). Land-use in the drainage basin is primarily single-family residential. The basin includes t~vo major closed retention ponds: the Madrona Meadows pond in the western part of the basin and the Bellacarino Woods Park closed depression in the eastern part. When the Madrona Meadows pond's water level increases sufficiently, it overflows and drains to tt~e Bellacarino Woods Park closed depression. Both closed depressions drain primarily by infiltration. The basin has been identified as having historical drainage problems (King County Project Number 2451). The Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound BasLn Plan called for the following project to address the problems: SW 356th Street Drainage Study--Conduct hydrologic modeling of several closed depressions and complete preliminary engineering design of a stormwater drainage system to solve local flooding of structures in the area surrounding the closed depression. The County has recorded drainage complaints from within the drainage basin dating back to 1974. Recent complaints (1990) include a residence that experienced flooding, including structure flooding, when water ponded in the closed depression. PREVIOUS ANALYSES Numerous analyses of the drainage basin have been performed in association with residential development and with SW 356th Street roadway improvements. The earliest analysis reviewed for this report was conducted in 1989. Generally, each study was more sophisticated than the previous studies, reflecting improved calculation techniques and stricter development standards. J S 'a^¥ pu~ S 'a^V qls~ Z MS 'a^V q19 MS c, ~/c, / ~N 'aAV q~6i:' ~wz I I I ! I ! I I I I I I I i i I I I I SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis... ... 1. INTRODUCTION Stepan & Associates conducted a drainage analysis for the Madrona Meadows development, using the SCS method (Stepan, 1989). The analysis for the Madrona Meadows retention pond used a percoqation rate of 30 minutes/inch (48 inches/day). Urban Design performed an analysis of the SW 356th Street closed depression (referred to as the Bellacarino Woods closed depression in Urban Design's report) using SCS methods (Urban, 1990). The analysis identified a tributary watershed area of 225 acres and concluded that the closed depression will accommodate the 100-year 24-hour storm but not the 100-year 7-day storm. In 1991, Urban Design expanded its previous analysis to account for overflo~v from the Madrona Meadows retention pond (Urban, 1991). This analysis had the benefit of percolation rates based on observed ponding. A percolation rate of 5.6 inches per day was calculated for the closed depression from measurements taken during one storm (subsequent field surface percolation tests indicated infiltration rates many times higher, but the value of 5.6 inches was used for the study). Field surface infiltration tests by others at the Madrona Meado~vs pond found virtually no infiltration there. Therefore, the 1991 Urban Design study assume4 no infiltration at the Madrona Meado~vs pond ~and routed overflow to the Bellacarino Woods Park closed depression. Brown and Caldwell performed an analysis of the depression for King County's Surface Water Management Division, apparently in response to reported flooding in the depression during a January 1990 storm (Bro~vn and Caldwell, 1991). The analysis used King County's "HYD" model (SCS based). King County Surtace Water Management's basin plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound identified the depression as a problem area and recommended further study (King County, 1991). The basin plan did not include detailed analysis of the area. Barghausen Consulting En~neers prepared storm drainage calculations for the Bellacarino Woods development (Barghausen, 1993) incorporating findings from a 1992 Bro~vn and Caldwell analysis (Brown and Caldwell, 1992) and a 1992 study by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (Northwest, 1992). Key conclusions, primarily from the Northwest Hydraulic Consultants analysis, were as follo~vs: · Under existing conditions, the private residence closest to the bottom of the depression would not be inundated by storms up to a 50-year storm. · Under existing conditions, the barn of that residence ~vould be inundated bv any storms greater than a 2-year storm. · Under existing conditions, the depression would not overflow during the 100-year storm event. · Under future full build-out conditions, the depression %vould fill and spill about 4 acre-feet during the 100-year event, and the residence %vould be inundated by storms greater than a 2-year storm. One of the Bro~vn and Caldwell recommendations was to purchase property at and belo~v elevation :320 feet. The Northwest Hydraulic Consultants analysis used an infiltration rate SW 356th Street Closed Depression A~alysis ...... 1. INTRODUCTION of 4.15 inches per day, based on on-site observations, but recommended further investigation of soil infiltration rates. The soils report included in the Barghausen report (Rittenhouse-Zeman, 1991) included an infiltration study. Fourteen surface and subsurface infiltration tests were performed in accordance with criteria from the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Surface infiltration rates were observed to be from 0.2 to 0.7 inches per minute (288 to 1,008 inches per day), while the subsun°ace infiltration rates ranged from 0.1 to 3.3 inches per minute (144 to 4,752 inches per day). KCM prepared a comprehensive surface water management plan that included analysis of several basins in the City of Federal Way (KCM, 1996). This plan incorporated King County Project 2451 in the Panther Lake basin. Although the County project did not lie within the portion of the Panther Lake watershed that received detailed analysis, it was included in the City's capital improvement program as City project WH07-CIP-03. The most detailed analysis performed to date for this watershed was performed by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. (NHC, 1998) as consultants to Novastar Development Inc. in support for the Silverwood development project. This analysis used the HSPF model. HSPF is a complex, conceptual, deterministic hydrologic simulation model that uses a continuous accounting of soil moisture and runoff processes to simulate stream flo~v, lake levels and other hydrologic variables on a continuous basis for extended periods. The Silver~vood analysis is summarized below. ] ] ] 4 1 ] 1 ! 1 2. HSPF MODELING ANAI,YSIS MAJOR MODEL COMPONENTS Precipitation/Evaporation Data The HSPF model used by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for its Silverwood study incorporated about 49 years of precipitation data recorded at Sea-Tac International Airport and nearby Lake Doloff. Evaporation data were taken from Puyallup weather station records and, for missing periods, calculated using the Jenson-Haise equation and long-term averages. Soil Data Two major soil types were identified; a glacial till with low infiltration capability, and an outwash soil with a high infiltration capability. T~vo bands of the outwash soil lie in the basin--one near the west boundary and one along the eastern boundary in the vicinity of the closed depression. Land Use The analysis conducted HSPF simulations for the following sets of land use conditions: 1. Pre-C, aropus Highlands development land-use (1990 conditions) I ! 2. Pre-Iiell[acarino Woods development land-use (1994 conditions) 3. Current land-use (1996 conditions) 4. Current land-use with the addition of the Silverwood development (this condition ~vas modeled with and without expansion of the Bellacarino Woods pond) 5. Full buildout conditions. The HSPF input data files depicting these alternatives are in Appendix A. Subbasin Delineation For the 1998 Silverwood drainage analysis, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants delineated 13 drainage subbasins in the drainage basin, as shown in Figure 2. A schematic of how the basins were modeled for land use condition 3 is shown in Figure 3. Subbasins are delineated to coincide with key drainage controls, such as detention ponds or natural divides, and points of interest for the hydrologic analysis. Topographic mapping was found from the design drawings from Barghausen (see Appendix B). This mapping depicted the pond topography, the Bellacarino Woods pond, and topographic modifications in the vicinity resulting from the development. Maximum storage in the depression prior to overtopping SW 356th Street is a little less than elevation 320 feet. The overflow constructed on the north end of the depression is set at 319.5 feet. There is insufficient information to confirm whether water will overtop SW 356th Street when the overfloxv structure starts to overtop. SW 348TH :ST ' '~ ": ,'~ tMadronat~ ) ~',~ ~, ~,',, ' '. ~ Bellacafino , ~1 '" ,~' ~[ Pond 1% { ~-; I -' ~ t Pond I~ ~Depression 1917 First A venue Seattle, Washington 98101 City of Federal Way SW 356TH STEET CLOSED DEPRESSION ANALYSIS Figure 2. SUBBASIN DELINEATION FOR HSPF MODEL ~C~ ~RA VINF__/ SUBBASIN SB-B SUBBASIN SB-E1 SUBBASIN SB-D4 B BELLACARINO WOODS POND INFLOW BELLACARINO WOODS POND CLOSED ~EPRESSION INFL 0 W CLOSED DEPRESSION LEGEND SUBBASIN Description of SB-E1 Modeled Segment [-~ RCHRES Identifier [] FTABLE Identifier KEM , 1917 First A venue Seattle, Washington 98101 City of Federal Way SW 356TH STEET CLOSED DEPRESSION ANALYSIS Figure 3. HSPF MODELING SCHEMATIC-- CASE 3; EXISTING CONDITIONS ~ SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis ...... 2. HSPF MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 1 summarizes the results of the Silverwood HSPF analysis. These results are based on an infiltration rate o£ 8 inches per day. There will be a substantial increase in storage elevation when the watershed becomes fully developed; depth will increase over existing conditions by more than 7 feet. TABLE 1. STAGE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE SW 356TH STREET CLOSED DEPRESSION Predicted Stage (feet) Site/Scenario 2-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Pre-Campus Highlands (1990) Conditions 301.7 307.0 308.6 309.5 310.3 Pre-Bellacarino Woods (1994) Conditions 304.2 308.1 309.6 310.4 311.2 Current (1997) Conditions 303.1 308.0 309.6 310.4 311.4 Post-Silverwood Conditions 301.1 307.9 309.5 310.4 311.4 Post-Silverwood with expanded BC Woods pond 300.8 307.6 309.3 310.3 311.2 Full Buildout Conditions 310.4 315.3 317.0 317.9 318.6 1 ] l l l J 8 3. ALTERNATIVES ] J l ] ] I ] Several alternatives were developed to address the flooding within the depressional area. The alternative analysis utilized the modeling information and results from the NHC analysis. These alternatives include: 1. Building moratorium within the basin. 2. Berm to store runoff only on the Bellacarino development site. 3. Install a pump station to maintain a water surface elevation in the existing Bellacarino Woods Park closed depression that prevents overtopping into the depressional area. 4. Install a gravity drainage line that drains from the closed depression along SW 356th Street and ultimately discharging into Hylebos Creek. 5. Purchase the property subjected to flooding for the 100-year return frequency. 6. Additional excavation in the Bellacarino Woods Park closed depression (Tract A) to accommodate full build-out. The following sections describe the alternatives and provide a planning level cost estimate associated with the drainage improvements needed for the alternative. The alternatives are configured to accommodate the 100-year recurrence frequency when possible. ALTERNAT~'~E 1 Alternative 1 is the implementation of a building moratorium within the watershed. This would freeze the conditions near those predicted by NHC for current conditions (1997). However, as discussed by B&C (1992), flooding will still occur ~vithin the closed depression. The barn located in the depression would be inundated by any storm greater than a t~vo- year storm while the house would be inundated by any storm gTeater than about a 50-year storm. This alternative has no structural drainage improvement, consequently there are no drainage construction costs associated with this option. This alternative is a political decision that would have to be made by the City Council. The alternative may have additional legal implications associated with a building moratorium. ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 2 evaluated the feasibility of constructing a berm on the Bellacorino Woods retention site to elevation 320-feet. This option would prevent runoff from the Bellacorino Woods Park closed depression from overtopping and draining into the adjacent closed depression. The berm was configured using a 3 to I side slope ratio and a 10-foot top width. A geotechnical analysis was not conducted for this berm geometry but it represents a common configuration. SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis... ...3. ALTERNATIVES ] l ] The storage capacity of the pond resulting from this alternative is about 31 acre~feet. This volume corresponds to about a 2-year recurrence frequency. Consequently, storms larger than this frequency would overtop and, individually or in combination, flow into the adjacent closed depression, flow down SW 356th Street, or spill into the overflow structure located on the north end of the closed depression. Costs associated with this alternative are approximately $901,000. This cost does not assume construction of cutoff walls below the berm, if required, by any future geotechnical analysis of the berm. ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3 includes the construction of a pump station that would pump storm water from the Bellacarino Woods Park closed depression when the water surface elevation reaches elevation 304 feet, approximately the elevation when the pond would start to overtop into the adjacent closed depression. The pump station would be located on the northern portion of the retention pond site and would discharge into a new conveyance system. This conveyance system would drain east along the recently constructed residential road, down over the hill into an existing swale, be picked up again further north and be conveyed east once again until outfalling into Hylebos Creek. Costs associated with these drainage improvements include the pump station, intake and discharge piping, catchbasins, and inlet and outlet structures for the piping. The planning level cost estimate associated with this alternative is $2,544,000. This alternative does not include the costs associated with environmental reviews, permitting, downstream analyses and potential downstream drainage improvements. This option transfers water from a closed basin and discharges into another. The receiving Hylebos Creek drainage basin contains numerous problem areas and limited conveyance capacity. Adding additional runoff into that system will further exacerbate drainage problems in the basin. It is unlikely that this option could be permitted and implemented. ALTERNATIVE 4 Alternative 4 evaluates providing a gravity drainage system from the closed depression. The 36-inch pipe would start north of SW 356th Street, go south a short distance to SW 356th Street, proceed east on SW 356th Street until 1st Avenue South, turn north on 1st Avenue South and outfall into Hylebos Creek. The total pipe length is about 3000 feet. The initial 300 feet of this drain line would involve very deep construction in SW 356th Street, over 30 feet deep in spots. At least half of the roadway width would be closed during the construction of the pipeline. This option requires obtaining an easement from the Bellacarino Wood Park retention pond through private property to SW 356th Street in order to convey the runoff from the pond to the pipe inlet. Depending upon the outcome of a detailed topographic survey along this route, a channel may need to be constructed to convey excess stormwater from the retention pond. The cost estimate does not include this possible channel construction. The planning level cost estimate for this alternative is $1,631,000. 10 SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis ...... 3. ALTERNATIVES I ] 1 ] As with Alternative 3, this alternative does not include the costs associated ~vith environmental revie~vs, permitting, downstream analyses and potential downstream drainage impxovements. This option transfers water from a closed basin and discharges into another. The receiving Hylebos Creek drainage basin contains numerous problem areas and limited conveyance capacity. Adding additional runoff into that system will further exacerbate drainage problems in the basin. It is unlikely that this option could be permitted and implemented. ALTERNATIVE 5 Alternative 5 follows the recommendation in the B&C report (1992) by purchasing the property subjected to flooding up to the 100-year recurrence frequency. The predicted 100- year flood stage elevation in the depression under future full buildout conditions is 318.6 feet (NHC 1998). Brown and Caldwell recommended purchasing property around the depression up to elevation 320 feet. This is a reasonable recommendation, as the overflow on the north of the depression is set at elevation 319.5-feet and SW 356th Street's profile elevation is near 320 feet. Flooding cannot reach depths greater than the overflow elevation other than depth over the weir of the overflow structure. Based on available topographic information, 320 feet is the maximum storage depth elevation possible in the depression prior to overtopping. Several properties lie within the 320-foot elevation flood plain. Based on data compiled by Brown and Caldwell (1992) and updated to represent current ownership, seven properties are within or partially within elevation 320 feet. Figure 4 is a reproduction of a figure from the above source that depicts the impacted parcels. Table 2 lists the impacted property owners and tl~ approximate acreage of land per parcel at or below elevation 320 feet. Exact area of property acquisition would need to be determined based upon a topographic survey of each parcel that would be completed by the City. The home nearest the overflow on the north end of the depression appears to have foundation vent openings very close to the elevation of the overflow rim (319.5 feet). Contour maps created for the development indicate that the ground elevation for the building should be at elevation 320 feet. Confirmation of the rim elevation and foundation elevation may be appropriate. It is possible to lower the overflow rim if necessary. Hoxvever, stormwater that enters the overflow structure is directed through a 12-inch storm drain that ultimately drains' to the west tributary of Hylebos Creek. The Hylebos Creek system is already overtaxed by stormwater runoff; further contribution of runoff from this watershed will aggravate the existing conditions and therefore should be avoided. The estimated cost for this alternative is $365,000. This estimated cost is for comparative evaluation only. The City must perform an appraisal of the affected properties to establish actual property valuation. 11 SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis... ... 3. ALTERNATIVES ] ] I 1 ] l 1 ] l I TABLE 2. P,~RCELS CONTAINING ELEVATION 320 FEET Owner Acres Simmons Tract 'A', NG Inc.a Parkeb Wilson Neighbors CaIlnoI1 Weber 0.3 Land Development, 5.3 2.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.7 a. Previous owner was identified as Bellacarino Woods Development b. Previous owner was Thode, area includes the entire parcel with buildings Source: Brown and Caldwell (1992) 12 ACT "A" / / F-.o GL.~ SGOW - $ R 3GER K. KOCi'~ L~ KCM City of Federal Way Figure 4. I' ' SW 356TH STEET 1917 First Avenue I M PACTE D PARC ELS Seattle, Washington 98'101 CLOSED DEPRESSION ANALYSIS J S~V 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis ...... 3. ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 6 Alternative 6 examines providing additional storage volume by excavating the existing Bellacarino Woods Park closed depression in Tract A. The goal is to provide sufficient volume to accommodate full build-out. Excavating the existing Tract A depression utilized three to one side slopes to the maximum depth obtainable within the depression, which represented an 18-foot excavation. The additional volume provided from this excavation was approximately 3.4 acre-feet. This added volume represents much less than the required volume to prevent inundation from the 2-year storm, far less than the capacity needed for the 100-year storm under full build-out conditions. There are several flaws with Alternative 6. These include the following: · Inadequate volume to achieve the 100-year level of protection · Potentially intercepting the groundwater table, thus drastically reducing the infiltration capability of the closed depression · Topographical limitations and proximity of property lines restrict additional excavation and volume enlargement. Costs associated with this alternative address excavation from the depression. The planning level cost estimate is $169,000. ] ] 4. CONCLUSIONS Several analyses have been performed for the closed depression. The most current analysis performed by NHC (1998) is the most comprehensive to date. Information developed in the NHC analysis and the modeling results were used to formulate conceptual alternative improvements. Using this information, five alternatives were developed. One alternative has been identified in a previous analysis, the others were new for this report. The closed depression receives runoff from 344 acres of rapidly developing residential area. There is also considerable opportunity for redevelopment with more intense land utilization with the commensurate potential for increased runoff, especially south of SW 356th Street. Under full build-out conditions, maximum water surface elevations are predicted to increase more than seven feet over existing levels. The conceptual alternatives ranged from a political decision, such as imposing a building moratorium in the watershed, to large drainage structural improvements including the construction of over one-half mile of large diameter drainage pipeline. The alternatives focused on solving the drainage problem in the depression. But as discussed in the description of the alternatives, solving the drainage problem in the depression may create more drainage problems in the receiving watershed ~vhen the alternatives involving inter- basin transfers are considered. The alternative's cost represents an estimate of only the drainage improvement identified to solve the drainage problem in the closed watershed, not the cost to correct any drainage problems that may be created in the downstream basin. Based upon construction cost estimates, Alternative 5 is the least cost option that provides the required level of protection. Table 3 summarizes the cost for each alternative. TABLE 3. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR ALTERNATIVES Alternative Cost Level of Protection 1 $0 .2-year(barn) 2 $901,000 2-year 3 $2,544,000 100-year 4 $1,631,000 100-year 5 $365,000 lO0-year 6 $169,000 <2-year Other Impacts Area still floods Area still floods Diverts flo~v into another basin, downstream impacts need evaluation Diverts flo~v into another basin, do~vnstream impacts need evaluation Flooding depth increases as development continues Area still floods 1 15 SW 356th Street Closed Depression A~alysis ...... 3. CONCLUSION ] ] ] ! Alternative 5 is the preferred alternative. This alternative was preferred because: · It is the least cost alternative that provides the desired level of protection. It does not divert flow from one drainage basin into another, thus does not aggravate drainage problems in adjacent basins, such as Hylebos Creek. Significant environmental and engineering analysis would be required if an out- of-basin transfer of stormwater was considered. · It provides for ground ~vater recharge which may not occur if runoff is diverted into another basin. · It utilizes the natural drainage infiltration feature. 5. REFERENCES .i ] ] Stepan & Associates, February 10, 1989, Madrona Meadows Overflow Report, report prepared for the development of the Madrona Meadows Plat. Urban Design, February 1990, Bellacarino Woods Closed Depression, report prepared for the development of the Bellacarino Woods Plat. Urban Design Inc., July 1991, Conceptual Closed Depression Analysis, supplemental report prepared for the development of the Bellacarino Woods Plat. Brown and Caldwell, November 26, 1991, SW 356th StreetYllth Avenue SW Study No. F83171 - Phase I Findings, report prepared for King County Surface Water Management Division. King County, July 1991, Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan, report prepared by King County Surface Water Management. Bro~vn and Caldwell, January 20, 1992, SW 356th Street/llth Avenue SW Study No. F83171 - Phase II Findings, report prepared for King County Surface Water Management Division. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, January 17, 1992, Letter report to Brown and Caldwell Consultants for t~ing County Surface Water Management. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., June 21, 1993, Storm Drainage Calculations for Bellacarino Woods - Federal Way, Washin~on, Technical Information Report prepared for King County Building and Land Development Division. Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, July 1991, Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report - Preliminary Plat Bellacarino Woods - Federal Way Washington, prepared for Newhall Jones, Inc. KCM, Inc., May 1996, Comprehensive Surface Water Facility Plan - Phase I, report prepared for the City of Federal Way Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, February 1998, HSPF Hydrologic Analysis of the SW 356th Street Closed Depression, prepared for Novastar Development Inc. I7 APPENDIX A HSPF INPUT DATA FILES SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis March 1999 [Omitted from Council Packet; Data Files available with original report on file with the City Clerk] APPENDIX B. TOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPRESSION AREA SW 356th Street Closed Depression Analysis March 1999 Barghausen Consulting Engineers nc. NewhalI-Jones, Inc. 12515 BaI-Rad Road Bellevue, WA 98005 (200) 462-8200 TRA CT 'A' POND VOLUME CALCULATION MAP BELLACARINO WOODS CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: CONSENT ORDINANCE X BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ATTACHMENTS: None SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: At a special meeting on October 5, 1999, the City Council of Whole interviewed applicants to fill two (2) committee and two (2) alternate vacancies on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The City Council will take action on the appointments at the regular meeting on October 5, 1999. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: City Council of Whole will recommend the applicants to fill the appropriate vacancies on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: After consideration of the various applicants' qualifications, the Council will move appointment of the named applicants, obtain a second and vote on their recommendations. The City Clerk is directed to arrange for introduction and presentation of appointment certificates for the newly appointed committee members at the October 19, 1999 regular meeting. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CCCOVER-5/24/94 MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 ITEM# . [2 ~ ............................................................................................................................................................................ ~ .............. 71.:...; .............................................................. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: THE LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN CATEGORY: CONSENT ORDINANCE ~_BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $0.00 Expenditure Amt: $0.00 Contingency Reqd: $0.00 ATTACHMENTS: September 3, 1999 letter from R.W. Beck to Marwan Salloum, and attachments SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: On February 11, 1999, Lakehaven Utility District adopted a Comprehensive Water System Plan Update. Under Washington law, the City of Federal Way and other cities located within the District have the legal authority to approve or reject the Plan. If the Plan is not approved, the District is prohibited by law (with limited exceptions) from making any expenditures on Plan projects. City staff retained RW Beck, a firm with substantial experience in preparation and review of comprehensive water plans, to review Lakehaven's Plan and advise the City as to its acceptability. The City Council previously repeatedly extended the time period (provided by state statute) in which it may approve or reject the Plan. The extensions were necessary so that staff could obtain additional information from Lakehaven and its consultants about gaps and inconsistencies in the Plan and subsequent draft amendments. Ultimately, the information was provided and RW Beck completed its analysis, which is attached. As the RW Beck review notes, the Lakehaven Plan utilizes generally accepted methodology in many respects. The Plan does raise, however, some issues of significant concern with respect to the adequacy of the Plan's: (a) long-term financing component; and Co)long-term water supply. Specifically, the Plan: * Utilizes a CFC that improperly allocates 100% of the cost of the Second Supply Pipeline to new growth, despite the fact that the District currently depends on a substantial supply of water from the City of Tacoma which will be replaced by Second Supply water; * Fails to use conservative financial planning assumptions, so that the District may face significant revenue shortfalls and/or unplanned rate increases if growth does not occur at projected rates; * Fails to explain anticipated capital requirements beyond 2003, so that the adequacy of Lakehaven's capital reserves is difficult to judge; * Fails financially plan for contingencies, in the event that planned technical "shortcuts" (i.e., sequestering of water supplies during corrosion control and iron and manganese reduction) do not work; * Overestimates the District's well yields by using average annual well yields instead of the more conservative 10-year drought well yields; * Fails to adequately document the actual capacity of the Second Supply Pipeline, which prevents the Plan from being able to reliably demonstrate that future capacity will be able to meet demand; * Relies too heavily on Aquifer Storage and Recovery (OASIS), to meet projected future water demands, when OASIS is not yet technically or legally feasible. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Approve Lakehaven Water Plan, but provide further direction (either as conditions of approval or otherwise) concerning how to ensure tl~at Lakehaven addresses the City's concerns. /, , APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION agnditem\comprej.907 COUNCIL BILL # ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # September 3, 1999 Mr. Marwan Salloum City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98003-6210 SEP 0 8 1999 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC Vg0RKS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION Subject: Review of Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan and Capital Facilities Charge Dear Marwan: This letter report summarizes our review of the Lakehaven Utility District (Lakehaven) Comprehensive Water System Plan (Plan) and Capital Facilities Charge (CFC). Our work consisted of reviewing a broad range of issues including capital improvements, rates, water demand forecasts, and technical issues. In addition, we have reviewed issues related to the various CFC proposals and analyses considered by Lakehaven during the February through August 1999 time period. Our review and opinions are based on information provided to us by the City and Lakehaven. We have made our best effort to obtain all relevant information and we believe this information is reasonably complete. However, to the extent that this information may be incomplete and/or out of date our findings will be affected accordingly. BACKGROUND In February 1999, R. W. Beck was hired by the City to conduct a review of Lakehaven's Plan. To do so, we first reviewed the entire Plan. We then reviewed a substantial number of background documents provided us by the City and Lakehaven. The documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 1. Following this initial review we identified a number of issues that the City requested we evaluate in greater detail. These included: 1. Capital Facility Charge and Water Rates 2. Capital Improvement Program 3. Available Yield from Existing and Proposed Sources 4. Water Demand Forecasts 5. Water Main Replacement Program 6. Miscellaneous Other Technical Issues We then contacted Lakehaven to obtain additional information. At their request, some inquiries were submitted in writing and, following Lakehaven's response, additional questions were posed during a telephone conference with Lakehaven staff and in a follow-up letter. On May 19, 1999, we met with several Lakehaven staff to discuss a number of issues \NI11()72 2t~()7 WtrPl. Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 2 related to the projected financial operating results presented in the Plan and in particular Chapter 12. Subsequent contacts with Lakehaven staff and their respective consultants were made during the course of our review. These contacts generally focused on the development of the CFC and the financial information included in Chapter 12. Our latest contacts with Lakehaven took place in August during which time we reviewed two separate revisions to the Chapter 12 financial section. The first review occurred in mid-August and resulted in a number of questions and requests for clarification that were delivered to Lakehaven on August 18, 1999. After reviewing these questions and concerns, Lakehaven realized that both Chapters 11 (Capital Improvement Plan) and 12 of the Plan included inconsistent information and required further revision. We received a second revised Chapter 12 on August 27, 1999 and a revised Chapter 11 on August 30, 1999. A record of all of the significant contacts with Lakehaven and their consultants over the period of our review is included in Attachment 1. It should be noted that over the course of the February through August 1999 review period we spent a significant amount of time trying to reconcile numerous discrepancies and errors in the key assumptions and calculations utilized in the various analyses of both the CFC and the Chapter 12 financial section. For example, the most current August revision of Table 12-2 lists a projected expenditures line item for "Total Scheduled Projects Other than Al-2 and Al-3 in then-current (Future) Dollars" in which the projected expenditures for Projects Al-2 and Al-3 do not appear to have been properly converted from 1998 Dollars to Future Dollars before they were excluded from the line item. The apparent result is that the costs for this line item appear to be overstated by nearly $0.9 million dollars across the six year planning period. This apparent inconsistency carries through the remainder of the financial section and appears to have the net effect of overstating the revenue requirements associated with Lakehaven's capital improvement program. During the review period, we reviewed at least four different analyses concerning the CFC along with four different iterations of the Chapter 12 financial information. In almost every instance, we found numerous cases where key assumptions or numbers had been changed, often resulting in errors, inconsistencies, or discrepancies. A large part of our effort has been spent trying to understand the various revisions and reconcile the resulting discrepancies in order to evaluate the overall feasibility of the Plan. Based on our review of all the provided information, including Lakehaven's responses, we have evaluated the Plan according to the basic issues summarized below. These issues are very inter-related, and it is difficult to discuss them separately. In order to put them into context with each other, we have used the information we obtained in our review to address the following primary questions: I 1-0()5 I S- XNl11072 2(~{)7 Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 3 1. Does the Plan contain an adequate long-term plan for funding on-going operations and needed improvements? A. Are the projected operating revenues and expenses reasonable based on historical and projected financial performance and operating conditions given the proposed capital improvements and future operations requirements? B. Are the proposed rate level changes sufficient to fund the projected level of operations and improvements? C. Are the projected reserves (ending cash balance) adequate for funding of future capital requirements and projected level of operations? D. Is the calculation of the CFC reasonable? 2. Does the Plan adequately provide for a secure long-term supply of water for Lakehaven's present and reasonably foreseeable needs? A. Are assumptions concerning short and long-term water supplies reasonable and prudent? B. Are water demands adequately tied to projected residential and commercial growth? C. Are assumptions regarding peak demand reasonable? 3. Does the Plan provide necessary policy guidance and keep customers informed of principal policy issues affecting the successful implementation of Plan recommendations? Our answers to these questions, which follow, are based on the information we were able to obtain from Lakehaven. Although some of the information available fails to fully address some of our concerns, we feel we have generally received the documentation necessary to complete a thorough review of the Plan in its current version. Our answers are based on the standard for comprehensive water plans contained in state statutes and regulations. We also referred to industry standards, as practiced by water providers in the Puget Sound region, as well as our professional opinion as to the reasonableness of any given assumption, practice, or proposal. Our project team members' knowledge of industry standards and professional opinions are based on our experience in performing similar work for other water providers in the area. The R. W. Beck staff members participating in our review have a total of 60 years experience in the water and wastewater industry. Specifically, our review team members' relevant background and experience is highlighted below: · Participation in the independent review of more than 50 uigity system operations, capital improvement, and financing programs, · Preparation of more than 25 Water System Comprehensive Plans in the Pacific Northwest, II 41/131 '4- I t)l ~/~l.