HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 08/23/1999 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
Call to Order: 0,9; O~f-rlq
Members Present:
Orville Campbell, Chairman Bill Myers
Joe Michalczik, Vice Chairman v./ Larry Williams
Larry Doyle ~ Glenn Wiggins (Alternate)
Members Absent: _t2'~- ~
Staff Present: .~. ~. ,4~. ~.
Others Present:
pORT/ NGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
CITY MANAGER'S OffICE
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETiNG
UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Utility Advisory Committee. a subcommittee
of the Port Angeles City Council, wilt hold a special meeting on Monday, August 23, 1999,
at 2:00 p.m., in the Public Works Conference Room at City Hall, 321 East Fifth Street.
The purpose of this special meeting is to consider the following items:
Fiber Optic RFP Recommendation
Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund Issue
Clarify Recommendation on Approach to Landlocked Electrical Facilities
Report on Compost Operation at Landfill
Discussion of Regional Water Supply Report
Combined Sewer Overflow Report
Becky J. Upton
City Clerk
Distribution: Peninsula Daily News
KONP Radio
Peter Ripley
Northland Cable
Front Lobby (Post)
321 EAST FIFTH STREET ® P O. BOX ~ ~50 ® PORT ANGELES. WA 98362-0217
PHONE: 360-457-45OO ® FAX: 360-417-4509 ® TTY: 360-417-4645
E-MA]L: CITYMG R~CI. PORT-AN GE LES.WA,IJ S
Utility Advisory Committee
Public Works Conference Room
Port Angeles, WA 98362
August 23, 1999
3:00 p.m.
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of Minutes of July 12, 1999, meeting
IV. Discussion Items
A. Acceptance of Power Engineers, Inc. for Fiber Optic Feasibility Study
B. Electric Utility Rural Economic Development I~evolving Fund
C. Landlocked Electrical Facilities
D. Composting
E. Update on Regional Water System & Impacts of Elwha Dam Removal
F. Stormwater Management Issues - Combined Sewer Overflow Report
V. Information Only Items
VI. Late Items
VII. Next meeting - September 13, 1999
VIII. Adjournment
UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Port Angeles, Washington
July 12, 1999
I. Call to Order:
Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Dra. C*
IL Roll Call:
Members Present: Councilmen Campbell, Doyle and Williams, and Joe Michalczik.
Members Absent: Bill Myers.
StaffPresent: J. Pittis, C. Knutson, G. Cutler, B. Titus, T. Smith, C. Hagar, G.
Kenworthy, and J. Harper.
Others Present: Mel Rudin.
III. Approval of Minutes:
Joe Michalczik moved to approve the minutes of the June 7, 1999, meeting. Councilman
Williams seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously.
IV. Discussion Items:
A. Presentation on Vision for Rayonier Site
Timothy Smith, Director of Economic Development, introduced Mr. Mel Rudin of Science,
Technology and Manufacturing. Mr. Rudin stated that an advisory committee consisting of an
environmental engineer, engineer, architect, Northwest Territories, Inc., as well as repmsentati'~es
from various businesses and economics groups, had been involved in developing this vision for the
waterfront. Mr. Rudin stated the Rayonier site should be looked at as only pm ora larger scheme,
which is the waterfront from Daishowa to the Rayonier site. He stated his group was looking for a
broad spectrum of employment capabilities and an aesthetic approach to the community from the
water.
Mr. Rudin displayed maps demonstrating the Port Angeles Harbor and the Rayonier site. He stated
the land to one side of the Valley Creek Estuary could be used for commercial and the other for
industrial sites. Mr. Rudin described the types of environmentally friendly businesses that could be
best served by locating on the waterfront. He displayed an mist's rendition of a vision for the
waterfront, including an office building and new marina. He responded to questions and provided
clarification to the Committee regarding the vision for this site.
Interim Manager Pittis informed the Committee that this presentation was given to them because
wastewater and water facilities would be needed and/or impacted should this plan come to fruition.
Councilman Campbell thanked Mr. Rudin for his time and efforts on behalf of the waterfront and
the City of Port Angeles.
Utility Advisory Committee
July 12, 1999
B. Telecommunication Ordinance
Attorney Knutson noted that new copies of the draft ordinance had been distributed, as the one in
the packet was missing pages. He then reviewed the information contained in the packet. Attorney
Knutson stated the draft ordinance deals with telecommunications facilities in City rights-of-way,
and does not address land use issues regarding the siting of cell towers. This type of regulation
would go through the Planning Commission rather than the UAC.
Attorney Knutson reviewed the basic provisions of the ordinance which include Registration,
Franchise, Fees, Permit Issuance, Permit Standards, Location of Facilities, and Relocation or
Removal of Facilities.
Attorney Knutson reminded the Committee that there was going to be a seminar in August which
deals with this subject. One of the sessions contains an update on model telecommunications
ordinances. He said there have been a number of court cases due to cities attempting to regulate in
this area. This has led to the development of better ideas as to how to regulate some of these issues.
Attorney Knutson suggested tabling this matter until after the seminar, where there will be an
opportunity to learn if there are new thoughts and solutions which can be incorporated into this
ordinance.
Attorney Knutson noted that it would cost about $600 per person to attend the conference, or a video
of the course can be purchased for $800. An advantage to attending the conference is the
opportunity to ask questions and network. Discussion ensued, and the Committee felt it would be
wise to send Attorney Knutson and Councilman Campbell to the seminar. Based on their
experience, the decision to purchase to the video can be made after the conference.
Councilman Campbell thanked Attomey Knutson for the superb job he did in drafting this ordinance.
However, the Purpose section of the Ordinance primarily addresses the City's interest. He noted a
purpose in one of the other draft ordinances was to encourage "the provision of advanced and
competitive telecommunication service on the widest possible base to the businesses, institutions,
and residents of the City." He thought this was a great element and should be worked into this draft.
Attorney Knutson agreed and stated there are two competing factors. On one side is ensuring the
rights-of-way are used with minimal impact to the City's facilities and generating a fair amount of
revenue for use of those rights-of-way. On the economic development side of the issue, the City is
trying to encourage these facilities to locate here.
Following further discussion and clarification, Councilman Doyle moved to table this issue until
the September 1999 UAC meeting. Councilman Williams seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
C. Landfill Cover for Cells 1 and 2
Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, reviewed the information contained in the packet. Mr. Kenwor~hy
explained that melded into this contract is an additional contract with Parametrix for monitoring
groundwater at the landfill. Mr. Kenworthy then reviewed the contract and the necessary tasks
covered by this amendment. The total cost for this amendment will be $211,060, which brings the
total contract amount to $746,684. Mr. Kenworthy then distributed a Schedule of Rates used by
Parametrix, covering hourly rates for anticipated staff specialties that may be required.
Discussion ensued, and Mr. Kenworthy responded to questions and provided clarification especially
as regards the tasks to be performed. Councilman Doyle was concerned that the landfill might not
last until 2006 and felt this should be closely monitored.
2
Utility Advisory Committee
July 12, 1999
Following further discussion, Councilman Doyle moved to recommend the City Council approve
Amendment #4 to the Parametrix agreement as presented in the amount of $211,060.
Councilman Williams seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Joe Michalczik stated he
would support the motion; however, he asked staff to look to the future and try to find ways to
reduce costs. Councilman Doyle amended the motion to recommend the City Council approve
Amendment #4 to the Parametrix agreement as presented in the amount of $211,060, and
direct staffto seek methods to reduce costs. Councilman Williams agreed as seconder. A vote
was taken on the amended motion, which carried unanimously.
D. Approach to Landlocked Electrical Facilities
Councilman Campbell noted that Bill Myers, who was unable to attend this meeting, had submitted
in writing his views on this issue.
Bob Titus, Deputy Director of Utility Services, reviewed the history of this issue and summarized
the information contained in the packet regarding overhead versus underground electrical service.
Mr. Titus responded to questions and provided additional clarification. Mr. Titus noted that six other
areas have been converted. In all those cases, the electric facilities went underground in the street
and the property owners contributed nothing or a small amount toward the cost of the conversion.
However, the property owners are required to deal with landscaping issues. Mr. Titus reminded the
Committee that the property owners were given a $1,000 credit toward undergrounding, which in
most cases took care of the full cost. At Councilman Campbell's request, Mr. Titus discussed the
pros and cons of maintaining underground and overheard facilities.
Discussion continued, and staff provided additional information regarding easements and costs to
the City and residents. Councilmen Doyle and Campbell felt it should be pointed out that the
original residents of the Southwood Development were able to purchase lots at a much lower cost
than if the alleys and services been properly installed. The City is now attempting to correct that
problem while keeping the costs to its citizens at a minimum.
Following further discussion, Joe Michalczik moved to recommend City Council approve
conversion of all overhead lines located in the street right-of-way to underground service,
providing it does not exceed the amount budgeted and no landscaping costs are incurred.
Councilman Doyle seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
V. Information Only Items
A. Electric Distribution Service Reliability
Deputy Director Titus stated staff felt the UAC should be aware of this issue, as some costs may be
incurred in the future which the UAC will be asked to support. He explained that City Light has
established reliability standards, wherein feeders are maintained out of the substations. If there is
a problem with one substation or its feeder, staff is able to reroute the power to customers,
minimizing the outage time. Several areas do not currently have this ability, and the problem could
worsen under peak load conditions.
Mr. Titus reviewed the areas under consideration for upgrade and again stated no action is sought
at this time. Specific costs will be brought to the UAC and Council when Requests for Proposals
have been returned.
Brief discussion ensued, and staff responded to questions and provided clarification. No action was
taken.
3
Utility Advisory Committee
July 12, 1999
B. Ediz Hook Underground Conversion
Deputy Director Titus reminded the Committee that $50,000 had been budgeted in 1999 to start this
process. At that time, it was unknown how far $50,000 would go. Staff now has costs for three
different scenarios (outlined in the packet). Until digging starts, it will not be known which of the
scenarios are possible. The amount budgeted will allow for the conversion of between 950 and 2000
feet.
Brief discussion ensued, and no action was taken at this time.
C. Fiber Optic Study Update
Deputy Director Titus reminded the Committee of the joint City Council, PUD, UAC meeting held
recently. The Council approved the support of telecommunications and authorized a feasibility
study. Staff met with the PUD and was informed that they had already issued a request for
qualifications for consultants and were ready to issue an RFP. The City and PUD exchanged drafts
of RFPs, agreed on a proposal, and sent it out with a due date of July 21, 1999.
The proposals will be brought back to the UAC and City Council for consideration. He stated he
had originally thought this study would cost the City about $30,000. He now felt it would come in
somewhat higher, but if the City is serious about pursuing this venue it will be worth it.
Brief discussion ensued and Mr. Titus responded to questions and provided clarification. No action
was taken. This item will be brought back to a future meeting.
VL Late Items
Director of Public Works Cutler informed the Committee that a letter had been received from the
State concerning receiving leachate from the Rayonier landfill. The State has recommended some
minor changes to the permit, and it is now ready to go to Council for approval. Brief discussion
followed. No action was taken.
Councilman Doyle asked for a report on the compost facility at the next meeting, which will be
provided.
Interim Manager Pittis noted that the draft Preliminary Evaluation of Elwha Dam Removal
Mitigation Alternatives has been received from CH2M Hill. Staffwill review and return it to the
UAC for action.
Interim Manager Pittis noted that he has discussed the concept of regional water with Dry Creek.
Staff will also speak to the Black Diamond Water District this evening. Discussions with PUD have
been ongoing. These discussions will enable staff to reevaluate the water issue.
Interim Manager Pittis announced that this was his last UAC meeting. He thanked all the membsrs
for their dedication to the cause. Councilman Campbell invited Interim Manager Pittis to feel free
to attend UAC meetings in the future!
4
Utility Advisory Committee
July 12, 1999
VII. Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be August 9, 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
VIII. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Orville Campbell, Chairman Carol A. Hagar, Deputy City Clerk
5
pORTANGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 23, 1999
TO: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Scott MeLain, Power Manager
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Power Engineers, Inc. for Fiber Optic Feasibility Study
In July, the City and Clallam County PUD jointly requested proposals for a feasibility study of a
Community Fiber Optic Network. We received four proposals: R. W. Beck, Black and Veatch,
Bergman Teleeomm Consulting, and Power Engineers, Inc. The four person fiber team fi.om the City
and PUD evaluated the proposals and selected Power Engineers, Inc. as the most qualified to perform
the study we requested. Washington law requires the City to select the most qualified consultant for
the work and then negotiate the price. The feasibility study will be completed by October 31, as
outlined in the attached schedule of work.
The scope of work identifies joint tasks in which the City and PUD will share costs, and "City only"
or "PUD only" tasks that the City or PUD will pay for individually. The City share of the study will
not exceed a cost of $37,972. When the City Council authorized staffto determine the feasibility ora
fiber network the estimated cost was $20,000-30,000 for the City's share of a joint study. In working
with the PUD, however, the scope of the study was expanded to include preliminary design of an
actual system including hardware, software, staffing, training and maintenance requirements. System
design was a priority for the PUD and will be useful to the City if we proceed to install a system.
Staff feels that the costs are reasonable for the product we will be getting and that the City's cost at
$37,972 is not much more than what it would cost us to have a feasibility only study done for the
City. Finally, in discussing costs, it should be noted that the 1999 budget only includes $10,000 for
study purposes. A year ago when the 1999 budget was developed $10,000 was included as a follow-
up to the City Light Strategic Plan but the exact nature of what it would be expended on was
unknown.
US West and Northland Cable have been involved in initial discussions concerning this study and
have agreed to cooperate in the study and provide any necessary data that we may need to produce a
quality document.
Action to be taken: Recommend that the City enter into an inter-local agreement with Clallam
County PUD #1, and a three party agreement between the City, Clallam PUD #1 and Power
Engineers, Inc. to determine the feasibility of establishing a fiber optics based community network.
Cost of the consultants study shall not exceed $72,612 and the City share shall not exceed $37,972.
