Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
034-09 - Ordinance - Adopting the 2009 Update of the Comp Plan
Introduced by: Development Director Requested by Development Director Drafted by: City Attorney Introduced: December 22, 2009 Adopted: December 22, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. 034-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2009 UPDATE OF THE PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT WHEREAS, with the passage of the Washington State Growth Management Act in 1990 (GMA), Chapter 36.7oA RCW, developing communities are required to adopt a comprehensive plan that outlines strategies to accommodate the needs of a growing population; and WHEREAS, in December 2oo8, the City Council adopted via Ordinance 042-o8 a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Orchard and its urban growth area pursuant to the requirements set forth in the GMA; and WHEREAS, State law requires that each city planning under the GMA must periodically review, and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure compliance with the GMA; and WHEREAS, with the passage of the Washington State Growth Management Act in 19go, developing communities are required to submit a comprehensive plan that outlines strategies to accommodate the needs of a growing population. It is intended for this comprehensive plan to be updated to reflect the changes in growth and boundaries of that growth including changes to zoning; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard seeks to be in compliance with the goals, policies, and procedures of the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the GMA, non -emergency amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can be considered no more than once each year; and WHEREAS, various amendments have been submitted by the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has actively sought citizen input utilizing several public informational media, including stakeholder and subcommittee group meetings, flyers, press releases and newspaper articles, in addition to the regularly noticed public meetings and public hearings; and WHEREAS, Port Orchard issued an Environmental Checklist, signed on October 16, 2009, pertaining to the 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update; and Ordinance No. 034-09 Page 2 of 332 WHEREAS, On October 30, 2009, pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2)(a)(v), Port Orchard issued a Determination of NonSignificance (DNS) for the Adoption of the 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update. The appeal period closed at 4:30 PM on November 13, 2oo9, and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, On October 30, 2009, Port Orchard issued draft 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update. The document was posted on the CityofPortOrchard.us web page and made available to the public and agencies; and WHEREAS, On October 30, 2oo9, notice of all amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce at least sixty days before the amendments were adopted, in accordance with RCW 36.7oA.1o6; and WHEREAS, after proper notice, The Port Orchard Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Monday, November 16th, 2oo9 and considered public testimony to review, discuss, and deliberate on the proposed draft Comprehensive Plan amendments, in accordance with RCW 35.63.100. WHEREAS, On November 16, 2009, following proper notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a recommendation with revisions for the 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update as identified in Planning Commission Resolution oo8-o9, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, On November 16, 2009, following proper notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a recommendation with revisions for the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan as identified in Planning Commission Resolution 007-09, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, On November 17, 2009, following proper notice, the City Council held a public Work Study Meeting to discuss the elements of the draft 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, after proper notice, the Port Orchard City Council conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, November 24, 20o9 and considered public testimony regarding the proposed 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, On December 1, 2009, following proper notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a recommendation with revisions for the 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update — Appendix F as identified in Planning Commission Resolution oog- o9, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C; and Ordinance No. 034-09 Page 3 of 332 WHEREAS, On December 15, 2009, following proper notice, the City Council held a public Work Study Meeting to discuss the elements of the draft 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, all comments received from state agencies as a result of the 6o-day review period required by the GMA have been incorporated into the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed amendments as set forth in this ordinance are consistent with the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan adopted December 9, 2oo8 and the Countywide planning policies; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts as its own the Findings and Conclusions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. oo8-o9, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and made a part of this Ordinance. SECTION 2. In accordance with the above described Findings and Conclusions, the City Council hereby amends the text and map of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan by approving and adopting the following: i. The 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update dated October 30, 2oo9, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. The Sidney / Pottery Corridor Plan as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 007-09 attached hereto as Exhibit B is incorporated by reference into the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. 3. City Owned Tax Parcels No. 4o62-003-oot-0000, and 4027-003-ooi-000l, shall receive a Comprehensive Land Use designation of Public & Community Spaces and a Zoning designation of Community Facilities. 4. The revisions to the Comprehensive Plan text and Land Use and Zoning Maps as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. oo8-o9, and attached as Exhibit A. 5. The City of Port Orchard 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update attached hereto as Exhibit F is incorporated by reference into the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. 6. The South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan attached hereto as Exhibit G is incorporated by reference into the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. 034-09 Page 4 of 33d, SECTION :3. The 2009 Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments, zoning designations, and appendices shall be effective January 1, 2010. SECTION a. If any sentence, section, provision, or clause of this ordinance or its application to any person, entity or circumstance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the ordinance, or the application of the provision to other persons, entities, or circumstances is not affected. SECTION r; . This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be published in lieu of the entire ordinance, as authorized by State Law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 22nd day ofpecember 2009. A ST: Patricia J. Kir pdtri k, IbMC, City Cleric APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory A. acob , City t orney Lary Sponsored by: Robert Putaansuu, Councilmember Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 5 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 008-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 2009 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A requires that each city planning under GMA must periodically review, and, if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations every seven years to ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, with the passage of the Washington State Growth Management Act in 1990, developing communities are required to submit a comprehensive plan that outlines strategies to accommodate the needs of a growing population. It is intended for this comprehensive plan to be updated to reflect the changes in growth and boundaries of that growth including changes to zoning; and WHEREAS, in December 2008, the City of Port Orchard has adopted a Comprehensive Plan update to the June 1995 Comprehensive Plan to satisfy the requirements set forth in the Growth Management Act to implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard seeks to be in compliance with the goals, policies, and procedures of the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, after proper notice, The Port Orchard Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Monday, November 16th, 2009 and considered public testimony to review, discuss, and deliberate on the proposed draft Comprehensive Plan amendments. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON" MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1. These amendments were developed in consideration of the goals of the GMA for the development of local comprehensive plans, as codified at RCW 36.70A.020, and reflect a careful balancing of these goals within the local conditions of the City of Port Orchard. 2. These amendments were developed from and are consistent with the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Planning Commission Resolution 008-09 Page 1 of 3 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 6 of 332 3. The Planning Commission bases its finding and conclusions on all the testimony, oral or written, and exhibits submitted to the Commission. Any finding that should be deemed a conclusion, and any conclusion that should be deemed a finding, is hereby recommended as such. 4. The Planning Commission has considered the following criteria consistent with the Port Orchard Municipal Code and makes the following findings; a. Circumstances in Port Orchard have substantially changed since the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan; b. New information is available that was not considered in the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan; c. The proposed amendments are consistent with or support other plan elements and/or development regulations. d. The proposed amendments reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; e. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Countrywide Planning Policies; and f. The proposed amendments are compliant with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY; 1. The Port Orchard Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the 2009 Draft Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update dated November 16, 2009; 2. The Port Orchard Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the following amendments to the 2008 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update: a. The Port Orchard Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the 2008 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update for administrative and clerical error corrections, striking "2040". b. The Port Orchard Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the 2008 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update to update Zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps. c. The Port Orchard Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the 2008 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update adopting Appendix G: Plans Adopted by Reference, including the Sidney -Pottery Corridor Plan, the Sewer Capital Facilities Plan update, and the South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 008-09 Page 2 of 3 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 7 of 332 d. The Port Orchard Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing on Appendix F: Port Orchard Downtown PSRC Regional Growth Center until December 01, 2009. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including revisions approved at the November 16, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, are consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Port Orchard hereby recommends that the City Council approve and certify the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the City of Port Orchard, as expressed in 2. a — c above. PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Port Orchard this 16th day of November, 2009. Bek Ashby, Chairman ATTEST: Jamg.r,-�aver, City Development Director Planning Commission Resolution 008-09 Page 3 of 3 Title Page Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 8 of 332 DRAFT - 2009 PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2009 Amendment of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan to update Zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps to reflect annexations, correct clerical errors, update the referenced Corridor Plans and Capital Facilities Plans for the City of Port Orchard. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Draft Update: October 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Table of Contents Exhibit A Page 9 of 332 Chapter 8. Transportation.....................................Pg 8-1 8.6. Transportation Goals and Policies ............................................. pg 8-10 Chapter9. Shorelines..............................................Pg 9-1 9.3. Shoreline Goals and Policies...........................................................pg 9-2 Chapter 10. Capital Facilities.................................Pg 10-1 10.7. Capital Facilities Goals and Policies ........................................... pg 10-9 Chapter 11. Implementation .......................................... pg 1 1.2. Implementation Goals and Policies ............................................ pg 1 1-1 Appendices AppendixA................................................................................................................................................... Maps AppendixB.................................................................................................................................Survey Results Appendix C............................................................................................Kitsap County Campus Plan (2003) Appendix D. ...................... Port Orchard Land Use Capacity/Kitsap County Buildable Land Report Appendix E............................................................................................ Land Use Change Request Analysis Appendix G..................................................................... Plans adopted by Reference Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Draft Update: October 2009 Chapter 8: Transportation Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 10 of 332 Chapter 8. TRANSPORTATION 8.1. Transportation Plan Context The Transportation element identifies future system improvements derived from the analysis completed in both City Capital Facilities documents, the EIS for the Kitsap County 2006 Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update and the Sidney/Pottery Multi -Model Corridor Plan. In addition to roadway improvements, this element also identifies ways to provide more opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. The policy direction within this element provides new non -motorized transportation system links between residential areas and nearby employment and shopping areas. The objective of these policies is to reduce automobile dependence within the City, and to minimize the need to widen roads to accommodate increasing traffic volumes. The purpose and vision of the transportation policy element is to provide a safe, dependable, properly maintained, fiscally and environmentally responsible multi -modal transportation system that is consistent with and supports the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The transportation system should respect community character, environment, and neighborhoods; improve mobility and safety; minimize impacts from regional facilities; and promote increased use of transit and non -motorized travel. The transportation system needs to be both locally and regionally coordinated, adequately financed, and community supported. The goals and policies identified in this element are based upon existing conditions information and transportation systems analysis contained in the Kitsap County produced joint jurisdiction, Port Orchard/South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan and the 2006 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 10 Year Update and Environmental Impact Analysis. The data collected, analysis conducted, and capital facilities and transportation planning provided in those environmental document (Kitsap County 2006 Comprehensive Plan: Volume 11, Environmental Impact Analysis, the Kitsap County and Appendix E: Transportation with additional supporting appendices) included supporting analysis and mitigation related to transportation facilities within the city, transportation impact analysis, proposed projects, performance standards, financial and implementation plan, and mitigation for the various alternatives considered. The document also incorporates the data, analysis, and updates provided in the Port Orchard Capital Facilities Plan 2006 update (Ordinance 026-06). 8.2. Transportation Vision The transportation network of the City of Port Orchard is meant to serve the land use of the community and seek to achieve the most efficient means of transporting people Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Draft Update: October 2009 Chapter 10: Capital Facilities Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page ii of 332 Chapter 10. Capital Facilities 10.1. Plan Context The purpose of the Capital Facilities Element is to provide policy direction to decision makers regarding development regulations and expenditures for capital facilities associated with fire protection and emergency medical services, law enforcement, parks, schools, water, sewer, stormwater and solid waste collection and disposal. The policies of the Capital Facilities Element call for adequate facilities and services that meet the needs of the City and corridor plans such as the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Study Plan. One of the principal goals of the GMA is for cities to provide for compact urban development that accommodates the majority of growth in a community so that the necessary urban facilities and services are provided and delivered efficiently and cost effectively. Urban level facilities and services are permitted only within UGAs. Certain public facilities and services must be provided at a specific level of service (LOS), concurrently with development. This requirement is intended to ensure that development will not occur without the necessary infrastructure. Developers and property owners are typically required to construct the necessary infrastructure or provide a fee to compensate for their fair share of facilities and services. This is necessary to maintain an established LOS as defined by Port Orchard. The Capital Facilities Element is an element in the Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan that uses sound fiscal policies to provide facilities consistent with the Land Use Element and concurrent with, or prior to the impacts of development in order to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service, and to exceed the adopted standards, when possible. Capital facilities generally have very long useful lives, significant costs, and are not mobile. This plan incorporates and adopts by reference the 2006 Port Orchard Capital Facilities Plan Update (Ordinance 026-06), the joint Port Orchard/South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan data and analysis, and the 2006 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update, Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix D) and associated Environmental Impact Statement. One of the principal criteria for identifying needed capital improvements is standards for levels of service (LOS). The referenced Capital Facilities Plans contains LOS standards for each public facility, and requires that new development be served by adequate facilities (i.e., the "concurrenty" requirement of the Growth Management Act). The Capital Facilities element within this plan also contains goals and policies that guide and implement the provision of adequate public facilities. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Draft Update: October 2009 @•�3n �� r L Cu ' O k V. p U 3-3ftb'y.3Mor` P8 ]ISBN Oa 1IS13a �IJI�O�lIM�.� �a" ai z F- a o Y oa a 3AV 3NI10 i ��+ 3ftV lll1H OO�SbO M 3AV1NM13 M 3n� M 3AV 1N3N Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 15 of 332 Z LU P: Z VJ Z Q LU d _U U_ E J J y m m N I CL C ; LO O LO N 0 o Co E Co !? 00 Q < M X C Cu O c m V O -a r o Cu a t - U � � o ro ° Q 0 O NM a a nS o U N a 3S M 1VIN0100 z 1 W o3S J 021 HOSV2111 ❑ z W } U Ib/�lo J LU m ( W 3 z ❑ 0 fyLLI/) rn w <n - zm y O ❑ -' z 3S Id NOIZ p rr J_ 3S Mi SRI?JVH AAV 02JodF3S O � W w _ w O LU S � W �' �J� w 2 _ 3AV13HJIP--1 j3S ile:MOdVH ~ U) I I uj U- 'r.� O � � I 3AV1S3Mj F- --- 0 of ►' ,---1 R < 3ftV: VMi3Hi$%�� �-- a IAV -114 U Y I w 3S ld 0H z vOi W } I ❑ > J U) O I w w tr Co .�S Oii 13H138 oa uwi w 3S 02! .l�3SGW�J cwj 0 I I LU w ui W .I�ly� 16C3< _ 3S i 8 4� 01-4�; '------� �y �- ON o00M000 3S 4? 3AV2i3MoldS Ono%= I Q" b (ENO/S 3AV NVW83HS Nay 16o SA 0 .