///){12 XMIII)72 2N)7 V'.'trI'ln Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 4 Currently providing consultant services to the newly formed Cascade Water Alliance in the independent evaluation of water utilities and facilities as a part of the membership application process, · Participating in the consultant team for the preparation of a regional water plan for the Puget Sound Area, · Prepared water system rate studies and demand forecasts within the Puget Sound region and throughout the nation including current assignments with Tucson, Tacoma, Anacortes, Kauai, and the Eugene Water and Electric Board. Based on our relevant experience, our conclusions regarding Lakehaven's Plan are set forth in the following sections and are further documented in Attachment 2. CONCLUSIONS 1 · DOES THE PLAN CONTAIN AN ADEQUATE LONG-TERM PLAN FOR FUNDING ON-GOING OPERATIONS AND NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS? As detailed in Chapter 12 of the Plan, Lakehaven does appear to have developed a long-term plan that identifies the funding mechanisms and the degree to which these mechanisms are planned to be used to support the Plan's capital recommendations and associated operating costs. While we do have some concerns about certain elements of Chapter 12, overall, we feel that it meets the legal requirements for water system planning. RCW 57.16.010 requires a district's comprehensive plan to include "a long-term plan for financing the planned projects and the method of distributing the cost and expense thereof, including the creation of local improvement districts or utility local improvement districts..." The plan must also "determine whether the whole or part of the cost and expenses [of the plan's improvements] shall be paid from revenue or general obligation bonds." In addition state regulatory requirements (WAC 246-290-100) indicate that water system~plans must address existing and future "financial viability". The Washington State Department of Health describes financial viability as follows in its Water System Planning Handbook: "In order for a system to be "financially viable," it must have the capacity to obtain sufficient funds to develop, construct, operate, maintain and manage a public water system on a continuing basis in full co~npliance with federal, state, and local requirements. By establishing a sound financial program, the utility's decision-makers will be assured that the improvement schedule can be implemented. Thus, a good financial program can make the difference between a "wish list" and a useful and implementable plan. In addition, a complete financial program can assist the purveyor in establishing water rates and other charges that reflect the actual cost of providing service." i I -/1051 ~- NMI 1072 2~¢)7 WtrI'ln Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 5 While we believe that the Plan generally meets these legal requirements, we do have comments and concerns about certain elements as described further in the following paragraphs: · Historical Information: The Plan does not contain a historical perspective on how projected capital improvement program expenditures measure against historical operations. However, the information made available in our review indicates that the level of projected capital expenditures is significantly higher than historical expenditures. Also, while the projections for operations and maintenance assume a 3 percent increase for the study period, the increase between 1998 and 1999 is 8.1 percent. While not stated in the Plan, the reason for the portion of this increase not associated with inflation appears to be the additional costs associated with the SSP project. We also reviewed Lakehaven's historical operating statements to assess the Plan's revenue and operations and maintenance projections relative to historic levels. This review indicated that, in most cases, the projections generally appeared to be reasonable. · Projected Growth Rate and Revenues: As future water demand increases and the need for water system capital projects are typically driven by growth among other factors, it is often appropriate to use a somewhat aggressive growth rate when projecting future water demand to ensure that actual demands do not exceed projected demands and that the necessary capital facilities are available to support growth before it actually occurs. When projecting water system revenue, however, it is also often appropriate to use a somewhat lower, more conservative growth rate to ensure that if growth does not occur as rapidly as expected, there will still be adequate revenue sources to fund necessary capital projects. Lakehaven is currently using a growth rate of 1.7 percent to project its future customer base and therefore revenues on an annual basis for the next five years. While this growth rate is consistent with the rate used in the planning of capital projects, it is significantly greater than Lakehaven's historical growth rate of 0.5 to 1.0 percent. Use of this higher growth rate, absent other information that could justify its. application such a new large customer base, results in projections that are not consistent with historical growth patterns and may lead to revenue shortfalls and/or necessitate unplanned rate increases in the future. Lakehaven has recognized this in its Plan and has indicated that it will annually review the need for future capital based on actual growth rates. Chapter 12 of the Plan says that any shortfall of funds which may result from lower than anticipated growth rates will be addressed through delaying capital projects, reducing operating costs through "reengineering," and sale of water to other utilities. No detail is provided on how this would be done, or if it is even feasible to do so. In fact, many of the capital projects cannot be delayed because they are, or will be, legally required. This is a source of serious concern in a document whose primary purpose is to facilitate the implementation of programs and projects in an organized and cost effective manner. The Plan should include a financial contingency section that specifically identifies and Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 6 quantifies the potential operational and financial impacts associated with lower than anticipated growth, as well as Lakehaven's proposed methodologies to handle growth related revenue shortfalls. While the use of a higher growth rate in a planning level document such as the Plan may in the end be acceptable, development of a more detailed financial plan and any future rate analyses should consider the use of a growth rate that more closely tracks actual growth patterns. Projected Rate Increases. Lakehaven has projected rate increases under two scenarios in the Plan. The first scenario projects rate increases averaging 2.7 percent per year. Under this scenario, debt service requirements would be met and cash reserves appear adequate under current six-year capital expenditures projections. Future capital requirements beyond 2003, which the Plan provides no information on, may require a different level of capital reserves in the future. Lakehaven maintains that under the first scenario, they would experience negative net operating income. This results from the fact that Lakehaven includes depreciation as an operating expense. This is'analogous to setting aside a certain level of reserves each year for capital replacement. The decision to fully recover depreciation through rates is part of Lakehaven's rate-setting policies and can have a significant impact on rates. This is illustrated by the second rate increase scenario, where rate increases of 7.9 percent are projected for four years starting in 2000. At this level, net operating income is neutral. Again, since depreciation is included as an operating expense, a higher level of revenue is necessary to recover these expenses. Further, Lakehaven maintains that additional revenues are needed since SSP project debt service payments will increase significantly in the future. Level of Reserves or Ending Cash Balances: The ending cash balance for the year 2003 as shown in the August 27, 1999 version of the Chapter 12 financial section is $13,151,476. While this level still appears high relative to Lakehaven's annual capital needs, it is lower than the 1999 beginning cash balance and shows that Lakehaven is planning to expend some of its reserves on capital projects over the planning period. With an average level of capital spending over the planning period equal to approximately $4 million, the $13.1 million reserve balance projected for 2003 equates to just over three years of capital spending. Decisions related to maintenance of reserve balances are often subject to Board policy making. In our opinion, the projected reserve balance levels appear high relative to projected capital expenditures through 2003, and Lakehaven's historical capital expenditures. However, should capital requirements beyond 2003 continue to increase beyond existing and projected levels, the level of reserves may or may not be sufficient, depending on the exact nature of those requirements. We recommend that the plan provide information regarding anticipated capital requirements beyond 2003, and justification regarding the adequacy and appropriateness of the projected capital reserves, given anticipated future requirements. >,Nl11(172 2?~07 Wtrl'ln Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 7 Capital Costs/Risks: Certain of the proposed capital improvements in the Plan pose a risk of increased costs. If this were to happen it would aggravate funding problems. These considerations are discussed in greater detail in our response to Question 2. Allocation of Costs for New Sources: The level of Lakehaven's CFC is affected by certain assumptions in the Plan relative to the allocation of capital costs between existing and future customers. One of the more significant assumptions is how much of the cost of new sources and capital improvement projects are for system expansion, and to what extent they benefit existing customers. As an example, for Lakehaven's share of costs associated with Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline (SSP) project, the Plan originally indicated that 91 percent of the SSP project cost should be allocated to future customers, with the remaining 9 percent of these costs assigned to existing customers. Subsequent CFC proposals have suggested that 100 percent of the costs associated with the SSP project should be borne by future customers. These allocations are suspect because water from the SSP project would be used in the future to replace current interim sources of supply which are already serving Lakehaven's existing customers. For example, water supplied to existing customers under existing interim wholesale agreements with Tacoma totaled 2.14 mgd on average in 1996. As these agreements are conditioned to expire upon completion of the SSP project, it would appear that existing customers are already utilizing a significant portion of the water this new source will provide. The SSP project would also benefit existing customers by improving system reliability should existing sources fail or experience reduced capacity in the future. Lakehaven has indicated to us that it intends to blend water from the Second Supply Project with its existing supply, which seems to suggest that existing customers will see a significant benefit from this new supply. Our own analysis of the SSP project and resultant CFC indicated that between approximately 17 and 47 percent of the SSP project capacity would benefit existing customers, while between approximately 53 and 83 percent of the SSP. project capacity would benefit future development and new customers. As such it appears inequitable to allocate all of the costs associated with the SSP project to future customers alone. The most recent July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation appears to indicate a somewhat modified allocation of SSP project costs between existing and future customers, however, the methodology and rational behind the proposed allocation is not clear or easily understood. As such, we were unable to evaluate the equitability of the currently proposed cost allocations for the SSP project. We therefore recommend that the City continue to pursue additional clarification and discussion of the CFC cost allocations associated with these projects prior to adoption and approval of the Plan and the proposed CFC. 1I ()051E XMII072 2(;(17 Wtrl'ln Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 8 Level of proposed water capital improvement program spending: Lakehaven is entering a period of high capital spending with projected average annual spending on capital projects of approximately $4 million per year through 2003, not including the SSP project. Based on our review of Lakehaven's past capital budgeting, the budgeted amount of approximately $4.0 million per year is generally consistent with historical budget levels. However, actual CIP expenditures ranged from only 17 to 25 percent of the total budget expenditures during the 1994 to 1997 time period. As such, the proposed capital expenditures represent a significant increase over historical levels. Based on a review of the corresponding increases in operations and maintenance costs, it does not appear that Lakehaven is planning on adding significant additional staff to assist in addressing the internal management and staffing challenges which may result from this higher level of capital spending. It thus appears that Lakehaven is planning on undertaking a significantly higher level of capital spending using existing staff. While this alone is not necessarily an unreasonable approach,-it is of concern given the historical pattern of capital spending at Lakehaven relative to budgeted expenditures. Also of concern is the fact that a number of capital projects listed in the Chapter 12 proposed improvement schedule already appear to have been delayed relative to the schedule presented in earlier iterations of the Plan. These issues bring into question Lakehaven's ability to implement the Plan's recommendations in a timely and efficient manner We recommend that Lakehaven implement some form of performance tracking to ensure that the Plan's capital improvement schedule is being adequately adhered to and met in future years. 