The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 08/12/2008 Utility Advisory Committee Public Works Conference Room Port Angeles, W A 98362 August 12,2008 1:00 P.M. AGENDA I. Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval Of Minutes For July 8,2008 IV. Late Items V. Discussion Items A. Utility Cost Of Service Studies (Wastewater And Water Utilities) B. Electric Utility Rate Study C. Electric Utility 2008 Resource Plan D. Morse Creek Hydro Project Public Notice VI. Next Meeting Date - September 9, 2008 VII. Adjournment N \uac\final\081208 I' UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE a...l2.- 2008 GUEST SIGN UP SHEET PRINT NAME ~ y~<, ~V o~ N: \PWKS\LIGHT\ CONS \ CATE\SIGNUP.wpd ORGANIZATION ~~~ ~ Utility Advisory Committee Public Works Conference Room Port Angeles, W A 98362 July 8, 2008 3:00 P.M. b;9 4,t:<>,. / L Call To Order Chairman Reed called the meeting to order at 3 :00 p.m. II. Roll Call , :' Members Present: Chairman E..e,ed, Larry Williams, Orville Campbell, Dan Di Guilio, Karen Rogers Members Absent: Betsy Wharton Staff Present: Mark Madsen, Bill Bloor, Glenn Cutler, Yvonne Ziomkowski, Mike Puntenney, Ernie Klimek, Jeff Young (3:07), Steve Sperr, Larry Dunbar, Tom McCabe, Phil Lusk, Cate Rinehart Others Present: None III. Approval of Minutes: Chairman Reed asked ifthere were any corrections to the minutes June 10, 2008. Councilmember Rogers moved to approve the minutes. Councilman Di Guilio seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV. Late Items None V. Discussion Items: A. Transfer Station Car Crushing Pilot Project Glenn Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities explained that the City had entered into an interlocal agreement with the County to dispose of derelict vehicles at the Port Angeles Transfer Station but the program did not achieve the desired results. It was anticipated that from 200 to 300 vehicles would be processed, however only 134 occurred. There was a brief discussion. Councilmember Rogers moved to recommend discontinuing the car crushing project at the Transfer Station. The County and City Code Enforcement officials should consider pursuing private sector involvement in resolving the disposal of derelict vehicles within their jurisdictions. Orville Campbell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 8, 2008 B. Billing Credit Agreement Termination Larry Dunbar, Deputy Director of Power Systems, confirmed that the Bonneville Power Administration and staff were interested in terminating the billing credit agreement and fulfilling the City's financial responsibilities under a legacy conservation agreement. This would release the City of 14 more years of quarterly reports, invoice~, and payments. A discussion followed. Councilman Williams moved to recommend City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement to terminate the Billing ,Credit Agreement. Councilman Di Guilio seconded the motion, which carried.unanimously. C. Consultant Agreement Amendment For Utility Cost Of Services Studies Larry Dunbar, Deputy Director of Power Systems, noted that every 3 years the City had used a consultant to assess and evaluate the cost of City utility services and rates. Accordingly, staff advises including an update of water and wasteWater system development charges. There was a brief discussion. Councilman Di Guilio moved to recommend City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an amendment to the agreement with FCS Group for financial services in an additional amount not to exceed $10,265, which adds task 4 to the scope of work. Councilmember Rogers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. D. Cost Of Service And Rate Studies Calendar Larry Dunbar, Deputy Director of Power Systems, reviewed the schedule noting that the findings and recommendation would include replenishment of cash reserves, inter-class adjustments to align with the cost of service, rate and fee adjustments, an update to connection charges, a review of state taxes, and rate ordinance simplification opportumties. A discussion followed. Due to the probable length of the discussion at the August 12,2008 meeting, the start time was changed from 3 p.m. to 1 p.m. Information only. No action taken. E. Electric Utility 2008 Resource Plan Phil Lusk, Power Resources Manager, confirmed that the City was required to develop a Resource Plan to be submitted to the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development by September 1, 2008 and reviewed the plan schedule. There was a brief discussion. Orville Campbell moved to recommend City Council proceed with a public hearing on the Resource Plan. Councilmember Rogers seconded the motion, which rarried unanimously. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 8, 2008 F. Energy Northwest Membership Larry Dunbar, Deputy'Director of Power Systems,reviewe~ the membership profile noting that the City should consider the possible benefits and costs:ofalternatives that may be available from membership. A discussion followed. Councilman Di Guilio moved to recommend City Council approve a resolution to become a member of Energy Northwest and authorize the City Manager to apply for membership. Orville Campbell seconded the motion, which carried (manimously. , ' > ~ VI. Adjourn To Executive Session I i~ , ~ l , Executive Session under RCW 42.30.110(1 )(b) real estate acquisition and RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i) potential litigation. The Executive Session convened. at 4:05 p.m. and returned to open session at approximately 5:30 p.m. VII. Next Meeting Date: August 12, 2008 VIII. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. .1' ' Chairman Reed Cate Rinehart, Admin Spec II N \PWKS\LIGHT\CONS\CATE\)uly8meet wpd I?ORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. Utility Advisory Committee Memo Date: August 12,2008 To: Utility Advisory Committee From: Larry Dunbar, Deputy Director of Power Systems Subject: Utility Cost of Service Studies Summary: FCS Group completed comprehensive rate studies for the Water and Wastewater utilities. The studies will be presented to the Utility Advisory Committee including the recommended retail rate and fee adjustments. It will be necessary to adjust retail rates and fees at this time to maintain the funds in a financially prudent position. Recommendation: Forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to proceed with a public hearing on the cost of service studies for the Water and Wastewater Utilities. Background/Analysis: Earlier this year, the City contracted with FCS Group to complete comprehensive rate studies for the Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste Collections, and Solid Waste Transfer Station utilities. The scope of work included: a cost of service analysis for each utility; review of water and wastewater system development charges, review of water connection fees; review of the wastewater permit fee; review of State taxes; and an evaluation of ways to simplify utility rates and discounts. The studies for the Water and Wastewater utilities are complete, the studies for Solid Waste Collections and Solid Waste Transfer Station utilities will be completed next month. Following a presentation by FCS Group, staff will seek the recommendation of the Utility Advisory Committee to City Council to proceed with a public hearing on the comprehensive rate studies for the Water and Wastewater utilities. The proposed City Council public hearing is September 2, 2008 for a presentation of the comprehensive rate studies and to allow public input to the process after the presentation. The public hearing would be continued to September 16, 2008 at which time the public hearing will be closed. Staff will return to the Utility Advisory Committee on September 9,2008 requesting a recommendation to City Council to adopt rate and fee ordinance amendments. The proposed rate and fee adjustments would be effective January 1, 2009. N:\UAC\DepDlr\Cost Of ServIce StudIes. doc "'~ #" li : ,c '~,~ ;Y:,~ ',i,X: :L:.,;' ,-;"', ,~.. ')~j,- ---~~'~~T;~~;.?:;',::~ '::";;; ::;~ t" " " " ",;,':~~' F~~or 'Rr')TWl ~ NrG.E~/L,E' IS~ l ., .~ _~ __ _!!!I ~ , . , = -. _::If;;~<:;::~;-.. "'_~,~.:::. W A 5 H I N G TON, U. S. A. Public Works & Utilities Department ,..,A ,~ - rlJ ,,~.:l . . Utility Advisory Committee Meeting (UAC) Review of Utility Rates and. Charges , ',. '. oj. I.' I ,..'"'1.. ,- ~ .... . ~'... I 1 .j I J '. , '. August 12, 2008 . \ . ~-~-'~---"'------"--.--.--- ._.-.,.----_....-~ --"-.-- ;-;>..'._~- - '. -~< ,:r' ,,- ~ '''::'' ~. " '. . ~::~]FCS GROUP I ,<" ." 7525 -166th Ave. NE, SUite D-215, Red~ond, WA 98"'652. 