N:~PWKS~LIGHT~POWIvI~IBER\UACCA2.WPD
Exhibit A- Scope of Work
Estimated Cost
Task 00 Project Management (Joint) $12,133
Task 01 Benefits/Risk of Project (Joint) $ 3,248
Task 02 Network Architecture (Joint) $10,423
Task 03 Excess Capacity (Joint) $14,644
Task 04 Partnerships (Joint) $ 5,100
Task 06 Community Network Plan (Joint) $ 6,168
Task 07 Capital & Operation Costs- District facilities (District) $ 5,782
Task 08 Capital & Operation Costs- City facilities (City) $ 5,782
Task 09 Partnership with local Telco & CATV (City) $ 3,332
Presentation of Findings- (Joint) $ 3,000
Second Presentation (Optional) 5; 3.000
Total Project- Not to Exceed $72,612
City of Port Angeles - Not to Exceed $37,972
Clallam County PUD #I- Not to Exceed $34,640
All spreadsheets, maps, reports, graphs, presentations, or other material that is prepared
electronically by the consultant shall be provided to the City and District in electronic form
along with hard copies of the material.
N:~PWKSLLIGHTXPOWIVI~FIBER~EXHIBITA.WPD
Exhibit C- Project Schedule
A detailed project schedule will be developed at the beginning of the project with final
presentation to be completed by October 31, 1999.
N :~WKS~LI GHTxPOWlv~FIBER~EXHIBITC.WPD
pORTANCmL S
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 23, 1999
To: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Scott McLain, Power Manager
SUI~JECT: Electric Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund (Fund)
House Bill 2260 was recently signed into law allowing electric utilities to contribute to economic
development in certain rural areas. The fund may be used for projects that achieve job creation or
business retention, to add or upgrade non-electrical infrastructure, to add or upgrade health and safety
facilities, to accomplish energy and water use efficiency improvements, or to add or upgrade emergency
services.
The City meets the requirements of the bill. If the Council desires, the City can establish this fund and
the electric utility can receive a credit on its excise taxes of up to $25,000 per year, based on 50% of
what the utility contributes per year. The State has funded this program at $350,000 per year and it is
available on a first come, first served basis. This program allows utilities to earn credits through 2005,
and earned credits can be taken until they are all received should the yearly funding levels be reached in
any of the years.
To take advantage of this fund, the City must establish a local Electric Utility Rural Economic
Development Revolving Fund. The Council appoints a local board whose members reside within the
qualifying rural area. The board must contain at least three members representing local business and
community groups. Staffhas recommended that the Economic Development Steering Committee be
designated as the board that oversees this fund as it already has members meeting the requirements of
the law. This board then distributes money in the fund through grants and/or loans, as long as the
expenditures meet the rather broad requirements of the bill.
In January 1999, $100,000 was transferred from the electric utility fund to the economic development
fund to support the City's economic development efforts. If the Electric Utility Rural Economic
Development Revolving Fund is established, it is recommended that $50,000 of this $100,000 be
redesignated to the fund as this years contribution.
Action to be taken: Recommend an ordinance be created authorizing the City to establish an Electric
Utility Rural Economic Development Revolving Fund, transfer $50,000 into the fund and recommend
that the Economic Development Steering Committee be designated as the board that oversees this fund.
N:\PWKSXLIGHT~POWIv~MEMOS\UACEDF.WPD
pORTANGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 9, 1999
TO: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Bob Titus, Deputy Director of Utility Services
SUIaJECT: Landlocked Electrical Facilities
At the July UAC meeting a decision was made to recommend to the City Council that existing landlocked
electrical facilities be relocated underground to the street fight-of-way at City Light expense except that
the property owner would be responsible for any landscaping costs beyond reseeding with grass. When
Staff started to put together a memo for Council, however, there was some confusion as to whether the
language in the City Light policy on extensions from landlocked facilities that Bill Myers referenced in
his letter was part of the motion that was approved by the UAC. Carol Hagar listened to the tapes twice
and could not ascertain if the language dealing with a service credit was intended to be part of the motion
or not. Therefore, we are asking the UAC for clarification.
Action to be taken: Clarify recommendation to the City Council on how future landlocked facility
conversions/relocations should be handled and how costs should be divided between the City and the
property owner.
Estimated time: 10 minutes.
N :/PWKS/LIGHT/DIRECTORJMEMOS/LANDLCK2.WPD
po tANg .s
W A S H I N G T O N, U, S, A.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 23, 1999
TO: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: Public Works & Utilities
SUBJECT: Composting
BACKGROUND:
The Port Angeles composting facility is the key to the City's yard waste and biosolids management
program. The quantities ofbiosolids (processed wastewater sludge) have increased with the wastewater
treatment plant upgrade to secondary treatment. Federal and state regulations for biosolids management
require the City to implement a program for responsible use of this material. State waste recycling goals
have led the City to collect and compost yard waste at the Landfill. The City mixes chipped yard waste
with biosolids to produce compost for use in city landscaping projects and landfill cover; and, ultimately,
will make compost available for public distribution. To meet this goal, the City will need to either
expend funds to make a full fledged composting operation or contract the operations to a private
contractor.
The following is a discussion of four possible scenarios for the composting project for the City of Port
Angeles. Composting will include use ofbiosolids from the Wastewater Treatment Plant and yard debris.
The use of biosolids mixed with chipped and screened yard debris can be made into Class A compost for
use in the City by the Parks Department, for restoration projects, and/or for sale to the public. We will
also need compost for final cover on the closed cells at the Landfill. To date the City has limited success
on composting and use ofbiosolids. We have had Department of Ecology and Clallam County Health
Department representatives review our composting methods, however, both representatives left their
respective employment without any form of written critique or recommendation.
The major reasons that the composting operation is not successfully being completed is due to lack of
manpower, training and equipment. While we have looked into various scenarios over the past two to
three years, we have been unable to put together a good plan based on a number of issues. The main
issues being expansion of the Landfill causing a lack of working space. This has caused us to concentrate
our efforts in other directions, such as shifting of metal piles, and trying to work in a confined space.
Other factors include Rayonier construction debris, Jefferson County garbage, and lack of a Landfill
permit. With the new pit area open, we can now move forward to expand our efforts on other issues such
as composting.
Scenario 1: Composting by City Landfill personnel.
1. Operator
We need to have at minimum one full time equipment operator (dedicated to just working on the
compost area) and one helper available 2-3 days per week, plus sick leave and vacation backup.
Currently we are using maximum manpower for daily operation and cover for collection crews.
Compost Facility Report
UAC - August 23, 1999
Page 2
It takes at least three operators to handle daily and intermediate cover and the other daily duties
we have, including hauling boxes from the transfer station, relieving the scale operator, cleaning
up the metal pile, cleaning up the brush pile, equipment maintenance, hauling brush to the
grinding area, and other general duties that come up. These items change according to seasons
and additional projects.
2. Equipment
Loader: Our existing loader is dedicated to daily cover at least 4-5 hours each day. There are
other jobs that the loader is involved with, including moving and cleaning the metal pile, moving
and cleaning the brush pile, general clean up, and road building and maintenance. There is more
time involved on road building and maintenance in the Winter as opposed to Summer. If we had
the Street Division loader three days per week, we could probably handle half of the biosolids
coming in. As our loader gets older, we need the Street Division loader as a backup machine for
loading daily and intermediate cover. Use of the existing loader is not practical because it
becomes contaminated with garbage and would contaminate the compost.
Screen Plant: The current screen plant will need some modifications; either build an auger system
or modify feed hopper to be able to open one side for cleaning plugups without having to
manually clean, causing possible injuries and using time. Material fed does bridge, making it
unable to feed through the feed belt. Estimated costs $3,000 - $5,000. Upgrades on self-
propelled, portable belt and some work on other belts, $3000. Total cost $6,000.00.
Grinder: If we buy our own grinder, to be used eight hours per week grinding and two to four
hours per week for maintenance, estimated cost $10,000 to $20,000 per year. Used tub grinder
cost $75,000 to $175,000. The grinder can be used to process other materials, i.e., C & D,
roofing, etc.
Estimate 64 man hours per week as follows:
Mixing 24 hours per week
Moving piles 4 hours per week
Pull pipe and replace 2 hours per week
Adjust aerators 2 hours per week
Screening 24 hours per week
Cleaning machinery 4 hours per week
Cleaning building and maintenance 4 hours per week
Testing: Estimate 12.5 hours per week:
Testing by pre-treatment coordinator:
Temperature - one hour per day, 7 hours per week
Moisture testing - 2 hours per week
Record keeping - 2.5 hours per week
Collecting and sending samples to lab - 1 hour per week
Compost Facility Report
UAC - August 23, 1999
Page 3
Summary: Total Capital Cost: $500,000 Total Annual Cost: $100,000
Dedicated loader for compost area $125,000
Tub grinder $100,000
One full time compost operator $48,000 per year
One part-time helper 2-3 days per week $20,000 per year
Modifications to screen plant: $6,000
Modifications on piping from aerators to make it
easier and safer to remove and replace $1000
Plastics removed from yard debris: labor
Building materials removed from yard debris: labor
Dry storage for 500 - 700 cubic yards of finished material;
Minimum 50' x 50' (cost unknown)
Controls on runoff from contaminated areas; run leachate line to ponds (cost unknown)
Improvements on yard debris storage area (cost unknown)
Testing and record keeping: $3,500 per year
We estimate we would be able to produce a final product to the public, approximately 3500 - 4000 cubic
yards per year at a selling price of about $10 - $12 per yard, or $40,000 per year. We also estimate that
if the excess, non-mixed chips were cleaned and screened, we could probably produce about 600 yards
per year and sell that product at $5 - $6 per yard for receipt of another $3000 - $3600 per year. The total
revenue per year $43,000.00.
Total annual cost $100,000
Total annual revenue $ 43.000
Net annual loss $ 57,000
Scenario 2: Composting by City personnel, contract grinding operation
Same as Scenario 1 except we would continue to contract the grinding at $50,000 per year. This
would save the cost and maintenance of a new or used grinder.
Scenarios 3 and 4 would be to contract to operate the facility at the Landfill or another site. Based on
our estimate of return, we would pay for this operation. If these sound feasible we could develop an RFP
to determine the amount of interest and costs.
Scenario 3: Co-Composting with a Contractor
Manpower: Manpower to be provided would be to haul the brush from the public area to the
compost area and possibly the testing and recording. We would also have to keep the
contaminates out of the public area.
Equipment: City would provide the mixer, screen and conveyor belts. The contractor would
provide the rest. City would probably provide the testing equipment. We may want to keep
control of the screen for rock used for Landfill roads.
Compost Facility Report
UAC - August 23, 1999
Page 4
Repairs and updating compost building: Replace one blower motor. Have controls checked and
adjusted and reconnect alarms and phone. Reconfigure all the aeration pipes so that they are
easier to move, including using a different type of pipe. All old material would be removed.
Building cleaned. Gutters cleaned. Cleanup of aerator motor area. Possibly data logger set up
for temperatures three times per day. More clean asphalted area to work on, including leachate
control. More covered area to keep finished product dry.
Activities: The activities for the Landfill personnel would be the clearing of the public brash pile,
the hauling of the brush from the public brush pile, and testing and recording.
Advantages: The City would not have to buy equipment or provide as much manpower as we
would doing it ourselves. The City would be able to get the final cover material we need.
Disadvantages: This could probably displace some jobs in the City when the Landfill closes.
More private access to the landfill that would have to be monitored. Less control on the product.
The contractor may want to do more on the landfill site than just composting, including selling
other landscape products and soils, causing more public access.
Scenario 4: Composting by Private Contractor
Manpower: The City would not have to provide manpower, except to oversee contractor's
activities.
Equipment: The City would probably want to either sell or lease its equipment to the contractor.
The City may want to keep control of the screen for rock used on Landfill roads. The contractor
would provide the rest of the equipment.
Repairs and updating compost building: Replace one blower motor. Have controls checked and
adjusted and reconnect alarms and phone. Reconfigure all the aeration pipes so that they are
easier to move, including using a different type of pipe. All old material would be removed.
Building cleaned. Gutters cleaned. Cleanup of aerator motor area. Possibly data logger set up
for temperatures three times per day. More clean asphalted area to work on, including leachate
control. More covered area to keep finished product dry.
Activities: The only activity would be overseeing the operation.
Advantages: The City would not have to spend money on manpower and equipment.
Disadvantages: The City would probably have to pay the contractor. We may have to pay for
compost for final cover. This could probably displace some city jobs when the Landfill closes.
More private access to the Landfill that would have to be monitored. Less control on the product.
The contractor may want to do more on the Landfill site than just composting, including selling
other landscape products and soils, causing more public access.
Compost Facility Report
UAC - August 23, 1999
Page 5
Other options to be considered:
Making Class A biosolids, thereby reducing the necessary mixing, temperature control and testing
at the Landfill. This change would necessitate a change in our WWTP process.
Mixing the compost with biosolids and using it for daily cover. This would require a change in
DOE rules. The EPA has alIowed this on the East Coast and will need to get more information
to consider our request.
N:~PWKS\SWASTE~LANDFILL\COMPRPT.WPD
Recycled Earth Products
Mr. Glenn Cutler August 17, 1999
Public Works Director
City of Port Angeles
321 East Fifth Street
Port Angeles, WA 98362
Dear Mr. Cutler,
Recycled Earth Products Inc., a Port Angeles firm, is the only company on the
Olympic Peninsula whose primary function is to manufacturer top soil and
bark products from recycled evergreen compost. Our process has been in
development over 20 years, so that now, we are able to offer a cost effective
alternative to rapidly disappearing waste disposal sources. And in doing so,
create a future profit base for communities like Port Angeles.
It is expected that when the local landfill closes, it will become a
transfer station with a new set of regulations and problems. Simply grinding
residue as is presently being done and dumping it will no longer be cost
effective, or acceptable. We respectfully suggest that now is the time to begin
developing an alternative, and we can help. Working with your department,
REP will organize and improve the level of efficiency within the existing
operation, while exploring profitable applications for the environmental
friendly by-products of the recycling process.
We are prepared to advance a proposal to the City of Port Angeles
outlining how REP can manage and process all curbside yard waste, wood
waste and waste treatment sludge at a significant saving to the city. And
develop markets for the resulting by-products, creating a new profit base for
the community.