2. DOES THE PLAN ADEQUATELY PROVIDE FOR A SECURE LONG-TERM SUPPLY OF WATER FOR LAKEHAVEN'S PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE NEEDS? The Plan has identified Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline (SSP) project as the first increment of additional water once existing supplies reach capacity. Aquifer Storage and Recovery programs are proposed as the next increment of supply roi, lowing the SSP project. In reviewing the Plan, it appears that Lakehaven has developed a reasonable approach to project future demands, and identify and develop needed sources of supply through the 20-year study period. We have, however, identified a number of issues and/or questions regarding the proposed long-term sources of supply as well as the methodologies and assumptions used to project future demands. · ~ Well Yields: The Plan estimates the yield from existing well and aquifers at 10.1 mgd according to average precipitation and recharge conditions. Historically, Lakehaven's aquifers experienced declining water levels and reduced production capacity following peak annual withdrawals of 10.1 mgd in 1990 and lower than average rainfall. As the future occurrence and duration of drought conditions and the resultant effect on supply sources cannot be accurately predicted, generally accepted industry standards would indicate that the use of more conservative supply capacity estimates are XMI 1(}72 2t,{17 WtrI'ln Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 9 appropriate when planning for future demands. Thus, a more reasonable and prudent planning assumption for well yield would be 8.7 mgd based on 10-year drought conditions. This lower value would accelerate the need for new sources by approximately eight years. The Plan also does not address whether Lakehaven's wells will be able to supply the anticipated monthly variations in future demands. Additional information regarding the capabilities of the existing wells to supply future demands should be included, as the capacity of existing sources relative to future demands will determine the need and timing for the development of new supplies. Second Supply Pipeline: Although recent CFC analyses appear to indicate that the anticipated supply from the SSP project would average approximately 4.7 mgd, the Plan does not appear to project or specifically address the annual capacity that the SSP project will provide. Although the actual capacity would appear to be in part dependant on hydrology considerations, the anticipated capacity of this future source must be better documented in the Plan in order to demon§trate that ttie capacity of proposed future supplies can reliably provide adequate quantities of water relative to projected future demands. As such, the anticipated capacity of future supply, sources must be estimated according to available information and reasonable assumptions. · Feasibility of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery: The technical and permitting feasibility of the Aquifer, Storage and Recovery (ASR) concept has yet to be demonstrated. The Plan calls for continued development of ASR so that it will be on line by the year 2004, but does not consider all the costs which will likely be associated with these programs. Although Lakehaven has indicated that it may complete annual updates to the Plan, the next update will not be required until 2004. As such, the Plan should include a more thorough analysis of how to deal with requirements to successfully implement ASR. The Plan should also recommend alternate sources of supply in case ASR programs cannot be successfully implemented. The Plan does identify some alternatives and provide recommendations, but Lakehaven has not identified how or if it will fund these efforts considering other funding'needs. · Cost of Facilities: Several of the capital improvements proposed in the Plan are based on nonconservative cost assumptions. For example, the proposed sequestering method to treat for iron and manganese contamination may not work, in which case a more expensive method would be required. Considering the high level of proposed capital projects and the risk of increased costs, a more conservative approach to estimating future capital cost is appropriate. The Plan also does not include any budget to implement sequestering for Lakehaven's sources of supply other than groundwater. Blending of water from sequestered and nonsequestered sources could lead to significant water quality difficulties. The Plan should identify how such issues and the resulting costs will be addressed. I 1 -{ ){)518-104){ XNI I 1{}72 2607 Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 10 · Impact of Future Water Quality Regulations: The Plan does not address the potential effects that many anticipated future water quality rules and regulations may have on its various sources of supply, and in particular, those from Tacoma. These potential effects will be a significant factor in determining the future costs associated with Lakehaven's various supply sources and should be better documented in the Plan. · Impact of the Endangered Species Act: The Plan does not discuss the potential effect that the listing of Pacific Salmon as endangered species could have on proposed sources of supply. This is critical issue from a planning standpoint and should be included as the listing could have wide ranging impacts on Lakehaven's existing and proposed sources of supply, and in particular the SSP project. · Demand Forecast Methodologies: The water demand forecasts in the Plan appear to have been made using generally accepted methodologies. As discussed previously, the projected available yield of Lakehaven's supply sources may be overstated in the Plan. In addition, the projected average annual per capita water demand of 100 gpm is among the lowest we are aware of in the Puget Sound region. Although this would appear to be consistent with historic usage and can to some extent be attributed to Lakehaven's low unaccounted for water and effective conservation measures, for planning purposes this may be indicative of nonconservative demand projections, which would tend to underestimate the need for additional sources of supply in the future. To demonstrate that this is not the case, the Plan should provide additional background and justification regarding the suitability of the demand projections for planning purposes. · Demand Projection Peaking Factors: Based on our experience in the Puget Sound area, the peaking factors used to project peak day demands appear to be towards the Iow end of the spectrum. As such, we are somewhat concerned regarding the validity of the demand projections for planning purposes, and would recommend that additional background and justification regarding the suitability of the projections be provided in the Plan. · Supply Analysis: The Plan's supply analysis indicates that the proposed sources of supply may be adequate to supply the projected demands for the 20 year planning horizon, but not to a 98 percent degree of confidence and reliability according to the historic variations in monthly demands, and not under less than ideal aquifer recharge or 10-year drought conditions. As the plan's demand projections appear to be somewhat low to begin with, the adequacy of the identified supply sources to satisfy future demands in a reliable manner is suspect. NMIIl}72 2t~i)7 Wtrl'ln Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 11 3. DOES THE PLAN PROVIDE THE NECESSARY POLICY GUIDANCE AND KEEP CUSTOMERS INFORMED OF THE PRINCIPAL POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING THE SUCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS? The plan is lacking in detail with regard to important policy issues. These include: · How projects will be rescheduled and prioritized if funding is not available, · How and why projects will be deferred and what impact will this have on the ability to accomplish Lakehaven's stated mission of providing high quality drinking water, better than Federal and State Standards, while keeping costs at the lowest reasonable level, · "Reengineering' to reduce costs: Many water utilities have undertaken efforts to improve efficiency and reduce costs. These efforts often result in out-sourcing of services and privatization of certain operating functions. These actions have significant policy implications which should be addressed through the water co_mprehensive planning process and documented the Plan. issues in the Plan, more information and Considering the detail afforded the technical discussion on these issues is warranted. SUMMARY In summary, it is our opinion that the Lakehaven Plan raises a number of significant concerns which should be better addressed. These issues fall into the following general areas: 1. Analyses of available supply, and to a lesser extent projected future demands, are based on nonconservative assumptions that fail to recognize Lakehaven's historic supply problems. This means that, despite the extensive planning process, Lakehaven may be at risk of not having enough water to serve customers over the 20-year planning horizon. 2. A number of the Plan's capital improvement projects and cost estimate projections are based on nonconservative assumptions or unproven methodologies which do not address potential difficulties Lakehaven may encounter in implementihg water quality treatment for its existing sources or in developing future supplies. If the proposed supply sources and treatment methods cannot be successfully realized, far more expensive alternatives may be necessary. The Plan also fails to recognize or address the impact that some future water quality regulations and the listing of the Pacific Salmon may have on the future costs of water service. Given the associated tis'ks and the large potential financial impacts which are associated with these issues, the plan should identify how such difficulties and the resulting cost increases would be mitigated. 3. The Plan projects capital reserves through the year 2003 but does not document whether or not the reserves are appropriate or adequate given anticipated future capital requirements beyond 2003. We recommend that the plan provide information 1 l -()0~ l g KMIl/172 2~,()7 YVtvlVln Mr. Marwan Salloum September 3, 1999 Page 12 regarding anticipated capital requirements beyond 2003, and justification regarding the adequacy and appropriateness of the projected capital reserves, given anticipated future requirements. 4. Given Lakehaven's historical performance in completing capital improvements relative to the high level of capital improvements proposed in the Plan, and the potential for revenue shortfalls should the Plan's relatively high growth and revenue projections prove overly optimistic, the Plan raises some significant concerns regarding Lakehaven's ability to implement it's capital improvement program in a timely and efficient manner. Given these concerns, it is appropriate to implement some form of performance tracking to ensure that the Plan's capital improvement schedule is being adequately adhered to and met in future years. The performance monitoring system could also provide information that would be helpful in evaluating the need for future rate adjustments and assessing an appropriate level of capital reserves. In the event growth does not occur as anticipated, the Plan should also include a financial contingency section that'specifically identifies and quantifies the potential operational and financial impacts associated with lower growth rates and as well as proposed methodologies to handle growth related revenue shortfalls. 5. We have some remaining concerns regarding the equitability of the allocation methodologies used in the most recent CFC determination and the Plan to distribute future capital costs between existing and future customers. We recommend that the City continue to pursue additional clarification and discussion of the CFC cost allocations associated with these projects prior to adoption and approval of the Plan and the CFC. We hope that this information will be helpful as you address the water supply issues facing the City. If you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 695-4504. Sincerely, R. W. BECK, INC. Robert J. Bingl~m Principal 1 1-01~31 ~4-10000-0(t02 NMI 11)72 2~,{)7 WtrI'ln ATTACHMENT 1 REVIEW OF LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE (CFC) INFORMATION SOURCES, CORRESPONDENCE, AND AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS 1. May 4, 1990 Federal Way Water and Sewer General Information Document 2. 1991 Federal Way Water and Sewer Comprehensive Water System Plan 3. May 14, 1991 Federal Way Water and Sewer Public Work Shop Document 4. August 1994 Feasibility Study of Oasis, Lakehaven Utility District 5. 1991-1995 C.I.P. Notebook of Federal Way Water and Sewer 6. 1995 Lakehaven Utility District Budget 7. 1997 Lakehaven Utility District Budget 8. Lakehaven Utility District Resolution No. 97-820 - Re: Fees and Charges 9. 1998 Adopted Lakehaven Utility District Budget 10. Lakehaven Utility District Resolution No. 98-854 - Re: $33.8 million 1998 Revenue Bond Issuance 11. March 19, 1998 Department of Ecology Letter - Re: Lakehaven Utility District Underground Injection Program Letter 12. KPMG Peat Marwick - Study Related to Proposed Merger of City of Federal Way and Federal Way Water and Sewer 13. March 1998 City of Federal Way Feasibility Report Regarding Assumption of Lakehaven Utility District 14. Lakehaven Utility District Final Comprehensive Water System Plan/November 1998 Revision 15. December 10, 1998 Letter to Lakehaven Utility District Board of Commissioners from Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson - Re: Proposed Capital Facilities Charge Increase for the Water System (Resolution No. 98-870) 16. 