425-867-1802 ~, , " , 'r ~1,' ~.... ~ ~ : !: .\~<' " "f_ ~-- " Discussion Outline . System Development Charge Update (sewer and water) . Overview of Rate Study Process . Fischl Policies ,\ . Rate study (water, sewer, combined sewer overflow (CSO) ~ Revenue Requirement - ~ Cost of Service ~ Rate Design . Connection Charge Update +::> FCS GROUP Page 2 "" ., -' \<f ';:,:'-S::- '<' .~: J. ':'~'~'~:::"\~~'-~~~\-:~~~~1'~ ~~7~:~'~~.;:::i~~a~(;-~~-:~~~~ ~:;." : ~,~~~~2:fE~ftt~~TIG~.~~~\:t~~~:::~~~:;07:~~;~1.J;~~:;:t:'1 System Development Charge (SDC) Overview and Methodology . Imposed on new development or expanded connection to system as a condition of service - represents a prorated share of the cost of providing system capacity . Calculated based on intent and structure ofRCW 35.92.025 . Methodology: ~ Includes existing system assets of general benefit to all customers ~ Maximum 10 years of interest on existing assets ~ Allowed to include future costs related to growth - must be based on an adopted capital improvement plan ~ Exclude replacement projects funded through rates ~ Deduct contributions in aid of construction (CIAC) . Other deductions ~ Outstanding debt service (net of cash balance) to recognize some existing assets paid for through debt and collected from rates . No future CSO projects for Sewer included . No customer collection system costs included +::> FCS G RO UP Page 3 .. Sewer System Development Charge Summary TOTAL EXISTING COST BASIS $ 41,450,633 TOTAL FUTURE COST BASIS (Upgrade I Growth) $ 1,047,500 CUSTOMER BASE Existing Residential Customer Equivalents 7,492 Future Residential Customer Equivalents (Incremental) 1 ,429 TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE 8,921 RESUL TING CHARGE: Existing Cost Basis Portion Allocable Existing Portion $ 41,450,633 Allocable Customer Base 8,921 Existing Cost Basis Charge $ 4,646 Future Cost Basis Portion Allocable Future Portion $ 1,047,500 Allocable Customer Base 1,429 Future Cost Basis Charge $ 733 TOTAL CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT $ 5,380 ,....., ...... EXISTING CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT $ 1,250 DIFFERENCE $ 4,130 PHASE-IN CHARGE OVER THREE YEARS 2009 $ 2,627 2010 $ 4,003 2011 $ 5,380 .::) Fes GROUP Page 4 . l' j.' ,,-, ~ -.. , ~~, .' ~ r " ,-', ~~~--I'''r- ." ,:_~..-'-'",.',..:.~Z.",~,..,.,~.!..;.,:_',:::.'_',~'i;-.'..,.._7.~~.'.,~,',";t,,--.:.~.--,,~~:~.~-.::,:.r-_",,,,""":.',~~:."'r':':""~"::"I:'l:,:,j "''1',:,. ~,' "<"~"; ,;' ~ ~'~"~;:, ~::'~,-~~;t~:J;; ";:,;~~~ {~:.>~ <~:'~",:'::' ,."t~;,~:,,':.:. ;.:'~):\::~~ ~;:~.-::~ ,: >>',' ", " . ':-' ~. ",~] Water System Development Charge Summary TOTAL EXISTING COST BASIS $ 21,543,933 TOTAL FUTURE COST BASIS (Upgrade I Growth) $ 310,000 CUSTOMER BASE Existing Residential Customer Equivalents Future Residential Customer Equivalents (Incremental) TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE 12,806 2,212 15,018 RESULTING CHARGE: Existing Cost Basis Portion Allocable Existing Portion $ 21,543,933 Allocable Customer Base 15,018 Existing Cost Basis Charge $ 1,435 Future Cost Basis Portion Allocable Future Portion $ 310,000 Allocable Customer Base 2,212 Future Cost Basis Charge $ 140 TOTAL CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT $ 1,575 EXISTING CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT $ 1,265 New Treatment Plant (2008$) 3,500,000 Growth Portion 50.00% Allocable Portion 1,750,000 ERU Base 2,212 Addition to the SDC 791 Total SDC $ 2,366 Notes: +::) FCS GRO UP SDC should be updated after the completion of the Water System Plan (2009) Page 5 . Overview of the Rate Study Process Water Wastewater BASE I I PEAK CUSTOMER I I FIRE FLOW I I STRENGTH I CUSTOMER I FIXED CHARGES .::) FeS GROUP .. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS OPERATING BUDGETS CUSTOMER STATISTICS Page 6 Fiscal Policies Purpose Proposed Operating To provide sufficient cash flow to meet daily Water / Sewer: $1.25 million Each operating expenses (short-term, annual revenue Fund Balance (min 60 Days (O&M Plus cycles) Taxes)) Capital To provide a source of funding for emergency Water / Sewer: $250 thousand repairs (other than catastrophic events), Catastrophic Event unanticipated capital, and project cost overruns. Debt To ensure compliance with existing loan/debt Minimum 1.25 coverage on existing covenants and maintain credit worthiness for and future revenue bond debt issues. future debt issuance. Target 1.80 System Replacement To ensure ongoing system integrity through Ideally, set at least equal to annual reinvestment in the system. depreciation expense or average annual R&R capital Water: depreciation $550 thousand Sewer: $1.4 million . .::) FCS GROUP Page 7 ,J ,A 0, ...~"'_~__ ........-~"....~ ...-----------~...............__r_"-------.......--'------'-'.....-- REVENUE REQUIREMENT ',ANAL YSIS Establishing Overall Revenue Needs . '--- ---~......... ---~ ._-~--~- .,-_. ---1 I , I -_? ------~'""'"~.,..-._.~~..;.-,...;-,--.....- ~.._.... ~~~~----...-- .~- -" -- ~, j' '~',~'~ ,~" ~ , ~' 7' " ';~-, p ~;:.t< e"< , L ~~':."., + -r ...' __ __'--"-_ _ _ " It;;'> , '1-' " <~~~; ~C> I + -~:~ ~"_ _,:: ~ ~I 4:1 :::' T" ~f~~~g~~~~i:~~?~7~~:~~~~ !~?~~,<"-~>;(X~~~~:r:;J~~;~~~~:S~;??~~ .' 'j - ~ I ' .'< ~~, "'1 ',,~~:+-\ Revenue Requirement: Key Factors . Study period: 2008 - 2014 . Rate revenue calculated using City provided customer statistics . Used 2008 budget as base for expenses . Future year expenses calculated by applying annual escalation factors (reviewed with City) Water Sewer General Cost Inflation 3.15% 3.15% Labor Cost Inflation 5.00% 5.00% Customer Growth Residential- 0.60% Residential- 0.60% Commercial- 0.50% Commercial - 1.40% Industrial- 0.00% Septic Hauler - 8.50% Irrigation - 8.30% Leachate - -5.00% avg. 2008- Medical 10.00% io.oO% City Tax 2.00% Adjustment Proposed 2.00% Adjustment Proposed Interest Earnings 3.00% 3.00% . Incorporate fiscal policies . Develop funding strategy for the 2008-2014 CIP .::) FeS GROUP Page 9 Capital Improvement Project Costs ~~t1A~~ 2008 $ 2,008,000 $ 55,000 $ 1,250,000 2009 1,265,000 762,000 10,890,000 2010 3,680,000 1,881,700 10,330,000 2011 2,590,000 4,417,000 - 2012 1,255,000 750,000 1,125,000 2013 160,000 505,000 3,800,000 2014 100,000 100,000 7,275,000 Total $ 11,058,000 $ 8,470,700 $ 34,670,000 . Cost are from the latest CIP . Costs shown are in 2008 dollars (as directed by the City) .::) Fes GROUP Page 10 'T, J .. ,~I A , ~' I - , ;. ~. ., -~~:' '" ,'>,:'; '-~;~ : ':",_ ~',,".' "~~::?",, ,:-;~ :," ,~:,:~,:; /,"1',., ' ',' '~~~--=--"}'::::;::~~~-t~~,~~~:'~:-';:~: ,: ':,": ,"r ;':-,:::,",_~~~: - ":,.-c~~s~:~~:~:;;'y~::~~~_~~'~TI Sewer (no CSO) Revenue Requirement Findings . Rate adjustments are required to meet revenue needs: proposed annual rate increases of 4.0% in 2009 through 2012. . Financial plan key factors: ,/ Includes the addition of LEKT ~ Includes ongoing operating and maintenance needs of the system ~ $8.5 million in capital funding obligations (2008-2014) - (see appendix) . Capital funding strategy = existing reserves, annual system reinvestment funding, connection charges and grant proceeds ~ Annual system reinvestment funding (average $400 thousand 2011-2014) ~ Operating fund target of $1.25 million met by 2013 ~ Emergency construction fund= $250 thousand . A separate Septic Hauler fund was assumed from 2009 to 2011 to collect enough revenue to fund a septic hauler proj ects in 2010 and 2011. .::) FCS GROUP Page 11 Summary of Sewer (no CSO) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirements .2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Revenues Rate Revenues Under EXisting Rates $ 4,073,121 $ 4,105,287 $ 4,137,755 $ 4,170,526 $ 4,203,606 $ 4,236,997 $ 4,270,702 Non-Rate Revenues 661,676 635,148 644,797 680,553 643,272 690,703 729,644 Total Revenues $ 4,734,797 $ 4,740,435 $ 4,782,552 $ 4,851,079 $ 4,846,878 $ 4,927,700 $ 5,000,346 Expenses Cash Operating Expenses $ 3,373,260 $ 3,967,152 $ 3,977,494 $ 4,130,121 $ 4,063,156 $ 4,211,826 $ 4,367,759 EXlsllng Debt Service 1,018,940 887,421 882,726 881,231 745,756 743,889 732,651 New Debt Service Additions to meet MIn Op Fund Balance Rate Funded System Reinvestment 250,000 350,000 450,000 550,000 Total Expenses $ 4,392,200 $ 4,854,573 $ 4,860,221 $ 5,261,352 $ 5,158,912 $ 5,405,715 $ 5,650,410 ~ Net Surplus (Deficiency) $ 342,598 $ (114,138) $ (77,669) $ (410,274) $ (312,034) $ (478,016) $ (650,064) % of Rate Revenue 000% 293% 219% 10 32% 808% 1194% 15 88% ~ Annual Rate Adjustment 0.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% ,4.