� U '�P m w Y J K w w 3 1� N -------- S ' - - - I vvvO MS aj A2iV00W ------------- -------------- MS NI HV38 3NOl a S I Appendix G: Land Use Change Requests Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 16 of 332 Appendix G.0 Plans Adopted by Reference Appendix Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Draft Update: October 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit A Page 17 of 332 PLAN OR DOCUMENT City of Port Orchard 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update City of Port Orchard 2009 Sidney 1 Pottery Corridor Plan South Kitsap School District 2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan West Sound Utility District I Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility 2009 Capital Facilities Plan City of Port Orchard 2008 Water System Plan City of Port Orchard: 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan 2006 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update Kitsap County 2006 Port Orchard/South Kitsap Sub -Area Plan City of Port Orchard 2005 Economic Development Plan Kitsap County 2003South Kitsap UGAIULID#6 Sub -Area Plan & EIS Downtown Port Orchard: 1999 Suggestions for Revitalization City of Port Orchard 1998 Pedestrian Plan City of Port Orchard 1994 Shoreline Master Program City of Port Orchard 1994 Ross Creek Comprehensive Management Plan City of Port Orchard 1994 Capital Facilities Plan City of Port Orchard 1992 Tremont Corridor Specific Plan City of Port Orchard 1987 Blackjack Creek Comprehensive Management Plan Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Draft Update: October 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 18 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 007-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDING THE PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE SfDNEY/POTTERY MULTI -MODAL CORRIDOR PLAN AS SHOWN ON "EXHIBIT A". WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has undertaken a comprehensive review of the draft Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan amendment to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan in order to guide infra -structure development in the Sidney Pottery corridor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 19`h, 2009 which meeting was properly noticed and open to the public, to review or amend the draft Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment as shown in "Exhibit A"; and WHEREAS, after considering input from Planning Commission members and the public, the Planning Commission finds that the Sidney/Pottery Multi-Modai Corridor Plan serves the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Port Orchard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also finds that the Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW; now, therefore, WHEREAS, Following timely and effective notice, on October 19, 2009 the Planning Commission closed the Public Hearing and deliberated in regards to the proposed changes for Title 16, Land Use Regulatory Code as shown in attached "Exhibit A". FINDINGS The Port Orchard Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the policy and text amendments to the Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan: 1. On October 19, 2009 a public hearing was held on the proposed draft Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. During the public hearing verbal testimony was heard in regards to the draft Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 19 of 332 3. During the comment period, written comments were received and are attached herein. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed comments received, and recommended to forward to City Council all technical and clerical comments received regarding the draft Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan for Council review and consideration. 5. On November 16, 2009 a public meeting was held to discuss and select street furniture including Bollards, bicycle racks, public benches, tree grates and trash receptacles. The Planning Commission reviewed of all the potential choices, a motion was made and approved for no preference among the proposed alternatives. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Planning Commission has deliberated the merits of the proposed draft Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan shown in attached "Exhibit A". 2. The Planning Commission forwards to the City Council this resolution with a recommendation for approval for the revisions to the draft Sidney/Pottery Multi -Modal Corridor Plan shown in attached "Exhibit A". 3. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed revisions to the Port Orchard Comprehensive are consistent with the goals and policies of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Planning Commission has determined that to facilitate the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan as amended revisions to the Port Orchard Regulatory Code Chapter 16.55.040 is necessary to wit: (a) Parking areas or lots should be located along the side, rear or in courtyard configurations to retain a building frontage along road corridors and control the scale of the streetscape. In some instances, it is not advisable to place buildings near the street right-of-ways as determined by the City Engineer. 5. That the proposed four-way signal at Lowes on Sedgwick Road and the proposed bypass road shown on all three alternative maps be removed. 6. That the all references to the Tremont/Pottery roundabout be removed from the Alternatives maps. 7. The Planning Commission forwards to the City Council this resolution with a recommendation for Alternative 2 as amended as the Preferred Alternative for implementation and recommendation to the City Council. 8. The Planning Commission forwards to the City Council all possible street furniture selections without a preference. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 20 of 332 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Planning Commission of the City of Port Orchard hereby recommends that the City Council approve the attached Draft Sidney/Pottery Multi - Modal Corridor Plan amendment to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Port Orchard this 19th day of October and amended on November 16, 2009. 4�e�- ".C==== . Bek Ashby, Planning CommissicJ6 Chairman ATTEST: Ja . Weaver, City Development Director ORDINANCE 034-09: EXHIBIT E Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 21 of 332 MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY Final December, 2009 by-IU for I hree Lanes and Multi -Use I rail City of Port Orchard, WA Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 22 of 332 A., ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MAYOR Lary Coppola CITY COUNCIL Fred Chang Jerry Childs John Clauson Jim Colebank Fred Olin Carolyn Powers Robert Putaansuu PORT ORCHARD PLANNING COMMISSION Bek Ashby, Planning Commission Chair Stephanie Bailey Tim Drury Tim Matthes Gil Michael Kim Ruona Annette Stewart Vance Vaught PORT ORCHARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT James Weaver, Development Director Thomas Bonsell, Associate Planner Jen Haro, Special Projects Associate Planner Jim Fisk, Assistant Planner Ellen Ferguson, Planning Administrative Assistant ...and all the City of Port Orchard City Staff... SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN COMMITTEE Annette Stewart, Bek Ashby, Vance Vaught, Tim Drury, Gary Anderson, Craig Baldwin, Darrell Fields, Art James, Norm Olson, Pat Waters, William Palmer, Fred Depee and Ron Rice Note: Committee members in italics are also Planning Commission members Draft: September, 2009 Page i Ordinance No. 034-09 - Exhibit B e , SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 23 of 332 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page No. Front Matter i Chapter 1 Executive Summary 1 Chapter 2 Planning Process 3 Chapter 3 Vision for the Corridor 4 Section 3.1 Committee's Vision for the Corridor 4 Chapter 4 Alternatives 6 Section 4.1 Alternative No. 1 6 Section 4.2 Alternative No. 2 10 Section 4.3 Alternative No. 3 13 Chapter 5 Lighting, Street Furniture, and Landscaping 17 Chapter 6 Public Transportation 19 Chapter 7 Implementation 21 Chapter 8 Appendices 23 Appendix 1 Maps and Alternatives Appendix 2 Public Meeting Notes Appendix 3 Engineering Data Appendix 4 Public Notification and Comments Appendix 5 Street Furniture Alternatives Draft: September, 2009 Page ii Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit S ,••:.A• SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 24 of 332 CHAPTER-1 Executive Summary The Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan is a community based transportation study focused on Sidney Road SW and Pottery Avenue between Sedgwick Road to the south and Tremont Street to the north. This section describes the plan development processes utilized and the development of the guiding principles, then describes the vision for the corridor, and finally concludes with a discussion of the preferred as developed from this process. Why the Sidney Pottery Corridor — As growth and development occurs through zoning and land use, it is of high importance to ensure a roadway infra -structure that creates a sense of identity, continuity, and supplies the multi- Six Goals Guiding the model transportation needs of an Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan area far into the future. The Port Orchard City Council determined 1. Minimize future congestion as area is that Port Orchard's residents would developed. be better served by advance 2. Encourage Pedestrian, bicycle and transit planning within the corridor area to mobility and access to schools and insure that consistent infrastructure businesses in the south end of the corridor. development occurs for future 3. Provide a continuity of roadway design and commercial and multi -family uses. aesthetics. This plan facilitates the expressed goals, both written and verbalized of 4. Include public and stakeholder participation. the citizens, land owners, and 5. Provide consistent and predictable roadway elected officials. improvement standards. The Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan is 6. Support measures to reduce air pollution and an eight -month planning effort that global warming. began in early spring 2009. The effort was facilitated by the city of Port Orchard Planning Commission with technical support from Port Orchard Planning and Engineering Departments. With the coordination of Planning Commission, a corridor study plan sub -committee was created that included three members of the Planning Commission, area property owners/developers and members of the public interested in guiding the design and Draft: September, 2009 Page 1 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 - n r Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 25 of 332 aesthetics of the corridor. The committee worked through a planning process that developed and assessed a variety of options for changing the character of the Sidney/Pottery Corridor and ultimately selected a preferred concept for the corridor. The preferred concept grew out of multiple needs and interests expressed by stakeholders. Ideas brought to the process are reflected in the alternatives and concept which respond to both the transportation and aesthetic needs of the community. With the six guiding goals for the Sidney/Pottery corridor plan as a basis, the effort undertook and completed a multi -step brainstorming, analysis, evaluation, and prioritization of the consensus building process that resulted in the recommendation of alternatives for a comprehensive transportation and infrastructure plan for the corridor. This document should be used as a reference tool when developing detailed plans for the corridor, reviewing current and future development proposals, determining phasing and implementation strategies and understanding the concerns of the community. The Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan accommodates the community's desire to have a safer, pedestrian friendly, parkway linkage that knits Sidney Road and Pottery Avenue into the fabric if the community while facilitating the requirements and standards associated with the operation of a City thoroughfare. The Plan reconfigures the roadway from a 2-lane rural standard configuration to a minimum of a 3-lane configuration with commuter bike lanes, parking improvements, accommodation for transit, and streetscape character improvements. Promoting a vision for a safer, more aesthetically pleasing and bike friendly corridor all within the framework of City Road Standards is clearly articulated as a primary goal of this plan. Draft: September, 2009 Page 2 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 26 of 332 CHAPTER-2 The Planning Process The intent of the plan is to implement a comprehensive approach to roadway and public infrastructure development along the newly annexed southerly portion of the Sidney/Pottery corridor. The public planning components included coordination with the City Council, the Planning Commission and Planning Staff all working together and resulting in the creation of a joint taskforce for the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Study Plan. The sub -committee was created to facilitate public charrettes, create a uniform vision, and to propose alternatives for development along the corridor. Public Participation — The efforts to include the public to develop a cohesive corridor plan included a range of notifications, public meetings, workshops, flyers, and communication tools. The city staff specifically notified the citizens of corridor planning efforts both within the city and within the adjacent unincorporated urban growth area in three specific ways including local media advertising, direct mailings, and community calendar postings. The Port Orchard independent published news articles explaining that the city efforts to recruit volunteers for the development of a plan for the Sidney/Pottery Corridor and set the dates of the committee meetings. The city also sent a mailer to all property owners with property that fronts on Sidney Road or Pottery Avenue. Additionally, notice of committee meetings were posted on the Kitsap Sun's calendar of events as well as within City documents. The Committee met in three consecutive month beginning in June, 2009 and presented minutes of the meetings to the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled public meetings. The planning process for the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Study Plan was a multi -step effort that identified issues, vetted the issues with the stakeholders, and then developed the alternatives for the future development of the Sidney/Pottery corridor. Recommendations for road widths and traffic amelioration were coordinated with the traffic analysis conducted by Kitsap County prior to annexation of the area. Additionally, the preferences of this plan will be incorporated into an update to the transportation Capital Facilities Plan. Although the roadway width standards may be discussed in previous Capital Facilities Plan, the stakeholders were provided an opportunity for additional community input regarding the roadway design and development. Additional issues such as limited access and landscape islands were discussed as their impacts to the overall goals and vision of the thoroughfare. Draft: September, 2009 Page 3 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 27 of 332 CHAPTER-3 Vision for the Corridor Since beginning its life as a rural county road, the Sidney Road (the southern portion of the corridor) has been two lanes void of sidewalks and curbing. Historically, existing land use consisted of small working farms, pastures and large acreage lots. The north half of the Corridor (Pottery Avenue) is slightly more improved and in places has sidewalk, curb and gutter. Stakeholders and the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan committee envisioned an arterial that maintains a walkable thoroughfare and provides a place for safe biking while maintaining a Level of Service (LOS) that is acceptable to the citizens using the corridor. In addition to the quantifiable requirements for transportation, the involved citizens wanted to create a corridor that has a continuity of design with improved aesthetics that was more than a way to move traffic within this north -south corridor. The committee reviewed a multiplicity of lighting, street furniture styles, vegetation types and locations and ultimately agreed upon an overall look for the corridor. The stakeholders agreed that with the Sedgwick/Sidney developing as a commercial hub, it was important to ensure that sidewalks were of sufficient size and style to allow free and unobstructed pedestrian and bicycle travel along the corridor. Therefore, the stakeholders decided on five foot wide sidewalks separated by a five- foot planting strip containing grass and street trees. CHAPTER-3.1 Committee's Vision for the Corridor The Sidney/Pottery committee initially determined that although this is a single corridor of approximately two miles in length, there were two separate and distinct roadway requirements. The entire corridor is diagonally bisected by State Highway 16 at the approximate mid -point of the corridor. The Highway 16 overpass was also a place where Draft: September, 2009 Page 4 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 } SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 28 of332 the possibility of continuity of roadway design is challenged because as the roadway crosses underneath Highway 16, the road is forced to narrow. Without State involvement, and a costly reconstruction of the overpass, the effective usable right-of-way is sixty feet. As discussed elsewhere in this Plan, the alternatives for improvement recommend for obtaining a total width of eighty feet for right-of-way along the corridor length. In addition to the aforementioned challenge, large portions of the area north of Highway 16 has been recently developed and additional new development in the northern portion of the corridor is anticipated to be minimal and only consist of incremental infill within the first ten or fifteen years of development. As a result, the committee determined that the north and south portions of the corridor were too dissimilar for a cohesive design would be difficult to apply to both areas. The committee divided their recommendations into two separate sections with State Highway 16 being a natural divider. The northern area was labeled Pottery Avenue improvements and the southern area was named Sidney Road improvements. Draft: September, 2009 Page 5 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 29 of 332 CHAPTER-4 Committee Alternatives The committee met multiple times to discuss various elements to be included within the alternatives. The first two committee meetings were focused on developing a single strategy for a comprehensive roadway plan for the corridor, "Alternative- 1 " (see appendix A) was the result of the group's focus. A M Throughout the process it became evident that there were dissenting opinions regarding certain aspects of the design and in meeting three, the committee determined that the best approach would be include two additional alternatives to analyzed and brought forward for consideration. Descriptions of the three alternatives are provided below. Section-4.1 /_1N 0 =1:7► /_1101V/ mi l The committee created an alternative that captured the recommendations of the majority of the stakeholders and met the requirements of the proposed impacts of the adjacent surrounding development. Alternative 1 was the end product of a process where several factors and goals were considered and assimilated into a plan that has been vetted by City staff and analyzed as a component of the transportation capital facilities plan update. The alternative, similar to alternatives two and three, provided the committee with a balance between competing interests. The most significant competing interests included, defined future transportation needs as the area intensifies in development, safety of children S idneyWan" Study Area- t: WxQmmittee ReCtxnmenda4�an9 r : Draft: September, 2009 Page 6 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 - n r Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 30 of 332 commuting to and from schools, general aesthetics of the corridor, providing the development community with consistency of requirements, meeting the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to reduce dependence on automobiles and complete a trail system for pedestrians and bicycle riders alike, and above all, realistic designs that could actually be constructed. SIDNEY ROAD FROM BERRY LAKE ROAD SOUTH to SEDGWICK During their analysis of the local transportation impacts and the needs of the committee, the committee determined that a three -lane roadway would best meet the needs of the Two- I mrup [wJth OpMerLPnwl F FIF14 iPP1. 7.11npr arCo11*slOFAFx0F101 WIth MUI1I-tJsi PA#Is developing region until well past the year 2025 for the section of the Sidney � ..0 w nr..un..ua,n...