525 Patterson Road, Port Angeles, WA 98362
Recycled Earth Products page 2
Our proposal will be within EPA guidelines and, where possible,
include both detailed cost savings and profit projections.
In addition, REP will demonstrate the following benefits to the city--
1. Significant savings over present grinding costs.
2. Elimination of on-site city labor costs.
3. A more efficient operation.
4. Development of product quality control to EPA standards.
5. Supply bark, top soil and soil amendments for city needs, in addition
to commercial sales.
6. Mix waste treatment sludge with clean evergreen compost and
market as top soil and soil amendments for erosion control.
7. Port Angeles' waste treatment sludge, with minimal additional
processing can, in the future, be sold to the public as fertilizer.
REP is presently working with Daishowa America on a plan to process
30 tons of daily residue into an environmentally harmless by-product, at a
fraction of their previous disposal costs. We ask that you give us the
opportunity to present our ideas on cost effective waste management for the
City of Port Angeles.
Sincerely,
D. Anton
pORTANGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
PUBLIC WORKS DI~PARTI~ENT
DATE: August 23, 1999
TO: Utility Advisory Committee
FROM: Glenn Cutler, Public Works & Utilities Director
SUBJECT: Update on Regional Water System & Impacts of Elwha Dam Removal
Attached is a copy of a one page focus paper provided to Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks during
their visits to Port Angeles last week. Also attached is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation used to
facilitate discussions during the Senator's and Congressman's visit. Finally, a copy of the most recent
draft of the CH2M Hill study "Preliminary Evaluation of Elwha Dam Removal Mitigation Alternatives
and Integration with Regional Supply Objectives" is also attached.
At this time we have discussed the issues associated with dam removal and possible regional solutions
with the Elwha Tribe, PUD, Dry Creek Water Association and Black Diamond Water Association. We
have not sought a commitment from any of these entities but have merely held informal discussions to
let them know that we are exploring alternatives to protecting the City's water supply that could be of
benefit to other regional water purveyors. We also pledged to provide them with the oppommity review
and comment on future plans.
With the feedback we received from Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, we will be working with
CH2M Hill to refine the cost estimates associated with the mitigation measures identified in their draft
plan. We also need to more tightly associate the mitigation measures to specific problems arising out of
dam removal and in particular with staged removal over time or the removal of a single dam. We were
also instructed to identify how much funding for water supply mitigation design would be required in the
first year (engineering design is estimated to require two years), since funding for design is expected to
be included in an appropriation bill next month.
Action to be taken: Determine when and how this information should be taken to the City Council and
when and how to disseminate the regional supply information (and in particular the draft CH2M Hill
plan) to the other regional water purveyors.
Estimated time: 30 minutes.
N:/PWKS/ENGINEEP, fBOBTITUS/ELWHADAIVUUACUPDAT.WPD
City of Port Angeles
Domestic and Industrial Water Supply
Discussion Paper for Senator Slade Gorton
August 12, 1999
Issue:
The domestic and industrial water supply for the City of Port Angeles will be negatively
impacted by removal of one or both of the Elwha Dams.
Background:
The high quality sole source domestic and industrial water supply to the City of Port Angeles is
from the Elwha River. The water is vital to the current and future development of the City. Port
Angeles has taken an active approach in identifying potential solutions and costs associated with
the mitigation of the removal of the dams. In this endeavor Port Angeles has expended $150,000
for preliminary studies~ staff coordination efforts, and consultant fees.
Solutions:
In order to ensure that Port Angeles has continued uninterruptible domestic and industrial water
supplies, permanent filtration and related measures (currently not needed) will be essential. This
is because high Elwha river turbidity will be a common recurring event. Longer term mitigation
measures are further indicated by the sequential removal of the dams.
The City has retained the consulting firm CH2M Hill, which is developing alternatives to
mitigate the water supply impacts of dam removal. Design and permitting is anticipated to be
approximately $5.5 million, which includes costs incurred by the City to date.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the following actions be taken to protect and ensure that the current and
future water supply for the City of Port Angeles is not interrupted:
1 - Appropriate sufficient funds to design and construct an adequate and safe water supply for the
City of Port Angeles.
2 - Reimburse the City of Port Angeles tbr all current and future costs reasonably associated with
the mitigation of the Elwha Dam(s) removal.
3 - Designate the City of Port Angeles as the lead agency in designing and constructing the
necessary domestic and industrial water mitigation measures.
Prepared by:
Glenn A. Cutler, Director Public Works and Utilities Director, City of Port Angeles
Telephone: 360-417-4800
N:\GLENN\PTPAPER WPD
· · · · ·
Preliminary Evaluation
Of
Elwha Dam Removal Mitigation Alternatives
And
Integration with Regional Supply Objectives
City of Port Angeles
Prepared for:
City of Port Angeles
August 1999
Prepared by:
CH2M HILL
P.O. Box 91500
Bellevue, Washington 98099-2050
(425) 453-5000
Preliminary Evaluation
Of
Elwha Dam Removal Mitigation Alternatives
And
Integration with Regional Supply Objectives
City of Port Angeles
Prepared for:
City of Port Angeles
Prepared by:
CH2M HILL
P.O. Box 91500
Bellevue, Washington 98009-2050
(425) 453-5000
Contents
Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ iii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Description of Mitigation Alternatives ......................................................................................... 1
2.1 Facility Elements Common to Each .................................................................................. 1
2.2 Rayonier Site Alternative .................................................................................................. 3
2.3 West-of-City Site Alternative ............................................................................................. 5
2.4 Elwha River Site Alternative ............................................................................................. 6
3. Rationale for Mitigation Alternatives ........................................................................................... 7
3.1 Permanent Treatment Facility ........................................................................................... 7
3.2 Additional Ranney Collector ............................................................................................. 8
3.3 Protection Dikes ................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Rehabilitation of Elwha Industrial Supply Pipeline ............................................................ 9
3.5 Rehabilitation of Morse Creek System ............................................................................... 9
4. Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................. 10
5. Regional Supply Objectives ....................................................................................................... 12
6. Integration of Alternatives with Regional Supply Objectives .................................................. 13
7. Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives ...................................................................................... 15
Appendix
A Detailed Cost Estimate Tables (A-l, A-2, and A-3)
Tables
1. Summary of Concept-Level Cost Estimates ................................................................................. 12
2. Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives .......................................................................................... 17
SENplm/ contents /or airs comparison.doc ~ Printed: 8/5/99
Figures (at end of main body of report)
1. Regional Location Map and Alternative Treatment Facility Sites
2. Rayonier Site Alternative
3. West-of-City Site Alternative
4. EIwha RiverSite Alternative
SENplm/contents for ails companson.doc ii Printed: 8/5/99
Executive Summary
This report was prepared subsequent to two previous reports prepared for the City of Port
Angeles: the Water Supply Strategy finalized in June 1999 and the Drttfi Elwha Dams
Mitigation Facilities Report in January 1999. These previous reports summarized the City's
supply strategy and needs as it faces regulatory, growth, and other significant challenges
such as the removal of the Elwha dams.
Three supply and treatment alternatives that could be implemented in the event the Elwha
dams are removed were selected by City staff for development and evaluation in this
report. They were first presented in the Water Supply Strateg!! report or are variations of
alternatives presented in that report. These "mitigation alternatives" are described and
evaluated in this report. In addition, the integration of these three alternatives with the
City's regional supply objectives is also presented herein.
The three mitigation alternatives evaluated in this report differ primarily in the location of a
water treatment facility, and are referred to as follows:
· Rayonier Siterrdtigation alternative
· West-of-CitySite mitigation alternative
· Elwha River Site m/tigation alternative
The Rayonier Site mitigation alternative includes a treatment facility located on the site of
the old Rayonier mill and would be supplied from the Elwha industrial supply system. The
West-of-City Site mitigation alternative includes a treatment facility located at a site to be
determined west of the City but out of the floodplain of the Elwha river. The Elwha River
Site mitigation alternative includes a treatment facility located within the Elwha river
floodplain near the existing Elwha Ranney collector. The treatment facilities for these
second two mitigation alternatives would be supplied from the existing Elwha Rarmey
collector and a new Ranney collector or from an upgraded Elwha industrial intake and
treatment system.
Each of these mitigation alternatives includes treatment, pipeline, pumping, storage, and
other ancillary facilities that are necessary to effectively mitigate the adverse effects to the
City's municipal drinking water supply of removal of the Elwha dams. The rationale for
these facilities is presented in the main body of this report. However, this rationale can be
summarized by the fact that removing the Elwha dams will reduce the quality, reliability,
and capacity of the City's existing municipal supply system. Although not specifically
addressed in this report, the same is true for the City's Elwha industrial supply system.
Estimates of the total initial capital cost for each of the mitigation alternatives are as follows:
· Rayonier Site alternative: $46,000,000
· West-of-City Site alternative: $63,000,000
· Elwha River Site alternative: $62,000,000
However, these costs include supply of the West-of-City Site and Elwha River Site
alternatives from the existing Elwha Ranney collector as well as a new Ranney collector on
the west side of the Elwha river. 7his approach was proposed by the United States
Department of the Interior in their 1997 Water Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures
report. If these two mitigation alternatives were supplied from a new Elwha industrial
intake and treatment system, as was also proposed in the Department of the Interior's
report, the estimated costs of these alternatives would be as follows:
· West-of-City Site alternative: $47,000,000
· Elwha River Site alternative: $46,000,000
Thus, depending on the supply system considered for these two mitigation alternatives, the
relative cost of each mitigation alternative is essentially the same or the Rayonier Site
alternative is substantially less costly. These costs do not include the estimated cost of
improvements to the City's Elwha industrial system supply, which were estimated at
approximately $20,000,000. This estimate was escalated from an estimate presented in the
Department of the Interior's Water Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures report.
A key element in evaluating the mitigation alternatives is their integration with a regional
system which includes the City of Port Angeles as the primary bulk supplier of municipal
water. In recognition of the difficulties faced by its smaller water system neighbors, the
City considers it prudent to plan for the development of adequate capacity to supply these
adjacent water systems in the event they need it. These adjacent water systems include the
PUD No. 1 of CIallam County, the Dry Creek Water Association, the Black Diamond Water
District, and the Lower Elwha Klallam tribe. The mitigation alternatives are equally well-
suited for integration with these regional supply objectives. None of the mitigation
alternatives, as configured and described in the main body of this report, has any particular
advantage over the other in this regard.
Although the relative cost of the mitigation alternatives and the integration of the
nzitigation alternatives with regional water supply objectives are similar, other criteria
enable distinction of the three. The Rayonier Site mitigation alternative affords several
advantages related to access, reliability, proximity to other City facilities (wastewater
treatment facility), and the possibility of future reuse of treated wastewater. The Elwha
River Site mitigation alternative affords few advantages relative to the other two mitigation
alternatives, but instead is disadvantageous with respect to access and flooding
vuinerability because it is located within the Elwha river floodplain. The relative
advantages and disadvantages of the three mitigation alternatives are summarized in the
main body of this report in Table 2.
1. Introduction
This report was prepared subsequent to ~,o previous reports prepared for the City, of Port
Angeles (City). One of the reports, the Water Supply Strate~t, begun in April 1998 and
finalized in June 1999, summarized the City's objectives and strategy alternatives for
serving its existing and future customers in light of the substantial challenges it faces. In
that report, several strategies based on alternative supply approaches were described. The
second report, the Elwha Dams Mitigation Facilities Report (Draft), dated January 27, 1999,
outlined the City's expectations regarding needed municipal water supply and treatment
facility improvements to meet its domestic needs in the event the Elwha dams are removed
by the Federal Government. In that draft report, needed facility improvements were
described, rationale for their implementation was presented, and the cost of the facility
improvements was estimated.
Three supply and treatment alternatives that could be implemented in the event the Elwha
dams are removed were selected by City staff for further development. They were first
presented in the Water Supply Strateomj report or are variations of alternatives presented in
that report. The relative location of the treatment facilities for each of the mitigation
alternatives, as well as other existing facilities and adjacent water systems, are presented in
Figure 1 at the end of this report. These alternatives are described and evaluated in this
report. In addition, the integration of these three alternatives with the City's regional
supply objectives is also presented herein.
2. Description of Mitigation Alternatives
The three supply and treatment alternatives are hereinafter referred to as "mitigation
alternatives" because they represent possible supply and treatment improvement needs
resulting from the anticipated removal of the E]wha dams. These mitigation alternatives
differ primarily in the location of a water treatment facility, but also incorporate different
connecting raw and treated-water pipelines, and supply intake facilities. The three
mitigation alternatives are referred to as follows:
· Rayonier Site mitigation alternative
· West-of-City Site mitigation alternative
· Elwha River Site mitigation alternative
2.1 Facility Elements Common to Each
Most of the treatment facility improvement elements and all of the Morse creek backup
supply element are common to each mitigation alternative and are described in the
following subsections. Potentially substantial cost-savings variations to the Rayonier Site
treatment facility are described in this section.
'treatment Facility. Because no detailed water qua]i~ and treatment testing has been
conducted to determine specific treatment requirements, the treatment facility elements of
each mitigation alternative are, for the purposes of this report, considered to be the same,
with the exception of the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative (discussed later in this
subsection). The treatment elements common to each mitigation alternative described in
this report are based on currently available water quali .ty data and similar installations for
other municipalities. Detailed bench-scale and pilot testing will be necessary to select and
optimize the treahnent configuration.
Each mitigation alternative presented herein includes a treatment facility comprised of the
following major process elements: (1) chemical addition (coagulant(s), pH adjustment,
oxidation, and disinfection), (2) mixing and flocculation, (3) clarification (or sedimentation),
and (4) filtration. Surface water treatment including these process elements is commonly
referred to as "conventional treatment."
Conventional treatment is expected to be necessary because it includes a clarification
process prior to filtration, which removes a large portion of suspended particulate material
in the raw water. Because there will no longer be storage in the drainage basin to permit
settling of suspended solids, removal of the El,a, ha dams is expected to increase the
frequency and duration of highly turbid river-flow events at locations currently below the
dams. These events ,/,,ill be the result of intense rainfall and/or snowmelt nmoff in the
Elwha drainage basin that will make it necessary to provide treatment capability during
such periods. The Elwha dams and their associated storage currently mitigate the intensity
and duration of such events at the City's Elwha Ranney collector.