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 4,073,121 $ 4,269,499 $ 4,475,395 $ 4,691,275 $ 4,917,624 $ 4,956,687 $ 4,996,117 Addlllonal Taxes from Rate Increase $ - $ 6,325 $ 13,006 $ 20,059 $ 27,504 $ 27,722 $ 27,943 ~ Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 342,598 43,748 246,966 90,416 374,481 213,952 47,408 Coverage After Rate Increases 193 132 161 1 74 209 201 182 Sample Bill (Sewer only, usage below 430 cf per month) $ 3755 $ 3905 $ 4061 $ 4224 $ 4393 $ 4393 $ 4393 Monthly Increase $ $ 150 $ 1 56 $ 1 62 $ 169 $ $ Sample Bill (Sewer only, usage above 430 cf per month) $ 4170 $ 4337 $ 4510 $ 4691 $ 4878 $ 4878 $ 4878 Monthly Increase $ $ 167 $ 1 73 $ 1 80 $ 188 $ $ . Notes: ./ System Reinvestment target for 2008 is $1.3 million ./ 1% change in utility tax = .4% change in annual rate increase +:!> FeS GROUP Page 12 Summary of Sewer Reserve (no CSO) Fund 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Operating. Beginning Balance $ 1,977,254 $ 554,508 $ 598,257 $ 845,223 $ 935,639 $ 1,224,513 $ 1,269,317 Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase 342,598 43,748 246,966 90,416 374,481 213,952 47,408 Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund (1,765,343) (85,606) (169,148) (414) Ending Balance $ 554,508 $ 598,257 $ 845,223 $ 935,639 $ 1,224,513 $ 1,269,317 $ 1,316,311 $ 554,508 $ 1,195,580 $ 1,198,697 $ 1,244,694 $ 1,224,513 $ 1,269,317 $ 1,316,311 . $1 25 million, With a 60 Days minimum 60 55 78 83 110 110 110 ICapital I Beginning Balance $ 2,038,107 $ 3,848,450 $ 3,214,450 $ 3,335,250 $ 1,515,250 $ 1,875,857 $ 2,090,004 plus Rate Funded System Reinvestment 250,000 350,000 450,000 550,000 plus Grants / Developer Donalions / Other OutSide Sources 1,275,000 1,650,000 575,000 plus EXisting PWTF Proceeds plus System Development Charges 100,000 100,000 650,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 plus New Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus Transfer from Septic Hauler Fund 28,000 77,500 597,000 plus Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund 1,765,343 85,606 169,148 414 plus Direct Rate Funding Total Capital Funding Sources 3,903,450 3,976,450 5,216,950 5,932,250 2,625,857 2,595,004 2,740,419 less Capital Expenditures (55,000) (762,000) (1,881,700) (4,417,000) (750,000) (505,000) (100,000) Ending Balance . $ 3,848,450 $ 3,214,450 $ 3,335,250 $ 1,515,250 $ 1,875,857 $ 2,090,004 $ 2,640,419 ISeptic Hauler Cash Account Beginning Balance $ $ $ 282,310 $ 388,096 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 plus' Septic Hauler Revenue Transfer 310,310 183,286 208,904 plus Interest Earnings less Use of Reserves for Capital Projects (28,000) (77,500) (597,000) Ending Balance . $ $ 282,310 $ 388,096 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 . Notes: ./ Grant funding is used for the Lindberg Road Sewer LID, Airport Industrial Sewer and Golf Course Road Sewer Interceptor Projects .::> FCS GROUP Page 13 Sewer CSO Revenue Requirement Findings . Rate adjustments are required to meet revenue needs: Class Residential < 430 cf Residential> 430 cf Commercial/Industrial (base charge) Commercial/Industrial (consumption / ccf) 2009 2.30 $ 2.60 0.60 0.20 2010 2.46 $ 2.75 0.65 0.22 2011 2.44 2.70 0.65 0.21 $ Note: Figures shown are increases over previous years monthly bills . Financial plan includes: v'" Existing debt service, new debt service, city taxes and excise taxes v'" $34.7 million in capital funding obligations (2008-2014) - (see attached detail) . Capital funding strategy = existing reserves, CSO rate revenue and debt proceeds . Sewer & CSO combined: ./ Combining Sewer & CSO annual increases results in the following cumulative customer bill increases: average of8.5% in 2009 and 2010,7.8% in 2011 ~ Re~u1ts generally confirm the original CSO financial plan (including +~:) F~~f1r~RNA\ Page 14 Summary of Sewer CSO Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirements 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 .2013 2014 . $ 902,851 $ 1,173,816 $ 1,465,586 $ 1,757,198 $ 2,036,796 $ 2,340,039 $ 2,641,862 Expenses Annual Existing Debt Service $ 37,747 $ 190,582 $ 189,712 $ 188,842 $ 187,972 $ 187,102 $ 186,232 Annual New Debt Service 510,316 1,120,334 1,120,334 1,171,967 1,375,447 1,787,149 Excise Taxes 18,214 23,681 29,567 35,450 41,091 47,209 53,298 Utility Taxes 72,228 93,905 117,247 140,576 162,944 187,203 211,349 Total Expenses . $ 128,190 $ 818,484 $ 1 ,456,860 $ 1,485,202 $ 1,563,974 $ 1,796,961 $ 2,238,028 Cash Flow After Rate Increase for Capital $ 774,662 $ 355,332 $ 8,726 $ 271,996 $ 472,822 $ 543,078 $ 403,834 Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,152,188 $ 2,545,600 $ 355,332 $ 8,726 $ 280,722 $ 472,822 $ 543,078 plus. EXisting PWTF / Debt Proceeds 1,868,750 plus: New PWTF / Debt Proceeds 8,344,400 9,974,668 844,278 3,327,178 6,731,922 plus. Interest Earnings plus: Cashtlow $ 774,662 $ 355,332 $ 8,726 $ 271,996 $ 472,822 $ 543,078 $ 403,834 less. Capital Projects (1,250,000) (10,890,000) (10,330,000) (1,125,000) (3,800,000) (7,275,000) Ending Fund Balance . 2,545,600 355,332 8,726 280,722 472,822 543,078 403,834 New Rates Residential < 430 ct $ 795 $ 1025 $ 12.70 $ 1515 $ 1745 $ 19.90 $ 22.30 Residential > 430 ct 8.90 11.50 1425 1695 1950 22.25 24.95 Commercial/Industrial (base charge) 205 265 330 395 4.55 5.20 5.85 Commercial/Industrial (consumption / cct) 0.70 090 1 12 133 153 175 1.96 . Notes: ./ Results generally confirm the original CSO financial plan (including inflation) . .::) FCS G RO UP Page 15 Combined Sewer & CSO Average Rate Impacts Revenue Requirements 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Sewer Annual Rate Adjustment 0.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% eso Annual Rate Adjustment 0.00% 29.09% 23.97% 19.04% 15.09% ~4.07% 12.09% Sample Bill (Sewer only, usage below 430 cf per month) 37.55 39.05 40.61 42.24 43.93 43.93 43.93 CSO Sample Bill (CSO, usage below 430 cf per month) 7.95 10.25 12.70 15.15 17.45 19.90 22.30 Total 45.50 49.30 53.32 57.39 61.38 63.83 66.23 Cumulative Increase ~ 8.35% 8.16% 7.63% 6.96% 4.00% 3.76% Sample Bill (Sewer only, usage over 430 cf per month) 41.70 43.37 45.10 46.91 48.78 48.78 48.78 CSO Sample Bill (CSO, usage over 430 cf per month) 8.90 11.50 14.25 16.95 19.50 22.25 2495 Total 50.60 54.87 59.35 63.86 68.28 71.03 73.73 Cumulative Increase ~ 8.44% 8.17% 7.58% 6.94% 4.03% 3.80% Sample Bill (Sewer only, commercial 2500 cf ) 79.80 8299 86.31 89.76 93.35 93.35 93.35 CSO Sample Bill (CSO, commercial 2500 cf ) 1955 25.23 3129 37.26 42.86 48.87 54.76 Total $ 99.35 $ 108.22 $ 117.61 $ 127.02 $ 136.21 $ 142.22 $ 148.12 Cumulative Increase ~ 8.93% 8.67% 8.01% 7.23% 4.41% 4.14% +::> FCS GROUP Page 16 ~>, ':'r J : :' 'l~,~::;~~~.. ',: \';,,: ',/ ~. ::,,,~,-:-~:':';:'.:~~~;~:~\;~~;i:~~ij/~.,,~;,S <:::~,' ~\'.,": i"; ~ ~ F::;~;-:~~?;;7~:::~;;fF~~~~~r~':r:~:4 Water Revenue Requirement Findings . Rate adjustments are required to meet revenue needs: proposed annual rate increases of 8.5% in 2009 and 2010, followed by 4.0% in 2011 ./ Using $93,740 to offset cash flow needs in 2008 . Financial plan key factors: ./ Includes ongoing operating and maintenance needs of the system ./ $11.1 million in capital funding obligations (2008-2014)- (see appendix) . Capital funding strategy = existing reserves, annual system reinvestment funding, connection charges, grant funding, existing PWTF proceeds and debt . Issuances . New Debt; two revenue bond issues are assumed in the analysis, $1.1 million in 2010 and $1.1 million in 2011. ./ Annual system reinvestment funding (average $400 thousand 2008-2014) ./ Operating fund target of $1.25 million met by 2014 ./ Emergency construction fund= $250 thousand .::) Fes G RO UP Page 17 Summary of Water Revenue Requirement " Revenue Requirements 2008 2009 2010 ' 2011 2012 2013 2014 Revenues Rate Revenues Under EXlsling Rates $ 4,559,085 $ 4,591,662 $ 4,625,127 $ 4,659,542 $ 4,694,978 $ 4,731,507 $ 4,769,211 Non-Rate Revenues 313,108 281,717 277,905 265,222 271,302 271,313 286,594 O&M Treatment Fund Transfers 121,123 158,042 161 ,716 255,069 337,559 348,713 Total Revenues $ 4,872,193 $ 4,994,502 $ 5,061,074 $ 5,086,480 $ 5,221,349 $ 5,340,379 $ 5,404,518 Expenses Cash Operating Expenses $ 3,745,688 $ 4,060,839 $ 4,501,376 $ 4,640,707 $ 4,884,674 $ 5,117,013 $ 5,289,560 O&M Treatment Fund Expenses 121,123 431,545 438,541 535,354 615,448 636,357 EXisting Debt Service 850,246 848,045 843,178 838,749 833,729 828,145 832,668 New Debt Service 99,764 199,528 199,528 199,528 199,528 Additions to meet Mln Op Fund Balance Rate Funded System Reinvestment 370,000 370,000 381,653 393,673 406,072 418,861 432,053 Total Expenses $ 4,965,934 $ 5,400,007 $ 6,257,516 $ 6,511,198 $ 6,859,357 $ 7,178,994 $ 7,390,165 Net Surplus (Deficiency) . $ (93,740) $ (405,504) $ (1,196,442) $ (1,424,718) $ (1,638,008) $ (1,838,615) $ (1,985,647) % of Rate Revenue 206% 926% 26 76% 31 70% 36 26% 40 43% 43 40% Annual Rate Adjustment . 