1999 Draft Lakehaven Utility District Budget 17. January 4, 1999 Lakehaven Utility District Letter - Re: Changes to Water Comprehensive Plan 18. February 4, 1999 City of Federal Way Letter - Re: Proposed Capital Facilities Charge Increase and February 4, 1999 Inter-office Memorandum to Kenneth E. Nyberg Re' Capital Facilities Charge Increase with 8 Dividers of Attachments N~.l] l{}72 2607 19. February 22, 1999 Lakehaven Utility District Letter - Re: Comprehensive Water System Plan Amendments and Adoption 20. Lakehaven Utility District Final Comprehensive Water System Plan, February 1999 Revision 21. April 1, 1999 Lakehaven Utility District Letter - Re: Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan R.W. Beck Information Request 22. April 12, 1999 City of Federal Way Memorandum - Re: Comments on Review of Lakehaven Comprehensive Water Plan 23. April 14, 1999 Teleconference between R.W. Beck and Lakehaven Utility District 24. April 14, 1999 R.W. Beck Letter - Re: Follow up Information Request pertaining to Chapter 12 of Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan 25. April 22, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Presentation Materials - Re: Evaluation of 1999 CFC for Future Facilities 26. April 22, 1999 CCA, Inc. Presentation Materials - Re: Propos.ed 1999 Capital Facilities Charge for Existing Systems and Facilities 27. April 23, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Letter Report - Re: Evaluation of the Future Facilities Element of Capacity Facilities Charges for the Water System 28. May 9, 1999 Lakehaven Utility District Letter - Re: Follow Up Request for Information Pertaining to Chapter 12 of Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan 29. May 12, 1999 Meeting between Lakehaven, the City of Federal Way, and major area developers - Re: Proposed CFC 30. May 19, 1999 Meeting between Lakehaven and R.W. Beck - Re: Financial Planning Information 31. May 19, 1999 Revised Lakehaven Financial Plan (Revised Table 12-4, Draft 1999 Comprehensive Water System Plan) 32. May 20, 1999 Lakehaven Utility District Public Hearing regarding the proposed CFC 33. May 27, 1999 R.W. Beck Letter - Re: Review of Proposed Lakehaven Utility District Capital Facilities Charge 34. June 2, 1999 R.W. Beck Memorandum - Re: Calculation of Existing Element of CFC 35. June 7, 1999 R.W. Beck Memorandum - Re: Update of Existing CFC Element Review 36. June 28, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Letter - Re: Evaluation of the Existing Facilities Element of the Capital Facilities Charges for the Water System 37. July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Letter - Re: Evaluation of a Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge for the Water System after Adoption and Approval of the 1999 Comprehensive Water System Plan Update I 1-()O5 I S-IO0(IO-0002 [.t W [teck, NNllIt172 2(,07 Wtrl'ln 38. July 12, 1999 Revised Lakehaven Financial Plan (Revised Table 12-1/12-4, Draft 1999 Comprehensive Water System Plan) 39. July 29, 1999 R.W. Beck Letter - Re: Request for Additional Information from Lakehaven Utility District 40. Lakehaven Utility District Final Comprehensive Water System Plan, August 1999 Revisions .K.',.II 1[)72 26(17 ~.Vtr/')lrl ATTACHMENT 2 LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE (CFC) REVIEW OF ISSUES - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CAPITAL FACILITY CHARGE (CFC) We have reviewed a number of documents related to the determination of Lakehaven's Capital Facility Charge. In fact during the course of our review, which has spanned the February through August 1999 period, the proposed CFC has been revised a number of times and the CFC as originally proposed in the Plan appears to have been rescinded. The most recent CFC proposal as outlined in the July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation appears to have been adopted for planning purposes and has been incorporated into the Plan. With regard to. this most-recent CFC determination, we have the following general concerns and comments related to the approach and methodology used in the CFC determination: · Lakehaven appears willing to adopt CFCs that are much higher than other regional water utilities while maintaining water rates at a lower level than they otherwise would be given the high level of anticipated capital spending. Other utilities in the region (e.g., Seattle, Bellevue, etc.) have set their water rates at current levels in part to help promote conservation and wise use of water by their customers. This raises the question of equity in rate making and should be addressed once the CFC and new rates are set. · With regard to the general approach used to calculate the existing and future elements of the CFC, we have reviewed the methodologies and discussed a number of issues pertaining to the inclusion of depreciation, interest, and contributions in aid of construction with Lakehaven's consultants. We believe that the overall methodology utilized in calculating the CFC is generally consistent with industry practice. While we have not reviewed Lakehaven's accounting records to verify the accuracy of the figures supplied by Lakehaven and used by their consultants, we have reviewed other documents to cross check the general magnitude of the figures being used. In addition we have discussed any noticeable anomalies in the figures with Lakehaven's consultants and have concluded that the figures represent a reasonable estimate of the value of certain accounts used in the analysis. It should be noted that for the most recent CFC analysis dated July 8, 1999, we have not had the opportunity to review any supporting information used. However it appears that the general methodology is consistent with what has been used in previous analyses. · A key issue in the determination of the CFC is wi-tether Lakehaven's intertie with the Tacoma Second Supply Pipeline (SSP) project only provides value to new customers or whether existing customers will significantly benefit from this capacity. If current 11-0031S 101)IlO-0002 R W fleck. Inc. 1 NMII{I72 26(17 Wtrl'ln customers will see no benefit from this $25 million project, then the long-term value of the SSP project is quite suspect. The Plan originally estimated that that 91 percent of the benefit of the SSP project was expansion or growth related. Subsequent CFC proposals suggested that the Lakehaven's participation in the SSP project is entirely expansion related and that 100 percent of the associated costs should be borne by future customers. These allocations are suspect because the Plan indicates that water from the SSP project would be used in the future to replace current interim sources of supply which are already providing significant quantities of water to Lakehaven's existing customers. The SSP project also improves system reliability for existing customers should existing sources fail or experience reduced capacity in the future. Our own analysis of the SSP project and resultant CFC indicated that between approximately 17 and 47 percent of the SSP project capacity would benefit existing customers, while between 53 and 83 percent of the SSP project capacity would benefit future development and new customers. As such, it seems reasonable to assume that a significant share of the project would benefit existing customers, and that as such they should share in the associated project costs. Although the most recent CFC determination appears to indicate a somewhat modified allocation of SSP project costs between existing and future customers, the methodology and rational behind the allocation is not clear or easily understood. As such, we were unable to evaluate the equitability of the cost allocations for the SSP project. We therefore recommend that the City continue to pursue additional clarification and discussion of the CFC cost allocations associated with the SSP project prior to adoption and approval of the Plan and CFC. Tacoma has an equivalent CFC of about $1,400 per ERU, based on a system buy-in method analysis. However, Tacoma has been reviewing its CFC levels for more than a year and we believe is encountering significant political resistance to increasing these charges. Seattle Public Utilities does not have any CFCs. Rather it prefers to promote water conservation by funding'capital projects through higher rate levels. They have implemented significant use fee rate increases annually for the last four years primarily to fund capital projects and system replacement costs. In addition to the foregoing general comments, we would like to raise the following issues and concerns related to the specific methodologies and techniques used to arrive at the CFC and its consistency with information presented in the Plan: n For many of the capital improvement plan projects, the July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation allocates project costs between existing and new customers according to the current and projected demands for the entire water system. These allocation methods appear somewhat arbitrary given the fact that many of these projects do not provide service to the entire Lakehaven water system. Additionally, for many of these projects, the capacity and benefits they provide to existing and new customers may not be directly related to overall system demand. As such, it ma,/ be inappropriate to allocate associated project costs for many of these I ld1()51,~4-1(}()()()-()()()2 I.~ W. Beck, h~c 2 XMllt)72 2(,(17 Wtrl'ln improvements on the basis of system demand alone. For such projects, we would suggest that the most appropriate method for allocating associated project would be to distribute costs according to the actual ERU capacity benefit provided by each individual improvement for both existing and new customers. · According to the July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation, Lakehaven Utility District anticipates that the Redondo WWTP Main Replacement project will be completed in 1999. The Plan indicates that this project was unscheduled with an unknown completion date. The capital improvement and financial sections of the Plan should be updated to correctly reflect the status of this project prior to final Plan approval and adoption. · In the July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation, the methodology and rational behind the cost allocations for the ASR Testing/NE T/FW Transmission Main/SSP Project/OASIS between existing and future customers is not clear or easily understood. As such, we were unable to evaluate the equitability of the proposed CFC cost allocations for these projects. We recommend that the City pursue additional clarification and discussion of the CFC cost allocations associated with these projects prior to adoption and approval of the Plan and the proposed CFC~ · The July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation indicates that as SSP project costs are being allocated entirely to new customers, that capital improvement costs associated with Lakehaven's existing groundwater well sources should be allocated entirely to existing customers. As such, it would appear that a portion of the costs associated with the Standby Power Project N-l, specifically those costs associated with providing standby power for the existing wells, should be excluded from the CFC, and thus allocated to entirely to existing customers. A portion of the cost of this project is allocated to new customers according to current average daily demands and those projected for the year 2017. However, the Plan indicates that this project would only provide sufficient standby power capacity to supply average daily demands through the year 2010. Since it appears that this project will only provide sufficient capacity through 2010, it seems inappropriate to allocate project costs according to 2017 demand projections. We recommend that the City pursue additional clarification and discussion of the CFC cost allocations associated with this project prior to adoption and approval of the Plan and the proposed CFC. · For the New Booster Pump Station Project N-2, the July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation allocates associated project costs between existing and new customers according to the current maximum daily system demands and those projected for the year 2017. This allocation method appears somewhat arbitrary given the fact that the pump station may have to provide capacity beyond maximum day demands to deliver adequate fire flows, and appears to be providing service only to the 578 Pressure Zone as opposed to the entire Lakehaven water system. As such, the increased capacity the pump station will provide to serve existing and future customers within the 578 Pressure Zone may not be directly related to the demands of the system asa whole. This allocation also assumes that the pump station will have sufficient capacity to supply projected 2017 maximum day demands, I I (1(151,'4-1()()()0-(1()02 [,~ W Beck, Inc NNllIO72 2(,07 Wtrl'h~ which may or may not be the case. We would suggest that the associated project costs would be more appropriately allocated according to the actual pump station design capacity and the number of ERUs the pump station should actually be able to serve relative to the existing ERUs within the 578 Pressure Zone. · For the Transmission and Distribution System Projects Al-5, Al-7, Al-10, Al-11, Al-13, N-3, N-4, O-1, 0-2, and 0-3 the July 8, 1999 Kennedy/Jenks Preliminary Capital Facilities Charge Evaluation allocates associated project costs between existing and new customers according to the current peak hour system demands and those projected for the year 2017. This allocation method appears somewhat arbitrary given the fact that these projects may not be providing service to the entire Lakehaven water system, and may have to provide capacity beyond peak hour demands to deliver adequate fire flows. As such, the increased capacity these projects will provide to serve existing and future customers may not be directly related to the demands of the system as a whole. This allocation