It should be noted that treatment process options other than conventional treatment may
exist. The timing of dam removal is a key factor as technology advancements continue to
occur. At this early stage, and considering that each mitigation alternative will likely have
the same treatment process because the supply source is the same, the use of conventional
treatment for this alternative evaluation is appropriate in that it is proven and has costs that
are believed to be appropriately conservative for plarming purposes.
For the purposes of this report, the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative does not include a
clarification process element. This mitigation alternative (as described below) would be
supplied from the Elwha industrial supply system, which the United States Department of
the Interior has proposed to upgrade with a ne'/,, supply intake system as well as a
sedimentation process element. This sedimentation process element, in effect, would
substitute for the similar clarification process element of the treatment facility, representing
a substantial cost savings for this mitigation alternative.
A second likely distinguishing feature of the Rayonier Site treatment facility is the potential
lack of filter-backwash solids handling facilities. Regular backwashing or cleaning of the
filters at the treatment facility produces a substantial quantity of solids that must be
disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner in compliance with stringent permit
requirements. Conveying the filter backwash slurry to the wastewater treatment facility
may enable the City to make dual use of the existing solids handling equipment and
systems that are already in place at that facility. The quantity of filter backwash solids
would be a fraction of the solids that are handled on a daily basis at the wastewater
treatment facility. Nevertheless, the capacity of the wastewater treatment to accommodate
this potential cost-savings approach would need to be evaluated.
Irmet{ien¢¥ Power. Each mitigation alternative presented herein includes provisions for
emergency power in the event of short-term and long-term power disruptions. A
permanenl on-site engine generator capable of operating all critical process elements is
included as part of each treatment facili~~. In addition, a permanent on-site engine
generator capable of operating at least one pump is included as part of the new Rarmey
collector facility for the West-of-City Site and Elwha River Site mitigation alternatives. The
emergency power costs are included as part of the total cost for these supply and treatment
facilities, presented later in this report.
Morse Creek Facilities. In addition to the treatment facility common to each mitigation
alternative, rehabilitation of the Morse creek supply system is also common to each. The
existing Morse creek supply system, which consists of an existing diversion and intake
structure and approximately 30,000 feet of 20-inch diameter concrete cylinder pipe is
functional, but in need of repair. Rehabilitating this system with some added features
would provide the City with a reliable backup supply in the event the Elwha supply is
damaged by flooding or othepa, ise unable to supply water of adequate quantity and/or
quality to the new treatment facility. Rehabilitation of the Morse creek supply system
includes rehabilitating or upgrading the existing diversion, a new replacement, 24-inch
diameter supply pipeline, and a 5-million gallon combination disinfection/clarification
storage tank. This storage tank could be used tmder normal operating conditions as a
traditional storage reservoir for the City's high-level pressure zone.
Each of the mitigation alternatives are otherwise distinguished by their location, their
connecting raw and treated water pipelines, and supply facilities. Descriptions of each
mitigation alternative are presented in the following sections.
2.2 Rayonier Site Alternative
This mitigation alternative is based on a treatment facility at either the site of the recently
demolished Rayonier mill or at the site of the mill's raw water treatment facility on the bluff
overlooking the old milt site.
Treatment Facility Location. The City previously considered the possibility of
rehabilitating the old Rayonier raw water treatment facility but declined to make use of this
facility because of its advanced age, condition, high rehabilitation costs, and uncertainties
regarding the specific treatment process elements that would be most appropriate to meet
regulatory requirements for municipal treatment.
Although use of the old Rayonier raw water treatment facility site remains a possible option
that could be further evaluated, for the purposes of this report, this mitigation alternative
includes a treatment facility on a portion of the lower-lying site of the old Rayonier mill.
The facility could be sited to preserve use of the remainder of this site for a future user of
the industrial supply system. This site was selected because it is larger and because raw
water pumping would not be required (see Connecting Pipelines subsection below).
Connecting Pipelines. Raw water would be conveyed by gravity from the existing
industrial intake location to the treatment facility through the existing industrial supply
pipeline. This supply pipeline is 54 inches in diameter along most of its length and
currently supplies the Daishowa mill. The condition and long-term viability of the existing
Elwha industrial supply pipeline should be taken into consideration. This pipeline has
adequate capacity to supply existing and future industrial supply users, as well as the City's
municipal supply needs, but is over 60 years old and leaking at several locations. Some
combination of replacement and rehabilitation of the pipeline is included as part of this
mitigation alternative.
A treated-water pipeline from the treatment facility to the Peabody Heights reservoir,
which serves the Ci~,'s medium-level pressure zone (middle zone), would be necessary.
This pipeline would be approximately 8,000 feet in length, constructed along street right-of-
'/,,ay.
Pumping Facilities. Pumping of the treated water would be necessary to lift it from the
treatment facility site to the Peabody Heights reservoir where it would be further
distributed to the City's system similar to the current mode of operation. The treated-water
pumping facilities would be constructed as an integral part of the treatment facility.
Backup pumping is also included as an integral part of the industrial supply intake
improvements described below. This pumping facility would only be necessary in the
event the intake laterals become clogged or otherwise damaged.
Supply Intake Facility. The existing industrial supply intake ,/,,as previously used by the
now-demolished Rayonier mill in addition to its current use to divert flow to the existing
Daishowa mill. If the Ci~ selects the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative, the new
treatment facility would use the same supply intake facility as Daishowa and other future
industrial supply users.
The Water Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures report, dated March 1997, prepared by
the United States Department of the Interior, described improvements to the existing
industrial supply intake system to remove the expected higher-than-current levels of
suspended solids. These improvements included perforated laterals installed in the river
bed, a pump station, mixing and flocculation chambers, chemical addition, sedimentation
basins, and other ancillary facilities. Although additional study, of the most appropriate
supply intake and treatment facilities are necessary, particularly in light of the Rayonier
mill closure, for the purposes of this report, these facilities are included In this mitigation
alternative. Furthermore, as discussed above, the costs associated with this facility may not
need to be included as part of the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative if they are fully
attributable to the improvements to mitigate the effect of dam removal on the Elwha
industrial supply system.
If this mitigation alternative is selected for implementation, the existing Elwha Ranney
collector would essentially be abandoned, but could serve as a backup supply facility for
the new municipal treatment facility in the event the new industrial supply intake is
damaged or otherwise inoperable. If the existing Rarmev collector were to be maintaIned
for use in such a manner the existing pumps would need to be replaced with lower-head
pumps. Another potential use for this facility would be as an alternative supply for the
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe's fish hatchery to prove cooler, lower-turbidity water.
Similarly, the existing pumps would need to be replaced with new lower-head pumps.
Optional Backup Supply Pipeline. An optional backup supply pipeline from the new
Morse creek supply pipeline, as shown in Figure 2 later in this report, is a non-essential
element of this mitigation alternative that could have substantial dual benefit to the City.
This 24-inch diameter connecting pipeline could be used to convey water from the Morse
creek supply system directly to the treatment facility at the Rayonier site in the event the
Elwha supply facilities are inoperable. This improvement would substantially improve the
reliability of the City's overall supply and treatment capabilities.
A second important benefit would be the potential use of this connecting pipeline to convey
treated wastewater from the City's wastewater treatment facility, located adjacent to the
Rayonier site, to the golf course located off Golf Course Road. Using this pipeline in this
manner would reduce discharges through the City's existing wastewater outfall, thus,
extending its useful life with respect to capacity. Additionally, overall demand on the
municipal water system would be reduced, resulting in at least a seasonal reduction in
supply withdrawal from the Elwha supply facilities.
This treated-wastewater-conveyance function would only be effected under normal
operating conditions when the Elwha supply is in use. A separate pumping facility would
need to be constructed. This optional connecting pipeline could form the beginning
"backbone" of a future "gray water" distribution system. The pipeline would need to be
properly disinfected prior to its temporary use as an backup raw water supply conduit to
the treatment facility at the Rayonier site.
2.3 West.of-City Site Alternative
This mitigation alternative is based on a treatment facility at a location west of the City but
out of the floodplain of the Elwha river.
Treatment Facility Location. The most appropriate specific location of the treatment
facility will need to be determined upon consideration of land ownership and acquisition
issues and the proximity to the existing 24-inch diameter Elwha Supply pipeline.
Connecting Pipelines. Raw water would be conveyed through the existing 24-inch
diameter E]wha municipal supply pipeline and an extension of this pipeline to the location
of the treatment facility'. A new raw water pipeline would be needed from the new Rarmey
collector, discussed later in this section, to the existing 24-inch diameter supply pipeline.
Treated water would be conveyed back to the existing 24-inch diameter supply pipeline for
continued conveyance to the B]ack Diamond and Peabody Heights reservoirs. Distribution
to customers from these reservoirs would be the same as the current mode of operation.
Pumping Facilities. Pumping of the raw water would be necessary from the existing
E]wha Ranney collector (existing pumps could be modified) and from a new Ranney
collector, as described in the Department of Interior's Water Quality Analysis and Mitigation
Measures report, on the west side of the Elwha river. Raw water pumping is provided as an
integral part of the Ranney collection system. Pumping of the treated water would be
necessary to convey it from the treatment facility to the Black Diamond and Peabody
Heights reservoirs. Distribution to customers from the reservoirs would be the same as the
current mode. The treated-water pumping facilities would be constructed as an integral
part of the treatment facility.
Supply Intake Facility. The existing Elwha Ranney collector could continue to serve as a
primary supply intake facility. However, as described in the Elwha Dams Mitigation Facilities
Report (Drqft), a new Ranney collector of equal or greater capacity on the west side of the
Elwha river would also be necessary. As described in this previous draft report and the
March 1997 Department of the Interior report, this additional Rarmey collector is necessary
to account for anticipated accelerated westward migration of the Elwha river in the vicinity
of the existing Elwha Ranney collector following dam removal. Protection dikes would be
provided for both Rarmey collectors.
Protection Dikes. Protection dikes for the existing and new Rannev_ collector will be
necessary to protect, these facilities from predictable and tmpredictable flooding events. The
design and configuration of these protection dikes would need to be determined through
additional detailed study.
2.4 Elwha River Site Alternative
This rrdtigation alternative is based on a treatment facility at a location within the Elwha
river floodplain near the existing Rarmey collector.
Treatment Facility Location. The most appropriate specific location of the treatment
facility will need to be determined based on a detailed evaluation of site conditions, river
flooding patterns, anticipated river migration patterns, and available land.
Gonnecting Pipelines. Raw water would be conveyed through separate pipelines from
the existing and new Ranney collectors. Treated water would be conveyed through the
existing 24-inch diameter Elwha municipal supply pipeline to the Black Diamond and
Peabody Heights reservoirs. Distribution to customers from these reservoirs would be the
same as the current mode of operation.
Pumping Facilities. Pumping of the raw water would be necessary from the existing
Elwha Rarmey collector (existing pumps would need to be replaced) and from and from a
new Rap. ney collector, as described in the Department of Interior's Water Quality Analysis
and Mitigation Measures report, on the west side of the Elwha river. Raw water pumping is
provided as an integral part of the Ranney collection system. Pumping of the treated water
would be necessary to convey it from the treatment facility to the Black Diamond and
Peabody Heights reservoirs, which is similar to the current mode of supply to the City's
storage and distribution system. The treated-water pumping facilities would be
constructed as an integral part of the treatment facility.
Supply Intake Facility. The existing Elwha Ran.ney collector could continue to serve as a
primary supply intake facility. However, as described in the Elwha Dams Mitigation Facilities
Report (Draft), a new Ranney collector of equal or greater capacity on the west side of the
Elwha river would also be necessary. As described in this previous draft.report and the
March 1997 Department of the Interior report, this additional Ranney collector is necessary
to account for anticipated accelerated westward migration of the Elwha river, resulting
from removal of the E]wha dams, in the vicinity of the existing Elwha Rarmey collector.
Protection dikes would be provided for both Rarmey collectors.
Protection Dikes. Protection dikes for the existing and new Rarmey collector will be
necessary to protect these facilities from predictable and unpredictable flooding events. The
design and configuration of these protection dikes would need to be determined through
additional detailed study.
3. Rationale for Mitigation Alternatives
The two Elwha dams are part of the existing intrastructure upon which the City's municipal
water supply system is based and upon which it depends. Removal of the Elwha dams will
significantly disrupt these existing conditions. In addition, removal of the Elwha dams will
significantly impact the existing Elwha industrial supply system, which is a critical element
of the local economy. However, this report focuses only on the mitigation improvements
for the City's municipal supply and treatment needs.
3.1 Permanent Treatment Facility
A permanent treatment facility will be necessary to counteract the high turbidity events that
will occur because of fall and winter rainstorms, springtime runoff, and upstream
landslides. These events will occur in the near-term future after dam removal and could be
extreme because the mass of sediment behind the dams will be subjected to rapid erosion.
However, these events can also be expected to occur in the long-term future after dam
removal as well. As discussed above, the storage pools behind the Elwha dams currently
dampen the effects of high turbidity in the river originating upstream during flooding and
storm events by allowing the suspended sediments to settle. The resulting flow out of the
dams is less turbid has a more consistent water quality than upstream. Removing the dams
removes this protection.
Considering the above discussion, it is reasonable to anticipate and plan for extended
periods of high river turbidity which may lead to unacceptably high turbidity in the Elwha
Ranney collector(s) or other supply intake facility that might be implemented. Removal of
the dams will permit the highly turbid flows originating from points upstream of the dam
locations to reach the recharge area of the aquifer supplying the Elwha Ranney collector.
Recharging this aquifer for extended periods of time with waters having substantially
higher turbidity than current levels is expected to make use of the existing Ranney collector
unfeasible as a stand-alone supply system. In addition, iron and manganese trapped in the
sediments behind the dams may migrate through the aquifer and enter the Rartney
collector. Filtration would be necessary to remove these constituents.
Permanent filtration is absolutely essential because high Elwha river turbidity will be a
common, recurring event. The existing Ranney collector, or even a second similar Rarmey
collector located within the same aquifer, will not be able to supply the City with low-
turbidity water during flooding events. An effective, permanent treatment facility is the
only effective means of removing turbidity.