0.00% 8.50% 8.50% 4.00% 4.00%, . 3.00% , 3.00% Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 4,559,085 $ 4,981,953 $ 5,444,815 $ 5,704,743 $ 5,978,052 $ 6,205,301 $ 6,442,391 Additional Taxes from Rate Increase $ - $ 19,628 $ 41,222 $ 52,563 $ 64,526 $ 74,117 $ 84,144 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase . 93,740 86,282 13,569 6,461 115,895 176,510 239,746 Coverage After Rate Increases 246 286 241 219 237 247 256 Sample Bill (Single Family assuming 7ccf) $ 3544 $ 3845 $ 4172 $ 4339 $ 4513 $ 4648 $ 4787 Monthly Increase $ $ 301 $ 327 $ 167 $ 174 $ 135 $ 139 . Notes: ./ Target system reinvestment in 2008 is $560,000 ./ Non rate revenue includes transfers from the O&M Treatment Plant fund starting in 2009 ./ 1 % change in utility taxes = .5% change in annual rate increase .:!) FCS GROUP Page 18 Summary of Water Reserve Fund 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Operating: Beginning Balance $ 2,118,638 $ 615,730 $ 667,535 $ 681,104 $ 687,565 $ 803,460 $ 979,970 Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase (93,740) 86,282 13,569 6,461 115,895 176,510 239,746 Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund (1 ,409,169) (34,476) Ending Balance $ 615,730 $ 667,535 $ 681,104 $ 687,565 $ 803,460 $ 979,970 $ 1,219,716 $ 615,730 $ 667,535 $ 863,278 $ 1,017,141 $ 1,204,440 $ 1,261,729 $ 1,304,275 ~ i1 25 million, With a 60 Days minimum 60 60 55 54 60 70 84 lCapital I Beginning Balance $ 555,624 $ 826,792 $ 636,269 $ 87,922 $ 171,595 $ 42,667 $ 361,528 plus Rate Funded System Reinvestment 370,000 370,000 381,653 393,673 406,072 418,861 432,053 plus Grants I Developer Donations I Other OutSide Sources 110,000 610,000 1,590,000 1,120,000 660,000 plus EXlsling PWTF Proceeds 330,000 plus System Development Charges 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 plus' New Debt Proceeds Available for Projects 1,100,000 1,100,000 plus Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund 1,409,169 34,476 Total Capital Funding Sources 2,834,792 1,901,269 3,767,922 2,761,595 1,297,667 521,528 853,581 less Capital Expenditures (2,008,000) (1,265,000) (3,680,000) (2,590,000) (1,255,000) (160,000) (100,000) Ending Balance ~ $ 826,792 $ 636,269 $ 87,922 $ 171,595 $ 42,667 $ 361,528 $ 753,581 IO&M Treatment Plant Beginning Balance $ 5,390,625 $ 7,950,625 $ 8,068,021 $ 8,152,019 $ 8,234,864 $ 8,226,841 $ 8,136,087 plus Reserve Funding from Transfers plus Other Funding Sources 2,360,000 plus Interest Earnings 200,000 238,519 242,041 244,561 247,046 246,805 244,083 less Transfers to offset O&M expense (121,123) (158,042) (161,716) (255,069) (337,559) (348,713) Ending Balance $ 7,950,625 $ 8,068,021 $ 8,152,019 $ 8,234,864 $ 8,226,841 $ 8,136,087 $ 8,031,457 Minimum Capital Contingency Target ~ $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 . Notes: v' Grant funding is used for the Elwha Dam mitigation project and the Airport Industrial Park Water Line project v' O&M Treatment Plant reserve fund granted to the City by the Federal Government to help the City offset future O&M costs .::) FCS GROUP Page 19 ) I I I. I I 1 , rfj. ~ . rfj .~ ~ f. < i ~ $:l 0 . ...-4 I ~ ~ ) ~ I U. ta I r ~ > ~ ~ j ~ ~ . ...-4 ~ & rfj ~ 1 I ~ 1 J 0 j f ~' I ., rfj . I 0 i I U I r, ~ 5- .' )c; .' ~-, , , ". "," ,', " , . I h! '~ ;, , ,." , /:<' ~ '. t, '{;i't::7T~:,'F~' >~~T"'~;;'::~,!,:,; 'i:';\::' ~':' : ~~ "~, /' ,;~:;:~,;~ :,~,;,' ~;' , :':,:::;::rT i':~~: :', ,:,,:~~~:,;\,: ,:~~,~ ~~-, ,.;~:.;~.~~:: ::" ;~ ';; ,:,;,:.1:" ~,:~~~,~,~,;: :'~,' ::::'; ~,~"",::.;~~:Il}:0:i:~~; ~:;~~1 Cost of Service Overview . Equitable distribution of cost shares that considers City specific data: v' Measures of usage and demand (level and pattern) v' Facility requirements (fire protection / peaking / strength) v' Uses industry standard methodologies** . Three Step Process v' Allocate Costs by utility function . Water: base, peak, fire, customer . Sewer: flow, strength, customer v' Develop customer specific allocation factors v' Allocate costs to customer classes . Any cost of service adjustments may have added impact to customers beyond overall rate adjustments ** Industry Standard Methodologies; American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation .::) FCS GROUP Page 21 Water Cost of Service Results Existin Revenue Distribution Cost-of-Service Revenue Distribution Industnal 1.56% Imgation 258% Smgle Family ResIdential 67.73% Imgation 271% Commercial 28.42% Commercial 28.35% Smgle Family Residential 67.38% . Some interclass adjustments warranted . To minimize rate impact to anyone customer class, no cost of service adjustments implemented at this time. . Rate increase spread "across the board" - equal increase to each customer class. .::> pes GROUP Page 22 Sewer Cost of Service Results Existin Revenue Distribution Cost-of-Service Revenue Distribution Smgle Famtly ReSIdentIal 7614% Smgle FamIly ReSIdenttal 68.79% CommercIal 23.86% . Consistent with the last study, interclass adjustments warranted . Recommend phasing-in cost of service results over time (3 years), to minimize rate impact to anyone customer class . 2009 cost of service adjustments - 2.20% increase to single family and 9.74% for commercial ../ should continue commercial rate adjustments until cost of service reached .::)FCS GROUP Page 23 _,-w ....." _'-- __~ '- '- _....- __...-..-__ _-,,-,... _ ~~ ~.......... _ ~ _" "" _ ~ ~ _... RATE DESIGN., , , Collecting Target Revenue:from Customer Classes _ N_ _ _ _ ~~_ _..':.-_.... ..:..:.....~.-.-~~..::..:., v, , .. .~. .' .,~ '" ~ ............---.- -- -- ~~_...---.-_. 'iJ '. " '. ," ~~:~~,-, ~'-;~'''': ,:,:'- ":"--~~::'"~:;-\2~,;~';".::~'-'- ~,'.. -:f~;:<\,' ::-:;'~:\Y~7~~~~,;~ ~~~2~/>~~N;~~~~F7~:~?27:0~~I?tT~::~Jfr~R:J ~ '-' Rate Design Objectives & Key Factors . Collects the appropriate level of revenue . Established on an equitable basis . Reflect policy level decisions related to affordability, stability and administration . Proposed sewer rates ~ Phase-in cost of service results for the sewer utility ~ No rate structure changes at this time . Proposed water rates ~ Conservation rate structure option . Inverted (increasing) block structure for the Residential class . Seasonal rate structure for the Commercial class ~ Incorporate a stand alone Irrigation class .::) FCS GROUP Page 25 ~~ttl~ ~~::iSJt~ Single Family Residential 1 Single Family Irrigation 5/8" T 22.70 $ 1.82 3/4" 24.65 1.82 1" 27 .50 1.82 1 1/2" 50.95 1.82 2" 79.70 1.82 Flat Meter Charge 48.95 N/A Commercial 1 Commercial Irrigation 5/8" $ 32.15 $ 1.47 3/4" 34.30 1.47 1" 37.85 1.47 1 1/2" 66.70 1.47 2" 10 1.50 1.47 3" 182.20 1.47 4" 297.80 1.47 6" 586.65 1.47 8" and 10" 933.05 1.47 Industrial 3" $ 211.00 $ 1.35 Wholesale PUD - Ga1es In accordance with the wholesale contract PUD - Baker In accordance with the wholesa1e contract +::> FCS GROUP Existing Rate Structures ~ ~~~~ Single Family Residential <430cf $ 37.55 N/A >430cf 41.70 N/A CSO <430cf 7.95 N/A CSO >430cf 8.90 N/A Commercial Commercla1 $ 9.80 $ 2.80 CSO Commercia1 2.05 0.70 Septic Hauler ($/gallon) Volume Fee $ 0.11 Page 26 5/8" $ 3/4" Single Family Residential 24.63 $ 1.92 $ 26 75 1.92 29 84 1.92 55.28 1 92 86.47 1 92 61.13 1.92 1" 1 1/2" 2" Flat Meter Charge Proposed Rate Structures 2.42 $ 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.92 292 2.92 2.92 2.92 292 5/8" 3/4" Commercial $ 1" 34.88 $ 37.22 41.07 72 37 110.13 197 69 323 11 636.52 1,012.36 1.47 $ 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" and 10" 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1 79 1 79 1 79 1.79 1.79 5/8" 3/4" Inigation $ ~~~ 1" 30.04 32.05 35.37 62.32 94.84 170.24 278 25 $1.71 1 71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.5" 2" 3" 4" 3" Industrial $ 228.94 Wholesale PUD - Gales PUD - Baker In a=rdance wIth the wholesale contract In a=rdance WIth the wholesale contract .::) FeS G RO UP . ~~:iJ~ Single Family Residential <430cf $ 38.38 N/A >430cf 42.62 N/A CSO <430cf 10.25 N/A CSO >430cf 11.50 N/A Commercial Commercial $ 10.75 $ 307 CSO Commercial 265 0.90 Septic Hauler ($/gallon) Volume Fee $ 0.12 Notes: 1. Irrigation fixed charge does not include state excise tax or fire flow protection 2. Residential customer Distribution: 0-1 Occf - 82% 1O-15ccf - 11 % 15+ccf - 7% Page 27 .' :.,~:., ;:J ~:.'~ "' ,,I ~"'" <, .8iJi~le'li'dffilly~.ltesiaeiiiilil;'. .t: ,::. .';'.... ;' ~ "'; >.... ,', i';- "",'.._',~":."