-A 4, Road connecting between Berry Lake Road and Sedgwick Road. However, the committee also wanted to ensure that future development would not preclude the roadway from Berry Lake road south to Sedgwick from being ultimately widened to five lanes. Both options of three or five lanes would include a center planting strip with turn pockets where necessary for combined accesses into the adjacent development or parcels. The committee recommended a three lane roadway design that would include a five-foot sidewalk, five foot planting strip, 5 foot bike lane, then an 11 foot wide driving lane', an 12 foot center planting median with turn pockets, an 11 foot driving lane, a 5 foot planting strip then along the westerly edge of the right-of- way, a planting strip and a 10 foot wide multi - model trail. The aforementioned requirements would put future right-of-way between 67 and 80 feet in width. One of the issues that arose when the 1 It may be noted that additional road width beyond the committee recommendations may be required to satisfy Fire District requirements. Draft: September, 2009 Page 7 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 } SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 31 off Exhibit2 committee's desired goal to maintain the flexibility for a possible expansion of the corridor to five lanes was consistently expressed as a concerns that this goal specifically, conflicts with Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) Section 16.55 Design Guidelines. The section of municipal code identifies general design guidelines that upon development, buildings are oriented to maintain a direct pedestrian connection to the entrances street -side with an encouragement for parking to be screened from the public right of way and oriented in the rear of the buildings. The committee recognized specific municipal code revisions to POMC Section 16.55 are necessary to addressed conflicts and ensure the city wide general design guidelines were supportive of the vision, goals, and elements of the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan. Traffic Controls — Traffic controls were a major point of discussion throughout the committee meetings focusing on the various aspects of the signalization of intersections as opposed to the round -a -bout traffic control solutions. The committee recommended that for Alternative 1, provisions for a round -a -bout be made at the intersection of Hovde Road and Sidney Avenue. Additional sub -committee discussion revolved around the expected traffic improvements on Sedgwick and Highway 16 (Lowes Intersection) and that it may become a four-way signal providing a secondary access point for development parcels adjacent to the Sidney Road corridor. The sub -committee expressed their desire for a by-pass access road from Sedgwick Road intersection to the south and with an alignment parallel to Highway 16, terminating with an intersection with Hovde Road to the north. As a subsequent phase of transportation development, a round -a -bout was determined by the committee to be needed to facilitate safe traffic movements onto Sidney road without impediments to the traffic flow in the manner that a traffic signal might. The increased traffic flow expected from the build -out of the commercial areas surrounding the corridor was identified to include a pedestrian signal at the corner of Birch Street and Sidney Road. The committee was especially concerned regarding the safety of students from the Junior High School and the Elementary school that both abut Sidney Avenue. With the improved roadway design it was expected that more youth will avail themselves of the bike lanes and safe walkways and utilize non -motorized transportation alternatives for school. In addition directly across from the elementary school were baseball fields that were identified to attract large number of youth. The pedestrian signal was an improvement that could afford a way to cross the street without fear of increased interaction with cars, busses and trucks. Berry Lake Road intersection — Berry Lake Road was identified as a primary access to the recently completed annexation of McCormick Woods and associated density proposed for the annexed area. The anticipated analysis provided that existing traffic patterns were forecast to change substantially in the area of this intersection. In Draft: September, 2009 Page 8 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B '•''- SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 32 of 332 addition, the commercial development along the Sidney Corridor at build out would likely become a destination for travel from residences to the west, both in the city limits and out. The committee incorporated this information in the recommendation of a three- way traffic signal at the Berry Lake intersection with Berry Lake Road being widened to allow a right turn lane. Pottery Avenue from Berry Lake Road north to Lippert Drive — Just north of the Berry Lake intersection Pottery Avenue passes underneath Highway 16. There are presently no access points to the State Highway 16 at the overpass and none are shown or expected within the Washington State Department of Transportation long range plans. It was identified by the committee; however, as Pottery Avenue nears the overpass there is clearly a narrowing of useable right-of-way. Existing right-of-way and roadway sections indicated that the street would support consistent form and function with a continuity of design. Although this section of the corridor will require narrowed cross sections, including sidewalks, curb, median and bike lanes, preliminary analysis by the committee indicated that these improvements would be able to be located between the existing overpass structure abutments. The committee also expressed the desire for rolled sidewalk curbs to facilitate fire equipment to be mountable on the sidewalk if the need arises. North of the Highway 16 overpass, the existing right-of-way again widens to accommodate a greater width of infrastructure improvements, but the committee acknowledged that the larger tracts of land have been developed recently and individual sidewalks may need to be revised to meet Corridor Plans objectives. Pottery Avenue from Lippert Drive north to South Kitsap Blvd — Much of this section of the corridor was recently developed and on the east side of the right-of-way, sidewalks have been installed with curb and gutter. It was recommended and supported by the committee that the plan include a left turn lane for accessing onto South Kitsap Boulevard to allow automobiles who are waiting to turn left a place to stage without impeding the flow of traffic traveling north. It was identified by the committee that a traffic signal or three way stop sign at this intersection would not be warranted within the analysis of the plan. The committee acknowledged that at some point in the future, traffic conditions may change and a signalized intersection or stop signs may be required. The City's traffic consultant suggested that at some time in the future a roundabout might warranted at this intersection to keep traffic flowing smoothly. Pottery Avenue from South Kitsap Blvd north to Tremont Street — Sidewalks were recommended by the committee to be installed through this section of the corridor with bike lanes. It was identified that the existing right-of-way within this portion of the corridor would not be sufficient to accommodate a continuation of a landscaped center Draft: September, 2009 Page 9 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 } SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 33 off Exhibit2 island. The recommendation included for the existing two-lane roadway section to be maintained with improvements to sidewalks and provisions for bike lanes. Section-4.2 ALTERNATIVE-2 The committee decided that it would bring forward an alternative that provided the improvements similar to that of Alternative 1 design that did not include any roundabouts. Sidney Road from Berry Lake Road south to Sedgwick Road Between Berry Lake Road and Sedgwick Road, the committee determined that a three -lane roadway would meet the needs of the developing region until well past the year 2025. However, the committee also wanted to ensure that future development would not preclude the roadway from Berry Lake road south to Sedgwick from being ultimately widened to five lanes. Both options of three or five lanes were recommended to include a center planting strip with turn pockets where necessary for combined accesses into the developments. The committee recommended a three lane roadway design that would include a five- foot sidewalk, five foot planting strip, 5 foot bike lane, then an 11 foot wide driving lanez, an 12 foot center planting median with turn pockets, an 11 foot driving lane, a 5 foot planting strip then along the westerly edge of the right-of-way, a planting strip and a 10 foot wide multi -model trail. The aforementioned requirements would put future right-of- way requirements at between 67 and 80 feet in width. Similar to Alternative 1, the committee's desired goal to maintain the flexibility for a possible expansion of the corridor to five lanes was consistently expressed as a concern. Specifically, conflicts with Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) Section 16.55 Design Guidelines were identified. This section of municipal code identifies general design guidelines that upon development, buildings are oriented to maintain a direct Z It may be noted that additional road width beyond the committee recommendations may be required to satisfy Fire District requirements. Draft: September, 2009 Page 10 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 it SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 34hof33B pedestrian connection to the entrances street -side with an encouragement for parking to be screened from the public right of way and oriented in the rear of the buildings. The committee recognized that specific municipal code revisions to POMC Section 16.55 would be necessary to address conflicts and ensure the city wide general design guidelines were supportive of the vision, goals, and elements of the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan. Traffic Controls — In this iteration of the corridor plan, the committee recommends that traffic controls at the Hovde/Sidney intersection consist of one of three possibilities, allowing the intersection to remain in the existing uncontrolled status, Installing a three- way traffic signal, or installing a three way stop sign. The proximity of the intersection to a potentially high number of pedestrians and bicycle ridership `l wanting to frequent area retail establishments may require selection of one of the viable types of three-way traffic controls. Similar to Alternative 1, additional committee discussion revolved around the expected traffic improvements on Sedgwick and y Highway 16 noting that it could ` become a four-way signal providing a secondary access point for Pottery Road at Highway 16 overpass development parcels adjacent to the Sidney Road corridor. The committee expressed their desire for a by-pass access road from Sedgwick Road intersection to the south and with an alignment parallel to Highway 16, terminating with an intersection with Hovde Road to the north. The increased traffic flow expected from the build out of the commercial areas will require a pedestrian signal at the corner of Birch Street and Sidney Road. The committee was especially concerned regarding the safety of students from the Junior High School and the Elementary school that both abut Sidney Avenue. With the improved roadway design it is expected that more youth will avail themselves of the bike lanes and safe walkways and get to school in ways other than motorized vehicles. In addition directly across from the elementary school are baseball fields that attract large number of youth. The pedestrian signal proposed would afford pedestrians a way to cross the street without fear of being in conflict with cars, busses and trucks. Draft: September, 2009 Page 11 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 35 off Exhibit2 Berry Lake Road intersection — Berry Lake Road was identified as a primary access to the recently completed annexation of McCormick Woods and associated density proposed for the annexed area. The anticipated analysis provided that existing traffic patterns were forecast to change substantially in the area of this intersection. In addition, the commercial development along the Sidney Corridor at build out would likely become a destination for travel from residences to the west, both in the city limits and out. The committee incorporated this information in the recommendation of a three- way traffic signal at the Berry Lake intersection with Berry Lake Road being widened to allow a right turn lane. Pottery Avenue from Berry Lake north to Lippert Drive — Just north of the Berry Lake intersection Pottery Avenue passes underneath Highway 16. There are presently no access points to the State Highway 16 at the overpass and none are shown or expected within the Washington State Department of Transportation long range plans. It was identified by the committee; however, as Pottery Avenue nears the overpass there is clearly a narrowing of useable right-of-way. Existing right-of-way and roadway sections indicated that the street would support consistent form and function with a continuity of design. Although this section of the corridor will require narrowed cross sections, including sidewalks, curb, median and bike lanes, preliminary analysis by the committee indicated that these improvements would be able to be located between the existing overpass structure abutments. The committee also expressed the desire for rolled sidewalk curbs to facilitate fire equipment to be mountable on the sidewalk if the need arises. North of the Highway 16 overpass, the existing right-of-way again widens to accommodate a greater width of infrastructure improvements, but the committee acknowledged that the larger tracts of land have been developed recently and individual sidewalks may need to be revised to meet Corridor Plans objectives. Pottery Avenue from Lippert Drive north to South Kitsap Blvd — Much of this section of the corridor was recently developed and on the east side of the right-of-way, sidewalks have been installed with curb and gutter. It was recommended and supported by the committee that the plan include a left turn lane for accessing onto South Kitsap Boulevard to allow automobiles who are waiting to turn left a place to stage without impeding the flow of traffic traveling north. It was identified by the committee that a traffic signal or three way stop sign at this intersection would not be warranted within the analysis of the plan. The committee acknowledged that at some point in the future, traffic conditions may change and a signalized intersection or stop signs may be required. Draft: September, 2009 Page 12 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhiit } SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 36 of33B Pottery Avenue from South Kitsap Blvd north to Tremont Street — Sidewalks were recommended by the committee to be installed through this section of the corridor with bike lanes. It was identified that the existing right-of-way within this portion of the corridor would not be sufficient to accommodate a continuation of a landscaped center island. The recommendation included for the existing two-lane roadway section to be maintained with improvements to sidewalks and provisions for bike lanes. Section-4.3 ALTERNATIVE- 3 Alternative 3 is the end product of a process where several factors and goals were considered and assimilated into a proposal and vetted with input from City staff in regards to the update of the transportation capital facilities plan. All three alternatives have been identified to provide what the committee viewed as a balance between competing interests and interests expressed by the stakeholders. The competing interests include, future transportation needs as the area develops, f t f i h'Id t' t d f sae y o c ren cmm ou ing u an rum schools, general aesthetics of the corridor, providing the development community with consistency of requirements, meeting the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to reduce dependence on automobiles and complete a trail system for pedestrians and bicycle riders alike, and above all, realistic designs that could actually be constructed. Sidney Road from Berry Lake Road south to Sedgwick Road Between Berry Lake Road and Sedgwick Road, it was determined by the sib -committee that a three -lane roadway would meet the needs of the developing region until well past the year 2025. However, the committee also wanted to ensure that future development would not preclude the roadway from Berry Lake road south to Sedgwick Road from ultimately being widened to five lanes. Both options of three or five lanes were recommended to include a center planting strip with turn pockets where necessary for combined accesses into the developments. Draft: September, 2009 Page 13 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B -••' -} SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN page 37 of 332 AT The committee recommended a three lane roadway design that would include a five- foot sidewalk, five foot planting strip, 5 foot bike lane, then an 11 foot wide driving lane3, an 12 foot center planting median with turn pockets, an 11 foot driving lane, a 5 foot planting strip then along the westerly edge of the right-of-way, a planting strip and a 10 foot wide multi -model trail. The aforementioned requirements would put future right-of- way requirements between 67 and 80 feet in width. Similar to the other alternatives, the issue arose regarding the committee's desired goal to maintain the flexibility for a possible expansion of the corridor to five lanes was consistently expressed as a concern. Specifically, conflicts with Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) Section 16.55 Design Guidelines were identified. This section of municipal code identifies general design guidelines that upon development, buildings are oriented to maintain a direct pedestrian connection to the entrances street -side with an encouragement for parking to be screened from the public right of way and oriented in the rear of the buildings. The committee recognized for specific municipal code revisions to POMC Section 16.55 would be necessary to addressed conflicts and ensure the city wide general design guidelines were supportive of the vision, goals, and elements of the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan. Traffic Controls — The sub- committee recommends that provisions for a round -a -bout be made at the intersection of Hovde Road and Sidney Avenue with the possibility of the by-pass to being constructed as shown on the alternative-3 map. Similar to the other alternatives, additional committee discussion revolved around the expected traffic improvements on Sedgwick and Highway 16 noting that it would become a four-way signal providing a secondary access point for development parcels adjacent to the Sidney Road corridor. The committee expressed their desire for a by-pass access road from Sedgwick Road intersection to the south and with an alignment parallel to Highway 16, terminating with an intersection with 3 It may be noted that additional road width beyond the committee recommendations may be required to satisfy Fire District requirements. Draft: September, 2009 Page 14 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhi } SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 38 0b33B Hovde Road to the north. Upon construction, the committee desired a round -a -bout to allow traffic to enter safely onto Sidney road without impeding traffic in the way a traffic signal would. The increased traffic flow expected from the build out of the commercial areas will require a pedestrian signal at the corner of Birch Street and Sidney Road. The sub- committee was especially concerned regarding the safety of students from the Junior High School and the Elementary school that both abut Sidney Avenue. With the improved roadway design it is expected that more youth will avail themselves of the bike lanes and safe walkways and get to school in ways other than motorized vehicles. In addition directly across from the elementary school are baseball fields that attract large number of youth. The pedestrian signal proposed would afford pedestrians a way to cross the street without fear of being in conflict with cars, busses and trucks. Berry Lake Road intersection — With the recently completed annexation of McCormick Woods and the potential of construction of 2,500 new homes, it is expected that existing traffic patterns will change substantially in the area of this intersection. In addition, the commercial development along the Sidney Corridor at build out is likely to become a destination for properties to the west, both in the city limits and out. Therefore, the committee recommended a three-way traffic signal at the Berry Lake intersection with Berry Lake Road being widened to allow a right turn lane. Pottery Avenue from Berry Lake north to Lippert Drive — Just north of the Berry Lake intersection where Pottery Avenue passes underneath HWY 16, there are presently not any on -off ramps at the overpass and none are expected, however, as Pottery Avenue nears the overpass there is clearly a narrowing of useable right-of-way. Preliminary measurements indicate that the street can support in form and function a continuity of design, Although this section of the corridor will require narrowed and sidewalks, curb, median and bike lane can all fit between the existing hard overpass structure. North of the Highway 16 overpass, the useable right-of-way again widens but the larger tracts of land have been developed previously and sidewalks are sporadic and may need to be revised to meet Corridor Plans objectives. Pottery Avenue from Lippert Drive north to South Kitsap Blvd — Much of this section of the corridor was recently developed and on the east side of the right-of-way, sidewalks have been installed with curb and gutter. It was recommended and supported by the committee that the plan include a left turn lane for accessing onto South Kitsap Boulevard to allow automobiles who are waiting to turn left a place to stage without impeding the flow of traffic traveling north. It was identified by the Draft: September, 2009 Page 15 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 - n r Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 39 of 332 committee that a traffic signal or three way stop sign at this intersection would not be warranted within the analysis of the plan. The committee acknowledged that at some point in the future, traffic conditions may change and a signalized intersection or stop signs may be required. Pottery Avenue from South Kitsap Blvd north to Tremont Street — Sidewalks were recommended by the committee to be installed through this section of the corridor with bike lanes. It was identified that the existing right-of-way within this portion of the corridor would not be sufficient to accommodate a continuation of a landscaped center island. The recommendation included for the existing two-lane roadway section to be maintained with improvements to sidewalks and provisions for bike lanes. Draft: September, 2009 Page 16 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 40 of 332 CHAPTER-5 Lighting, Street Furniture, and Landscaping To help provide a continuity of design and a general boulevard appearance for the corridor, a component is street lighting and street furniture. Specific recommendations were not provided by the corridor plan committee however, the committee suggested that planning staff provide a recommendation for full consideration by the Planning Commission. Street Lighting - Street lighting should emphasize a relatively modern commercial area concept and at some point may also provide a basis for a unified theme or street character. The intent of the requirements of this corridor plan are to ensure that subsequent installations are consistent with the recommendations of the committee and this plan, While acknowledging that occasionally circumstances may require occasional deviations from this plan. To minimize utility costs to the city, all street lighting is intended to include solar power and energy efficient LED technologies. Street Furniture — Street furniture selection is similar to the street lighting. Street furniture provides a location for pedestrians to rest while waiting for public transit or to relax while walking the corridor and include public signage, garbage cans, bollards, bike racks, and similar pedestrian oriented facilities. The corridor is approximately two miles long. Benches and trash receptacles are encouraged to be located within half mile of each other in addition to locations required by Kitsap Transit. As with the street lighting, the intent of the requirements of this corridor plan are to ensure that subsequent installations are consistent with the recommendations of the committee and this plan, acknowledging that occasionally circumstances may require occasional deviations from this plan. Draft: September, 2009 Page 17 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 n Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 41 of 332 Landscaping and Street Trees — The majority of landscape areas have been recommended to be low growing native and drought resistance varieties. Grasses and sedges are encouraged. The preferred street tree has been recommended is a flowering cherry. This tree grows to a moderate height, is very successful in an urban transit environment, and has been a recommended tree specifically due to the less intrusive root system and limitation of future damage to sidewalks. Trees are encouraged to be evenly spaced at intervals of not more than thirty -feet. To maintain an aesthetically pleasing look for the corridor, there are opportunities to maximize the beneficial effects of soft-scaping in order to offset the visual effects of the built environment and hard-scapes. Any proposed future revisions to the landscaping code could include additional options for screening of parking areas and commercial buildings that will provide visual interest to blank walls. Draft: September, 2009 Page 18 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 °•'x,} SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 42 ob33B Chapter-6 Public Transportation Kitsap Transit - The City of Port Orchard is serviced by Kitsap Transit, which also services most of Kitsap County including the Cities of Bremerton, Poulsbo, and Bainbridge Island. Kitsap Transit has developed a long range plan which contains historic data regarding its operation, future and financial plans. As a part of its plan, Port Orchard has joined with the other cities in an inter -local agreement with Kitsap Transit to implement Adaptive Transportation Demand ` Management programs as required by the Washington Trip I&M Reduction Law of 1991 (SSHB F lose 1671). Under the agreement, Kitsap Transit is to ensure certification of consistency with the Metropolitan Transportation ' Plan requirements for r Transportation Demand Management programs. Meeting Transportation Goals — This corridor plan is in conformance with city's Comprehensive Plan, Transportation, Chapter 8. An important goal of this plan, in conformance with State and regional transportation policies, is to minimize the need to access this commercial center by single occupancy vehicles. As the commercial area along the corridor develops, it will become more important to partner with Kitsap Transit regarding route expansions that will meet the needs of residents that live, work and frequent retail stores in the southern portion of the corridor. (Glenwood south to Sedgwick) Existing senior housing along Pottery Avenue portion of the corridor and the potential for new multi -family units near the Sedgwick/Pottery intersection will help to provide the impetus for expansion of bus routes to and through the area. Each new commercial and multifamily development in the area of the Sidney/Pottery corridor will necessitate review by Kitsap transit who will then determine when an economic viability threshold in crossed for bus route expansion. Bicycle and Non -Motorized Considerations - In December of 2000, Kitsap County Department of Public Works developed the "Kitsap County Bicycle Facilities Plan". The Draft: September, 2009 Page 19 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 43 of 332 Bicycle facilities plan addresses the transportation component of the 1996 Greenways Plan and was initiated by the County, through the Kitsap County Department of Public Works (KCPW), in 2000 to further refine and focus efforts towards developing and expanding a comprehensive system and to strengthen bicycling as a viable, safe, attractive form of alternative transportation. This Sidney/Pottery Corridor Study Plan and the installation of the proposed bicycle lanes throughout the corridor further enhances the goals and policies of the Kitsap County Bicycle Facilities Plan by including specific designs and interconnections to County bicycle facilities. Bus stops — Where necessary along the corridor, bus stops should be designed that provide protection from the elements, are comfortable and are well lit. Any new commercial and/or multi -family development designs should consider and make provisions for non -motorized access to and from the development projects. In addition, bus stops should be designed in such a way that a bus can pull out of the traffic flow to safely pick up and drop off passengers. Appropriate signage should be included showing routes and pick-up times. Draft: September, 2009 Page 20 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 n Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 44 of 332 CHAPTER-7 Implementation A significant challenge to implementation of the Corridor Plan includes financing of the individual components of the plan. As with many projects during design and construction, a clear path to implementation of the plan is required to ensure that plan design with real end results is the product of the efforts. During development of the Corridor Plan a reoccurring theme was that either the city must be the lead in improving the roadway or at the very least developers must be provided with certainty the requirements for infrastructure along the corridor to maintain a consistent incremental approach to the construction concurrently when development occurs. There are four primary efforts identified by the committee that will aid with the implementation of this Corridor Plan. • Secure Federal and State Transportation funding — Obtaining funds from Federal and State agencies are anticipated to be cyclical and are recommended as a primary source of ongoing infrastructure improvement capital to help complete the implementation of the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan. • Public/Private Partnerships —Provide means for developers to participate in the construction of roadway improvements in conformance with city road designs and dedicate the appropriate amount of right-of-way in conformance with preliminary road -way designs as mitigation for project specific impacts and to contribute to regional traffic system improvements. • Local Improvement District — Provide a mechanism for property owners benefitting from improvements to agree to pay a proportionate share of the improvements. • Impact fees — Include installation of impact fees as a mechanism for new development to contribute to the system improvements required for roads and transportation infrastructure and facilities. • Capital Facilities Funds — Designate specific City funds to priority projects, such as the Sidney / Potter corridor improvements. Draft: September, 2009 Page 21 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 45 Of 332 In addition to the above potential funding sources, identify additional grant opportunities that may be available for road improvements from the state county and Federal Governments that would be available as additional funding sources. For a project of this size and scope, all of the described funding sources will most likely be utilized. Additionally the Port Orchard transportation capital facilities plan update may provide for a more definitive description of the city-wide implementation plan. Draft: September, 2009 Page 22 of 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B SIDNEY/POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN Page 46 of 332 CHAPTER-8 APPENDICIES Appendix 1: Maps and Alternatives Appendix 2: Public Meeting Notes Appendix 3: Engineering Data and Statistics Appendix 4: Public Notices and Comments Appendix 5: Street Furniture Alternatives Draft: September, 2009 Page 23 of 23 0 dw ■ L --A'- Melin-e-R-d-SE � r I& .-20DI3 Mqitaf;lcbo jq 0- T Ole Allis ti nan e No. 0 4-09 bit B e 9 f 332 .a�eM 0ret b 80 bound le - ur cket Fut our-w y signal • 80 feet w'°^ � g O TIIIIII e -w si al � o ery a Lion 0 fee iAn do t P d trian si nal N 0) U N O 01 N Y O s o sib u 58� U L d 70 ire< a) I .. Fut a Fo r- Sig I f City of Port Orchard Sidney/Pottery t u d y Area • Urban Growth Area N Subcommittee Recommendations fi�mel;e=pmeaa��re.a�es. W E �e �plpgrfiem�r W�erm.oep�m�...11eble. S dthr.rap �alumen esp , Ih:pmEumcifine uex ppnelblIV far tlele mining Ib Thinmfle, br I. asub dWMfieb curve. Alternative 1 0 gos oz e3 0,r ina e 0. 34-09 ibit B ag 50 of 332 .a�eM ores b 80 bound le - ur cket Fut our-w y signal • 90 feet � P O T e -w si al o ery a Lion 0 fee idn do t P d trian si nal N N 0) U N O N N U O 56 feel r6 C cc C U L C 0S 70 feet F— = City of Port Orchard Sidney/Pottery t u d y Area • = Urban Growth Area N Subcommittee Recommendations fi�mel;a=am,aa��re.a�eaa W E �a �,IpgWam�r W�arm.o,a�maa..allabla. S MIMa trap �alumen es p , Ih:pmEuocfine u:ar panalblIV far tlele mining Ib Thia m�e iarmla sub—WMfieb aurva. Alternative 2 0 O..y 0z e3 0Milea r i ice o 034-0 xhibit P 0143, .a�eM 0ret b 80 bound le - ur cket Fut our-w y stop • 80 feet � g O T e -w si al � o ery a Lion 0 fee idn do t P d trian si nal N N oun about 0) U ede N Y O s o sib u 5gfeet cc U L d 70 ire< a) I .. Fut a Fo r- Sig I = City of Port Orchard Sidney/Pottery t u d y Area • = Urban Growth Area N Subcommittee Recommendations fi�mel;a=am,aa��re.a�eaa. W E �a �,IpgWam�r W�arm.o,a�maa..allabla. S MIMa trap �alumen es p , Ih:proEuocfine u:ar panalblIV far tlele mining Ib l fle, for I. i--d usa Thl. ma mmla pub—WMfieb aurva. Alternative 3 0 O..y 0z e3 0Milea SIDNEY - POTTERY City of 11 Port Orchard May 27, 2009 R PLAN: APPENDIX 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 52 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Department CITY HALL • 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4991 • FAX (360) 876-4980 Dear Sidney/Pottery Subcommittee Members, Thank you to everyone who has been involved in this subcommittee so far. I felt that our first meeting was very productive. Our next meeting is June 3, 2009 so I am including some attachments for your consideration and future discussions. I will have handouts of the attachments available at the meeting but I thought that I would send them to you so that you'll have time to formulate some ideas, questions and solutions to the development in the corridor. I have taken many of the things we discussed in the last meeting and put them to paper, in addition, I have asked Mark Dorsey, City Engineer, to attend the meeting so he can answer the nuts and bolts question of engineering principles. We will try to stay focused on aspects of the corridor study that we have been charged with by the City Council and in doing so we can advance the study. Attachments: 20090526 Sidney pottery draft signalization; This is a map of the corridor study area showing the locations of signalizations we discussed and other possible locations where traffic controls may be necessary. In addition, as discussed, the corridor study area has been divided into two areas, the Sidney section and the Pottery section. Draft Sidney cross section; This draft cross section is for the Sidney section of the corridor study. I think that it meets what the committee recommendations were for the roadway including an asymmetrical design with a multi -purpose trail on the west side of right of way that keeps bicyclists out of the traffic lane, with a sidewalk on the east. 20090606 subcommittee meeting memo; This attachment are the notes from the previous subcommittee meeting. This memo was presented to the Planning Commission at their last regular meeting. We will need to go over it to correct any miss -statements that may be included in the document. Proposed Agenda for June 3rd meeting; 1. Briefly discuss the meeting notes from the May 6t" meeting. 2. Discuss possible road sections for the Pottery section of the corridor plan. 3. Obtain the City Engineer's input on varied aspects of the study plan and refine signalization. 4. Types and locations of street trees. 5. Preliminary street furniture discussions. I'll send out one more email approximately 24 hrs prior to the meeting as a reminder. See you there. Tom Bonsell Associate Planner (360) 876-4991 SIDNEY - POTTERY C RRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 53 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Department La r �J r CITY HALL • 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4991 • FAX (360) 876-4980 City of Port Orchard r Subcommittee Meeting Summary To: Sidney/Pottery Subcommittee From: Thomas Bonsell, Associate Planner Date: July 8, 2009 Subject: Goals and actions A special thank you to those subcommittee members those were able to make our last meeting on July 8, 2009. Also a thank you to those who have attended any of the subcommittee meetings and helped the committee to formulate some design alternatives for the Sidney/Pottery Corridor. The following are the notes as I remember them from the meeting and some that came in later If I missed anything important please email me back with the information so I can give an accurate representation of committee recommendations and concerns. No. Goal or action Action/concern Solution 1. Provide a realistic roadway design that If plans are too Reduce does not put too onerous a burden on the grandiose, project will recommended developers or on city finances. end up like Bethel and roadway from five never get constructed. lanes as previously discussed to three lanes. 2. Committee wants to ensure that road Concerns that road Have the city be the way in whatever configuration is will end up like lead for construction constructed. Bethel, nice plans but by traffic fees or LID. no construction. Developers want consistency of construction requirements. 3. Have practical and Public works Prior to final selection Yoshino Flowering approved street trees of street trees get Cherry and existing SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 recommendation from ol trees in median near P/W. Jr. High School. 4. Are three lane cross sections shown Subcommittee will Conversation with approved by Fire District check with Fire Greg Rogers (Fire Department. Marshal) revealed that when Islands are utilized, Fire wants 20 feet of asphalt unless a waiver is ranted. 5. Planning should include site design so If five lanes are Look at revising the city doesn't have to pay for required in the future, POMC Chapter 16.45 commercial right of way. site designs should (Design Guidelines) not allow buildings to so that parking can be be constructed within placed next to streets X number of feet of for future expansion right of way of roadway. Not Bethel. 6. Provide three viable alternatives Alternatives were They are in the created as discussed process of being in the subcommittee updated. meeting I think that is it, but if not let me know. Again thanks. Tom Bonsell Associate Planner (360) 876-4991 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B 54 of 332 SIDNEY - POTTERY C RRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 55 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Department La r �J r CITY HALL • 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4991 • FAX (360) 876-4980 City of Port Orchard r MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission From: Thomas Bonsell, Associate Planner Date: June 4, 2009 Subject: Sidney/Pottery Corridor Subcommittee meeting notes. No. Goal or Action Action/Concern Solution 1. Move cars efficiently and Concern was expressed over Although previous smoothly through number of traffic signals along discussions were against corridor. Sidney. round -bouts, committee decided one would be appropriate at Hovde and Sidney 2. Move cars efficiently and After annexation of McCormick Create five lanes from Berry smoothly through Woods, Traffic will increase Lake to Sedgwick instead of corridor. significantly along Berry Lake three. Rd. to Sed wick 3. Road sections need to be Road sections will be cleaned Create four road sections for specific to the Sections and put in Perteet study. different sections of the of the corridor (Possibly corridor. 4 will be needed) 4. Is the possibility of Are the two schools along the Contacted the school district school closure going to corridor going to remain or be to discuss the issue with the impact corridor plan? located? Cap Fac. Director Tom O'Brien. No change is expected for at least 7 Yrs. 5. Following the Committee wants to insure City engineer will set up recommendations of coordination with Perteet meeting with Perteet. Perteet Inc Studies Recommendations were discussed with Perteet on 6/4/2009. Additionally the SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 UE Subcommittee recommendations will be Alternative 1 and Perteet's will be alternative 2 6. Choosing street furniture Committee did not want to look Staff will provide at street furniture. alternatives for city council consideration. 7. Selection of street trees Would like recommendations Committee will provide from P/W for types and recommendations after placement internet research for City Council consideration. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B 560 332 SIDNEY - POTTERY C RRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 57 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Department La r �J r CITY HALL • 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4991 • FAX (360) 876-4980 City of ` Port Orchard I, Subcommittee Meeting Summary To: Sidney/Pottery Subcommittee From: Thomas Bonsell, Associate Planner Date: May 11, 2009 Subject: Goals and actions The Sidney/Pottery Corridor Study Plan subcommittee held its first meeting on Wednesday, May 6, 2009. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the transportation needs and create a series of recommendations to the Planning Commission. As the recently annexed commercial properties along the Sidney/Pottery corridor develop, it is important to have a consistency of roadway design to insure orderly development. The subcommittee meeting was productive and below are listed the primary issues that were discussed. The italics portions of the below matrix is subsequent information where research was warranted. These discussion points are still subject to change and will be further developed in subsequent meetings. The subcommittee will continue to meet on the 15t Wednesday of the month in June and July and is open to the public. The next meeting will be held on June 3rd, 2009 No. Goal or action Action/concern Solution 1. Move traffic as efficiently as possible for Obtain R/W for Roadway design for complete build out (beyond 2025). eventual lane corridor must show Number one issue. roadway. 80' R/W with agreement from Perteet: OK in Capital Facilities Plan (CFP 2. Committee wants to split corridor study Discuss potential No problems in doing into two corridor regions problem with Director so. SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 b. Move traffic as efficiently as possible for Is there any problems Check with Director: complete build out with requiring 4 lane As long total R/W R/W and constructing requested include full three lanes width of boulevard it is OK. 3. Obtain more R/W is ball park area Would ball fields Check with director have to move? Would for possibilities: R/W they be better served can move over to if relocated? supply R/W from who can provide 4. Construct two lane road with center turn If center has planting Check w/ P/W for lane strips, will city be availability of future able to maintain funds for maintenance: Suggest have community maintenance program (adopt a planter program). 5. No traffic circles on Sidney Pottery Not pedestrian Have statement as friendly such in CFP by Perteet 6. Need at least two intersections with Design light for Berry Have statement in traffic lights or signals Lake road and light or CFP in support all way stop for Lippert Drive. 7. Concerned about school agers and traffic Have flashing Have statement in calming measures through school zones pedestrian light at support in CFP and Birch shown on plans 8. Inconsistent speed limits Research possibility Discuss with P/W: Differing speeds limit are a result of City - County conflicts. 9. Have limited access to new commercial Create Ordinance Discuss with projects requiring shared Director: Not through access ordinance but in CFP 10. Create ULID to facilitate construction of Doesn't want this Check with P/W for improvements corridor to become a feasibility: P/W can Bethel Avenue create an improvement district for road construction, will be discussed at next meeting. 11. No parking on street Have supporting statement in CFP 12. Concerned about children riding bicycles Design joint Check with Director to school in traffic lane bike/pedestrian path to see if more grants to act as a trail are available is joint use trail is created as opposes to a bike lane Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B 58 of 332 SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B RA 59 of 332 sidewalk design: Non motorized joint use trail would be appropriate if it can at into R/W. 13. Possible 4 lane road to begin with Check with P/W Discussed at next subcommittee meeting 14. Concern with pedestrian crossings at Make provisions for Check with P/W for Tremont and Pottery pedestrians crossing plans. Design is in Tremont process, will be discussed at next subcommittee meeting, 15. Wants CFP to support Corridor Plans Discuss with P/W: recommendation. CFP will be influenced by subcommittee goals. 16. What is the county zoning designations County zoning map for the yet un-annexed portions of the will be provided at corridor. next subcommittee meeting 17. Need Kitsap Transit bus stops with pull Kitsap Transit does Show approximate outs not want pull outs, but locations for stops to maintain smooth and pull-outs. traffic flow, pull outs are necessary. JR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Ordinance No. 034-09 Planning Department artt Exhibit B Page 60 of 332 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Voice: (36o) 876-4991 • Fax: (36o) 876-498o planning@cityofportorchard.us www.cityofportorchard.us MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission From: Thomas Bonsell, Associate Planner Date: June 4, 2009 Subject: Sidney/Pottery Corridor Subcommittee meeting notes. The second of three meetings of the Sidney/Pottery Corridor Study Plan was held on June 4, 2009. The meeting was focused on the following items; 1. Briefly discuss the meeting notes from the May 6th meeting. 2. Discuss possible road sections for the Pottery section of the corridor plan. 3. Obtain the City Engineer's input on varied aspects of the study plan and refine signalization. 4. Types and locations of street trees. 5. Preliminary street furniture discussions. 1. A copy of the minutes from the last meeting was provided and reviewed by subcommittee members to insure that planning staff transcribed the notes ftom the meeting properly and that the main points discussed were documented for the record. 2. The subcommittee was provided with draft road sections for portions of Sidney and Pottery roads. The committee, under guidance of Mark Dorsey, City Engineer suggested that there may need to be as many as four different road cross sections for the corridor. The subcommittee also determined that Sidney Road ftom Berry Lake Road south to Sedgwick Road should in all likely -hood be five lanes. The subcommittee wanted revisions to the draft corridor map showing five lanes. 3. Discussions about refining the signalizations brought up concerns about too many signals and how this might negatively impact traffic flow. With the City Engineers guidance, the subcommittee determined that there not be a traffic light at Pottery and South Kitsap Blvd, only a north bound left turn lane, a four-way traffic light at Lippert and Pottery, a three-way traffic light at Berry Lake and Sidney, a pedestrian light at Birch and Sidney and a round- about at Hovde at such time an access by-pass road is built from Sedgwick to Hovde. 4. The subcommittee was given a list of potential street trees and was charged with looking them up on the internet and coming back next month with recommendations. 5. The committee felt it was unnecessary to look at street furniture so staff will provide some recommendations to the Planning Commission as a whole for consideration. SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 2 Attendees to the subcommittee were Bek Ashby, Annette Stewart, Pat Waters, Craig Baldwin, Fred Depee, and Gary Anderson et.al. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 61 of 332 Tom Bonsell, Darrell Fields, No. Goal or Action Action/Concern Solution 1. Move cars efficiently and Concern was expressed over Although previous smoothly through number of traffic signals along discussions were against corridor. Sidney. round -bouts, committee decided one would be appropriate at Hovde and Sidney 2. Move cars efficiently and After annexation of McCormick Create five lanes from Berry smoothly through Woods, Traffic will increase Lake to Sedgwick instead of corridor. significantly along Berry Lake three. Rd. to Sed wick 3. Road sections need to be Road sections will be cleaned Create four road sections for specific to the Sections and put in Perteet study. different sections of the of the corridor (Possibly corridor. 4 will be needed) 4. Is the possibility of Are the two schools along the Contacted the school district school closure going to corridor going to remain or be to discuss the issue with the impact corridor plan? located? Cap Fac. Director Tom O'Brien. No change is expected for at least 7 Yrs. 5. Following the Committee wants to insure City engineer will set up recommendations of coordination with Perteet meeting with Perteet. Perteet Inc Studies Recommendations were discussed with Perteet on 6/4/2009. Additionally the Subcommittee recommendations will be Alternative 1 and Perteet's will be alternative 2 6. Choosing street furniture Committee did not want to look Staff will provide at street furniture. alternatives for city council consideration. 7. Selection of street trees Would like recommendations Committee will provide from P/W for types and recommendations after placement internet research for City Council consideration. Ordinance No. 034-09 M X 0 z W d d Z J d w O O U W H H O a w z 0 Exhibit B Page 62 of 332 o% QJ .0 s- v v v v J ra LL � v v 17 J � N Qj Ui p v M X 0 z w d d Q s .3 ca 'i d Q i O t� O CU L O L CC G m CL .5 i .0 a m 5� L L a) J L CU s .3 C m J 6 vs, c0 c C 2 io R Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 63 of 332 M X 0 Z W a IL a U Co L N 70 C Cz N C (6 J N N L O O ti Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 64 of 332 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 65 of 332 M X 0 z w a d Q 4N -APPENDIX 4 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 66 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Department CITY HALL ■ 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4991 ■ FAX (360) 876-4980 Subject: Sidney/Pottery study area Dear Port Orchard Resident, Thank you for considering this letter. Recently, the city has annexed large tracts of undeveloped land along Sidney Road and the surrounding area. To that end, the city will be evaluating future traffic needs for the area and to maintain a continuity of design along Sidney/Pottery road from approximately three -hundred feet south of Sedgwick Avenue, north to the Tremont Street intersection. The city is looking for citizens who will participate during this three month public process and are willing to provide input and suggestions to accommodate the transportation needs of the area and help create an aesthetically pleasing corridor. You are invited to a Corridor Study sub -committee, formed to review the transportation & aesthetic elements of the roadway infrastructure while maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards that meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Meetings will be held once per month after hours in the city council chambers. The Corridor Sub -committee will have a formal kick-off meeting with the Planning commission on April 20tn 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Robert G. Geiger meeting room. At that meeting, there will be a sign up sheet for those persons who would like to be on the subcommittee. In Addition, there will be an opportunity for public comment, both written and oral. The Sidney/Pottery Corridor Plan Sub Committee will be made up of your friends and neighbors who are Port Orchard residents and who live, work or traverse through the Sidney/Pottery study Corridor. The Committee will meet monthly to discuss the needs of the corridor and develop a strategy for comprehensive and uniform pedestrian & roadway development along this arterial. The goals of the subcommittee will be to provide input for the roadway cross sections, street lighting, furniture and sidewalks, bicycle lanes, school zones, and location of transits stops. Although a difficult process, the subcommittee will be considering all the issues within the corridor study area and identifying ways to best accommodate the growth through a preliminary roadway that maintains continuity and aesthetics along the entire length of the corridor study area. After receiving the subcommittee's and the general public comments and suggestions, a corridor plan will be developed and brought to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. I look forward to receipt of your comment letters. Respectfully, Thomas Bonsell Associate Planner SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN - APPENDIX 4 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 67 of 332 0 Z, E U � c � O w v O O E m % v O E � L r O (a O v L i `u O U) Ln �O O p O (A L Y 3 0 o o c N O E a in 0 ko M a--+ 00 � O � L ac� E u a L (u O O- a--J O N -r- Q a 0 L O d 0 �' (a O U a cv a rl- U) E (] a 0 L O U a� O a a� -a in au c -0 a) -0 u O O -0 c o 0- 0 � z 'f EE} SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN - APPENDIX 4 From: Doug Johnson To: Thomas A. Bonsell; Subject: Bus Stop Standards Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:08:21 AM Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 68 of 332 Tom, Thanks for asking for our input regarding bus stops in the Pottery/Sidney area. I hope this answers most of your questions. Kitsap Transit prefers NOT to have turn -outs for our buses but just bus stops along the sidewalks. We generally try to locate bus stops about every two blocks or near major generators of foot traffic, like grocery stores, apartment complexes or other dense housing areas, etc. If there is room within the right- of-way, it's very nice if a concrete pad for a passenger waiting shelter is installed at the same time as the sidewalks. We prefer the pads to be 13' long by 6' deep but we can be flexible to some extent on that. The width of the sidewalk is a factor as well as the right-of-way available. We generally have two shelter sizes, one is 4' x 8' and the other is a canopy style where the side walls are 2' deep but the roof is 4' deep. This works in areas where there is limited space. The extra 5' of pad at the end of the shelter enables our ramp or lift for wheelchairs to deploy to load or unload wheelchair passengers. John Clauson, my supervisor and a Port Orchard council member, and I are always willing to meet with you to go over the plans and give you our input about where bus stops should be located. Currently, we do not have bus service in this area and with the economy the way it is, it might be a few years before we can expand our service to this area. If you have other questions or would like to meet with us, please don't hesitate to e-mail or call us. You have my e-mail address. My phone number is 478- 6224. John's number is 478-6223. Thanks again for thinking about Kitsap Transit in your planning, Doug Johnson Transit Planner SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 5 Planning Department 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Phone: (36o) 876-4991 • Fax: (36o) 876-498o planning@ cityofportorchard.us www.cityofportorchard.us Ordinance No. 034-09 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Exhibit B Page 69 of 332 Memo to Planning Commission for November 16, 2009 regular meeting The following are street furniture alternatives from local providers BENCHES Alternative - A Alternative - B CASCADE CA-2 Galleria GA-V1 SOL- " ' .. - . .. .. .. FaiAVmLhrn r. Alternative - C Alternative - D PL - 5 MT-3 SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 5 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 70 of 332 TRASH RECEPTICALS Alternative - A Alternative - B TR-16 TR-17 ?, . I� • * hL UAINIphi . {:I i.SS _ rtifwislr! pmyri} kAr:y\J1FJ�$ "-J F F ��`w Alternative - C Alternative - D TR-5 TR-2 M& I �k - i+ i k - - �5 I 1• SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 5 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 71 of 332 BICYCLE RACKS Alternative - A Alternative — B Br-1.5 BR-2 Alternative — C Alternative - D BG-3 BG-6.1 SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 5 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 72 of 332 BOLLARDS Alternative - A Alternative - B B — 1 UNLIGHTED B-4-8A2 UNLIGHTED Alternative - A Alternative - B B— 1— L LIGHTED B— 4— 5A2 L LIGHTED SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 5 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 73 of 332 TRENCH GRATES Alternative - A Alternative - B STA Series SLC Series r tiff I I1 f Alternative — C Alternative D CQR Series LPT Series ...... . . r J A Ilk. � SIDNEY - POTTERY CORRIDOR PLAN: APPENDIX 5 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit B Page 74 of 332 CITY PERFERRED CHOICES Alternative - C Alternative - A PL-5 TR-16 Alternative - A Alternative - A Br — 1.5 B — 1 UNLIGHTED r m Alternative - A Alternative - A B — 1 — L LIGHTED STA Series -'=: '-:.. -•`i�t ii •• ••ys.-Xr's'"�"Y=max .. I tit Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit C Page 75 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 009-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL. OF APPENDIX F AS A 2009 AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A requires that each city planning under GMA must periodically review, and, if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations every seven years to ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, with the passage of the Washington State Growth Management Act in 1990, developing communities are required to submit a comprehensive plan that outlines strategies to accommodate the needs of a growing population. It is intended for this comprehensive plan to be updated to reflect the changes in growth and boundaries of that growth including changes to zoning; and WHEREAS, in December 2008, the City of Port Orchard adopted a Comprehensive Plan update to the June 1995 Comprehensive Plan to satisfy the requirements set forth in the Growth Management Act to implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard seeks to be in compliance with the goals, policies, and procedures of the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, after proper notice, The Port Orchard Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 and considered public testimony to review, discuss, and deliberate on the proposed draft Comprehensive Plan Appendix F amendment. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1. On November 16, 2009, the Part Orchard Planning Commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing until December 1, 2009 on the proposed 2009 amendment to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Amendment "Appendix F" 2, The Planning Commission bases its finding and conclusions on all the testimony, oral or written, and exhibits submitted to the Commission. Any finding that should be deemed a Planning Commission Resolution 009-09 Page 1 of 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit C Page 76 of 332 conclusion, and any conclusion that should be deemed a finding, is hereby recommended as such. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY; The Port Orchard Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend emphatic denial of adopting Appendix F as an amendment to the 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update. CON L I NS Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Appendix F changes to the 2009 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan, are not consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Port Orchard hereby recommends that the City Council deny Appendix F as an amendment to the 2009 City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan, as expressed above. PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Port Orchard this 1st day of December, 2009. Lk.,L"=�w 9 Bek Ashby, Chairman ATTEST: V� Ja es Weaver, City Development Director Attachment: 1. Appendix F Planning Commission Resolution 009-09 Page 2 of 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 77 of 332 City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update November 2009 BHC Consultants LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 206-505-3400 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fred Chang John Clauson Fred Olin Larry Coppola Mayor City Council Robert Putaansuu James R Weaver, AICP City Development Director Prepared by: Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 78 of 332 Jerry Childs Jim Colebank Carolyn powers Mark R Dorsey, PE Public Works Director BHC Consultants LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 206-505-3400 This document was prepared under the direct supervision of the following: C Wilson PE ect Manger N bV WASgI r r� 39911 W� Gr S-V IONAL Adam Schuyler PE Project Engineer Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 79 of 332 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. PURPOSE 1.1 Need for Plan Update 1.2 Growth Management Compliance 1.3 System Responsibilities 2. GOALS AND POLICIES 2.1 Approach 2.2 Management 2.3 Cooperation and Coordination 2.4 Sewer System Design 2.5 Environmental Stewardship 2.6 Operations and Maintenance 2.7 Financial Policies 3. SEWER SERVICE AREA 3.1 Urban Growth Area 3.2 Existing City of Port Orchard Sewer System 3.3 McCormick Woods - ULID 6 3.4 South Kitsap Industrial Area 3.5 West Sound Utility District Facilities 3.6 Existing and Planned Drainage Basins 3.7 Topography 3.8 Water Features 3.9 Water Systems 4. PROJECTED POPULATION 4.1 Existing Population 4.2 Kitsap County Population and Employment Projections 4.3 Projected Growth Distribution by Basin 4.4 Industrial Connections 4.5 South Kitsap Industrial Area 5. WASTEWATER FLOWS 5.1 Historic Wastewater Flows 5.2 Existing Unit Flows 5.3 Peaking Factors 5.4 South Kitsap Industrial Area Projections 5.5 McCormick Woods 5.6 Sedgwick Road Developments 5.7 Projected Wastewater Flows Page 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 6 8 9 10 12 12 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 21 22 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 29 31 31 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 8o of 332 6. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM 6.1 Existing City Sewer Pipe System 34 6.2 Existing Sewer Pump Stations 34 6.3 Infiltration and Inflow 39 7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 7.1 Trunk Sewers Required for Build -Out 42 7.2 Pump Station Required for Build -Out 46 7.3 Trunk Sewers Required for 2025 46 7.4 Sewer Service Alternatives for SKIA 47 7.5 Satellite Treatment Alternatives 49 7.6 Conveyance Improvement Priorities 51 7.7 Proposed Interception Improvements 52 8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 8.1 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program 54 8.2 Planned Facilities for Build -Out Conditions 57 8.3 Sewer Extensions into Undeveloped Basins 57 9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 9.1 Financial Situation 59 9.2 Wastewater Funding Options 59 9.3 Sewer Rates 59 9.4 Sewer Capital Facilities Charge 59 9.5 Financial Summary of Sewer Operations 60 9.6 Affect of CIP on Sewer Rates 61 LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Existing Trunk Sewer Capacities 12 3-2 Marina Pump Station 13 3-3 Existing Pump Stations 13 3-4 McCormick Woods Land Use Designations 14 3-5 Sewer Basins 17 3-6 City of Port Orchard Water Facilities 19 4-1 Historic Population 21 4-2 Equivalent Residential Units for City Sewer System 21 4-3 City Population Served by City Sewers 22 4-4 Population and Employment by TAZ 23 4-5 Population and Employment by Basin 24 4-6 Industrial Structures 25 4-7 Marine Related Businesses 25 5-1 Marina Pump Station Flow Summary 26 5-2 Annual Average Daily Flow in MGD 27 5-3 Average Daily Flow per ERU 27 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 81 of 332 5-4 Wastewater Flow per Employee 28 5-5 Historic Peak Day Factor for City Sewer System 28 5-6 Projected Build -Out Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities 32 5-7 Projected 2025 Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities 33 6-1 Projected Conveyance Pipe Capacity Limitations 34 6-2 Projected Pump Station Capacity Limitations 35 6-3 Marina Pump Station Flow Summary 39 6-4 2007 Flow Comparison in GPD 40 7-1 Projected Pump Station Capacities Needed for Build -Out Conditions 46 7-2 Projected Facility Capacities Needed for 2025 Conditions 46 7-3 Sewer Improvements Revised for Reduced SKIA Flow 48 7-4 Potential Satellite Treatment Facilities 52 8-1 Capital Improvement Program 8-2 Funding of Capital Improvement Program 8-3 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program 55 56 57 9-1 Sewer Operations Financial Summary 60 LIST OF FIGURES All Figures Are Attached After Chapter Text 1-1 City of Port Orchard Location Map 1-2 Vicinity Map 3-1 Urban Growth Area 3-2 UGA Zoning 3-3 City of Port Orchard Zoning 3-4 Existing Sewer System 3-5 South Kitsap UGA/ULID #6 Sub -Area Plan 3-6 Sewer Basins & conveyance System 3-7 Ross Creek Stream Augmentation 3-8 Port Orchard & the South Kitsap Water Lines 3-9 Aquifer Recharge Areas 4-1 Kitsap County TAZ Map Excerpt 4-2 Transportation Analysis Zones 5-1 McCormick Woods Urban Village 8-1 Capital Improvement Program GLOSSARY ABREVIATIONS Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 82 of 332 APPENDICIES A SEPA Checklist B Public Hearing C City of Port Orchard & West Sound Utility District Agreement D Fact Sheet — Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant E Pump Station Site Visit, July 9, 2008, by John Freck PE, BHC Consultants F Pump Station Flow Evaluation G Trunk Sewer Capacities H Capital Cost Estimation Spreadsheets I Financial Documentation J Comments Received DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan 2007 City of Port Orchard 2007 Water System Plan City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Sewer Plan 2000 City of Port Orchard, SKIA Infrastructure Assessment & Technical Memorandum July 28, 2008 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Update, December 11, 2006 West Sound Utility District Sewer Comprehensive Plan, November 2007 Engineering Report Update, April 2002, City of Port Orchard & Karcher Creek Sewer District South Kitsap Industrial Area Plan, September 30, 2003 City of Bremerton, Financial Assessment, SKIA Area Annexation, June 16, 2008 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 83 of 332 GLOSSARY 100-year flood: The magnitude of a flood likely to occur, on average, once every 100 years. Average Wet Weather Flow: Wastewater flow during period when groundwater table is high and precipitation is at its peak, generally from October to May in the Sultan area. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): Measure of the biodegradable material in a wastewater sample by the amount of oxygen used by waste -consuming organisms over 5- days. Bioselector: Process component in beginning of wastewater treatment train wherein air and nutrients are kept at a level to select for the most desirable organisms to biodegrade the organic materials in the wastewater. Class `A' Reclaimed Water: An oxidized, coagulated, filtered, disinfected wastewater with the median number of total coliform organisms not exceeding 2.2 per 100 milliliters and the maximum number of total coliform organisms in any one sample not exceeding 23 per 100 milliliters. Class 1 Stream: A perennial or intermittent stream that is used by threatened or endangered fish or larger numbers of other fish, or that is used as a direct source of water for domestic use. Infiltration: Groundwater entering the sewage collection system through defective joints, pipes, and improperly sealed manholes. Inflow: Sewage flows resulting from stormwater runoff entering the sewage collection system, typically through manhole covers, roof leaders, and area drains connected directly to sewer, cross connections from storm drains and catch basins, and direct flows into broken sewers. Maximum Monthly Flow: Average daily flow during the highest flow month of the year. National Flood Insurance Program: Federally funded program providing flood insurance to property owners in flood plains; provided the local government meets certain criteria for management of flood damage risk. Orange Book: Criteria for Sewage Works Design, published by the Washington State Department of Ecology Oxidation Ditch: Activated sludge wastewater treatment system wherein wastewater is pumped around an oval using a surface aerator. Peak Hourly Flow: Wastewater flow during the highest flow hour. Polymer: Chemical mixed with sludge to enhance coagulation in the dewatering process. Sensitive Area: Area in which development potential is limited by environmental factors such as steep slopes, cultural resources, wetlands, and valuable natural habitat. Secondary Clarifier: Large quiescent tank in which activated sludge is directed into a center hopper and clear effluent is discharged over a weir. Sewer Lateral: A sewer from a sewer main to serve one or more customers with no other common sewers discharging into it. Sewer Submain: A sewer that receives flow from one or more sewer lateral. Sewer Main or Trunk: A sewer that receives flow from one or more submains. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 84 of 332 Sewer Interceptor: A sewer that receives flow from a number of main or trunk sewers, force mains, etc. Total Suspended Solids: Measure of the total of biodegradable and non -biodegradable solids in wastewater. UV Disinfection: Disinfection of clarified treated sewage effluent by exposure to ultraviolet radiation using banks of lamps suspended in a narrow effluent channel. ABBREVIATIONS AWWF Average Wet Weather Flow BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CWA Clean Water Act DOE Washington State Department of Ecology DOH Washington State Department of Health EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act FPS Feet per second FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("The Clean Water Act") GPCD Gallons per capita per day GPAD Gallons per acre per day GPD Gallons per day HPA Hydraulic Project Approval I & I Infiltration and Inflow MGD Million Gallons per Day mg/L Milligrams Per Liter NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCD Washington State Office of Community Development OFM Washington State Office of Financial Management PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RCW Revised Code of Washington SRF State Revolving Fund TSS Total Suspended Solids USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UV Ultraviolet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 85 of 332 Four areas are authorized for sewer service in and around the City of Port Orchard including: area within the existing city limits, the expanded City urban growth area (UGA), the South Kitsap UGA/ULID #6, and potentially the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA). Responsibility for providing sewer service within this geographic area is shared between the City sewer utility and the West Sound Utility District. This Plan identifies the additional sewer facilities required by the City to provide sewer service within that part of the UGA that is the City's responsibility; and to confirm the commitment by the City to provide the sewer service in a timely manner. For purposes of planning future needs, Kitsap County has divided the entire County into Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ). Population and employment for each TAZ has been projected by the County for the year 2025 and at build -out under current land use plans with the UGA boundaries as presently defined. This Plan identified the TAZ affecting the defined UGA, and where some City sewer responsibility exists. The County 2025 and build -out population and employment projections were extracted for these TAZ. In many cases only part of a TAZ would receive sewer service, and be served by City sewers. Populations and employment projections were apportioned from these TAZ, recognizing that most development would occur within the UGA where parcels receive sewer service. Historic City records for wastewater flow sent from the Marina Pump Station to the treatment facility operated at Karcher Creek by the West Sound Utility District were reviewed. Annual average day wastewater flows were identified and the unit flow attributable to a typical City resident or employee were determined from past population records. Average day wastewater flows for 2025 and build -out conditions were projected. The historic ratio of peak day flow to annual average at the Marina Pump Station was established. The peak flow for 2025 and build - out conditions was projected. The potential sewer service area tributary to the City sewer system was divided into sewer basins based on drainage topography and existing sewer service patterns. Existing trunk sewers and principal pump stations conveying wastewater from and through these basins were identified. City records were reviewed to determine the peak hour capacity from the existing pumping capacities plus the tributary pipe sizes and slopes, which then indicated existing peak hour trunk capacity. Projected peak hour flow in each trunk under build -out conditions was compared with existing capacity available. Where additional capacity will be needed, the added trunk sewer size was identified. Capacity needs for 2025 were then compared with existing capacity and with build - out needs to establish trunk sewer upgrade priorities. These improvements total about $ 14,800,000. Approximately $ 6,170,000 is projected to be funded within the next six years by the City. Additional improvements may be funded by property development as well as the new collector sewer extensions. The annual average day flow for 2025 is projected to be about 1.47 MGD, and adequate treatment capacity will be built. A variety of funding options are available to the City to implement the required improvements. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 1. PURPOSE Exhibit F Page 86 of 332 1.1 Need for Plan Update A number of changes have occurred within the City vicinity since the last Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan was prepared in 2000. This 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update has been prepared as one step in demonstrating compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). 1.2 Growth Management Compliance Figure 1-1 shows the location of the City of Port Orchard in relation to the Puget Sound area. Existing wastewater treatment facilities within 20 miles of the City are also indicated. The immediate vicinity surrounding the City of Port Orchard and the urban growth area (UGA) assigned to the City plus the South Kitsap UGA and potentially the SKIA is shown in Figure 1-2. This Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan shows how sewer service will be extended throughout that portion of the UGA that is the responsibility of the City of Port Orchard. 1.3 System Responsibilities The City of Port Orchard operates a sewer collection and interception system within part of the UGA assigned to the City. Portions of the area within the existing city limits are served by this sewer system, as are some areas outside the current city limits. West Sound Utility District also operates sewer collection facilities serving part of the UGA including some portions within the current city limits for Port Orchard. District boundaries are shown on Figure 1-2. Wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are operated by the West Sound Utility District for both the City and the District under an inter -local agreement defining responsibilities and financial obligations. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 2 • r -- T' �• :oil v 0 0 0 �v 4K T• �t nil llllm Gi , -li-lq ie ' °I4" ...A1.911l €II Illlii1AMR. r: i_:i :: ;!!li 1111.t111 ''ill. -_ Vi1 • - P'•illi T _„ Al,,,,a";III. I I ■ I�� � 1�'1 I III �^ .1 T 4 x!nR � 1 In! tih n 'IM TJ"- hill • • • I - •l• hrlltl�r��li;'I,�I,'rCl,: i '�•L' � 'iv ilYi: 1 •� I illy . T I n A NIA - ii1':: •� 6?:::sf T Oil! T �€ aT }Y; • I Lsy°i 31 111.5 y _ •III a_ T ; I.:: �' �'L,'+q kR - 1 •eiiii a7 lens-y�l.i►�Ii�E IIr�� IMP EVE IlE McNeil island rzk=lair Ilh�■ I - - ' ,Y [, - T M II]IrX e_ar 11 T �. • T-nls+� F mg 7 �y • s_ -, .Lx =E ._: __ 1, Iapa! I f�E31L7KJ r SI��F''£ imp iii. Legend Comprehensive Sanitary p Treatment Plants `- - ' Sewer Plan Update This map is a geographic representation based on information City of Port Orchard // !'.' -: -. \'.� r: Cityof Port Orchard WA available. It does not represent surveydata. No vrarrany is _� made concemng the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. — Counties \\ -% Location Map MAP DATE AUGUST 2008; UPDATED NOVEMBER 2009 Water Bodies Miles Y`rr Ch-b�,J 0 P.NAappi,gNAa(»_Genere[ed,Pat OrcFerApgacra\0]-10�fi.01\005,maPa\i-1 Ytlnty MaPmxtl 2.5 5 Freeways Figure 1-1 mmo■■w • ■ too", opq iF7 � ay.. tu�o :....,wa _..ram . . � f �II�����r® �G �� ��� r'111pL\n.�lili=JW-701--a�r �:: ;�■�:r -� �t �r«�1�1•��l'r,�1i.., �ti���h�l���� ��n:.5 !�IIIIIIIL�::R�.�� �. ��.1���==' �.1 ■ �• Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 2. GOALS AND POLICIES Exhibit F Page 89 of 332 2.1 Approach City of Port Orchard manages and operates their sewer system in accordance with all known state, local and federal regulations. The policies and criteria described in this chapter are established by the City to provide a framework for the planning, design, operation, and management of the system. Used together, policies and criteria provide the desired level of service to sewer utility customers. While the City has many policies related to the City Customers and Public Infrastructure, these policies are provided to seek goals of uniform treatment to all City customers, today and in the future. These policies are limited to those things related to the sewer system and its design and operation. While the City has discretion in setting performance and design criteria and standards for its sewer system, the criteria set must meet or exceed the minimum standards for public sewers as set forth by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) through Chapters 90.48, 90.52, and 90.54 RCW. The criteria focus on planning, design parameters, and other details that have been developed to establish consistency and to ensure that adequate levels of service are provided throughout the system. The criteria also provides the planning process with measuring tools to identify any areas of the existing system that need to be improved to achieve the desired level of customer service. Other publications such as the Developer's Handbook, 2004, and the Sewer System Design Standards document the design standards and procedures for development of the sewer system. The Goals and Policies documented in the Chapter are drawn from existing City documentation, with such statements shown in regular type. New statements added through this Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update are shown in italics. Accordingly the City of Port Orchard establishes the following goals for sewer service: Goal 1: Provide safe, reliable and timely sewer service to its consumers at a fair and reasonable price. Goal 2: Provide reliable levels of service and ensuring adequate capacity within the sewer system by upgrading the system to protect the natural environment, as deemed necessary. Goal 3: Ensure that sewer system infrastructure expansion provides an adequate level of public service to support new development consistent with the City s policies, criteria, and standards. In addition, sewer system expansion should also be consistent with current land use plans and development regulations of the State of Washington, Kitsap County, and appropriate local planning agencies. In order to achieve these goals, the City has developed the policies and criteria presented herein. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 3 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page go of 332 1. Service Area, Extensions, and Service Ownership. Service area and extension policies define the sewer service area and conditions for service extension within those boundaries. The customer service policies define the level of service provided to sewer utility customers, as well as public and private ownership and responsibility for sewer system components. City will provide sewer service to that part of the urban growth area not within the West Sound Utility District sewer service area. 2. Coordination/Cooperation with Other Agencies. These policies summarize the City's willingness to coordinate and cooperate with other agencies, as well as to enter into interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions for the provision of sewer service. 3. Sewer System Design. The sewer system design policies and criteria detail the City's design standards for sewer system infrastructure necessary facilities required to provide safe, continuous sewer service. 4. Environmental Stewardship. These policies outline the City's dedication to develop and implement facilities and programs that will protect the environment. 5.Operation and Maintenance Standards. The City's operation and maintenance standards define the Operation's Plan and Maintenance Program for the sewer utility infrastructure. 6. Financial. This section summarizes the City's general financial policies and criteria to create and maintain a self-supporting utility through sewer rate structures, connection charges and capital improvement financing. 2.2 Management Service area and extension policies define the sewer service area and conditions for service extension within those boundaries. The customer service policies define the level of service provided to sewer utility customers, as well as public and private ownership and responsibility for sewer system components. Service Area The City of Port Orchard should plan for and provide sewer service to property within the City limits and within the established boundaries of Kitsap County ULID #6, as agreed upon by West Sound Utility District and the City. The City should provide sewer service to property outside the City limits but within the Urban Growth Area, subject to annexation unless otherwise approved by the City Council. If the property is outside an Urban Growth Area, the City should not provide sewer service unless the Kitsap County Health District requests such service for health reasons or unless the service existed prior to the establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 4 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Agreements Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 91 of 332 The City should establish agreements with neighboring utility districts, cities, and Kitsap County for the provision of sewer services. These agreements will establish a defined sewer service area for the City. The City has established an agreement with Karcher Creek Sewer District (formerly Sewer District #5) for the District to operate and maintain treatment and discharge facilities serving the City of Port Orchard and the Sewer District. West Sound Utility District is now responsible for the Karcher Creek agreements. The City has established (1994) an agreement with Kitsap County regarding sewer system extension from ULID #6. The City agrees to accept wastewater flow from properties within ULID #6 and as out -of -city customers per terms of the agreement and upon conditions consistent with the rules, regulations and resolutions governing the City. Wastewater shall be conveyed from ULID #6 to the treatment plant using City owned transmission mains. The City shall assess a fee to latecomers to ULID #6 to connect to the system. Service Extensions All homes and businesses within 200 feet of a sewer main that have failing on -site systems and are within the urban growth area shall connect to that main. Sewer system service extensions should be allowed to provide sewer service within the City's sewer service area if the development is consistent with adopted development polices and all sewer utility policies and criteria. The proponent's development may require an improvement as described in the comprehensive plan that shall be made at the cost of the proponent. If the City makes a determination that the proponent's development requires system upgrades beyond any upgrade planned by the City and/or before a scheduled capital project, the upgrades shall be made at the cost of the proponent. Said extensions should be installed pursuant to Methods 1, 2, or 3 as described below. Local Improvement Districts - Method 1 The Local Improvement District is the conventional means to provide sewer facilities. This allows the new customer to share the cost of the improvement and to finance the expense over a long period of time, such as 20 years. It may eliminate most up -front costs to the new customer. A property owner may petition for the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) orUtility Local Improvement District (ULID) to install an extension to the City s sewer system. The property owner may request the City Council authorize a petition for formation of the ULID or the property owner may request formation of a ULID by Resolution of the City Council. Upon successful completion of the required steps to form the ULID as prescribed by statute, the City should proceed with the construction of the facilities. All costs of design, construction, and associated ULID requirements, shall be borne by assessments to the benefited properties within the ULID. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Developer Financed with Reimbursement - Method 2 Page 92 of 332 The City provides for Developer Extension Agreements, as per Ordinance 1587. The Developer Extension Agreement allows the developer to recoup a specific cost from specific properties when those properties connect to the improvement that the developer has financed. The agreement cannot be accepted by the City until there is a public hearing to allow all affected parties the opportunity to participate in the discussions. Developer Financed without Reimbursement - Method 3 When the developer decides not to request a public hearing and a Developer Extension Agreement, then the cost of the improvement is borne by the developer. Service Ownership The portion of any side sewer pipe from the main to the edge of street right-of-way or sewer easement shall be kept within exclusive control of the City. The portion of the side sewer and any associated appurtenances beyond said right-of-way or sewer easement shall be the responsibility of the sewer customer or property owner served by the pipe. 2.3 Cooperation and Coordination These policies summarize the City's willingness to coordinate and cooperate with other agencies, as well as to enter into inter -local agreements with neighboring jurisdictions for the provision of sewer service. Regional/County Participation The City should support and participate in applicable regional planning efforts with Kitsap County to provide and maintain a reliable and adequate sewer system. Mutual Aid The City will investigate opportunities in mutual aid agreements with adjacent jurisdictions, including the state-wide WA -WARN mutual aid program, to provide personnel and equipment to each other upon request for assistance during a disaster or emergency. 2.4 Sewer System Design The sewer system design policies and criteria detail the City's design standards for sewer system infrastructure necessary facilities required to provide safe, continuous sewer service. In accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, the City should design its sewer system facilities with sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak daily flow under normal conditions during at least a 5-year storm event without any overflows to the environment. If the sewer system facilities must be installed or upgraded as a result of a developer's impacts, Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 6 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 93 of 332 the new facilities or upgrades shall conform to the City's policies, criteria and standards and shall be accomplished at the developer's expense. The City, however, shall be responsible for any portion of the costs that are attributable to general facilities such as over -sizing or over -depth requirements. The City complies with the standards of the American Public Works Association and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Main Line Requirements The minimum diameter for gravity collector pipes shall be 8 inches, unless specifically exempted by the City Engineer. Pipe sizes larger than 8 inches may be required for major conveyance or interceptor lines and trunks. The pipe size selection shall consider the design flow, design slope, pipe material and roughness, cleaning equipment available to the City and normal maintenance scheduling. In cases of proximity near water mains, the sewer main shall: 1) be lower than the water main, 2) be at least 10 feet from the water main, if the pipes are parallel, and 3) be at least 36 inches below the water main if the pipes cross. Detecting tape with wire for underground locates shall be installed over all non-metallic sewer mains and laterals. The tap shall be 1 foot above the pipe and extend its full length. Sewer mains shall be televised prior to acceptance. The main shall hold 5 psi for 15 minutes. Sewer Stub Service Requirements The minimum diameter for sewer service line shall be 4 inches. One or two dwelling units can be served with a 4-inch sewer service line. Otherwise the minimum diameter shall be 6 inches for up to six dwelling units. Sewer service to seven or more dwelling units shall have an 8-inch sewer main extension. Each single-family residence, apartment or other building shall have its own sewer lateral from its building to the sewer main. Two laterals may be connected at the right of way to be served by one service line to the main. Cleanouts are required at the right of way and by the building being served by sewer. The cleanout shall be flush with the final grade. Manholes Manholes shall be provided at a minimum of 400 feet. In addition, manholes will be installed at locations where the pipe diameter of the main increases and where the main changes grade and or direction and/or intersections of sewer mains. All new manholes shall be water tight and grouted from both the outside and inside. Manholes shall be provided at the beginning of a new sewer main, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Sewers shall have uniform slope between manholes. Exhibit F Page 94 of 332 The manhole diameter shall be 48 inches. The bottom of the manhole shall be formed to provide for a channel of flow. Joints between the precast units shall have rubber gaskets and shall be grouted. Inside drops are acceptable in existing manholes. All drops will be extended to the floor of the manhole and directed into the channel flow. Pump Stations Pumped systems may be used only when construction of gravity system is not feasible. Pumped systems shall be design in accordance with DOE'S "Criteria for Sewage Works Design" and the City's current Sewer Design Standards. The City has established control panel requirements to maintain operational consistency. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, all pump stations shall be duplex submersible pump installations with on -site emergency power and telemetry. The force main pipe material shall be PVC water main, HDPE, or DI, as defined by the City. The minimum diameter for sewer force mains shall be 4 inches to allow transport of a 3-inch minimum diameter solid with maximum velocity of 8 feet per second. Grinder Pump Stations Transporting sewage by gravity is the best method of providing sewer service. A single residential lot may be served by a grinder pump provided gravity sewer service is deemed not feasible by the Public Works Director and said service is approved by the City. However, alternative pressure systems may be permitted in those circumstances where a gravity system would be impractical, unreasonably expensive, result in unreasonable impacts to the environment or would be otherwise infeasible. The grinder pump installation shall comply with the City's Sewer System Standards in the Developer Handbook, specifically Kitsap County's Division VI Individual Grinder Pump Installations guidelines. 2.5 Environmental Stewardship These policies outline the City's dedication to develop and implement facilities and programs that will protect the environment. Best Management Practices (BMP's) The City will perform operations and maintenance activity using BMP's to reduce the impact to environmental resources adjacent to work areas. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Reuse Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 95 of 332 The City is committed to wastewater reuse and rainwater reclamation. They can serve as cost effective and environmentally beneficial sources of water for industrial processes, sanitation and irrigation and thereby increase the security and reliability of the area's drinking water supply. The City will explore opportunities to reclaim wastewater for reuse in stream augmentation, irrigation, and other non potable uses. Conservation The City encourages water conservation by requiring the use of low -flow plumbing fixtures in new construction and by structuring water rates of non-residential accounts into tiered groups based on water use, thereby reducing the total volume of sewerage. The City supports energy conservation by installing gravity sewer mains instead of a pump stations where possible to minimize electrical requirements of the collection system. Water Resource Protection The City shall protect groundwater resources within their service area from degradation related to the City's sewer system operations. 