There are also regulatory and level-of-service issues that also need to be considered if a
lower-level of treatment were to be implemented, such as a temporary filtration facility
which might be used for only a few years after dam removal when transport of existing
sediment behind the dams is most active. Installation of a temporary filtration facility
would establish a level of service for several years that may be infeasible to terminate from
the standpoint of meeting regulatory requirements as ,a, ell as customer expectations. A
return to a lower level of supply and treatment service upon removal of a temporary
filtration facility would likely present a significant risk and liability for the City.
3.2 Additional Ranney Collector
The rationale for an additional Ran.ney collector pertains to the West-of City, mitigation
alternative and the Elwha River mitigation alternative. The Rayonier Site mitigation
alternative includes a new intake and treatment facili~ that would be used to supply the
new municipal treatment facility, and existing and future industrial supply system users.
Thus, the existing Rauney collector and an additional Rannev collector are not included as
part of the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative.
Removal of the dams will eliminate the dampening effect on downstream river migration
they currently provide. After remova] of the dams, the river will be carrying much greater
sediment loads, as described above, down river to the vicinity of the existing Rarmey
col]ector and beyond. Deposition of this sediment load in the broad floodplain near the
existing Ranney collector will raise the river bed, accelerate river migration, and make such
migration more unpredictable than current conditions.
Migration of the main river channel further from the existing Ranney collector has already
proven to reduce the yield capacity of the collector. The Ct.fy has been able to cope with
these gradual migrations. However, substantially greater migration of the main river
channel from the existing collector could render the existing Rauney collector inadequate
during the ]ate summer and early fall months when inflow into the aquifer is lowest.
Additionally, as described in the Department of Interior's Water Quality Analysis and
Mitigation Measures report, yield at the existing Ran.ney collector could be reduced by
increased deposition after dam removal of fine sediment into the aquifer. This fine
sediment could settle into the interstices of the course riverbed material and decrease the
rate of river infiltration into the aquifer. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect removal of
the Elwha Dam will have on the artificial head (groundwater level) it supports in the river
reach just down-river of the dam in the vicinity of the Elwha Rarmey collector.
A new Rarmey collector that would function in place of, or in combination with, the existing
col]ector is necessary. Rarmey collectors are a highly efficient means of withdrawing water
from an aquifer that has direct recharge from a river. They essentially take advantage of the
natural filtration characteristics of the aquifer, reducing (but not necessarily eliminating)
further treatment requirements. Other direct surface withdrawal systems are possible, but
would likely resulting in the need for expensive pre-filtration treatment.
The new Ranney collector would need to be located such that the existing collector and the
new collector would not be adversely impacted by river migration at the same time. Thus,
locating the Ranney collector on the opposite side of the river (west side) from the existing
Rauney collector makes the most sense.
3.3 Protection Dikes
The rationale for protection dikes pertains to the West-of City mitigation alternative and the
Elwha River mitigation alternative. The Rayonier Site mitigation alternative includes a new
intake and treatment facility that would be used to supply the new municipal treatment
facility and existing and future industrial supply system users. Thus, the existing Ranney
collector and an additional Ranney collector are not included as part of the Rayonier Site
mitigation alternative; thus, eliminating the need for these protection dikes.
As described above, the E]wha dams provide a dampening effect on downstream flooding
events. In essence, the success of the Elwha Ranney collector is interdependent with the
dams. Removing the dams eliminates these beneficial effects, thus, making it necessary to
change the manner in which the City supplies its customers. Assuming Rarmey collection
will continue to be the mode of water withdrawal from the floodplain aquifer, protecting
the existing and future Rarmey collector from intense flooding events exceeding the "100-
year flood event" is absolutely necessary.
Protection dike structures on the upstream sides of the Rarmey collector facilities will
provide barriers against the potential destructive forces of the Elwha river because of the
greater suspended solids and large debris that will be present during flood events after dam
removal. Dikes would provide protection from the most destructive effects of flooding
events, but would not necessarily keep water from rising within the perimeter of the dikes.
Thus, a pumping system to lift water from within the perimeter back to the river may be
necessary. The materials of construction, configuration, and ancillary features of the
protection dike system would need to be determined during subsequent study.
The dikes would need to be constructed to permit river flow close to the collectors. It is
important that the river flow in close proximity to the collectors so that their yields do not
diminish because of insufficient aquifer recharge. In addition to the dikes, a stream
charmelization component to this activity may be warranted to ensure that the dikes do not
prevent the river from flowing dose to the Rarmey collectors, particularly during low fiver
flow periods.
3.4 Rehabilitation of Elwha Industrial Supply Pipeline
The rationale for rehabilitating the existing Elwha industrial supply pipeline is applicable
only if the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative is selected. Payment of the cost of this
rehabilitation by the Federal Government would be appropriate if the Rayonier Site
mitigation alternative results in an overall capital cost savings over the other mitigation
alternatives (cost estimates are presented later in this report). Furthermore, such
rehabilitation is essential, if the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative is selected for
implementation, to make this alternative equivalent from a practical standpoint to the two
other mitigation alternatives, which would employ use of the much newer 24-inch
diameter, ductile iron, Elwha supply pipeline.
3.5 Rehabilitation of Morse Creek System
As described above, removal of the Elwha dams increases the vulnerability of the existing
Elwha Ranney collector, a future collector that would be constructed within the Elwha
floodplain, and other supply intake systems. To mitigate this increased vulnerability, it will
be important to rehabilitate the existing Morse creek supply system, including the Morse
creek supply pipeline and the Morse creek diversion and intake system.
The existing diversion and intake system is functional but aging and in need of repair and
improvements to ensure its long-term viabili~,. The existing Morse creek supply pipeline is
approximately 30,000 feet in length. It is known to have leaks at several locations, is
constructed of concrete cylinder pipe which is expected to continue degrading in the near-
term future, and needs to be entirely rep]aced to ensure its functionality over the long-term
future.
in addition, treatment improvements to provide some degree of public health protection
when using the Morse creek supply system are also necessary,. The most cost-effective
improvement would be to construct a storage tank that would permit settling of suspended
solids from turbid inflow from Morse creek as well as provide a contact basin for chlorine
disinfect/on prior to service to customers. Clarification and disinfect/on would provide a
reasonable, low-cost, emergency backup treatment scheme. This storage facility could be
designed with a fully-passive sedimentation system or be equipped with chemical addition
and mixing to enhance the sedimentat/on process.
The storage tank could be located near the route of the existing Morse creek supply pipeline
and serve an alternat/ve function as a distribuhon system storage reservoir for the City's
system when not being used to support emergency use of the Morse creek supply. This
approach and configurat/on is somewhat unique and would not only require several design
features and operating protocols, but would need to be endorsed by the Washington State
Department of Health (DOH).
4. Cost Estimates
Total project capita] cost estimates for each mitigation alternative were developed. These
estimates were developed at the concept level In second-quarter 1999 dollars and are
summarized later in this sectfon. More detailed breakdowns of the estimated costs of the
components of each mitigation alternative are presented in Appendix A. The criteria for
estimating the cost of each improvement component are presented in the notes section of
each table.
Project capital cost allowances (instead of est/mates) were provided for the protection dikes
for the Rarmey co]lectors, rehabilitation of the existing Morse creek diversion structure, and
rehabilitation of the E]wha industrial supply pipeline (for the Rayonier Site alternative)
because these projects need further definition to develop a valid project cost estimate.
These project cost allowances are essentially "place-holders" until further study permits an
assessment of the estimated cost of these facilities. The cost estimate provided for the new
industrial supply intake and treatment system, included as part of the Rayonier Site
mitigation alternative, was escalated from the total-project capital cost estimates presented
in the Bureau of the Interior's 1997 Water Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures report.
No estimate of the operation and maintenance costs, including pumping, associated with a
new filtration plant was developed as part of this summary. These long-term operation and
maintenance costs to the City will need to be estimated after further study, and will need to
be included as part of any dam removal mitigation settlement.
The cost estimates are based on minimal site-specific information and minimal
determination of detailed components of the facility designs. The estimates and allowances
include the cost of preliminary and final design, construct/on, and engineering services
10
during construction (construction management). Costs associated with permitting and land
acquisition are not specifically included in the estimates; however, they are considered for
the purposes of this report to be incorporated into the 30-percent construction contingency.
The capital cost estimates are intended to represent the total cost of mitigation facilities the
City believes is necessary to address the adverse effects of removal of the Elwha dams. The
actual total project costs of the facilities described herein will vary from the estimates
depending on the specific features and characteristics of the facility improvements, market
conditions at the time of construction, and other related economic factors.
The costs estimates developed for this report are not intended to be used for budgeting
purposes, but rather for comparison of the mitigation alternatives. Additional study and
evaluation will be necessary to more accurately define the scope and magnitude of each of
the facility Lmprovements. Upon completion of such additional study, refinements of the
cost estimates presented herein will be possible. Although the cost estimates developed for
each mitigation alternative are for facilities sized to meet the City's regional supply
objectives of serving adjacent water systems as well as its own retail customers, these costs
estimates also do no include any costs specifically related to wholesale service connection or
intertie facilities that might be necessary to supply these adjacent water distticts as part of
the City's overall regional supply objectives.
The estimated costs summarized later in this section of the West-of-City Site and Elwha
River Site mitigation alternatives represent the combined total estimates of all the elements
presented in Tables A-2 and A-3. However, the summarized estimated total project cost of
the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative does not include the new industrial supply intake
and treatment system or the backup connecting pipeline from the Morse creek supply
pipeline to the treatment facility to enable use of the Morse creek system as a
supplementary or emergency backup raw water supply. Estimated costs for these
improvements are presented in Table A-1.
As a result, the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative would appear to be substantially less
costly than the other two alternatives. The rationale for omitting these costs are as follows:
· A new industrial supply intake and treatment system is necessary to mitigate the
effects of dam removal on the existing and future industrial supply system users.
Thus, the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative takes advantage this facility which is
anticipated to be constructed regardless of the mitigation alternative selected for the
City's municipal water system. If a different, or smaller-capacity, improvement
approach for the industrial supply system is implemented, a portion of the costs
associated with this facility might appropriately be included as part of the Rayonier
Site mitigation alternative.
· A connecting pipeline from the Morse creek supply pipeline represents a significant
step toward improving overall supply system reliability, redundancy, and long-term
viability. To permit use of this element of the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative,
Morse creek water rights issues would need to be resolved. However, this element
is considered to be less essential than other mitigation elements and should be
considered as a negotiable item depending on the specific elements included in the
Rayonier Site mitigation alternative, if it is selected.
Summarized total project costs for each mitigation alternative are presented in Table 1. ]t
should be noted, however, that the West-of-City and Elwha River mitigation alternatives
could also be supplied from the new industrial supply intake and treatment facilities.
Pumping of the raw water would be necessary because there would be insufficient head to
convey the ]ow-head flow from the industrial supply and treatment system to the treatment
facilities for either of these two other mitigation alternatives (very low-head pumping
required for £1wha River alternative). Nevertheless, such a variation of these altematives
would result in the omission of the new Ranney collector and its associated cormecting
pipeline, the clarification process element, and would substantially reduce their total project
cost. Thus, these variations, as well as the estimated combined totals cost of these
variations and the estimated costs for the Elwha industrial system improvements, are also
presented in the Table 1 summary.
Table 1
Summary of Concept-Level Cost Estimates
cost Category Rayonier Site West-of-City Site Elwha River Site
Project Totals (from Appendix A tables) $46,000,00l~ $63,000,000 $62,000,000
Potential Variation From Project Totals
Clarification Process Berrent -- -$3,656,250 -$3,656,250
New Bwha Ranney Collector -- -$12,187,500 -$12,187,500
Connecting Rpeline to New Collector -- -$1,218,750 -$1,218,750
Raw Water Pumping -- $1,300,000 $812,500
Subtotal -- -$15,762,500 -$16,250,000
Alternate Project Totals - $47,000,000 $46,000,000
Elwha Industrial Supply/Treatment System $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000
(rounded)
Combined Industrial/Alternate Project Totals $66,000,000 $67,000,000 $66,000,000
5. Regional Supply Objectives
The overall water supply objectives provide the foundation for the development of its long-
term water supply strategy. The challenge is to accomplish these objectives in an effective
manner while addressing all of the issues and events that affect its supply system. The
three primary water supply objectives are:
1. Develop a capacity that can safely, reliably, and efficiently supply all customers
between the Elwha river and Morse creek, meeting current and future water quality
regulations.
12
2. Maintain its industrial supply system infrastructure and Elwha manufacturing
(industrial system) water right to supply current and future users.
3. Develop its supply strategy in concert with the Elwha dam(s) removal process and
obtain federal mitigation funding to fully cover the cost for required water supply
and treatment facilities to maintain system reliability and level-of-service.
For the purposes of this discussion, the primary., water supply objective of interest here is
the City's regional supply objective of having the capacity to supply all customers between
the Elwha river and Morse creek. In addition to the City, this area includes PUD No. 1 of
Clallam County (PUD), the Black Diamond Water District, and the Dry Creek Water
Association, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
The regional supply objectives do not include forcing service on customers or existing
systems outside the City, or unincorporated urban growth area that do not wish to be
provided service. However, because of anticipated increased stringency in future drinking
water regulations, costs associated with growth, high facility and infrastructure
replacement costs, and the ever-increasing overall cost of providing service (particularly
treatment), the City recognizes that a regional approach with the City as the bulk water
supply provider likely represents the best opportunity for long-term reliable supply to its
customers within the City limits as well as those adjacent to the City.
The City currently supplies all customers within the City limits, not including the Elwha
industrial water system customers (Daishowa), on a retail basis and most of the PUD's
customers west of Morse creek on a wholesale contract basis with the PUD. Most of the
PUD's service area west of Morse creek lies within the unincorporated Port Angeles Urban
Growth Area (PAUGA). Much of the Dry Creek Water Association service area is also
within the PAUGA.
Although portions of these service areas and all of the Black Diamond service area are
located outside the PAUGA, the City believes that it may ultimately supply them as well,
either through future annexation (as retail customers) or on a wholesale contract basis with
the purveyor. Regardless of the manner and the time-frame in which the City might
ultimately supply the customers of these adjacent systems, it would seem reasonable to
ensure that it has the supply capacity and the water rights to do so.