-"T."..l_.~..<c",~~ Meter Usage (eel) 6.8 8.0 150 200 250 5 8 rag y Proposed 3769 $ 3999 5593 7053 8513 ange , 2.61 2.73 5.93 '11.43 '16.93 ~ . I . . ~ , . ..... . ". ',. - .:. Coit~inetcilll,' :'" .:;" .. : :' :;...:','.;l._....'~~ Meter U sage (eel) Winter Bills Proposed 49 63 $ 5700 7824 lOll 61 150 294 500 5420 7537 105 65 ange 2.78 2.80 2.87 2.96 6178 8759 12453 7.58 12.23 18.88 ~::. ....:.: :'.. .:",. .:. ....;..c I~gatro~";.." ~ Meter Usage (eel) 5 50 107.80 75 14810 100 213 70 125 285 25 150 402 70 ZOO 591110 Average Monthly Proposed 79 $ 11755 16362 233.32 308 59 426 74 62025 ange 3.89 9.75 15.52 .19.62 23.34 24.04 28.45 .:~.:>:'.7~~~ 3" 1000 Average Monthly Existing Proposed $ 1,56100 $ 1,69369 $ Change 132.69 Meter Usage (eel) ..... ':~:;,':-'.~" Meter Usage (eel) Average Monthly Existing Proposed Change: . . PUD - Gales 1000 $ 1,620 00 $ 1,710 00 $' 90.00 PUD - Baker 1000 1,550.00 1,64000 ,90.00 ~::) FCS GROUP Monthly Bill Comparisons .,~.--: ~~ .' .,j;' .': ',' - t ':". Silig1i;Ffuf:dl~Resltlefitia1=Sewe(& ,(380"" ': ,;" ,,/".: '.- .. -',.;=~, ~ 1':";< '~;,~~'.:"'~ Meter Usage (cd) Average Monthly Existing Proposed . 'Change : <430cf N/A $ 37.55 $ 38.38 $ 0.83 >430cf N/A 41.70 42.62 0.92 CSO <430cf N/A 7.95 10.25 2.3.0 CSO >430cf N/A 8.90 11.50 2.60 .:: ~; ..':.':: ,": C~inmereifu'8e~er&'CStJ. :' :.~ ,'.' ,. ~;. 4i~. ~~~~~~ Meter Usage (cd) Average Monthly Existing Proposed Change Commercial 15 $ 51.80 $ 56.85 $ ,5.05 CSO CommercIal 25 19.55 25.23 5.68 Page 28 Connection Charge Update . Updated the water (including meter) and sewer service connection fee (physical connection) . Cost of service methodology: ~ Direct costs (materials and equipment) ~ Cost of average staff time to complete one connection ~ Overhead rate of 32% included . for admin/acctg., professional/contract services and IT charges . Developed as a percent of overhead costs divided by total operating expenses . Connection and drop in meter charges apply up to 1.5 inch meter . 2 inch and above based on actual costs with initial minimum charge based on 1.5 inch meter . Updated street cut charges for current wage and material costs .::> FCS GROUP ......, '- Page 29 Proposed Connection Fees Water Service Connection Fees Current Fee 2009 Fee 2010 Fee 2011 Fee New Residential 1" Service Size; 5/8" Meter* 1" Service Size; 3/4" Meter* 1" Service Size; 1" Meter* New Commercial/Industrial 1" Service Size; 1" Meter 1-1/2" Service Size; 1-1/2" Meter* $ $ $ 770 $ 980 $ 1,190 $ 1,395 805 $ 980 $ 1,190 $ 1,395 830 $ 1,060 $ 1,290 $ 1,515 1,390 $ 1,515 $ 1,515 $ 1,515 2,085 $ 2,700 $ 3,315 $ 3,930 2,785 Based on actual cost; Based on actual cost; Based on actual $2,700 min. $3,315 min. cost; $3,930 min. $ $ $ 2" Service Size; 2" Meter* * Larger increases phased-in over three years Sewer Connection Current Fee Proposed 2009 Water Drop-In Service Current Proposed 2009 Single-family houses $ 120 $ 135 Connection Fees Fee Fee Multi-family $ 120 $ 135 New Residential All Other Structures * $ 135 1" Service Size; 5/8" Meter $ $ 240 * based on gross sq feet 1" Service Size; 3/4" Meter $ $ 255 1" Service Size; 1" Meter $ $ 340 Street Cut Fees Current Fee Proposed 2009 Fee 1-1/2" Service Size; 1-1/2" Meter $ $ 585 With Traffic Control $6.72 per Sq. Ft. $15 per Sq Ft Without Traffic Control $4.53 er S . Ft. $13 er S Ft * average street crossing 2' X 32' *::) FCS GROUP Page 30 f.:~~'~~~_}i -)~'~:;-1~t.~~~j~~~?~~~~~1{,~~J~~~~~2,~:~' ~}~'~?:f;: '!~! ~t:~I~~~;Pi~i~~rE'Jf:~:'~'J ?Y~;~~:~~:t~:~~~~~~~~~~:~~:"~~~~!~ft: . UAC Discussion/Feedback/Next Steps . Water Utility ./ Overall rate adjustment for 2009 8.5% ./ Across the board increases to all classes ./ Guidance on Rate Design Options . Three block usage rate for single family . Seasonal rate for commercial . All others remain the same . Sewer Utility ./ General Sewer (no CSO) Overall rate adjustment for 2009 - 4.0% ./ CSO rate increase for 2009 - 29.1 % ./ Combined 2009 average increase for single family 8.4% ./ Begin cost of service phase in: single family - 2.2%, commercial 9.7% . Next Steps ./ Proceed with Council for Public Hearing ./ Incorporate feedback from UAC ./ Presentation of Solid Waste Study +::> FCS GRO UP Page 31 Appendices . Appendix A: Water ClP . Appendix B: Sewer ClP . Appendix C: CSO ClP . Appendix D: Sewer SDC . Appendix E: Water SDC <>::) FCS GRO UP <> Page 32 -~~-"~~-::: ~ ',:', ~"~,:~,:~'::; ~~~~,~,c\ ?-- H",'~7~'}~T~~:~:~--,-~~T~~~5E{~' ~ - ~ ~~,}:: '-;~;:~::?~,~~'~:r~~:"~,t,;'f:?\: :, '::~~:~~'?'--~~!:?~~~~-:r~~~,J . .::) Fes GROUP No DeSl:ription I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 EiWhaDaffi MlitgatlOn , 'Directed Servjces "- UGA Water Cllstomers .: " Water SyStem Plan .~~, ~ ~ ; , Concrete Cylmder PIpe Repalcement, Phase 2, Concrete Cyhnder Pipe Replacement, Pha;;e 3 ' CorroSIon Cont~ol FaClhty Bt-Annual Replacements " j ", Vulnerabtlity Improvements, -' Reservoir " ~- -, 'I' " McDougal Sub~ne, Fire Pump , ,,' I\tq,Orl Industrial Park Water Lm~ ~, " " Do~t'oWn Watem;am' Phase II ,- ~t6maiIc Meter Readmg Total Capital Projects Appendix A: Water CIP Current Co~t $~' II 0,000 , 110,000: 110,000 50,009 , 85,000 .55,000 55,000 60,000 60,000 5,000 5,000 '5,000' 5,000 250,000 275,000 1,525,000 300,000 1,700,900 35,000 Year :2008 2009 2010 2008 I 2009 2010 ' 20n 2612 _ ',2013 2008 2009 ,2010 201 1 ~, 2008 2009 -20JO 2009 2011 , :~2008 2008 2610 2012 2QIO '2011 ' 2012" ,2069' '" 2010 , ,200!}" 2009 J, ',,2010"' , 2011 2612 2008 2009" 100,000 2010 100,000 ,,2011 100,0?0 '2012 100,000, ",,2013, '-100,000 2014 320,000- 340,000 360,000 65,000 70,900 75,000 200,000' 1,300,000 40,000 250,0?0 180,00? 66.0,000 660,000 1,238,000' $ 11 ,058,000 Year 2008$ 2008 $ 2,008,000 2009 1,265,000 2010 3,680,000 2011 2,590,000 2012 1,255,000 2013 160,000 2014 100,000 Total $ 11 ,058,000 Page 33 "::~ FCS GROUP No Description Appendix B: Sewer CIP Current Cost Year :~pjant ff;;adworks Improve;:n~~7-::~-' -;--~-'"~~ .-c--:-- " ' , " ' 34~,00,O 2009 ,Directed Services 5'5,000 ' 2008 ,60,OQO '2009 65,000 . 2010 JO,OOO 2011', 75,000, . ,2012 80',000 2013 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Install Vortex Rmg MIXer Bi-annual Replacements Lines , ' 'Plant De.Watenng Improvements' Dry Polymer Feeder Replacement.WWTP Septage R~ivmg Station, WWTP , " , Pump Station #3 Replacement' 'Carbon Scrubbers WWTP,' , Digester MixIng Iniproyement WWTP Sewer Trestle at,F;tanc;s & 8th "', .waste ActIvated Sludge Thickening WWTP, Lindberg Rd Sewer UD ' , AIrport In,dustn~, ~ewer Golf Course Road S~er I~terceptor " ' > - - ' Automatic Meter Readirlg , , "JII ,,~, ' Total Capital Projects , " 275,000 300,000 325..000 1,000,000 , 54,000 28,000 7,7,?00 597,000 138,000 51,200 300,000 : 75,000 . 400,000 100,000 , 125,000 1,075,000 ''--150,000: , ' 575,000 575,000 1'46;000 ;,: 860,000 , (1 ,: "-, i ' _~ $ 8,470,700 Year 2008$ 2008 $ 55,000 2009 762,000 2010 1,881,700 2011 4,417,000 2012 750,000 2013 505,000 2014 100,000 Total $ 8,470,700 Page 34 . .::) FCS GROUP No Descri tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ CbmbTriecn;ewerOverflow Phase I~ -.~~ " " '; ~ ~," " " '_{~'~~,"~j'r~, 4- ">"'_'~~';YI Combined Sewer,Overflows Phase.ll "I ' Appendix C: CSO CIP Current Cost Year h~-::-_ _ _,r.." ___ -_~ ...___~, $ ,'1,250,000 4008;' , 10;890,000,' 2009' , -': ',1'0,,330:060 Z:~;201'o,i;: _,' >,1,125;000, j" 2012~ ,,' J _ ,! ~ ~ c.J" , j '" , :3,800,000' 2013'''',: '7,27Ji,000:, 2014:, ~. I .' "I l r-- " Total Capital Projects $ 34,670,000 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 2008$ $ 1,250,000 10,890,000 10,330,000 1,125,000 3,800,000 7,275,000 $ 34,670,000 Page 35 Appendix D: Sewer SDC EXISTING COST BASIS: Plant In Service Utility Capital Assets less Contributed Capital plus Interest on Non-Contributed Plant Existing Cash Balances less. Debt Principal Outstanding less Net Debt Principal OutstandinQ TOTAL EXISTING COST BASIS $ 54,395,296 (4,470,078) 250,000 (8,724,585) $ (8,474,585) $ 41,450,633 FUTURE COST BASIS: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Total Future Projects (2008$) less Identified Repair & Replacement Projects less Contributed Future UpQrade & Expansion Assets TOTAL FUTURE COST BASIS (Upgrade I Growth) $ 8,470,700 (5,123,200) (2,300,000) $ 1,047,500 CUSTOMER BASE EXisting Residential Customer Equivalents Future Residential Customer EqUivalents (Incremental) TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE 7,492 1 ,429 8,921 RESULTING CHARGE: Existing Cost Basis Portion Allocable Existing Portion Allocable Customer Base Existing Cost Basis Charge $ 41,450,633 8,921 $ 4,646 Future Cost Basis Portion Allocable Future