also assumes that these projects will have sufficient capacity to supply projected 2017 peak hour demands, which may or may not be the case. We would suggest that the associated project costs would be more appropriately allocated according to the general area(s) served by each project. Impr. ovement projects serving primarily new areas should be allocated to new customers. Projects serving primarily existing customers should be allocated to existing customers and excluded from the CFC. Projects serving both new and existing customers should be allocated according to the relative benefit to each group. · The proposed cost allocation methods for the booster pump station portions of the Pump Station and Well Upgrade Program Projects Al-16 through Al-18 appear to be somewhat arbitrary in a manner analogous to that described for the New Booster Pump Station Project N-2. We would suggest that the associated project costs would be more appropriately allocated according to the actual pump station design capacities and the number of ERUs the pump stations should actually be able to serve relative to the existing ERUs within their individual service areas. · The proposed cost allocation methods for the Future Relocations/Roads Projects A1-22 appear to be somewhat arbitrary in a manner analogous to that described for the Transmission and Distribution System Projects AI-5, Ai-7, Al-10, A1-11, A1-13, N-3 and N-4. We would suggest that the associated project costs would be more appropriately allocated according to the general areas served by each project as described previously. WATER DEMAND FORECASTS The water demand forecasts in the Plan appear to have been completed using generally accepted methodologies. Demand projections were initially developed at four levels: High Projection without Conservation, Medium Projection without Conservation, High Projection with Conservation, and Medium Projection with Conservation. The second lowest of these projection methodologies, High Projection with Conservation, was selected for use in the Plan. Relative to the selected projection technique, the range of variation in projected demands between the four projection methodologies was from approximately 7 percent lower than the selected method, to approximately 15 percent higher. Although it I I ()(t~1~-I()()0()-0()(12 I~ W Beck, Inc. NMI 11172 26117 WtrPln is appropriate to plan for water demand savings through conservation, the selected projection methodology may be somewhat nonconservative for planning purposes relative to the other projection options. Comparison of the Plan's demand projections with those for population yields an average annual per capita production rate of just over 100 gpcd. While this rate is apparently consistent with recent Lakehaven demand history, is nevertheless one of the lowest unit demands that we are aware of for Puget Sound and western Washington area water systems. This may be partially attributable to Lakehaven's low rate of lost and unaccounted for water and effective conservation measures. However, it may also be indicative of inappropriately low, nonconservative demand projections. For the 1986 through 1996 demand history included in the Plan, the median ratio of peak day demand to average annual demand was 2.14, while the maximum value, occurring in 1994, was 2.34. In order to develop peak day demand projections from average annual projections, the Plan uses the historic maximum ratio of 2.34 for the near term 6 year planning horizon, with a linear decrease from 2.34 to the historic 2.14 median value for 2004 through 2017. While these peaking factors are consistent with historic values for Lakehaven, they do appear to be relatively tow when compared to typical vaiues for Puget Sound and western Washington area water purveyors, and may thus tend to produce inappropriately low, nonconservative demand projections. The Plan should at the very least, provide additional justification and background regarding the applicability of the demand projections for long term planning relative to historic demand patterns within Lakehaven as well as the historic demand patterns and future demand projections of similarly sized, nearby purveyors. SOURCES OF SUPPLY The Plan indicates that Lakehaven will be pursuing water supply from four principal supply categories over the next 20 years: Well Supply Sources, Tacoma Interim Supplies, Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Project, and Aquifer Storage and Recovery/OASIS programs. Each of these proposed supply sources is discussed in the subsequent sections, along with the water quality and other major considerations which may impact and affect their use. WELL SUPPLY SOURCES Lakehaven's existing well supply sources are summarized in Table I attached. Based on our review of the Plan, we found the following issues to be particularly noteworthy with regard to Lakehaven's existing well and groundwater supply sources: · According to hyd;ogeologic assessments of the aquifers which support Lakehaven's well supply sources, the average annual sustainable aquifer supply capacity for Lakehaven's wells is estimated at 10.1 mgd under average precipitation and aquifer recharge conditions, but only 8.7 mgd during 10-year drought conditions. These capacities are summarized in Table 2. I 1-11(151~-1/)t)Ot)-01102 R ~.** t~ec~., Inc. 5 XNI111172 2~{~7 Wtrl'ln Table 2: Aquifer Groundwater Supply Source Physical Well Water Rights Production Limits Aquifer Capacity Permitted Primary I Supplemental Average 10 Year (mgd) Flow (ml~d) Yield (m~d)[ Yield (m~d) (m~d) Drought (m~dl RMC 17.93 25.99 16.14 8.30 5.80 5.50 MLA 7.06 12.24 0.00 5.62 1.50 1.20 EUP 1.73 5.65 2.69 2.54 1.00 0.50 DEEP 4.25 6.12 0.63 3.62 1.80 1.50 Total 30.96 50.00 19.45 20.07 10.10 8.70 Historically, Lakehaven's aquifers experienced declining water levels and reduced production capacity following peak annual withdrawals of 10.1 mgd in 1990 and lower than average rainfall. Decreased use of Lakehaven's well supply sources and increased use of Tacoma wholesale supplies in subsequent years has allowed aquifer levels to recover The Plan's analyses are based on a reliable average annual groundwat_er production capacity of 10.1 mgd. Given the demonstrated past difficultie's in maintaining this level of annual withdrawal and the more conservative estimates of aquifer capacity under 10- year drought conditions, the 8.7 mgd average annual aquifer capacity estimate is a more appropriate value for planning purposes. Three of Lakehaven's four primary water supply aquifers appear to be potentially vulnerable to contamination from surface sources. The shallowest, and most vulnerable of Lakehaven's aquifers, the Redondo Milton Channel (RMC) aquifer, provides approximately 60 percent of Lakehaven's groundwater supply capacity. The deeper and somewhat less vulnerable Mirror Lake Aquifer (MLA) and Eastern Upland (EUP) aquifer, provide 20 to 25 percent of Lakehaven's groundwater supply capacity. Although Lakehaven has initiated wellhead protection program efforts to address surface contamination concerns, these efforts are not yet complete and the Plan lacks detail regarding the extent of the contamination threat, preventative measures, contingency planning, and potential mitigation costs. The screen elevation of a number of Lakehaven's groundwater supply wells is near or below sea level, which may indicate some potential for salt water intrusion and contamination of Lakehaven's groundwater supply if withdrawals are not managed properly. INTERIM TACOMA SUPPLY Until the Second Supply Pipeline (SSP) project is completed, existing water supply agreements between Lakehaven and Tacoma provide for the wholesale supply of Tacoma water to Lakehaven through two interties. Water supply from Tacoma is primarily surface water from the Green River and also typically includes some South Tacoma Wellfield water during the summer months. I l-0iLql,q-1()()l)fl-t)0()2 R. W [geck., Inc 11172 2(,(17 WtrI'ln The current Construction and Wholesale Water Supply Agreement between Lakehaven and Tacoma allows for a 2 mgd average supply rate from June through September and 7-mgd average supply rate from October through May, for a maximum average annual supply of 5.3 mgd, as shown in Table 3. This supply agreement will be in effect August 13, 1998 through completion of the SSP project, and appears to supercede Lakehaven's original 1995 Interim Water Supply Agreement with Tacoma. Table 3: Tacoma Interim Supply Sources Source I Agreement I Capacity (mlqd) I Term Annual]Winter] SummerI Tacoma Intertie Interim Water 3.80 5.8 1.8 6/8/95 through No. 2 and 3 ~Supply Agreement 6/8/99 NE Tacoma/ Construction and 5.33 7 2 8/13/98 Federal Way Wholesale Water through SSP Transmission Supply Agreement Completion Main SECOND SUPPLY PIPELINE Under existing agreements, Lakehaven is participating in Tacoma's second supply pipeline (SSP) project which will provide Lakehaven with up to 7.2 mgd from a surface water intake and reservoir on the Green River upon completion. This project includes Phase I of the Howard Hanson Storage Project which would allow for additional reservoir storage during the spring to supply water demands during the summer and fall. Although the CFC analyses appear to indicate that the anticipated supply from the SSP project would average 4.7 mgd, the average annual supply capacity of this future source is not clearly identified or established in the Plan, and would appear to be at least partially dependant on the hydrology of the Green River supply source. As this will be a major future source of supply for Lakehaven, the Plan should identify the anticipated annual supply capacity of this source, subject to reasonable assumptions appropriate for lon.g term planning, such that the need for additional sources can be properly assessed and planned for. AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY AND OASIS The Plan identifies aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) as a water management practice Lakehaven will pursue to augment natural groundwater supplies. A 1993 feasibility study indicated that artificial recharge of Lakehaven's aquifers during the winter months could support increased aquifer withdrawals during the high demand summer months. The aquifers would be recharged either with surface water from the Green and Cedar Rivers, excess water purchased from other area purveyors, and possibly even via wastewater reclamation and reuse given appropriate levels of treatment. The Plan indicates that Lakehaven will continue on-going ASR testing and expand these efforts into the development of a large scale 25 to 45 mgd ASR system termed OASIS, I IdiODl~-l(l(It)()-()i)(12 R.W. Beck, Inc. 7 NNlll(i72 2(4)7 Wlrl'ln Optimization of Aquifer Storage for Increased Supply. The Plan lacks detail on the feasibility of ASR and OASIS to augment water supplies. In particular, proposed sources of water for aquifer recharge do not appear to be specifically identified or evaluated, and the supply, water rights, permitting, water quality, treatment, technical, design, and funding requirements for aquifer recharge are not fully explored. While such programs may be technically feasible, the Plan lacks specific detail on the implementation, scheduling, and funding aspects of these programs to augment natural groundwater supply. It should also be noted that while wastewater reuse and reclamation are explored in the Plan as a potential source of water for artificial aquifer recharge via direct injection and/or infiltration, the Plan indicates that Lakehaven is not pursuing these options at this time. WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS Given Lakehaven's four identified primary supply sources, the following considerations with regard to water quality are particularly relevant: · Water produced from all of Lakehaven's well supply sources contains iron and manganese, secondary water contaminants which can lead' to aesthetic, non-health related, water quality problems. Water produced from all of Lakehaven's well supply sources is classified as moderately aggressive with respect to corrosion, due primarily to Iow pH and buffering capacity. A few of the wells also experience problems with hydrogen sulfide. · Lakehaven, which is not currently providing disinfection for many of its well supply sources, plans to install chlorine disinfection for all wells by 1999. While this should ensure compliance with the forthcoming Groundwater Rule and offer the benefit of improved protection from biological water supply contamination, it will also tend to exacerbate Lakehaven's iron and manganese contamination problems, as chlorine tends to oxidize iron and manganese and cause them to precipitate out of solution. · In order to reduce the corrosivity of its groundwater supplies and comply with the Lead and Copper Rule, Lakehaven plans to implement corrosion control at its active well supply sources via sequestering agents and/or pH adjustment.. While this will reduce the corrosivity of Lakehaven's groundwater supplies, it-will also tend to exacerbate Lakehaven's iron and manganese contamination problems through increased oxidation and precipitation. · In order to improve water quality with respect to iron and manganese and deal with the negative water quality effects disinfection and corrosion control will have on the iron and manganese present in Lakehaven's groundwater supplies, Lakehaven plans to provide iron and manganese treatment through addition of sequestering agents. Sequestering, a chemical method which prevents iron and