The City has already received an informal request from Dry Creek Water Association to
purchase enough water to meet its entire supply need and has also had some discussions
within the past several years with Black Diamond Water District regarding supplying a
portion of its emergency supply needs. The PUD has also requested additional supply from
the City. Thus, it is apparent that it is prudent for the City to plan for a role as the primary
regional water supplier, and that this outcome may develop rapidly over the next 5 to 10
years.
6. Integration of Alternatives with Regional Supply Objectives
Integration of the mitigation alternatives with the City's regional supply objectives relates
primarily to the pipeline connections and pumping facilities that are necessary to enable the
City to supply these adjacent systems. The purpose for evaluating the integration of each of
7. Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives
The following assertions and comparisons of the mitigation alternatives are presented m
light of the preceding discussion. These assertions and comparisons are summarized in
Table 2.
· Although the Rayonier Site alternative has a lower estimated cost when only
considering the pr/mary configurations for each mitigation alternative, the possible
variations on the other two alternatives and the limitat/ons of the cost estimates
makes it difficult to identify an alternative with a clear and significant cost
advantage.
· Each of the mitigation alternatives is equally suitable for effective integration into
the City's regional supply objectives. Thus, no distinction is made based on this
objective.
· The Rayonier Site mitigation alternative is situated to permit direct supply from the
Morse creek supply pipeline with the construction of the backup supply connecting
pipeline described above. This addit/on would provide added system reliability.
· The Rayonier Site mitigation alternative is situated adjacent to the City's secondary
wastewater treatment plant which could reduce combined staffing, improve
operating efficiency, and share emergency backup power.
· Constructing a connecting pipeline from the Morse creek supply to the Rayonier site
would provide a dual-purpose emergency water/gray water pipeline enabling
treated wastewater effluent from the City's wastewater treatment facility to supply
irrigators; thus reducing overall water consumption and discharges through the
existing wastewater outfall.
· The Rayonier Site mitigation alternative would use a portion of the old Rayonier
mill site; thus, reducing the amount of available land for future industrial users at
this site.
· The treatment facility for the Rayonier Site mitigation alternative would be the most
accessible site of the three mitigation alternatives.
· The Rayonier Site mitigation alternative would use a portion of the supply capacity
of the Elwha industrial supply pipeline; thus, reducing the capacity available for
future industrial users.
· The Elwha River Site mitigation alternative may be most difficult to site because of
limited available building space.
· The Elwha River Site mitigation alternative would permit possible combined
staffing with the new Elwha industrial supply and treatment (settling) system.
· The tream~ent facility for the Elwha River Site will be the most vulnerable to Elwha
river flooding events, and thus may prove to be more costly resulting from the need
to provide protective barriers.
· The West-of-Ciw Site mitigation alternative would not be located near any
substantial water bodies; thus, there would be no vulnerability from flooding.
· Access to the West-of-City Site treatment facility would not be as good as to the
Rayonier Site treatment facility.
· Some differences between the mitigation alternatives exist related to pumping, but
are considered minor at this point until further definition of the alternatives
Appendix A
Detailed Cost Estimate Tables
pO TANG L S
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE: August 23, 1999
To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMM11-I'E£
FROM: Glenn A. Cutler, Director of Public Works & Utilities
SUIIJECT: Stormwater Management and Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Issues
Summary: The City has delayed adoption of the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual
past the deadline of January 1, 1995. We have delayed primarily due to the financial impacts on
the City budget for this unfunded mandate. Failure to adopt the Manual could impact future
grant and loan rankings and could also impact private development and City improvements by
showing inaction towards improving water quality in streams and marine waters which are the
home of the Chinook Salmon, listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). We are also required by our wastewater NPDES permit to reduce our CSO event
frequencies. To fired the inspections, monitoring, and maintenance required by the Manual and to
fired stormwater improvements required to improve water quality and reduce CSO events a new
utility or separate fund within the water/wastewater utility would be needed.
Recommendation: Have a workshop at which DOE and PSWQA representatives can
present the need for Port Angeles to adopt the States Stormwater Manual At the workshop
also discuss development of a new funding source for support of the stormwater program.
Background / Analysis: The attached letter was received from the Department of Ecology
following a routine review of the City's Transportation Improvement Plan. The comments were
not a surprise, but did bring to our attention that DOE's intent is that we adopt their Stormwater
Management Plan in the near future. We did contact Mr. Gary Kruger of DOE regarding the
comments and he stated that the intent was just another reminder to the City regarding this issue
and they currently do not have "the hammer" to force adoption, but lack of adoption could
impact future grant or loan rankings. Another area which supports adoption of the manual is the
recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) which listed the Chinook Salmon in our area. This listing
could significantly slow or stop development and improvements in our area if we have not
adopted the manual. Mr. Kruger did offer DOE assistance in making a presentation to City
Council regarding the need for the manual and assistance in adoption of the plan. Mrs. Harriet
Beal of the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team has also offered her assistance in this area.
As noted in the letter, the City has not adopted Ecology's Stormwater Management Plan. The
City has delayed adoption of Ecology's Stormwater Management Plan past the January 1, 1995
deadline due to the financial impacts created by requirements for inspection, monitoring, and
maintenance of public and private drainage facilities by City staff contained in the plan. In
addition, the added water quality requirements pfthe plan will add costs to ail new stormwater
facilities within the City as well as the possibility of retrofitting of older facilities. A "Letter of
Compliance" was forwarded to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority just prior to the
January 1, 1995 deadline to show that we were in the process of reviewing the plans
requirements, noting the remaining efforts needed to meet the plan, and development of a
schedule. The City did adopt a clearing, grading and drainage ordinance in 1993 which partiaily
meets some the plans criteria primarily in water quantity and erosion control but fails short in the
areas of water quality, monitoring and inspection of private systems, maintenance, and
retrofitting of existing systems.
In 1990 the City had a stormwater management plan prepared which outlined the existing
stormwater system, developed a model of the system for anaiysis, identified a program of capital
and smail projects for correction of problem areas, developed operations and maintenance
standards, and recommended a regulatory and financing program to meet the upcoming NPDES
permitting requirements being developed by DOE. The City adopted the 1990 plan, adopted a
clearing, grading, and drainage ordinance in 1993, and completed most of the recommended
improvements. The recommended financing program was not implemented. In 1994 the City
started development of a new stormwater management plan prepared to address the requirements
of DOE's adopted NPDES stormwater permitting regulations. This plan, in addition to
upgrading the 1990 plant, added sections on water quality, wetlands, streams, regulatory
compliance, and a stormwater utility feasibility study.
The stormwater utility feasibility was presented to the Utility Advisory Committee for discussion
in July 10, 1995 and presented to City Council on August 14, 1995. A copy of the issue paper
presented to the UAC and Council is attached.
With the need to adopt the State Stormwater Management Manuai, meet NPDES requirements,
meet ESA requirements, and facilitate CSO separation projects a source of additionai funding
will be needed. The 1995 Stormwater Management Plan presented funding levels $1.87, $2.65,
$4.00, and $7.88 a month per equivalent household and recommended the $4.00 level. In 1999
dollars these levels translate into $2.20, $3.10, $4.70, and $9.25 a month. The $2.20 rate is
essentiaily status quo with no funds for improvement or support of the State Stormwater
Management Plan. The $3.10 level would add limited capital improvement program beyond the
status quo. The recommended $4.70 level would add the funding to meet the requirements of the
State Stormwater Management Manual and provide engineering support for stormwater CSO
activities.
N:\TEMP~SP£RR~}OEMAN2.WPD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47600 * Olympi~, Washin~on 98504.7600
($60) 40?-6000 · TDD Only (Heering Impaired) (360)
June 29, 1999
Bob Titus
Deputy Director of Utility Services
P.O. Box 1150
Port Angeles, WA 98362
Dear Mr. Titus:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Optional Determination of
Non-Significance/Notice of Action (ODNS/NOA) on the City of Port Angeles' update to
the Transportation Improvement Plan for the period of 2000-2005. The Department of
Ecology (Ecology) appreciates the time and effort that went into creating this document,
however we have the following question with regard to stormwater management:
· Since the City of Port Angeles has not adopted Ecology's Stormwater Management
Manual, under what authority or mechanism will the City apply it to transportation
projects?
Please contact Gary Kruger at (360) 407-0238 in Ecology's Southwest Regional Office,
Water Quality Program if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
Scott Boettcher, Coordinator
Growth Management
Cc: Abbe White, Ecy/SWRO
Gary Kruger, Ecy/SWRO
Appendix V-B
Stormwater Utility Issue Paper #2: August 8, 1995,
presented to City Council on August 14, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Port Angeles City Council and Utility Advisory Committee (UAC)
FROM: Jack Pitt/s, Director of Public Works
DATE: August 8, 1995
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Information from the City's Stormwater Funcli~g Study to the
August 14, 1995, Joint Meeting of the City Council and Utility Advisory
Committee
Please find attached information developed by our stormwater consultants in response to
the comments provided by the Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) at the July 10, 1995,
meeting. I would like to continue our discussion regarding funding alternatives for the
City's stormwater management program at the August 14, 1995, joint meeting of the City
Council and the UAC.
Based on the direction of the UAC at the July 10, 1995, meeting, I have asked our
consultant to:
· Develpp written responses to the questions raised regarding the formation of a
stormwater utility (Attachment #1),
'
· Further ratine the proposed stormwater program by reducing the monthly rates,
lowering the Annual budget and levels of staffing, and refining the capital
improvement needs (Attachment #2), and
· Present a dral~ ordinance that shows how the proposed stormwater utility can be
merged with the City's wastewater utility serv/ces, including an outline of the
proposed rate structure and cost recovery philosophy (Attachment #3).
The above information has been appended to this transmittal letter for your rev/ew prior to
the upcoming August 14, 1995, meeting. For those council members that were not present
at the July 10, 1995, meeting of the UAC, a copy of the June 8, 1995, Stormwater Funding
Issue Paper has also been enclosed with the above information.
It is our intent at the August 14, 1995, meeting to further discuss the funding of the City's
stormwater program and respond to any additional questions or concerns you may have.
With the concurrence of the City Council and the members of the UAC, we would like to
include the establishment of funding for a stormwater utility as a new revenue source to be
presented and discussed along with the proposed 1996 City Budget. Please feel free to call
me in advance of the meeting if you have any questions or concerns.
Attachment #1
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study
Responses to Questions from July 10, 1995 UAC Meeting
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study
Responses to Questions from July 10, 1995, UAC Meeting
1. Definition of what is meant by forming a new stormwater utility.
Response: RCW 35.67 authorizes municipalities to levy for storm and
surface water service in the same manner as for sanitary sewer service. The
purpose of this legislation is to provide a mean., for cities to raise the funds
needed for the operation and improvement of local storm drainage systems.
The term ~utility~ has been g~ven to this approach only to acknowledge that
property will be charged a service charge that is proportional to the impact
from, or service provided to, a property.
The adoption of a storm drainage service charge does not imply the creation
of a separate organization within Public Works, such as Port Angeles City
Light. The actual work involved in stormwater management can and should
continue within the present public works organizational structure. Staffing
Would be in proportion to program and maintenance levels adopted in the
annual budget. The difference would be that a new stormwater fund would
be identified for budgeting and cost accounting purposes.
The City has the option of issuing separate line items on the utility bill for
sanitary sewer and storm drainage services, or of using a single line item for
both. The storm drainage service charge would be calculated for each
property and could be added to the sanitary sewer charge or listed separately.
That choice is up to the City.
2. Relationship to existing wastewater utility and formation of a new
combined sewer utility which would contain both the existing wastewater
functions as well as the new proposed stormwater utility functions.
Response: The statute authorizing service charges for storm drainage
(RCW 35.67) addresses storm drainage as a part of a general classification of
sewerage systems. The City has the option of making the storm drainage
fund a separate fund or a subset of the wastewater fund.
Much of the capital cost identified for the control of the combined sewer
overflows from the wastewater system is directly related to storm drainage.
Consequently there is some logic to treating the two systems as a single
utility, with the storm portion identified as a subset of the existing
wastewater utility.
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study I
!
I The issue is whether to bill the storm drainage serv/ce charge as a separate
llne item on the City utility bill or to combine the storm service drainage
I charge with the wastewater service charge. This is a local option as the
service charge rate computation and the fund accounting will be the s~r~e
with either approach.
I 3. Public inf rmation and awareness processes and schedules.
Response. If the City Council chooses to implement a storm drainage
service charge it is suggested that the charge be included in the regular City
· budget process which is subject to public hearings. Additional public
info~ ii,ation through the local news media could be disseminated prior to the
budget hearings. The preferred schedule is to have the storm drainage
I~ service charge begin January 1, 1996, but it could be phased in to start at
any time.
I 4. Response to t.h.e issue of the wastewater utility being at the
limit
of
its
allowable ~ond~ng capacity.
Response. The wastewater utility is limited in its bonding capacity only by
the revenues available to the utility for debt service and coverage. The
" additional revenues generated by the storm drainage service charge would
!
provide the debt service for revenue bonds issued to fund the needed sto~ ~
drainage capital improvements and should not have an impact on the
I bonding capacity of the wastewater utility or the General Fund.
5. Description of "what the public will get."
I Response: City staff has identified a number of long-standing drainage
problem ~reas that have not been addressed due to lack of funding. The
I proposed drainage service charge can fund the correction of these problems in
addition to the larger storm drainage capital projects identified in the CIP.
With funding, storm drainage related open space, wetland and multiple use
I land acquisitions will be possible. Adequate funding will also improve the
City's ability to work with the development community to facilitate the
development process. Specifically, the public will see the resolution of
historical nuisance flooding problems, larger capital improvements to restore
or expand the City's existing drainage system and a n~mber of new drainage
related services, including increased level of technical support to developers
I and residences.
i · Resolution of historical nuisance flooding problems involves conducting
drainage studies in the areas of the Upper Golf Course Road,
Milwaukee Drive, C Street Extension and Rose and Thistle Streets.
!