Portion Allocable Customer Base Future Cost Basis Charge $ 1,047,500 1 ,429 $ 733 TOTAL CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT EXISTING CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT $ $ 5,380 1,250 .::) FeS G RO UP Notes Original cost of planl-in-servlce as of 12/31/2007 CIAC, Grants, and other contributed capital (available 2002 and on only from the City) Interest on assets up to a maximum 1 O-year period Available Construction Cash and Debt Fund Cash as of 12/31/2007 Total principal outstanding for the eXlsling debt (as of 12/31/2007) Debt principal outstanding, net of cash reserves (as of 12/31/2007) Total projects Identified In the 2008-2014 CIP R&R projects are not eligible for SDC Not eligible for recovery through SDC EXisting Customer EqUivalents Future Customer Equivalents assuming 24,800 bUild out pop, 2 78 persons per household Total EXisting Cost BasIs Allocable to Current Customer and Future Customers Total Future Cost BasIs (Upgrade I Growth) Allocable to Future Customers Only Page 36 EXISTING COST BASIS: Plant In Service Utility Capital Assets less Contnbuted Capital plus: Interest on Non-Contnbuted Plant EXisting Cash Balances less: Debt Principal Outstanding less. Net Debt Principal Outstanding TOT AL EXISTING COST BASIS FUTURE COST BASIS: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Total Future Projects (2008$) less. Identified Repair & Replacement Projects less' Contributed Future Upgrade & Expansion Assets TOTAL FUTURE COST BASIS (Upgrade I Growth) CUSTOMER BASE EXisting Residential Customer EqUivalents Future Residential Customer EqUivalents (Incremental) TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE RESULTING CHARGE: Existing Cost Basis Portion Allocable EXisting Portion Allocable Customer Base Existing Cost Basis Charge Future Cost Basis Portion Allocable Future Portion Allocable Customer Base Future Cost Basis Charge TOTAL CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT EXISTING CHARGE PER CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT .::) FCS GROUP Appendix E: Water SDC $ 31,034,908 (160,111) 250,000 (9,580,865) $ (9,330,865) $ 21,543,933 $ 11,058,000 (9,248,000) (1 ,500,000) $ 310,000 12,806 2,212 15,018 $ 21,543,933 15,018 $ 1,435 $ 310,000 2,212 $ 140 $ $ 1,575 1,265 Notes Original cost of plant-ln-servlce as of 12/31/2007 CIAC, Grants. and other contributed capital (available 2002 and on only from the City) Interest on assets up to a maximum 1 O-year period Available Construction Cash and Debt Fund Cash as of 12/31/2007 Total principal outstanding for the eXisting debt (as of 12/31/2007) Debt principal outstanding, net of cash reserves (as of 12/31/2007) Total projects Identified In the 2008-2014 CIP R&R projects are not eligible for SDC Not eligible for recovery through SDC EXisting ERU ProVided by CH2M IS 17,260. adjusted by 4,454 or unaccounted for water Future Customer EqUivalents assuming 20 years of growth at 80% a year Total EXisting Cost Basis Allocable to Current Customer and Future Customers Total Future Cost Basis (Upgrade / Growth) Allocable to Future Customers Only Page 37 ~ORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. Utility Advisory Committee Memo Date: August 12,2008 To: Utility Advisory Committee From: Larry Dunbar, Deputy Director of Power Systems Subject: Electric Utility Rate Study Summary: HDR Engineering, Inc. completed a comprehensive rate study in 2005 for the Electric Utility. The study was updated by staff and will be presented to the Utility Advisory Committee including the recommended retail rate and fee adjustments. It will be necessary to adjust retail rates and fees at this time to maintain the fund in a financially prudent position. Recommendation: Forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to proceed with a public hearing on this year's rate study for the Electric Utility. Background/Analysis: In 2005, the City contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. to complete a comprehensive rate study for the Electric Utility. The electric utility is scheduled for its next comprehensive rate study in 2009. As a result of the 2005 comprehensive rate study, on September 20, 2005 the City Council adopted a retail rate adjustments to: discontinue use of rate stabilization reserves after 2006 which were significantly depleted due to the 2001 west coast energy crisis; cover increased labor expenses; cover increases to Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) wholesale generation and transmission costs; and to cover inflation and increased debt service. Following a staff presentation, the Utility Advisory Committee will be asked for their recommendation to City Council to proceed with a public hearing on the rate study for the Electric . Utility. The proposed City Council public hearing is September 2,2008 for a presentation of this year's rate study and to allow public input to the process after the presentation. The public hearing would be continued to September 16, 2008 at which time the public hearing will be closed. Staff will return to the Utility Advisory Committee on September 9,2008 requesting a recommendation to City Council to adopt rate and fee ordinance amendments. The proposed rate and fee adjustments would be effective October 1,2008. N:\UAC\DepDir\Electric Rate AdJustment.doc 1i" Presentation Agenda · Looking back · Annual rate study update · Recommendations Looking Back · 2005 Cost of service study · Prior rate adjustments: - 2002 - 0% - 2003 - 5.7% - 2004 - 0% - 2005 - 6.5% - 2006 - 0% - 2007 - 5.9% 2 1 " Rate Adjustment Needs · Operating reserves · Rate mitigation reserves · Light operations facility reserve · Inflation · Primary sales & bad debt · Capital facilities plan 3 Rate Adjustment Needs Vital need to expand Pole Replacement Program - seriously deteriorated infrastructure · 1500 - 2000 poles beyond their design life · Uneconomical to contract (3 times the cost) Requesting new 3 person Light Operations crew (will perform pole replacement & inspection, and utility tree trimming) · $302,800 personnel expense · $ 11,700 supplies & services expenses · -=.$125.000 expense reductions for contracts · $189,500 net annual cost 4 2 :~ Electrical Permits · $105,500 annual expense · $64,000 annual revenue · City versus State fee schedule · Simplification where possible · Electrical contractor meeting · Cost recovery within 3-years 5 Residential Exchange Program · Initial compensation received · True-up compensation? · Investor owned utility settlement? 6 3 ~ '. Rate Study Update · 2009 Revenues - Rate revenues based on 2008 revised budget & normal weather - Growth residential 0.90/0, commercial 0.90.10, industrial (00/0) - Distribution weather adjustment -1.70/0 7 Rate Study Update · 2009 Operation & Maintenance - Utilized 2008 revised budget - Escalation factors range from 30/0 to 300/0 - $200K rate mitigation reserve - $114K light operations reserve - $275K capital improvement plan · 2009 Wholesale Generation & Transmission - SPA rates known September 22,2008 8 4 ..". Rate Study Update · 2009 Debt Service - Existing bonds - WUGA Debt Service · 2009 Taxes & Transfers - State & City Utility Taxes - Departmental Transfers · Conservation · Return on Investment · NICE · Economic Development 9 CFP Projects ($OOO's) Capital Facilities Plan 2008 2009 Charges & Services 5 - Downtown Upgrades 60 - Upgrade College Substation 110 - Remote Monitoring 70 - Replace Cable @ Canyon Edge 50 - Downtown pedestrian lights 162 - Laurel Substation Structure 105 Replace Cable @ Crabapple Road 50 Replace Cable in Plaza Mall - 90 Rayonier Transmission Line Renovation - 30 Total 457 275 Capital Facilities Plan Funding Sources CFP Cash Cash/Rate Financed Contribution Total 2008 232 225 457 2009 (0) 275 275 10 5 "'-'" Revenue Requirement ($OOO's) Without Rate Adjustments en w en z w a.. X w Descnptlon 2008 2009 Distribution System 17,568 17,423 Industnal Transmission 13,379 13,379 Permit & Construction Related 383 493 Miscellaneous 2,879 262 Contnbutlon from Light Operations Sale 777 - FEMA - - Pole Rental 59 59 Total Revenues 35,044 31,616 O&M 5,135 5,398 Purchased Power 23,619 21,785 Taxes 3,016 3,005 Transfer Payments 1,570 1,131 Debt Service 448 451 Materials - Job Cost 350 520 Total Expenses 34,139 32,289 Revenues Less Expenses " 941 (673 % of Rate Revenues IncludlnQ Taxes -43% 11 en w ::> z w > w 0::: Ending Fund Balances ($OOO's) Without Rate Adjustments Type of Reserve 2008 2009 Target Operating 2,663 1,989 3,000 Rate Stabilization 900 1,100 1,500 CFP (0) (0) - Light Operations Center 403 517 2,000 Total Reserves 3,966 3,089 6,500 12 6 .