manganese from precipitating out of solution, is a less rigorous and expensive approach to iron and manganese treatment than actual removal of the contaminants via greensand filtration or similar treatment processes. Sequestering may or may not be effective at controlling iron and manganese contamination given the complicating effects of both disinfection and II UiL3IN-I()O(!O-IIO()2 IL W. [:leek, XXlllI)72 2607 WtrPln corrosion control treatment. Additionally, blending of sequestered and nonsequestered water can adversely affect the effectiveness of the sequestering agents, leading to precipitation of iron and manganese and treatment failure. Thus, Lakehaven may have to implement sequestering for its wholesale Tacoma supplies, as well for any other nonsequestered supply sources, to prevent further water quality problems. Difficulties with sequestering of iron and manganese have been extensive enough that Washington State Department of Health policy effectively discourages it as a method of treatment. While Lakehaven's estimated cost to implement sequestering at its acfive wells is only $1.13 million, treatment costs to remove iron and manganese from Lakehaven's acfive well sources, and thus fully correct the problem, would be much, much higher, and could be reasonably expected to range from $20 million to $50 million according to our initial estimates. Costs to implement sequestering for outside supply sources such as those from Tacoma are also not included in the Plan. As such, the capital improvement costs included in the Plan for iron and manganese treatment appear to be based on nonconservative cost assumptions. · As detailed in the Plan, the City of Tacoma's Green River Supply is currently'unfiltered and may remain unfiltered as long as the source satisfies criteria for unfiltered surface water supplies under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). However, Tacoma may have to implement filtration of the Green River supply under the SWTR or the forthcoming Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR) at some point in the future. Should filtration be required, the associated costs would likely be passed on to all of Tacoma's water customers, including Lakehaven. The Plan does not identify how Lakehaven might pay for such increased water supply and treatment costs. · As detailed in the Plan, the forthcoming Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule could require Tacoma to implement filtration for its Green River source of supply and/or alter its disinfection practices. The associated treatment costs would likely be passed on to all of Tacoma's water customers, including Lakehaven. If Tacoma were to change its disinfection methods from chlorine to chloramines, Lakehaven may be forced to switch its disinfection methods as well to avoid negative water quality impacts that often result from blending chlorinated and chloraminated water. The Plan does not identify how Lakehaven might pay for such increased treatment and disinfection cost~. · Water produced from Lakehaven's well supply sources contains varying levels of both Radon and Arsenic. Depending on the final requirements of the forthcoming Arsenic, Radionuclide, and/or Radon Rules, Lakehaven may be required to implement additional treatment at its various well sites. The Plan does not identify how Lakehaven might pay for such increased treatment costs. · In order to prevent degradation of Lakehaven's aquifers and groundwater supplies, any source waters proposed for use in Lakehaven's Aquifer Storage and Recovery and OASIS programs must be made compatible with naturally occurring groundwater and the greater hydrogeologic aquifer system. Although the Plan does not appear to identify the exact sources of water for Lakehaven's proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery and OASIS programs, it is likely that significant treatment will be required for such sources before any water may be used for artificial recharge of Lakehaven's NMI 1()72 2~,1)7 Wtrl'lr~ aquifers. The Plan does not appear to include any planning for the costs of such treatment, nor any further investigation of exactly what methods of treatment would be appropriate or required. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPACTS The Pacific Salmon have recently been listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which may have far reaching impacts on potable water supply, and in particular, surface water sources such as Tacoma's Green River supply. Lakehaven's Plan does not address the potential effects of the listing on Lakehaven's water supply sources. Although the Plan was completed before the official listing, the listing has been widely anticipated for quite some time and its potential effects on water supply and Lakehaven's water sources should be included as it could have significant and wide ranging impacts on usable capacity and costs for Lakehaven's existing and proposed sources of supply, and in particular the SSP project. SUPPLY ANALYSIS We have identified a number of concerns regarding the Plan's supply analysis and recommendations. The following considerations are particularly relevant to the adequacy of the Plan's water supply planning strategies: · The Plan's supply analysis compares projected monthly water demands against the estimated supply capacity of Lakehaven's existing and proposed future supply sources. The average annual supply capacities used in the Plan are as follows: 10.1 mgd for Lakehaven's well sources, 5.3 mgd under Lakehaven's interim supply agreement with Tacoma, and potentially as much as 7.2 mgd of supply from Tacoma upon completion of the SSP project. The supply analysis focuses on three different key planning years: 1999 representing current conditions, 2003 just prior to the anticipated completion of the SSP project, and 2017 at the end of the Plan's 20 year planning horizon. Identified supply sources for these three planning years include Lakehaven's well supply sources and interim Tacoma supply for both 1999 and 2003, and wells and Tacoma's SSP project for 2017. For the purposes of the supply analysis, demands are projected monthly demands for each year, plus two standard deviations of demand based on the historic monthly demands variability, thus representing a 98 percent demand confidence interval for each of the three planning years, such that future demands would theoretically be expected to fall below the 98 percent demand confidence interval 98 percent of the time. Although this does present an extra margin of safety for the supply analysis, the extent to which this additional safety factor offsets other seemingly nonconservative assumptions in the demand projections is not readily apparent. · 'For the 1999 demand scenario, the average annual demand projection under 98 percent confidence limits totals approximately 12.9 mgd. Of this amount, Tacoma interim supplies would provide 3.8 mgd on average, ranging from a high of 5.8 mgd during the winter months to a low of 1.8 mgd during the summer months. Lakehaven's well supply XNII 1(t72 10 sources would provide 9.1 ingd on average, ranging from a low of 3.6 mgd during the winter months, to a high of 18.5 mgd during the summer months. Thus, while the average groundwater supply of 9.1 mgd is less than the 10.1 mgd estimated average annual groundwater supply capacity under average precipitation and groundwater recharge conditions, it does exceed the 8.7 mgd average annual reliable groundwater supply capacity under 10-year drought conditions. Additionally, the ability of Lakehaven's well sources and groundwater supplies to support the monthly variation in demands from 3.6 to 18.5 mgd is not demonstrated or documented in the Plan. Given the demonstrated past difficulties in maintaining average annual groundwater withdrawals near the 10.1 mgd average annual supply capacity, limiting groundwater supply to the 8.7 mgd average annual aquifer supply capacity under 10-year drought conditions would be more appropriate for planning purposes. Tacoma interim supplies would thus have to be increased to an average annual rate of 4.2 mgd to supply the 12.9 mgd average annual demand projection under 98 percent confidence limits. This amount is, however, well within the capacity limits of existing supply agreements. For the 2003 demand scenario, the average annual demand projection under 98 percent confidence limits totals approximately 13.0 mgd. Of this amount, Tacoma interim supplies would provide 5.3 mgd on average, ranging from a high of 7.0 mgd during the winter months to a low of 2.0 mgd during the summer months. Lakehaven's well supply sources would provide 7.7 mgd on average, ranging from a low of 2.4 mgd during the winter months, to a high of 18.4 mgd during the summer months. While this rate of groundwater supply appears to conform with average annual groundwater source capacity estimates under 10-year drought conditions, the ability of Lakehaven's well sources and groundwater supplies to support the monthly variation in demands from 2.4 to 18.4 mgd is not demonstrated or documented in the Plan. For the 2017 demand scenario, the average annual demand projection under 98 percent confidence limits totals approximately 16.4 mgd. Of this amount, the Tacoma SSP project would provide 7.2 mgd froin July through mid February, for an average annual supply rate of 4.5 mgd. Unspecified new supply sources would provide 1.8 mgd on average for the year up to a maximum monthly rate of 4.3 mgd. Lakehaven's well supply sources would provide 10.1 mgd on average, ranging from a'low of 4.9 mgd during the winter months, to a high of 17.4 mgd during the summer months. This rate of groundwater withdrawal exceeds the 8.7 mgd average annual groundwater supply capacity under 10-year drought conditions. Additionally, the ability of Lakehaven's well sources and groundwater supplies to support the monthly variation in demands from 4.9 to 17.4 mgd is not demonstrated or documented in the Plan. It should also be noted that as deliveries from the SSP project are dependant at least in part on the watershed hydrology of the Green River supply source, the monthly and seasonal capacity of this source has apparently not been concretely established. Thus, the true ability of the SSP supply to provide Lakehaven with water in keeping with the Plan's demand projections has not been quantified. Given the demonstrated past difficulties in maintaining average annual groundwater withdrawals as high as 10.1 mgd, limiting groundwater' supply to the 8.7 mgd average I I -I){t31 S- 1 {lt){}{}-{){}02 R W. [;eck, XNI11{172 2t~117 Wtr['h~ 11 annual aquifer capacity under 10-year drought conditions would be more appropriate for planning purposes. This would liowever, increase the supply shortfall to be supplied by new supply sources to a 3.2 mgd average annual rate given the 16.4 mgd average annual demand projection under 98 percent confidence limits. By comparison, the average monthly demand projections for 2017, exclusive of the 98 percent confidence limits, average only 13.8 mgd for the year. It would appear to be possible to support this lower demand projection given the 4.5 mgd of average annual supply from the SSP project and the 10.1 mgd average annual supply capacity of Lakehaven's groundwater well sources under average precipitation and groundwater recharge conditions. However, under 10 year drought conditions, Lakehaven's average annual groundwater supply capacity is estimated at only 8.7 mgd. Using a 4.5 mgd average annual supply capacity for the SSP project yields a total average annual supply of only 13.2 mgd under drought conditions. This is 0.6 mgd less than the 13.8 mgd year 2017 average annual demand projection exclusive of the 98 percent confidence limits, and indicates the realistic possibility of a supply shortfall. Essentially, this analysis indicates that the proposed sources of supply may be adequate to supply the projected demands, but not to a 98 perceflt degree Of confidence according to the historic variations in monthly demands, and not under 10 year drought conditions. As the plan's demand projections appear to be somewhat low to begin with, the adequacy of the identified supply sources is suspect. MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Approximately 54 percent of Lakehaven's water distribution piping is Asbestos Cement, which can become brittle and weak over time and is particularly vulnerable to failure and breakage during seismic events. Additionally, many of Lakehaven's water mains may be approaching the end of their useful life and would thus be due for replacement. Lakehaven has initiated an investigation to assess pipe condition and project the remaining useful life, and has budgeted funds in the Plan to replace approximately 10,000 lineal ft of pipe per year. Given the fact that Lakehaven has over 2 million lineal ft of water mains in place, this allows for replacement of less than 0.5 percent of Lakehaven's mains each year, which is equivalent to a 200-year replacement cycle. Compared to the generally accepted 100-year industry best practice water main replacement cycle, this may not be an adequate replacement schedule, depending on the actual condition of Lakehaven's existing piping. However, as the condition of this piping is not currently known, it would be more appropriate from a planning perspective to assume a more aggressive replacement schedule. l]-!)()3l~-l{l()()l) 0(1()2 [~ k~,' [~t'ck, NMIIl)72 2~il)7 Wtrl'ln 12 ~c~ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m .o ~ mmmmmmm mmmmmm mmmm imm g m m mm Z