City of J~ort Angeles Stormwater Funding Study 2
These studies will assess the capacities and problems of the existing
drainage system and present a prioritized list of capital projects to
provide pe~anent solutions. (See Item 8 for additional details.)
· Larger capital drainage infrastructure projects would initially include
the following four projects:
·Peabody Creek Outlet Dredging
· 10th Street Drainage Discharge
· ~ Street Stormwater Discharge
· l.~coln Street/Peabody Creek Culvert Rehabilitation
On a system-wide basis, modifications and upgrades are needed on
most of the City's existing catch basins and the n,~merons end-of-the-
street discharges into the many stre2ms that run directly through the
City.
· Other drainage related services or improvements that the public may
become aware of as a result of the new stormwater utility include:
· Stre-m and harbor water quality improvement,
· Protection of remaining wetland areas and open spaces,
· Educational information about recycling and the proper use and
disposal of household hazardous wastes, and
· Increased support to developers.
Developers, local engineers, and future home buyers would
particularly benefit from better defiultion of drainage related
requirements and the identification of regional drainage
improvements, as identified in the City conducted drainage studies. At
this ~ime the City requires the develops to conduct regional drainage
studies at their own expense prior to development.
6. Response to the questions regarding the addition of new staff.
As far as additional staff needs are concerned, there is an identified need for
additional staff to pert'om maintenance on the existing storm drainage
system. The staffing level recommended in the Consultant's report of June 6,
1995, totaled an additional 6.3 FTE positions at full program development.
The City would not need to add this many staff initially. One or two people
should be added to the maintenance activity during the first budget year.
Other staffing decisions would be considered during the annual budgeting for
the storm drainage fund based on activities and goals for the utility and the
rates established.
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study
I 7. Brief description of the City's proposed stormwater program in comparison
to the guidelines Presented in the State's Puget Sound Water Quality
I Management Plan.
Response: The current analysis of the City's storm drainage program has
been based pr{marily on no~ual public works
management
practices
S~rn~lar
to those currently being performed by other cities in Washington. If the City
continues its present activity level and slowly adds the sta~ng recommended
I by Consultants, City met any current or anticipated future
the
the
will
have
requirements by the State.
I An overview of where the City's existing stormwater program stands in
relationship to State regulations (as defined in the Basic Stormwater
!1 Program of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan) was
presented in the June 6, 1995 Issue Paper of the City's Stormwater Funding
Study. The needs of the City's stormwater program include:
· hnproved funding,
· enhanced maintenance of public and private facilities,
· the addition of policies and criteria for water quality,
I · improved facility mapping and record keeping,
· enhanced monitoring of new developments, and
I an ongoing public program.
e
education
· These stormwater program activities have long been needed in the City of
Port Angeles and are already in place in most other cities within the Puget
Sound area. These are not um-easonable or onerous regulatory requirements,
i but are simply good business practices that the City should be routinely
performing to protect the substantial investment that the City has made over
the years in developing its existing drainage infrastructure system. The
existing state stormwater regulations have assisted the City in developing its
stormwater program by establishing technical guidelines for the City to use
prov~a~ng grant funding, and producing model ordinances and maintenance
I programs.
8. Brief presentation of example drainage problems and how the proposed
I stormwater utility is needed to reduce and/or resolve these problems.
A number of long-standing drainage problems that this new source of funding
I would allow the City to address includes the drainage problems along the
Upper Golf Course Road, along and at the end of Milwaukee Drive, in the
i Rose and Thistle Area, and along the C. Street Extension.
With the proposed stormwater progr~m~ Public Works would not only be able
I to resolve these long-standing localized flooding problems but also retrofit
i City of Port Angeles Storrnwater Funding Study 4
major areas of the existing drainage system. Upgrades of catch basins,
discharges to streams at the ends of many of our streets and many larger
regional capital projects are needed. It has been many years since the
maintenance program has been able to fully address these needs.
The lack of maintenance resources and a regular capital improvement
progr~r- has allowed the drainage system to fail into disrepair and has
increased localized flooding and water quality problem~. In addition,
developments
are only reviewed on a case-by-case basis with llrn~ted
resources to assess the full impact of the proposed new developments on the
existing drainage system.
9. Status of City's financial resources and a listing of other city needs that
could be funded if a new revenue source were found to support the City's
stormwater program.
Each one dollar per month per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERLD will
produce an annual revenue to the storm drainage fund of approximately
$150,000. The Consultants have recommended an initial service charge rate
of up to $4.85/ERU/month which would produce $750,000 in annual
revenues. Current annual expenditures associated with stormwater
activities from the street, sewer and general funds are approximately
$290,000.
If the annual drainage budget of $290,000 from the Street and General
Funds
was ass-r~ed by a new funding source, such as a stormwater utility,
the "released" financial resources could be spent on other pressing City needs,
such as road maintenance and other non-utility, General Fund activities.
The addition of the new stormwater program could also begin to take over
and ass,,me the annual costs associated with such activities as street
sweeping, catch basin cleaning, some open space maintenance, and certain
wastewater expenditures. All reasonable storm drainage costs could be
allocated to the storm drainage funds as the City does for its other utilities.
· Through the direct assumption of current stormwater expenditures and
relieving other existing funds of their present stormwater related activities,
as much as $500,000, may be realized each year for reprioritization and
reallocation by the City Council.
10. Listing and responses to likely rate payer questions.
Listed below are a few of the commonly raised questions that could be
expected from the public, together with a drai~ response:
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study 5
Q. Why is a new charge being levied? Why not continue paying for storm
drainage as we have in the past?
A~ The past approach has not been adequate to meet the City's needs for
sto~,',', dra~-age facilities and maintenance. Drainage work performed in
the past has been at the expense of more road maintenance and other
general fund services. The majority of cities in the Puget Sound area
have the same problem of fund~.g their stormwater needs as does as Port
Angeles. They have adopted storm drainage service charges as a way to
equitably fund drainage services producing some very positive local
results.
Q. I live up on the hill and don't have a problem. Why should I pay?
A. Water fi-om the upper portion of a drainage basin must be conveyed
through the entire basin to ultimately be discharged into the strait or
harbor. As a result, the cost of providing protection fi-om flooding,
erosion and environmental d~mage is actually caused prLmarily by those
properties in the upper portions of the basins. This concept has been
confirmed by court decisions that have assigned responsibility for
drainage to all properties in a drainage basin. As a result, the City's
proposed service charge approach treats ail properties in a basin equally.
City roads, for example, generate stormwater runoff and serve ail
users
regardless of the location of their property.
Q. My property is on the waterfront. Why should I pay?
A. Adequate storm drainage protect~ all properties in the City and.
accommodates drainage fi-om the street system that serves all properties.
As a consequence, all properties benefit and should pay their fair share.
For certain isolated proper~es some reduction in -the capital facilities
portion of the storm drainage service charge may be possible. Such
reductions will be considered on an individual property basis.
Q. If I control runoff and water quality on my property, will I get a credit
against the service charge?
A. Yes. A system for credits is proposed. An application process will be
available and each application will be considered on its own merits.
Maintenance of your private runoff control system will have to be
addressed.
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study 6
.!
Q. Isn't this drainage service charge just another tax? ' I
A. Under State law, and by court decision, storm drainage service charges I
are considered u~l~ty user fees just like your water, sewer, power and
solid waste fees. It is a new fee and as a result it is a new cost to all
property owners in the City, but is it not a tax based on property value. I
City of Port Angeles Storrnwater Funding Study 7
!
Attachment #2
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study
Description of Needs and Proposed Stormwater Program
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study
Description of Needs and Proposed Stormwater Program
Introduction and Background
In the July 10, 1995, Issue Paper from the City's Stormwater Funding Study, the
consultants presented the need for an improved stormwater management program
that would ul~mately cost as much as $1.24 mil[ion snnually and require the
addition of 6.3 staff. The sto~-~uwater utility rate to support this program would be
$7.88/ERU/month ($94.57/ERU/year). The UAC stated at the July 10, 1995,
meeting that this level o£st~Rug and funding is not reasonable for s city of the size
of Port Angeles and that the proposed stor-,water program would have to be
reduced. Presented below is a reduced stormwater program that is more consistent
with the revenue generating capabilities of the City and st/Il allows the City to
address its most pressing stormwater needs.
Proposed Stormwater Program
The City's stormwater progrsm needs to identify a new revenue source to improve
maintenance, support a capital improvement, program, and improve and monitor
the development process. These needs are addressed in the proposed stormwater
progrzm presented below.
Proposed Stormwater Management Program
Annual Operating Budget, Staffing Levels, and Program Activities
CIP Debt Activ/ties
Program Equip. Service Other Cost
Activities #~'1'/5 $ ($) ($) ($) ($)
Management Admln~-~ration .... $151{~" $15,000
Operation & Ma/ntenance +1.0 $50K $150K -- $150W' $350,000
Capital Improvements +0.5 ($30K)'~ -- $150K" -- $150,000
Engineering +0.5 $30K -- -- $75I~" $105,000
Drainage Studies
Development & Technical
New Ordinances
Publ/c Education
Inventory and Mappin~
To~al Annual Operating Budget +2.0 $80K $150K $150K $240K $620,000
(1) To Finance Department for annual billing and accounting services.
(2) To Street Department for O I M labor on the City's starmwater facilities.
(3) CIP staffing can be paid for through CIP bonds, along with the cost o~ the capital improvements.
(4) Annual C1P debt services of $150K supports a $1.2M CIP program.
(5) For drainage studies and small projects.
City of Port Angeles Storrnwater Funding Study I
I
Description of Major Program Activities
· Management and A~niuistration
The only new cost associated with managing and a~rn~.,tering the
stormwater utility would be the cost of billing and accounting services ~hot
Public Works would pay ~-nually to the Finance Department. With an
I estimated 5,000 accounts and an ~ual service charge of about
$3.00/account, the annual ~mount for billing services is $15,000 per year.
'1 · Operation and M~tenance
The present mn~ntenance program is about $235,000 per year from the Street
I Fund. Of this ~rnount, $110,000 is for equipment and $125,000 supports a 3-
person crew. The proposed utility ass~mes the ~nuual cost from the Street
Fund and increases equipment and labor to $150,000 and $250,000,
I respectively. The annual budget for maintenance increases from $235,000 to
$350,000 per year and includes the addition of one new m~intenance laborer.
I · Capital Improvements
I The highest priority capital improvement needs of the City are listed below
and total $1.2M. The lists includes five small capital projects totaling
$150,000 and an additional $160,000 to follow-up on one or more of the
I projects to be identified in localized drainage studies. One-half of a new
engineer has been assigned to implement the stormwater capital
I improvement program.
Propoeed Stormwster Manegemen! Program
I High Priority Czpitai improvement Projects
Project Description l~rlng Cost Estimate Schedule
Peabody Creek Outlet Dredging 1 $ 150,000 1996
i 10th Street St~rmwater Discharge 2 300,000 1996
~ Street Stormwater Discharge 3 100,000 1997
Peabody Creek/Lincoln Street Culvert Rehab 4 340,000 1998
I Small Localized Projects (5 projects) 5 150,000 1996-1997
Projects from Drainage Studies 6 160,000 1998
I High Priority Capital Improvement Budget $1,200,000
· Engineering
I Engineering support to the City's stormwater program needs to be increased
to conduct drainage studies, assist in the development review process,
I
City of Por't Angeles Stormwater Funding Study 2
!
conduct inventories and mapping of' facilities, develop a public .education
program and write new ordinances. One-half of a new engineer has been
identified to provide engineering support to the new stormwater program.
Rates and Revenue Requirements
The revenue requirements for the proposed stormwater prograph are $620,000
~nrtually. Th~ is an increase of $330,000 over the present funding level of
$290,000. To generate this level of funding, the rate of the service charge of the
proposed stormwater utility would need to be at least $4.00/ERU/month or
$48/ERU/year.
Alternative levels of progr~ activities and associated stormwater utility rates
have been reviewed and considered. If the City decided to form the utility and set
the rate at a level equal to the existing stormwater progrzrn funding level of
$290,000, the rate per residential homeowner would be $1.87 per month. If the
program activity level were increased to include $1M of capital improvements to be
paid back over a ten year period using bonds, the funding level would be $390,000
annually and require a stoi:mwater residential service charge of $2.65 per month.
The recommended program funding level is at $620,000 per year wkich corresponds
to a residential rate of $4.00 per month. To fund all the City's stormwater needs, as
described in the consultant's analysis presented in the July 8, 1995, Stormwater
Issue Paper, would require $1,220,000 annually and require a residential service
charge of $7.88 per month.
Listed below is a compar/son of monthly rates and the levels of stormwater
activities that these funding levels can support, as discussed above.
Stormwater Programs, Funding Levels and Rates
Annual Budget Monthly Utility Service
Requirement Charge/F_,RU
To Fund Current Program Only $290,000 $1.87
To Fund Current Program and SIM in CIP $390,000 $2.65
To Fund Recommended Program $620,000 $4.00
To Fund Ultimate Program Needs $1,220,000 $7.88
City of Fort Angeles Storrnwater Funding Study 3
Attachment #3
City of Port Angeles Stormwater Funding Study
Draft Ordinance to Establish a Stormwater Utility
within the City's Wastewater Utility
DRAFT ' I
DRAFT ' I
ORDINANCE NO. I
AN ORDIAIANCE of the City of Port Angeles establishh~g the City's I
stox~ and surface water system as a system of sewerage as defined by
RCW 35.67 and creating a new Chapter __ of the Port Angeles
M,,,~cipal Code.
OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGEl,ES DOES ORDAIN !
CITY
COUNCIL
as follows:
Section 1. There is hereby created a new chapter in the Port Angeles Municipal I
Code, to read as follows:
Chapter I
STORM AND SURFACE WATER SYSTEM I
Sections:
.010 Purpose
.020 Definitions
__.030 Utility Established
__.040 Plan Adopted m
__.050 Transfer of Property
.060 Cost
.070 Storni and Surface Water Fund Created m
__.080 Setting of Fees and Charges
__ .090 Charges for Service ·
__ .100 Connection to Storm and Surface Water System
.110 Service Charges for State Highway Property.