~ Revenue Requirement ($OOO's) With 2.1 % Rate Adjustment C/) w ::> z w > w a:: Descnptlon 2008 2009 Dlstnbutlon System 17,568 17,788 Industrial Transmission 13,379 13,379 Permit & Construction Related 383 506 Miscellaneous 2,879 262 Contnbution from Light Operations Sale 777 - FEMA - - Pole Rental 59 59 Total Revenues 35,044 31,994 O&M 5,135 5,398 Purchased Power 23,619 21,785 Taxes 3,016 3,041 Transfer Payments 1,570 1,131 Debt Service 448 451 Matenals - Job Cost 350 520 Total Expenses 34,139 32,325 Revenues Less EXDenses 941 (331 % of Rate Revenues IncludlnQ Taxes -2.1% 13 C/) w C/) z W 0- X W Ending Fund Balances ($OOO's) With 2.1 % Rate Adjustments Type of Reserve 2008 2009 Target Operating 2,663 2,331 3,000 Rate Stabilization 900 1,100 1,500 CFP (0) (0) - Light Operations Center 403 517 2,000 Total Reserves 3,966 3,431 6,500 14 7 ~J Rate Adjustment Recommendations · Current rates not sufficient after 10/1/2008 · Reserves not sufficient for 2009 deficiency · 2.1 % increase to residential & commercial energy rates effective 10/1/2008 · 25% increase to electric permits 1/1/2009 15 Rate Adjustment Recommendations - Residential · No change to monthly base charge · Proposed $0.0014 per kWh energy consumption charge increase - new rate $0.05960 · $2.10 estimated average monthly increase (assumes 1,500 kWh) - General Service · No change to monthly base charge · Proposed $0.0014 per kWh energy consumption charge increase - new rate $0.05990 · $3.30 estimated average monthly increase (assumes 2,350 kWh) 16 8 >., ,. Rate Adjustment Recommendations - General Service Demand · No change to monthly base & demand charges · Proposed $0.0009 per kWh energy consumption charge increase - new rate $0.04010 · $22.50 estimated average monthly increase (assumes 25,000 kWh) - Primary · No change to monthly base & demand charges · Proposed $0.0009 (Winter) $0.0006 (Summer) per kWh energy consumption charge increase · $506.25 estimated average monthly increase (assumes 735,000 kWh) 17 Rate Adjustment Recommendations - Yard/Area Lighting ILlghtmg - City Owned Current Proposed Increase 100 Watt $ 860 $ 8.80 $ 0.20 150 Watt 1250 12.80 030 200 Watt 1390 1420 030 Above 200 Watt 16.10 16.45 0.35 Lighting - Customer Owned Current Proposed Increase 100 Watt $ 6.45 $ 660 $ 015 150 Watt 7.15 730 0.15 200 Watt 7.90 8.10 0.20 Above 200 Watt 11.10 11.35 0.25 18 9 ,~ Electric Monthly Bill Comparison City of Port Angeles - Present $98 30 City of Port Angeles - $10040 Proposed Mason County PUD #3 $10461 Clallam County PUD #1 $10821 Puget Sound Energy $133 52 Grays Harbor PUD $10885 Snohomlsh County PUD 1$11706 Tacoma Public Utilities I $98 59 Seattle City Light $10923 Average Charges $10875 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 19 Proposed Ordinance Amendments · Rate Schedules (Uniform & Time of Use) · Housekeeping Amendments - Billing demand changes - Electrical permit fees - Responsibility beyond point of delivery -Industrial Transmission housekeeping 20 10 " .r Concluding Comments · 2.1 % rate adjustment needed · Maintain current rate structures · Subject to no BPA wholesale power rate adjustment · Housekeeping amendments · Open public hearing & continue to September 16,2008 21 11 ~ i? f \'fl' ~.~ I'CITY OF ,l ~ '''. i~ ,:', , '" <~ ,j, :?'~ ;t Date: To: :t( From: \Ii i', .;i Subject: ,,' 'T;' ~.'~~ 'rl' '\ ~ORT ANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. Utility Advisory Committee Memo August 12,2008 Utility Advisory Committee Phil Lusk, Power Resources Manager Electric Utility 2008 Resource Plan Summary: The City's electric utility must comply with a Washington State mandate to develop a Resource Plan. A component of the enabling legislation is that consumer participation in the development of the ),',. Resource Plan is encouraged. Further, the governing body of a consumer-owned utility must approve the ~:;; 2008 and any future Resource Plans after it has provided public notice and hearing. lh ~;:, Recommendation: Forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve the Electric Utility 2008 Resource Plan. Background/Analysis: As previously presented to the Utility Advisory Committee on April 9 and July 8,2008, the electric utility is required by RCW 19.280.030 to develop a Resource Plan (Plan) that must be submitted to the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) by , September 1,2008. ! 1;' ,\; 'I, The Plan's purpose is to assure that our future resources are adequate to meet our projected loads especially as the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) makes major changes in its energy charges. While the ~~ ' ':' proposed Plan is not a legally binding document, it provides a description of current as well as estimated :~ power loads and resources for 2013 and 2018 time periods. The proposed Plan is available to the public from ':' the City's website. :1' Staff will present the proposed Plan that recommends that the City continue to purchase the majority of its power from the BP A and give serious consideration to increase the level of energy efficiency and deploy new resources that will further develop and diversify our electricity portfolio. The City's energy future is essential to our community's economic health. The City has long benefited from having access to low-cost electricity from the federally based system. However, as the world and the energy industry change, the City faces a potentially serious threat to its economy in the form of rising electricity costs. j' ~~' " For Port Angeles, 67% of the money spent on retail power immediately leaves our local economy. With minimal downside risk, developing a Plan that will increase energy efficiency and develop new resources will help to protect the economy from rising energy costs, keep more dollars circulating in the region and in I turn, may increase the number of jobs that stay in our community. N.\UAC\DepDu\2008 Resource Plan Update doc I, ~ORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. Utility Advisory Committee Memo Date: August 12,2008 To: Utility Advisory Committee From: Phil Lusk, Power Resources Manager Subject: Morse Creek Hydro Project Public Notice Summary: As stipulated under chapter 173-225 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the City is required by the Department of Ecology to publish a public notice of the draft Clean Water Act section 401 certification application. This public notice must be published in a local paper and mailed to concerned individuals. Recommendation: For information only, no action requested. Background/Analysis: As a part of its Morse Creek Hydroelectric Project, the City filed an application for a license amendment with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that stipulates minimum flows in all months of the year for the protection of Chinook salmon and bull trout, both listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The current FERC license stipulates minimum stream flows for only five months of the year. The proposed amendment would maintain higher stream flows in Morse Creek during all months of the year in order to provide a greater assurance that flow-related habitat is protected for the listed species as well as other salmonids and steelhead that inhabit Morse Creek. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) successfully moved with the FERC for the authorization to intervene as the state agency with exclusive authority establish waterway instream flows. Ecology has the responsibility to issue Section 401 certifications under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), which is also required for any amendments that may result in alteration of the project discharge. As required under chapter 173-225 of the WAC, the City is required by Ecology to publish a public notice of the draft Section 401 certification application. This public notice must be published in a local paper and will be mailed by Ecology to concerned individuals. Ecology has prepared the attached public notice, as well as the instructions for its publication. Attachment: Department of Ecology July 18, 2008 correspondence N'\UAC\DepDir\Morse Creek 12AUG08 doc fD)~@~uwrnfm un I JUL 2 1 2008 ill; STATE OF WASHINGTON July 18, 2008 Clly of Pori Angeles DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PUbJic Works and UliIil16S Dept. , . Engmeenng ServIces DIVISion PO Box 47775 · OlympIa, Washmgton 98504.7775 . (360) 407-6300 Larry Dunbar City of POlt Angeles PO Box 1150 POlt Angeles W A 98362 Re: Publication of Application for Hydropower 401 Certification Dear Mr, Dunbar: We received your application for a 401 Celtification in December 24,2007. However Chapter 173-225 