.120 Service Charges for City Streets ·
__.130 Service Charges for Private Streets.
.140 Discount for the Low Income Elderly or Handicapped.
__.150 Collection of User Charges m
__.160 Appeal of Charges
~ This Chapter is adopted for the following purposes: I
the storm and surface water system of the City as a utility m
A.
To
establish
service of the City as provided by RCW 35.67;
mm
I DRAFT
I' B. To establish a method of providing funding to improve and maintain the
storm and surface water system;
I C. To provide, by improving and m~i~taining the storm and surface water
system, greater protection for public and private property from flooding,
I erosion and property d~mage;
· m D. By improving and m~-g the storm and surface water system, to
improve the quality of stormwater discharged to the Port Angeles harbor and
the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
I Not-withstanding the above stated purposes, nothing in this Chapter is intended to
or shall be deemed to create a duty of the City to protect or promote the interest of
I any particular person or class of person, nor increase any obligation of the City
related to the control of storm and surface water in the City. Nor shall this Chapter
in any way lessen the responsibility of all property owners to control the rate of
I runoff and the water quality of stormwater from their property prior to entry into
the public storm and surface water system.
I .020 - Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions
describe the meaning of the terms used herein:
I A. "User" shall mean the person obligated to pay the Storm and Surface Water
User Charge or other fees.
I B. "CiW" shall mean the City of Port Angeles.
I C. ~ shall mean the Director of Public Works of the City of Port Angeles
or his or her designee.
I D. "Develo d P c 1" shall mean any lot or parcel of land which has been
altered from its natural state by the construction, creation or addition of
· Impervious Area, except public streets and highways.
I E. "Eonivalent Residential Unit (ERU)" shall mean the basic unit for the
computation of the User Charge, and is based upon the average ~mount of
I Impervious Area 'of a Single F~m~ly Residential Parcel.
F. ~ shall mean any part of any Parcel that has been moa~ed
I by the action of any person in a m~uuer which reduces land's natural
the
ability to absorb and hold Storm and Surface Water. This includes the
i grading of the property and/or creation of any hard surface area which either
prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle, and/or .the
hardening of an existing surface which causes water to flow at an increased
I rate. By way of example, common Impervious Areas include, but are not
DRAFT
limited to, roof tops, w~1]r-ways, patios, driveways, par~Hng lots or storage
areas, concrete or asphalt paving, paved or gravel roads and alleys, or any
paved, graveled, or compacted surfaces which similarly
cleared,
graded,
impede the natural infiltration of surface water into the soil mantle.
G. "Multi-F~m~]v Residential Property" shall mean all residentially zoned,
Developed Parcels cont~u~ng two (2) or more dwelling ,m~ts. This includes
apartments, condo~n~,~,,v--, hotels and motels.
H. "Non-Residen~al Pronert-v" shall mean all Developed Parcels zoned or used
for commercial, industrial, retail, governmental or institutional uses
including non-profit or tax exempt properties.
I. "Parcel" shall mean the smallest separately segregated lot, u~t, or plot of
land having an identified owner, boundaries, and surface area which is
doc~r~ented for property tax purposes and given an Assessors' parcel number
by the Clall~rn County Assessor.
J. "Sin~le-F~rn~iv Residential Proner~v" shall include all Developed Parcels
with one single-f~rn~ly detached housing unit.
developed
K. "Storm and Surface Water" shall mean water occurring on the surface of the
land from natural conditions such as rainfall, regardless of whether such
water is falling or flowing onto the land in question.
L. "Storm and Surface Water Control Facilities" shall mean all man-made
structures or natural watercourse facility improvements, developments,
properties or interest therein, which are or have been made, constructed or
acquired for the conveyance of Storm and Surface Water runoff to improve
the quality of controlling, or protecting life or property from any storm, flood,
or surplus waters.
M. "Storm Drainage Facilities" shall mean the Storm and Surface Water
comprised of Storm and Surface Water Control Facilities
drainage
systems
and any other natural features which store, control, treat, and/or convey
Storm and Surface Water. Storm Drainage Facilities shall include all
natural
and
man-made
elements
used to convey stormwater from the first
point of impact with the surface ofthe earth to a suitable receiving body of
water or location internal or external to the boundaries of the City. Storm
Drainage Facilities include all pipes, appurtenant features, culverts, streets,
curbs, gutters, p~mping stations, channels, stre~ras, ditches,' wetlands,
detention/retention basins, ponds and other Storm and Surface Water
conveyance and treatment facilities, whether public or private.
I DRAFT
I N. ~ shall mean the factor identified for each "Parcel" of land by
the City of Port Angeles for purposes of assifnlng a degree of imperviousness
I to said parcel.
·
-050 - l~tili~v Established. There is hereby created and established a storm and
I surface water utility pursuant to RCW 35.67. The utility shall be adr~inlstered
under the direction of the Director of Public Works or designee.
I .040 - Plan Adooted. Pursuant to RCW 35.67.030, there is hereby adopted a
plan for the storm and surface water system which consists of all man-made and
natural features in the City, or without, used to collect, convey, intercept, treat,
I otherwise storm and surface waters within the City of Port
discharge
or
m~lage
Angeles to include all prior improvement pl~n.~, including those improvements
· detailed in the City's Capital Facilities Plan and as may hereafter be identified or
!
proposed to advance the purposes of the storm and surface water utility and this
ordinance.
I .050 - Transfer of Property. All properties, property rights and interests of every
kind or nature owned or held by the City, however acquired, insofar as they relate
m
to or concern storm or surface water facilities, are hereby transferred to the Storm
m
and Surface Water Utility, including by way of e~nr, ples and not limitation, all
properties, rights and interest acquired by adverse possession or by prescription in
m and to the drainage and storage of storm or surface waters over and under lands,
watercourses, streams, ponds and estuaries to the full ~xtent of inundation caused
I by the largest storm or flood condition.
.060 - COST. Since the City now owns all the facilities, rights and interests set
i forth in Section .040 and __.050, there is no estimated cost.
.070 - Storr~ and Surface Water Fund Created.
I A. Pursuant to State law the City hereby declares its intention to designate the
City's storm and surface water system as a utility, enterprise activity of the
I City to be supported all or in part by the imposition of user charges on all
parcels of property within the City which discharge storm water to the City's
storm drainage facilities or are otherwise served by the City's storm drainage
I facilities.
B. The City hereby establishes a special fund within the City's fiscal system to
I be known as "The Storm and Surface Water Fund," herein after referred to as
the Fund.
I C. All revenues store drainage user charges storm drainage
from
and
other
related fees and charges as may be adopted by Resolution shall be deposited
i to the Fund.
4
I
DRAFT
D. Expenditures from the Fund shall be limited to those expenditures for the
improvement, repair, operation, maintenance and administration of the
storm drs~age facility as defined by the Director. Provided that, the Fund
may trsnzfer to the General Fund of the City, the cost of the Storm and
Surface Water Utility's reasonable and proportionate share of the cost of
general city government support of the utility not covered by direct payments
from the Fund.
.080 - Se~ of Fees and Char~es.
A. The City Council shall by ordinance establish a system of user charges for all
parcels in the City.
B. To the extent practicable, user charges shall be based on each parcel's
expected rate and vol-me of stormwater runoff. The runoff factors
established by the Director shall be an acceptable measure of the expected
rate and vol,:r-e of stormwater runoff from a parcel. Said user charges shall
not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services, facilities or
regulatory activity for which the Storm and Surface Water Utility has been
created.
C. The City Council may by resolution establish a charge for the connection of
any parcel to the City's storm drainage facilities to reflect that parcel's fair
share of the cost of the ex~sting City storm drainage facilities serving the
parcel.
D. The Director shall establish, in accordance with Chapter __ of the Port
Angeles Municipal Code, appropriate fees for the review and inspection of
storm drainage facilities proposed and constructed by private development.
E. The City Council may by resolution establish a system of charges and fees for
the inspection of non-residential parcels for purposes of establishing
compliance with the City Code requirements related to the protection of
stormwater quality and may also establish a system of fines and/or penalties
for the violation of the City's stormwater quality standards.
.090 - Charges for Service. There is hereby established a system of service
charges for storm and surface water service in the City of Port Angeles for all
properties within the City as follows:
A. Sin~le-~Yamilv Residential Property. All single-f~r~ily residential property
shall be considered to receive the same benefit from and have the s~me
responsibility for storm and surface water and shall consequently all be
I' DRAFT
I' charged the s~me monthly service charge. Such charge shall be $
per property per month which is the ERU charge.
I B. Multi-F~milv Residential Prooertv. The monthly service charge for multi-
f, rnily residential property shall be computed on the ssme basis as non-
I residential property ( .090(c)). Billings for service to multi-f~m~]y
residential property shall be to the property owner or owners association and
not to the individual apartment or condomini-m occupants or owners.
~ Whenever possible the storm and surface water service charges shall be
billed to the s~me party receiving the water and wastewater billing fi.om the
'1 C~ty.
C. Non-Residential Prooer~v. The monthly service charge for storm and surface
:l water service for all non-single f~rnily and non-residential property shall be
based on the -mount of impervious surface on said property as determined by
the Director. The monthly service charge shall be computed as follows:
I Monthly Service Charge = ERU Charge x Sq. Feet of Impervious Areo
2,500 Sq. Feet
I Which fo~-~uula reflects the n,,r~ber of equivalent residential dwelling un/ts on a
property.
I
.100 - Connections to Storm and Surface Water Svstem. For properties
requesting development pe~its aider the effective date of this ordinance, a
connection (participation) charge is hereby right to connect to
established
for
the
the surface water system. The connection charge reflects the previous costs to the
I City of providing the storm drainage system serving the property at the time of the
request for a development permit. The connection charge shall be computed on the
following basis:
I Square Footage of Impervious Area
Connection Charge = To Be Develoned on Prooertv x $400
I 2,500 sq. t~.
The connection charge shall be computed to the nearest 0.1 ERU.
I The mi~irnl,rn connection charge shall be $400. There shall be no connection charge
for expansion or remodeling of single-f~m~ly units.
I
.110 - Discount for the Low Income Elderly or Handicapped.
.6.. ~ Upon application to the City, eligible persons shall receive a
discount of 80% from otherwise applicable charge for surface water serv/ce.
!
I *
DRAFT
B. a~ligil~.~.tl~R~ "Eligible persons" means persons aged 65 or older or who
are handicapped, and the combined disposable income of the family unit from
all sources does not exceed the County Community Development Block Grant
Consorti~m Low Income Schedule for the preceding calendar year. "Eligible
persons" also meAn.~ persons reported under RCW 84.36.041(2) as
subsequently provided herein.
C. !~]ttll~ul~[.~ Eligible persons shall receive such discount in accordance
with the following classes of services:
(1) In the case of owuers and occupiers of a single-f~mfly ,,nit, such
discount will be granted directly to the owner;
(2) In the case of renters of a single-family unit, renters of a multi-family
~mlt, or renters or occupants of space in a mobile home park, the
discount will be granted to the owner of the property, but will be
available to the occupant as a credit against future rate changes.
(3) In the case of condomini~ms, the unit owners' association is considered
the owner of the developed property for billing purposes and a discount
will be granted to the unit owners' association, but will be available to
the ~mlt owner/occupant as a credit against future rate changes.
(4) In the case of non-profit residential properties, such discount will be
granted directly to the owner of the facility, pro rata, on the
proportional basis that the population of eligible resident individuals
bears to the total population of the facility. In the case of non-profit
homes for the aging, in order to simplify reporting requirements, the
eligible population of resident individuals may be the w~rnber of
"eligible persons" reported under RCW 84.36.041(2); provided, this
w~mber shall not be multiplied by two (2); and provided further, this
type of reporting shall be at the option of the non-profit home for the
aging.
D. Audit - Rules and Re_~mlatlons. All persons and institutions applying for a
discount in accordance with this section shall be subject to audit. The
Director or his designee is authorized to adopt written rules and regulations
governing auditing procedures. The burden of proof shall be upon the party
applying for the discount to establish the basis for the discount by clear,
cogent,
and convincing evidence. Any person aggrieved by any final decision
denying a discount may appeal such decision to the City Council.
7
DRAFT
,120 - Collection of User Char~es. The storm drainage user charge shall be an
obligation of the record owner of each parcel billed for storm drainage service. The
charges shall be due and payable on the dated the bill is issued, and shall be
considered delinquent if payment is not received within thirty (30) days of the date
the payment is due and payable. The City shall impose a ten percent (10%) non-
payment penalty on all delinquent accounts. An additional one-haif of one percent
(.5%) penalty shall be imposed for each additional thi~;y (30) day period the amount
remains anpald. The amount owing shall constitute a lien again.~t the Parcel
receiving the service when recorded with the City Recorder. Liens shall continue
until the charge and all penalties thereon are fully paid or the said property sold.
Such lien shall have the same force, effect, priority and duration as would the lien
of an abstract of a judgment ag~t the owner of the real property and may be
enforced in a like m~er. Property may be discharged fxom the lien within one
year from the date 'of the recording by the payment of all delinquent charges plus
penalties. A list of all such delinquent charges shall be recorded at least every six
months, but no delay or informality in recording the same shall invalidate the lien
or any unpaid charge or any subsequent act or proceeding.
· 1~0 - Aopeal of char~es.
Any person who feels that any fee or charge determined and set is in excess of
the costs reasonably to be borne by their property, may appeal in writing to
the Director.
B. Persons seeking a reduction in the stormwater service charge by virtue of
ex/sting runoff controls on a property shall do so as an appeal in writing to
the Director. The Director may provide a standard form of application for
such cases.
C. The Director Shall investigate all appeals and determine if an adjustment is
appropriate. Should the appellant not agree with the findings of the
Director, the party may appeal in writing to the City Council.
D. Such appeal shall be placed on the agenda of the next available Council
meeting aider receipt of such appeal and heard at the next regularly
scheduled Council meeting. Action on the appeal by the City Council shall be
final.
Section 2 - Severabilitv Clause. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance.
8
DRAFT
Section 3 - Effective Date. This Ordinance sha~l take effective five (5) days after
the date of publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the day of ., 1995.
Joan I~ Sargent, MAYOR
ATTEST
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
(By S,,mmary)
I
I