WAC requires a notice to be published in a local newspaper. I have attached the WAC. Your next step is to publish a legal notice. The notice announces your application for a water quality certification for hydropower (401 certification) and allows interested persons to comment. We have prepared and enclosed this notice for you. Review Legal Notice Carefully It is YOUl' responsibility to check the notice carefully before having it published. If you find an en'or, please contactthis office for resolution. Ifwe later find an error in your public notice, you may be required to publish an amended notice at your expense. Publishing Legal Notice You need to arrange and pay for publishing the legal notice in a newspaper in Clallam County. . Select a newspaper witl1 general circulation in the area the water will be used and divelted. . Ensure that the notice appears once a week for two consecutive weeks. Publication should start within 30 days from the date of this letter. Next Step Y 011 must request an Affidavit of Publication from the newspaper in which your notice appeared. The affidavit must be an original, notarized copy of your published notice. Please forward it to Ollr office as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me at360-407-6554 or bye-mail at esch46l@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, ~~ Eric SchlOI'ff Southwest Regional Office Water Quality Program Enclosures: Legal Notice Chapter 173-225 WAC r~~~ o PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION for STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION Date ofnotice:.Ju1y 18,2008 Water Oualitv Certification PROJECT: Morse Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 6461 LOCATION: Morse Creek Hydropower Project, which in located on Morse Creek, in Clallam County, Washington APPLICANT: City of Port Angeles PO Box 1150 Port Angeles, W A 98362 Contact: Lany Dunbar 360-417-4710 or ldunbar@citvofoa.us Interested parties are hereby notified, pursuant to the requirements ofW AC 173-225, that the City of Port Angeles has submitted a request for a 401 water quality certification as part of their FERC license renewal. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) received the request for this certification on December 24,2007. The Morse Creek Hydropower Project consists of a diversion dam, a screened intake structure, a penstock, service roads, and a small hydroelectric power plant (465 kWaverage output). The project is located approximately six miles south east of Port Angeles, in the foothills between Port Angeles, and Sequim, Washington. The project started operation in 1985 illlder the cunent hydropower license from FERC and shut down in 1998 due to power and maintenance costs. This notice is only intended to inform the public of the proposal to act on their request for a 401 water quality certification and to asl{ for comments by local, state and federal agencies and the public. EVALUATION: The decision to issue, deny or condition the WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION (WQc) will be based on the following: the proposed project must comply with the applicable provisions of the federal Clean Water Act and appropriate State aquatic protection requirements. Comment and Review Period: Ecology is SGliciting comments from the public, State, and local agencies and officials, and other interested parties in order to evaluate the impacts of the activity. Any comnients received will be considered in Ecology's decision whether to approve, condition, or,deny a celtification for the proposed work. Comments should be sent to: Department of Ecology Attn: Eric Schlorff PO Box 47775 Olympia, W A 98504~ 7775 .or Faxed to (360) 407--6305 All comments must be received by Ecology by 5:00 PM on August 31, 2008. APPEALS: If the water quality certification is issued, any person aggrieved may obtain review thereof by appeal. The applicant can appeal up to 30 days after receipt of the permit, and all others can appeal up to 30 days from the postmarked date of the permit. The appeal must be sent to the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board, PO Box 40903, Olympia W A 98504-0903. ConculTently, a copy of the appeal must also be sent to the Department of Ecology, Appeals Coordinator, PO Box 47608, Olympia W A 98504-7608. These procedures are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 43.21B RCW and the rules and regulations adopted there under. TIle Department of Ecology is an Equal Opportun ity and Affinnative Action employer and shall not discriminate on the baSIS of race, creed, color, national ongm, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, religIOn or disability as defined by applicable slale and/or federal regulatlons or statutes.lfyou have specml.accommodatlOn needs, please contact Ecology's TDD Headquarters at(360) 407.6006. CHAPTER 173-225 WAC FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT-ESTABLISHMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION Last Update: 6/1/75 WAC 173-225-010 173-225-020 173-225-030 Introduction. Purpose. Public notice and public hearings. WAC 173-225-010 Introduction. Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) provides that applicants for a license or permit from the federal government relating to any activity which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters shall obtain a certification ii'om the state in which the discharge originates, or will originate, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 30 I, 302, 306, and 307 ofthe FWPCA. The department of ecology, under chapter 90.48 RCW, has been designated as the state water pollution control agency for all purposes of the FWPCA, and is authorized to participate fully in the programs ofthat act as well as to take all action necessary to meet the requirements thereof. [Ol'deI'73-29, ~ 173-225-010, filed 11/15/73.] WAC 173-225-020 Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to establish procedures for public notice and public hearings in relation to the processing ofappIications for certification required by section 401 of the FWPCA. [Order 73-29, ~ 173-225-020, filed I 1115/73.] WAC 173-225-030 Public notice and public hearings. Whenever an application for certification required by section 401 ofFWPCA is filed with the depaliment of ecology, the following procedures pertaining to public notice and public hearings shall apply: (1) Public notice of an application shall be performed in relation to aU applications, as follows: (a) By mailing notice ofthe application for certification to persons and organizations who have requested the same and to all others deemed appropriate; and (b) When determined by the department as desirable in the public interest, by publication of a notice twice, once each on the same day of the week in two consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity described in the application is located, and in such other counties as are deemed appropriate by the department. The applicant for a certification shall be required to cause such notice to be published in a form approved by the department and the applicant shall bear the cost of such publication and provide an affidavit of publication to the department. (2) Any person desiring to present views on the application in relation to water pollution control Chaptel' 173-225 WAC Ecology Edition III considerations shall do so by providing the same-in writing to the regional office ofthe department of ecology identified in the notice of application within 20 days after notice ofthe application was lastpublished or such longer period oftime as the director may determine, or, in the case where notice is provided only by WAC 173-225-030 (I)(a), within the time period stated in said notice. '. (3) lfthe department determines there is sufficient public interest in any application, a public hearing for the submission of oral views as well as written views shall be held. When this determination is made before notice of application is perfol1ned, such notice shall set forth the - time and place ofthe hearing; otherwise, a separate notice of public hearing shall be made and such notice shall be distributed and published in the manner provided in WAC 173-225.- 030(1). Whenever a public hearing is to be held, the requirement of WAC 173-225-030(2) above in relation to the timing of submitting written views shall not apply, but the deadline for submitting written views shall be set forth in the notice announcing the hearing. [Order DE 75-6, S 173-225-030, filed 3/7175; Order 73-29, S 173-225-030, filed 11/15/73.] Chapter 173-225 WAC Jj;cology Edition [2]