2.6 Operations and Maintenance The City's operation and maintenance standards define the Operation's Plan and Maintenance Program for the sewer utility infrastructure. Operations Plan The City shall establish and regularly update an operations plan for the sewer collection system to include preventative maintenance activities and safety procedures to maintain system efficiency and enhance worker safety. Maintenance Program Public Works employees shall perform regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance activities on select sewer mains, manholes and all sewer pump stations according to an established priority list. Maintenance includes cleaning and vacuuming of all sewer mains (semi-annually, monthly, or as needed), monthly inspection of manholes that have recurring problems, and daily/weekly inspections servicing, and maintenance of all pump stations. Safety and Emergency Operations The City is committed to the health and safety of each Public Works employee. Each employee will be trained in operations and maintenance duties, safety, and first aid. Each employee will receive annual certification renewal. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 9 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Confined Spaces Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 96 of 332 Without the proper precautions, entry into a confined space, such as a manhole, is inherently dangerous and lethal. Public Works employees required to enter confined spaces shall follow established City policies and procedures to minimize the safety risk of such activity. Public Works employees who may be required to enter a confined space shall receive annual formal training from a City representative. Each new Public Works employee shall receive one session of individual training before the new employee is allowed to enter any confined space. City procedures for confined space work shall include requirements for pre -entry, entry, and post - entry tasks, equipment, and documentation. Emergency Operations The City shall invest the resources necessary to develop and maintain an Emergency Response Plan in coordination with Police, Fire, and other agencies. Public Works will construct, maintain and rehabilitate the sewer system infrastructure and equipment to ensure that customers are provided with consistent, reliable service. All City owned pump stations shall have permanent backup power, such as a generator, and an automatic switching station, unless specifically exempted by the City Council. Infiltration and Inflow The City shall continue to fund and execute its existing Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) program to minimize I/I to the collection system. The City's overall goal is to reduce I&I flow. The City shall continue to prohibit direct connections to the sewer system from roof drains, storm water catch basins and other improper connections. The program shall include television inspections and grouting of manholes and other infrastructure. 2.7 Financial Policies This section summarizes the City's general financial policies and criteria and includes sewer rate structures, connection charges and capital improvement financing. Rate Structure The City shall establish rates, charges, and fees to maintain sufficient funds to operate, maintain, retire debt, and upgrade its sewer system as necessary to provide safe reliable sewer service to its customers. These rates should be evaluated periodically as part of the budget process. This will ensure that forecasted expenses and impacts of regulations are reflected in the rate structure. Sewer rates are based on a monthly rate and are billed on a bimonthly schedule, according to the rate class. Monthly sewer rates are intended to pay all operation, maintenance, and administrative costs plus retire all debt. In the event that an established rate does not accurately reflect the impact on the sewer system, the City Engineer may determine the specific monthly rate. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 10 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 97 of 332 Fess shall be established to reimburse the City for the costs of the service provided, such as late fees, inspections, and similar activities. Properties served which are outside the city limits shall have a 50 percent surcharge on the monthly rate. Development Fees The City has established fees and charges to recover its costs related improving the sewer infrastructure to accommodate growth. Sewer fees are paid at the time a building permit is issued. The Connection Fee is designed to mitigate the impact of new demands on the existing sewer system. An Installation Fee is designed to reimburse the utility for construction cost of connection. New accounts are assessed a Fee In Lieu of Assessment (with exceptions). The Facility Construction Fee mitigates future construction costs for wastewater treatment facilities as jointly approved by the City and the West Sound Utility District. The ULID No 6 Latecomer Fee is applicable to properties outside the boundaries of the ULID who connect to the improvements constructed as part of ULID No 6. Capital Financing Plan The City shall establish a Capital Facility Plan that describes the anticipated repairs, improvements, expansions, or modifications to the sewer system for the next 10 year period. The plan should address required repairs to the sewer system, planned replacement of aging facilities, upgrades to existing facilities to provide additional capacity for projected growth, and the construction of general facilities to aid growth. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 11 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 3. SEWER SERVICE AREA Exhibit F Page 98 of 332 3.1 Urban Growth Area The Urban Growth Area designated by Kitsap County in the City of Port Orchard vicinity is shown on Figure 3-1. The Urban Growth Area in effect on February 15, 1999, is delineated as well as the revised urban growth boundary as amended June 11, 2007, following the 10-year update of Kitsap County planning for urban growth management. Zoning within the City of Port Orchard Urban Growth Area has been established by Kitsap County as shown in Figure 3-2. 3.2 Existing City of Port Orchard Sewer System Zoning within the existing city limits is shown on Figure 3-3. The existing City sewer system is shown on Figure 3-4, which is derived from the graphic information system (GIS) files maintained by Kitsap County. These GIS files were prepared by Kitsap County and were assembled by inputting record CAD drawings. Field verification of horizontal and vertical data should be done when time and budget permit. Vertical data available, such as manhole lid or invert elevations are very limited; and not all pipe attributes were available, such as pipe diameters and lengths. The resulting GIS files are not sufficient for direct transfer into a hydraulic model to compute hydraulic capacities. The principal trunk sewers are highlighted on Figure 3-4 with pertinent characteristics summarized in Table 3-1. The full pipe capacity in millions of gallons per day (MGD) for each trunk identified in Table 3-1 is defined by the most limiting pipe segment within that trunk based on City record drawings. Table 3-1 Existing Trunk Sewer Capacities Trunk Location From To Diameter Sloe MGD A Bay Street North Bay Bethel 12 0.2239 % 1.05 B Bethel Road Melcher Bay 10 0.80 % 1.25 C-east Bay Street Bethel Marina PS 18 0.155 % 2.6 C-west Bay Street Pt Orchard Marina PS 24 0.092 % 4.3 D — 1 Port Orchard old Tremont Bay 12 0.90 % 2.15 D — 2 Port Orchard (new) Tremont Bay 12 1.68 % 2.9 E Pottery & stream Lippert Tremont 10 0.37 % 0.83 F Bay Street Caseco Pt Orchard 18 0.155 % 2.6 G Pottery Avenue Fireweed Lippert 10 0.26 % 0.7 H Tremont Street Pottery Pt Orchard 15 0.69 % 3.3 I Old Clifton Road Berry Lake McCormick 1 15 1.30 % 4.7 J Old Clifton Road Feigley McCormick 2 15 0.90 % 3.9 K McCormick Woods Marymac Old Clifton 10 0.33 % 0.80 Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 12 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 99 of 332 The City sewer system formerly included a wastewater treatment facility on the waterfront; and the trunk sewers conveyed all flow to that location. The treatment facility was replaced with the Marina Pump Station and wastewater flow is now conveyed east through an 18-inch force main to a new treatment facility on City property that is operated by the West Sound Utility District. The Marina Pump Station operating parameters are summarized in Table 3-2 from City records. Table 3- 2 Marina Pump Station Pump GPM Horsepower TDH 1 -variable 1,500 to 2,400 150 115 2 2,400 150 115 3 1,150 20 37 4 1,150 20 37 Note: Station has an overflow into Sinclair Inlet The firm capacity of the Marina Pump Station is defined by leaving one of the large pumps out of service. The total existing capacity of the remaining three pumps is something less than the 4,700 GPM total, perhaps about 4,000 GPM or 5.8 MGD, but has not been verified by hydraulic modeling or field measurements. The remaining City sewage pump stations are shown in Table 3-3 with the associated parameters including horsepower (HP) and total dynamic head (TDH) derived from City records. Table 3-3 Existing Pump Stations Station Location ump 1 ump 2 Force Main GPM HP TDH GPM HP TDH Bay Street 1207 Bay Street 515 7.5 20 515 7.5 20 --- Tremont Place 281 Tremont Place 60 3 23 60 3 23 --- Eagle Crest 1091 Eagle Crest PI 100 5 35 1 100 5 35 --- Cedar Heights 2220 Pottery Avenue 50 7.5 150 50 7.5 150 --- Sed wick 505 Sed wick Road 180 25 165 180 25 165 6 McCormick #1 1190 Old Clifton Rd 1000 75 122 1000 75 122 16 McCormick #2 2200 Old Clifton Rd 1000 25 60 1000 25 60 16 Canyon Court 512 Cedar Canyon Ct 50 7.5 150 50 7.5 150 --- Harrison Hospital 444 So Kitsap Blvd 350 40 118 350 40 118 --- Golden Pond 385 Golden Pond Rd 137 7.5 78 137 7.5 78 --- Ridge 200 15 90 200 15 90 6 Albertson 176 30 100 176 30 176 6 Notes: Canyon Court PS has a third pump identical to the two pumps shown in Table 3 Albertson PS is currently privately owned, though maybe transferred to the City Bay Street PS has an overflow into Sinclair Inlet Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 13 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 100 of 332 No overflows have been recorded within the sewer pipe systems or at any pump stations. This record appears to indicate that the existing sewer system has adequate capacity for current conditions. 3.3 McCormick Woods — ULID No 6 The area known as McCormick Woods has been developing under the South Kitsap UGA/ULID #6 Sub -Area Plan dated December 8, 2003, as revised in 2006. Land use within this Sub -Area is planned as shown on Figure 3-5 and is summarized in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 McCormick Woods Land Use Designations Land Use Designation Density per Buildable Acre Gross Acres Urban Low Residential 4 to 9 dwelling units 1,306 Urban Cluster Residential 4 to 9 dwelling units 905 Urban Medium Residential 10 to 18 dwelling units 78 Urban Village Center Up to 18 dwelling units 10 Business Park ---- 52 Public Facilities ----- 19 Total 2,370 The original houses in McCormick Woods were developed with on -site septic systems. These were converted to septic tank effluent pump (STEP) units discharging to a community drainfield south of Old Clifton Road near the extreme west of the UGA. Under ULID # 6, the City of Port Orchard agreed to provide sewer service and to assume responsibility for the STEP units. Two pump stations were built to facilitate sewer service, McCormick Woods 1 and McCormick Woods 2, in addition to trunk sewer pipe extensions in Old Clifton Road. One of these pipe extensions was to the west edge of the UGA to collect effluent from the former drainfield, and to allow future service to the SKIA. This drainfield is no longer used and the fl- inch sewer connection into the Old Clifton Trunk sewer has been plugged. A 4-way cross at McCormick Woods and Marymac Drives SW with valves on each leg has the line to the old community drainfield closed so no effluent from the STEP units can go there. All effluent flows through Trunk K into McCormick Woods PS 2. Additional and subsequent developments north of Old Clifton Road known as McCormick Woods No. 2, or The Ridge, are served through conventional sewers into the Ridge Pump Station, now owned by the City, which discharges into the Old Clifton Road trunk sewer, downstream of McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2. The new development south of Old Clifton Road enters Trunk K by gravity. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 14 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 101 of 332 Although shown within an urban growth boundary, McCormick Woods has not been formally assigned to any city for eventual annexation. The City of Port Orchard anticipates annexing this area in the near future. 3.4 South Kitsap Industrial Area The SKIA Plan covers about 3,400 gross acres, of which about 2,300 acres are described as available for development. About 550 net acres are anticipated to be developed during the planning period extending through 2021. In 1997 there were about 500 employees within the SKIA. All or part of the SKIA is a potential sewer service area for the City of Port Orchard. At present, all parcels use on -site septic systems and most are connected to a community system operated by the Port of Bremerton. The community system has a capacity of 72,000 GPD with an average day flow in 2001 of about 14,000 GPD, which is about 28 GPD per employee. Commercial -industrial customers within the SKIA consumed an average of about 50,681 gallons of potable water per day during that year, or an average of about 101 gallons per day per employee. Water is provided by the City of Bremerton. There are no residences within the SKIA and none are expected under the SKIA Plan. The SKIA Plan does project that during the planning period new development may increase employment to a total of 9,350 employees; and that average day demand (ADD) for water would increase to about 1.4 million gallons per day (MGD). Maximum day demand (MDD) is projected as double the ADD, or 2.8 MGD. No projection is provided in the SKIA Plan for peak hour demand (PHD). A schematic water distribution plan was included with the SKIA Plan, which shows a proposed water trunk extending around the northeast end of the runway and due south along the east SKIA property line. Further water mains would be extended by developers. Wastewater flows for the anticipated 9,350 employees are projected in the SKIA Plan to be 1.2 MGD for the average day of the year. No peak or wet weather flow projection was included in the Plan; nor has a schematic sewer system layout yet been developed. The City of Bremerton annexed the SKIA urban growth area in 2009 and is now the planning authority for urban services in this area. Sewer service to the SKIA may be provided by the City of Bremerton; or potentially all or part of the SKIA may be served by the City of Port Orchard. 3.5 West Sound Utility District Facilities The District operates the wastewater treatment facilities for the City under NPDES Permit WA- 002034-6 from the State Department of Ecology under a 1982 contract with the City. The treatment facilities actually consist of three interrelated and complementary systems: • Activated sludge secondary treatment system • Membrane bioreactor secondary treatment system production reclaimed water • Ballasted clarifier for advanced primary treatment system for peak storm flows Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 15 Ordinance No. 034-09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Exhibit F Page 102 of 332 These facilities are designed for a flow of 4.2 MGD during the average day of the maximum month with a peak day capacity of 16 MGD. Flows exceeding 6 MGD may be treated through the ballasted clarifier to achieve a blended effluent meeting the effluent requirements define in the NPDES permit. The City and the District have agreed that this capacity is to be shared equally. The highest average daily flows recorded during November and December 2006 were 3.94 MGD and 4.6 MGD during days of measured rainfall of 2.1 and 2.41 inches. Neither flow was sufficient to require operation of the ballasted clarifier. However, the 3 December 2007 storm produced about 8.8 MGD and the ballasted clarifier performed as designed. Annual average day flow for 2007 was about 1.7 MGD. The District projects wastewater flow will increase to about 2.3 MGD by 2025 with an average day flow during the maximum month of about 7.7 MGD. Hydraulic capacity will be increased by then to be 16 MGD. The District and the City expect to continue sharing treatment capacity about 50-50 for each agency. The District also operates an extensive sewerage collection system. Some of the District sewers in the immediate vicinity of City sewers are shown on Figure 3-4. Figure 3-4 also shows that some parcels within the city limits are served by the District. The sewer service area boundary has not been defined by formal agreement, but has evolved as various properties have developed and needed sewer service based on topography and guidance from the SAC. The intent is for service to be provided by the agency at the least infrastructure cost to the developer. The District serves east of Blackjack Creek except for the SR 16 intersection. Eventually, the City expects to annex the entire UGA. 3.6 Existing and Planned Drainage Basins The `Comprehensive Sewer Plan 2000' divided the City sewer system into four `branches': • East — the area east of Blackjack Creek • Central — from Sidney/Tremount intersection northward along Cline Avenue • South — from Sedgwick/Sidney intersection northward into Port Orchard Boulevard • West — McCormick Woods and area west of SR 16 as shown in Figure 3-5 These branches each comprise areas tributary to a trunk sewer that still remains in service. However, to evaluate the adequacy of the existing capacity in these trunks and to project future capacity requirements, a finer subdivision of the City sewer service area into sewer basins was employed. These basins and the associated trunk conveyance facilities are described in Table 3- 5, with the basins delineated on Figure 3-6. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 16 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Table 3-5 Page 103 of 332 Sewer Basins Basin Acres Trunk Tributary Facilities Discharge Terminus 1 547 L Basin 21 Trunk J 2 300 future none Trunk I 3 288 future none Albertson PS 4 123 A none Bay Street PS 5 270 B none Bay Street PS 6 460 C none Marina PS 7 178 H McCormick 1 Trunk D 8 141 D Trunks E and H Trunk C 9 245 I The Ridge PS, McCormick 2, Basins 2, & 15 McCormick 1 10 438 F none Trunk C 11 262 E G Trunk D 12 247 Albertson Basin 3 Trunk G 13 131 G Albertson PS Trunk E 14 347 E Bravo Terrace PS Trunk E 15 67 I none Trunk 16 64 Ride none Trunk I 17 347 J none McCormick 2 18 192 J Basins 1 & 21 McCormick 2 19 105 K Basin 20 McCormick 2 20 418 K none Trunk K 21 300 K none Basin 20 3.7 Topography The City is built on uplands rising from Sinclair Inlet. These uplands are cut irregularly by streams and ravines that are generally unbuildable. Within the presently developed city limits and City sewer service area, these uplands reach a maximum elevation of about 250 feet above sea level. McCormick Woods is being developed on a plateau west of the existing city limits. These lands range in elevation from 300 to 500 feet above sea level. The SKIA properties further west from McCormick Woods generally are on a plateau at elevations from about 440 to 480 feet above sea level. However the western properties of the SKIA fall away to elevations of about 240 feet. 3.8 Water Features The City of Port Orchard is located along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet, which is an arm of Puget Sound. The City is immediately across the water from the US Navy Yard and the City of Bremerton. A number of marine -related businesses and features exist along the Port Orchard waterfront. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 17 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 104 of 332 A number of streams flow north into Sinclair Inlet from the upper elevations in and south of the City. Some of these are within the West Sound sewer service area of the City UGA. The more prominent creeks within the City portion of the UGA sewer service area include the following: • Blackjack Creek • Unnamed stream in the ravine of Port Orchard Boulevard • Ross Creek • Anderson Creek • Two unnamed streams flowing north from McCormick Woods • Tributaries to Gorst Creek originating in McCormick Woods and the SKIA Long Lake is a significant water body that borders the UGA for the City, but is outside of the City sewer service area and in the West Sound sewer service area. Several small ponds, marshes, and wetlands exist within the City sewer service area. Many of the streams flowing through the City are believed capable of supporting fish runs, though stream flows are often small. The City has agreed to augment the flow in two streams at the locations described below, and perhaps others in the future: • Ross Creek at the future extension of St. Andrews Drive SW • Blackjack Creek at Sedgwick Road west of SR 16 An excerpt of the stream augmentation facility for Ross Creek is shown in Figure 3-7. This representation is similar for other augmentation sites. Augmentation is seasonal using potable water at the rate of 5 GPM. It may be practical to construct a small satellite wastewater treatment facility, perhaps using a membrane bioreactor (MBR), so reclaimed water could be used for this application and conserve potable water from other uses. 3.9 Water Systems Five water purveyors provide water service within the City and the sewer service area as described below: • City of Port Orchard — serves within the city limits and selected adjacent areas as shown on Figure 3-8. The system is supplied by six active wells into a Low Zone with a hydraulic grade line (HGL) of 260 feet, an Intermediate Zone at HGL 336, and a High Zone at HGL 391. Five reservoirs provide 4,200,000 gallons in storage. There is an intertie to the City of Bremerton HGL 256 Zone and a second to the West Sound Utility District. Two booster pump stations can move water from the Low Zone through the Intermediate Zone to the High Zone. The pipe system totals over 300,000 feet of pipe ranging from 4 to 18-inch diameter. • McCormick Woods Water Company — which is owned and operated by the City, serves McCormick Woods and ULID No 6. The existing facilities include a 450,000 gallon reservoir near SW Clifton Road at Figley Road with a booster pump station serving the existing 580 zone from two tanks totaling 120,000 gallons supplied by three wells. Pipe sizes range from 6 to 10-inch diameter. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 18 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 105 of 332 • City of Bremerton — serves the SKIA through a transmission pipeline from Gorst with a 1,200,000 gallon storage tank and a booster pump station with three installed pumps with capacity totaling 3,600 GPM. • Berry Lake Manors — buys water from the City and serves a 30-unit mobile home park • West Sound Utility District — serves properties east of Blackjack Creek and generally outside the City sewer service area. Aquifer recharge areas in the vicinity of Port Orchard are shown on Figure 3-9. The principal facilities comprising the City of Port Orchard water system are summarized in Table 3-6. Table 3-6 City of Port Orchard Water Facilities Description Dimensions Capacity Wells PO 5 — Port Orchard Blvd 240 feet x 10-inches 40 GPM PO 6 — Maple Street 806 feet x 10-inches 250 GPM PO 7 — Port Orchard Blvd 804 feet x 10-inches 725 GPM PO 8 — Sidney Avenue 577 feet x 12-inches 450 GPM PO 9 — Sidney Avenue 624 feet x 12-inches 450 GPM PO 10 —(pending) 1,074 feet x 10-inches 1,000 GPM McCormick Woods 1 281 feet x 12-inches 175 GPM McCormick Woods 2 210 feet x 12-inches 350 GPM McCormick Woods 3 183 feet x 12-inches 350 GPM Interties Bremerton 260 zone 8-inch meter Bremerton 580 zone 8-inch meter West Sound - Sed wick 390 zone 6-inch meter Reservoirs Park 130 feet diameter 2,000,000 gallons — 260 zone Morton Street 14.59 diameter x 100 feet high 100,000 gallons — 260 zone Maple Street 50,000 gallons — 260 zone South Sidney 13.6 diameter x 73 feet high 100,000 gallons — 390 zone Old Clifton 100 diameter x 30 feet high 1,000,000 gallons — 390 zone Sed wick 68 diameter x 40 feet high 1,000,000 gallons — 390 zone McCormick Woods 580 42 feet high 450,000 gallons — 580 zone McCormick Woods Tank 1 25 diameter x 15 feet high 60,000 gallons — 431 to 580 zone McCormick Woods Tank 2 25 diameter x 15 feet high 60,000 gallons — 431 to 580 zone Booster Pump Stations City Hall 260 zone 690 and 620 GPM Melcher Street 390 zone 1000 and 750 GPM McCormick 580 580 zone 350 and 350 GPM Well 6 Booster 260 zone 400 GPM Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 19 Ordinance No. 034-09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Exhibit F Page 1o6 of 332 Development of the western part of McCormick Woods will require a new reservoir of at least 300,000 gallons with a booster pump station to create the 660 zone. An additional water source of at least 187 GPM and 191 acre-feet per year will be needed to support new development. The McCormick Woods Golf Course is presently irrigated separately with a non -potable private well. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 20 1111.�, i i-'11=z1 :Is ■ Ito A AT • Ordinance No. 034-09 27-24-7E 24-24-YE - a-- -�- - T!� rsu I - - - - 22-24-1E �..-' 3-24-1E 1�r � �--I �I T I - 20 24 - , ''�-_ - - I ��i ,-� �.I Exhibit F Page 109 of 332 IL C;' ���-, i. �'f S- Znclar �� 27-24-7E�u-i- ?�'. �-•- 11'' IIIII� _II ., -- -IITti S�I-t �( A gl r Jti l 1` 'y I ! T�:�+--1..•.- 12�L?+2FI I I l 30 24 -l'� I�� , 2E i� �,,II� ; �w Legend - ll, r,�''' �',� f• I r1. -'� t '- � ;a :� -I ■f�4T m,i ii,�rml�� I _.� ��-, ,I r' .-'�'�TL Imo,_ - -� -� �-T,. I -_� �- � rI �f mf�� � I I�� I i City of Port Orchard I�-! Uman Growth Area I I I I I ,I Real Property Tax Accounts JIF.- Tk � FutureAnnexations StreamsAll takes0 FX Public Land Survey System Community Facilities 33-74-1E • L! J�-!� - • 'j 1J _ - -, t rssrd''•` �1Sv - r--T"`h•"7'-^' _ _..I �_,� r;- �T I,�_ Ir� �_ �� T' - �1 _ < r # � I F _ _ I 1 - - - - - `- _ _ _ (. J r 1� - �I r ' I � - ---- �T ,\ ;' ram- +I .�. Section Comer � County Road Shed MIe 5 y East st Section Monument -- NarthlSouth Section Monument 'G# Gavemment � �� � '_ - --u c `c i 38-24-1EI I �""a 7-2;a4I 2E32-24 2E I ITT �_ 17 Sections Museum ® Publc Libra nT -- ✓'�3r' } -•- I ��� ,• �4 ,�.r �r9l�a a>-'x �(V"1 Law Enforcement w� Community tamer II te r - - �''' • I r `j� � ✓ " �, Ivl Police Departments 9 Senior Center A Kitsap County Corrections Center • t`..�rFlj - ,- � I � t I �¢ - - J - , - - - - - 1�' L - I 1 � k ." '� I b`I�� pl Teen Center Kilsap County SheriffI. IllFelrgmunds tg WA State I © Hospital n I I � � �I �, t - I-- 1 f Jr _ I�It-�. I 'I d->'Fi I tr` '. � _r -',. 1- 0 Urgent Care Clinic Fire Station Facilities o Red Cress 0 Staffed Fire Station Solid Waste Disposal ■ Volunteer Fire Station - 4 r 1 ± ,,,% _I - t `- rf u1! - �I� �..1-rd' it '; _ 1 F f1#I �yt I:: T '�� r _- - 1 - - - T 8 Ferry Terminal ZOnln9 M Sewage Treatment Plant II �L r_Residential -11--+i 1 /!, F� r \�I 1•, I�T�- liy.,`�,�CI_^1L��i �r. "d�-°r ��1r •�I (''•�-L`,I �, 4�- -.,9 > r 1- _ iiFr.� "".,I ' -1I1- -5 '�-1I r1�LJ�i J4`I Ir Mobile Home Palk Residential 4.5 UnitsNaeable Acre Residential 8.0 Units Useable Acre -�� -T �r-,l -frtx !`-_ '• �'-� i'I�--'^�7Nr---.' '23--7 � �, tiiI Y- 2,3 _7-�,'sI" t ri I .��, - -4� \r ` II a� �-IS F , 1 Residential 12.O Jn161U6BHB AcB i1l4l-� '.rJ-d'li[F�11lIlIlIi L 7A �l-_ �•'�!aI _ e h�lyL I ¢- I - ! -2E h- �II Residential 20.0 Units/Useable Acre ;',��'i},�1,r 1T _ a- -% =r" I '� -J- -_ mrl ' J L = -. i Iti ICI I ;/I -Commercial-RetaillOffice �fl% `•. -- ii 3, III '—I rLJ 1 f=., I'u r'�11 Mixed Use District -mployment- dustriabOfice In E ,J y'r .il �,�;'—�'`— +L II �I 1 _ _ Cammuni[ Facilities - _Greenbelt r!`'YI I e i Including acelConservon � 9 DPensP -afi - rt y IT' IF 3 ! rl ql, J 1�'- �.� I I F'#"' I � III °JJ J•, z t _ - II r-' I\ 0�_-� - -I-- I _ �� I- - _- _--— Map created for City of Port Orchard by: Tj 17,Kitsap u - County Department of Information Services Geographic Information System Division (GIST i 11 ram' __ --` -- II - �Jf„✓' �-� �I'rl �' Overview: Urban Growth Area 8141)-- Street, MS-21 Pon Orchard, Washington, 983ee-4a14 G Fax'. (360) 337A555 e- (p _ I; -� � - --' - --4 ,- 1[ - i_�l�i^�` F, 'f2-23-7EJ� City of Port Orchard - _ ` - r Urban Grewth Area �I-1 t-_� w - `� N , i, > - f rs+n� �m37-4782 This map was created from existing map sources, not from field surveys. While great Care was taken in"Ing the most Current map 9ourl 8vailalxo, no wafnal of any including Poness, The - 10-23-7E -- II II ,.-� I� - - - ! n -, i a I r r I` .-..!rf` °f o � sort• accuracy, or merchantability axompany this product, user of this map assumes responsibility fordetermining its suilabiiityfcr its intended use. THia MAP IS NOTABUBSTITUTEFOR FIELD SURVEY" l� 9fe'��Ik , --a' Data Sources: Gdyot Pon D"011 ,'I"y- ---• , i KMsar GcuntY IS _ _ 'I T i --� 4i riy. 1L I�r,,� INI rI, �I�� 1 7�1� F��I rl� T r _ --�_ �'� •'f� _I I I i ��`!,l r j �' a •.- I <m i - r r- Zoning.mxtl MaP Deba: 0712107 IT � ..ram � _ IJ -� 'tit-D rr- --ITII _� _ I _ I T t I I I � � L �,-' m-I iSVOtd _I_ -z- SE 7 SeU rrGr a_� � - � .i - - - - - L - - - - - 523-1E`"'.- - - F 23-1'E �.v- - - r ! T- �1 1i - -7 I- 7 -IF xrxrcagals 1:9,000 r L 0 0-25 0-5 075 1 (Miles City of Port Orchard WASHINGTON Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Image Source: Kitsap County This map is a geographic representation based on information available. It does not represent survey data. No warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. MAP DATE: DECEMBER 132007 City of Port Orchard Zoning Figure 3-3 P:wlapping\Maps_Generated\Port_Oroharci\projects\07-10098.01\009\maps\&3 City Zoning.mxd 0 WIN rp'l i� a � . ..... . WI , "IM `Vftl -5T. a i A Y.. r "tv j k! MIA p "'10 tPl,q 5.:N % AIM., 0A, X A A MUM .9 -ell A', -Jim 'T"ll Nil Al iV gy -A w rJf WA AP -WAR M-A ��r��r, A I 'Li A My Fill PLC P. 1. -1 6r Al -on 1".." AD , 'qv PO gl iL •Nil 4�,� "A VA I FnW V4 -ZO 70 W wq�, ro Ill Big m jo- ilix pll- 4 - o wo Kill Pill iv 'o 01 4 'N"I SRI. MISM. ili I , L, I W.W. z i-.-0-1- -1, d F�k. -11 R Z "Ale -IN .0 4, •pmou IMF A; Oil Z 1 Fh FRIdj F.WIo OW, SiK -FaWNTIM 1% 11 ..", a, ,12 -wo bg UkWT '4 Stamm The A, Ridge wc G.-Alo W.L111 �I&I-EwrAt 11 am= a IL V, V I m 's I Creek yS �O 18 I 1 �e r City of Port Orchard 1, j ' ■ III v ,+■1 ' ■_ig Ham. r.rli - FFF NN WASHINGTON 01IIIIIIIIIIIII in 1 SE k SE 0 o: Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 112 of 332 Legend Q Pump Stations ^� Sewer Gravity Trunks Sewer Force Mains Sewer Pipes Sewer Basins City of Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Unincorporated Urban Growth Area City of Bremerton Parcels - Kitsap Co June 07 i Water Bodies ��-- Rivers & Streams 1 inch = 2,500 feet Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Data Sources: Kitsap County 2009 This map is a geographic representation based on information available. It does not represent survey data. No warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. MAP DATE: DECEMBER 132007; UPDATED NOVEMBER 2009 Sewer Basins & Conveyance System Figure 3-6 DETAIL NOTES 1. TAP ON EXISTING WATER MAIN WOULD BE A STANDARD CITY OF PORT ORCHARD TYPICAL WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PER SECTION 5.0 WATER SYSTEMS STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEVELOPERS HANDBOOK (2006). 2. FLOW CONTROL APPARATUS AND VALVE BOX CAN BE SEPARATE VENDOR COMPILATION OF APPURTENANCES, OR A VENDOR KIT FROM A WATERWORKS OR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MANUFACTURER. 3. SAND FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE MEDIUM SAND WITH A HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY EQUAL TO 8 inches/hour. 3/4" CTS (5/8' METER) — 1-1/2" CTS (1-1/2" METER) SMITH-BLAIR 313 SERVICE SADDLE ` LINE SIZE / / / I AUGMENTATION LOCATION DEPTH OF PERF. PIPE AUGMENTATION FLOW WATER METER SENSUS MODEL SR TOUCH READ DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY SIZE GRISWOLD FLOW CONTROL FITTING MODEL NO. PRESSURE DROP RANGE PDR ROSS CREEK N.A. 5.0 GPM 5/8" x 3/4" WATTS 3/4" - 007QT 3/4"-3524-1.00 GPM 4-57 UTILITY VAULT NO. 25-T W/ NO. 38/25-TA COVER (1'-10" X 4'-9XA" X 2'-3" DEEP) DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY 10" PVC WATER MAI IPA, FITTING LINE SIZE METER TO RELEASE STRUCTURE STRAINER C-CHANNEL PIPE SUPPORTS CONNECTING TO VAULT SIDE CHANNELS (TYP OF 3) MUELLER 300 BALL STRAIGHT METER VALVE FOR CTS TUBING X SWIVEL NUT - 3/4" (5/8" METER) 1-1 /2" (1-1/2" METER) MUELLER 300 BALL CORPORATION VALVE OPEN END OF VAULT Te— FOR CTS TUBING X DRAIN TO 1/4' MIN WASHED MPT - 3/4" (5/8" METER) GRAVEL (1 CY EACH END) 1-1/2" (1-1/2" METER) ROSS CREEK STREAM AUGMENTATION DETAIL NO OCAI F Source: Goldsmith and Associates, Inc Ross Creek Stream Augmentation System, Novemeber 2007 Q BHC Consultants, LLC •tS 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 - Seattle, Washington 98101 z 206.505.3400 CONSULT A www.bhccon (fax) it www.bhcconsultants.com X 3/4" WATER LINE V PONDING SURFACE, FILTER FABRIC ABOVE 72" DIAM. MANHOLE AS SAND FILTER. W/STD LOCKING LID & MH ACCESS. ROAD FILL, TYP. 7 TRANSITION FROM PERF PIPE TO CPE. ;OLLECTOR PIPE " DRAIN ROCK OR STREAM END OF EXISTING', STA. 209+75, STD. ST. ANDREWS DR.3,4 SERVICE TAP S.W. ROADWAY i i \ i 15 60 i SCALE: 1" = 30' �LI 250 LF 4" CPE 0 S5.00% I.E. 4" OUTLET = ±381 SAND FILTER, 72" DIA. MH SET RIM = 391.0 (FUTURE FINAL GRADE) /4 WATER SERVICE = 389.0 TOP SAND FILTER = 384.5 BOTTOM SAND FILTER = 383.0 I.E. 4" CPE OUT = 382.5 Ordinance No. c \\ Ex �� / Page 113 �\ y 00 9��lrP / PROVIDE METER 11P, OU TF \\ RAP, .-09 )it F 332 Ross Creek Figure Stream Augmentation =' Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan 3-7 ",Ty Port Orchard, Washington Port Orchard /N/ South Kitsap Water Lines QUrban Grawlh Area Joint Planning Area Incorporated City Preliminary Focus Group Boundary I_ -PILL _ -'- L - - II+SF- F K=. I�aJ _r_ m+�'r�l h�'I�IL� r ��Y� dlll' _Lf"r •"`I - Z�r'- ��Irtu' I L -II 1 -LrT - �� , J� I I�I '.Li. Zi '� . err l � �FTr Lu l Tfl'T. r � ati rl L�'4 PI T y � 17t� 'I Itl I L-t LIZ T-fir 1G -r� �. Li [I IE rj�Jl li u E 11�7�.71 J yl' - a3' �LIY�ki IF 1 Ir r- I Ali I,�t �-rJc1,.7uZ-vl T -1I - 1 A lr�L�- `Jj1 II 1 FT L-I� r d -' � II = I ��� f'I�� �� ��I �or , ,-�i�SII,���F1 l `� �;-�ll�il III IICn r� 13 i'II�T r�l �J�`- -4 _, - I_T1 T [ I I d- - 1 r� I51r1 T I I T , _ F y' � ll ,��-11 - _� ,J I- - fr _ 1 Fi_ Fj1 _ a 1 ti.d FT ti - / A �I y,. e / - n r� } i I ��'; I' T� ill u=��]IF l-�_ a�� r Port Orc rd __-I III EM1 il rr 1 ` F_� �'222 �I )y� u C TII y fir% -7 _ I I L� I[JI!�. IJ 17 j� I I � � 1 , _ - t� r��3 jj- :l �1T1-1'' I_ I � - i-I I- - I IIJ-- iapoli � .I Ret asr 1 mrdl EEd..R h#_IF �I _ I T T � - F- ♦ I � � r �I� I Ilr' II= I r I N JIjp it -III Q � I w ry-0-I d _ f E of rive, - I J 1- - � . - T y ��unCi A_ven _ u. �I1�i all -t. -� r!- � I -7 F�_ __ a r l� -19E 5 i Tt➢r1 dn�1 r r Ir 7 F ii I u� I -a se e_ I I I - - - _ _ I• ;'�'_, i L� rnemmvv RRdan am rr •ra 7'T J d i -d- 7 mr111 S I01dCRoad I I 7lu - —r_7 II � I _�— �{ %--_.� P1 r s--I 3/ rYIL� �I4f / I I 1.650 3,300 6,600 I IF-' ,otlt _ II r ITt�1� �'�----6 �� '� [� n �ar,Eli_1 �_ f i � ,� � �r=� p�T I I _1 I__ ',.., - r-I fr y1 I1 ik i�l r oemc _ J 1 1 V A �`4I SE Ikoaa In x _61 �I- I� a �h tiTi�� - - - - I ' �' _� wlh '� a er iJ1 G'yl7 - 7_ � "I I Uy - \ i Ial =�1 —I i loll— I��illli_ II 17- ��6F0 atom ��l�e1 y- all I- _ L. �T �11 �I TJT ti t I- +T al, _V _�,:I l ITT I _-swWl t'tJ�nh_ T �I � - l' I- rZ r - F. T-_ �� `� �, -`ITS ;-i_SE u�aikll"�r R4d91�'� r - J� ',_r -'-T af�' ' - _� -I l Yf Tr _ I cAS 3�1,11i�1� _- _- /'(T TInc�i�-7 ICE 4$ - 111 1111rZ+r��etc - �- I Zz_ —: 1 LI_ILITi IC F 7 �I =E TI Il ;III; _ - II U _ k i r T _ F - - "I -ILL. — ELT rrr = 00 �13,260 - - r -- City of Port Orchard WASHINGTON Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 114 of 332 Image Source: Kitsap County This map is a geographic representation based on information available. It does not represent survey data. No warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. MAP DATE AUGUST 2008; UPDATED AUGUST 2009 Port Orchard & the South Kitsap Water Lines F' 3 8 figure - P:Wapping\Maps_Generated%Port_ OmhardXprojects\07-10096.01\009\maps\8-8 South Kitsap Water Lines.mi f7 - ... CIA' �M.. Rl!•_1 ,� ,1 - µyl,*y ». IL Own �:, - N .�; I .fir. �' �`- - +�f�r ar�.`` �.:fl• _ I if r_ ia.l +a_ �� ! "� ■ F�i�. or.40 !Y 1 1 r1■■ r. ` -. �r�■�._ x�la �ls .aC . �.�4M ■■ r��- r • War / �� T�i� �� ,ri � '� I ? "�}yjS r` �` ��,�rrri�ail��.�� �' �k7dl�■ _ wrr rlkM.a,r 1 . � r Miaa aMr � f � f/ rams r s '�► A ■ ■ o r ry . +' i■ � ai � 4` . �� + LIM 1111 - i Mir lift w�.► rra�l• r. MIT AIM Elm a oat Vol PIC r,3J . � ll \'.4 _'a!1 - rN .JAI • _ � per 1140'r lf�#� . a R- d � all i+r •II4`�rl J�����f' �-+� Jr '' �• •� 1��+-J I'�� �,�Ar Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update 4. PROJECTED POPULATION Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 116 of 332 4.1 Existing Population Table 4-1 summarizes the population estimates prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial Management since the 2000 census. Table 4-1 Historic Population Kitsap C unty City of Port Orchard Year Population Percent Change Population Percent Change Percent of Count 2000 Census 231,969 --- 7,693 --- 3.32 2001 Estimate 233,400 0.60 7,810 1.52 3.35 2002 Estimate 234,700 0.56 7,900 1.15 3.37 2003 Estimate 237,000 0.98 7,910 0.13 3.34 2004 Estimate 239,500 1.05 8,060 1.90 3.37 2005 Estimate 240,400 0.38 8,250 2.36 3.43 2006 Estimate 243,400 1.25 8,310 0.73 3.55 2007 Estimate 244,800 0.58 8,420 1.01 3.44 Table 4-1 does show a distinct trend for the City of Port Orchard to capture an increasing share of the Kitsap County population. This is in accord with the intent of the Growth Management Act and indicates that current City and County policies are successful. City sewer service is budgeted based on the mix of commercial and residential customers reduced to the `equivalent residential units' or ERU. One ERU is defined as the sewage generated by one single family home, estimated at 180 GPD. Table 4-2 summarizes the historic relationship between residential and commercial customers served by City sewers as estimated by the City Department of Public Works. Table 4-2 Equivalent Residential Units for City Sewer System Budget Year Total ERU Residential Commercial ERU Percent of Total ERU Percent of Total 2001 4,087 2,791 68.3 1,296 31.7 2002 4,201 2,855 68.0 1,346 32.3 2003 4,077 2,853 70.0 1,224 30.0 2004 4,185 2,895 69.2 1,290 30.8 2005 4,319 3,011 69.7 1,308 30.3 2006 4,407 3,030 68.8 1,377 31.2 In addition to the Table 4-2 ERU numbers, McCormick Woods added an additional 616 ERU in 2005 and 629 ERU in 2006. Thus the total ERU served by the City sewer system was 4,935 in Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 21 Ordinance No. 034-09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Exhibit F Page 117 of 332 2005 and 5,036 in 2006. Total ERU for the City sewer system through October 2007 is 4,643 units, plus an additional 659 customers in McCormick Woods for a total of 5,302 ERU. Most of the McCormick Woods customers are effluent pump units, which influences the organic loading but does not affect the sewer hydraulic loads as the sewage flow would be similar to regular homes. The City share of the treatment plant capacity as operated by the West Sound Utility District has been about 45 or 46 percent in recent years. Typical household size for Kitsap County is reported by OFM to be about 2.5 persons. However, Port Orchard may average only about 2.4 persons per household. In both cases, the trend is for continued gradual reductions in the average household size. Table 4-3 describes recent estimates of the share of City population served by the City sewer system. Table 4-3 City Population Served by City Sewers Based on 2.4 Persons per Household Year City Population Residential ERU Served Population Percent Served 2004 8,060 2,895 6,948 86.2 2005 8,250 3,010 7,226 87.6 2006 8,310 3,030 7,272 87.5 Table 4-3 indicates that City sewers are serving a slightly increasing share of the City population. It also may be that most of the population growth within the city limits is occurring in areas served by the City sewer system. 4.2 Kitsap County Population and Employment Projections Kitsap County has identified a series of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) for the entire County, an excerpt of which is shown as Figure 4-1. The TAZ associated with the City of Port Orchard, the urban growth area served by the City sewer system, and McCormick Woods are shown in Figure 4-2. As part of transportation analysis, population and employment projections for Kitsap County are distributed among all TAZ for 2025 conditions and for Build -out at current land use planning densities by County Planning. The resulting projections have been assembled as summarized in Table 4-4. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 22 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Table 4-4 Page 118 of 332 Population and Employment by TAZ TAZ Area in Acres Basins 2025 Projections Build -Out Projections Population Employment Population Employment 154 222 4 & 5 1,104 380 1,111 398 156 59 6 170 775 170 775 158 51 4 & 5 224 106 225 105 159 96 5 & 6 177 521 177 522 161 29 6 30 461 30 480 162 56 6 & 8 215 104 215 117 163 182 8 &10 342 37 342 39 164 273 7, 8, 10 1,194 710 1,195 714 165 39 6 231 913 232 914 166 72 5 & 6 415 48 415 49 168 58 5 114 527 120 537 169 314 7,10, 11 1,186 22 826 29 170 53 6 & 8 349 133 350 133 171 28 6 57 7 57 7 172 18 5 34 43 24 49 173 148 5, 6, 8 254 206 842 223 180 72 6 & 8 655 26 725 47 181 60 5 & 6 86 2 655 2 182 119 5 105 124 287 266 183 481 9 681 195 800 693 188 1 1,043 9, 16, 17 826 75 826 827 191 694 17 382 12 476 191 194 109 6, 7, 11 1,212 400 1,213 89 195 141 7 & 11 427 490 427 401 197 43 6 90 2 96 4 199 28 5 163 384 173 384 201 304 9 & 13 210 135 220 373 202 335 11 & 14 2,053 364 2,072 383 203 1 294 14 468 79 839 850 211 1,338 3, 12, 13 1,229 114 619 1,054 212 108 12 & 13 54 119 61 608 215 1,296 2, 15, 19, 20,21 2,569 89 4,150 92 216 2,013 1, 18,21 2,997 0 3,526 0 217 336 14 1,203 263 2,108 986 223 468 12 242 73 280 376 225 217 3 & 12 230 155 250 362 Totals 11,194 --- 21,969 8,094 26,134 13,079 Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 23 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 119 of 332 Some anomalies can be seen as the projections move from 2025 to Build -Out conditions. Some residential properties will convert to commercial use, and some existing commercial land uses will evolve. These differences are not deemed significant for the sewer system as a whole, or even for specific sewer trunks. 4.3 Projected Growth Distribution by Basin The TAZ population and employment projections are proportioned among the sewer basins to generate wastewater flow into the trunk sewer system. Of course some TAZ are not entirely with the City sewer service area so only part of the area, population, and employment shown in Table 4-4 will actually contribute to the City sewers. The resulting distribution of population and employment follow specific parcels and are not directly related to proportional areas. Some portions of certain basins and the relevant TAZ cannot be developed due to sensitive area concerns. The resulting assumed distributions are summarized in Table 4-5. Table 4-5 Population and Employment Projections by Basin Basin 2025 Projections Build -Out Projections Population Employment Population Employment 1 1,199 0 1,410 0 2 642 18 1,038 618 3 1,000 39 1,000 247 4 508 178 512 186 5 611 925 935 1,035 6 2,319 2,664 2,832 2,707 7 937 422 1,117 554 8 942 411 957 426 9 513 139 585 536 10 1,166 288 1,022 293 11 1,955 343 1,986 600 12 240 289 195 1,318 13 173 92 115 513 14 1,824 373 2,059 801 15 257 9 415 9 16 165 8 165 83 17 387 40 401 452 18 599 0 705 0 19 385 36 623 37 20 771 27 1,245 28 21 1,113 0 1,535 0 Totals 17,706 6,301 20,839 10,211 The resulting projections of population and employment shown in Table 4-5 allow wastewater flows to be projected for the two future conditions. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 24 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F 4.4 Industrial Connections Page 120 of 332 The City has three structures classified as an industrial/manufacturing building type by the City Building Inspector. These are summarized in Table 4-6. Table 4-6 Industrial Structures Address Owner Telephone Business 1340 Lumsden Road Tony Jacobellis 206-842-6352 1420 Lumsden Road Gig Harbor Holdings LLC 360-876-5800 ICS Controls 1540 Leader International Rick Flaherty 360-895-1184 In addition, there are a number of marine related businesses, which are summarized in Table 4-7. Table 4-7 Marine Related Businesses Name Address Contact Phone Port Orchard Marine Railway 405 Bay Street Jeremy McNeil 702-966-8041 Sinclair Inlet Marina 501 Bay Street Peter & Kathleen Tierman 360-895-5167 Thompson Pile Driving 1089 Bay Street Paul Fritts 360-731-8911 Port Orchard Marina 707 Sidney Ave Brian Sauer 360-876-5535 ext 23 Dock Side Yacht Sales 53 Bay Street 360-876-9016 Kitsap Marina 1595 Bay Street Rudolph Oelofse 206-634-3080 Suldan's Boat Works 1345 Bay Street Greg, Mark, Mike Suldan 360-867-3435 None of these facilities are believed to have a State Waste Discharge Permit from the Department of Ecology. 4.5 South Kitsap Industrial Area Bremerton National Airport has been the most visible facility within the SKIA. These aircraft related facilities include terminal buildings, hangers, aircraft maintenance facilities, aviation fuel storage, and other aviation related businesses. Kitsap County Public Works has a number of facilities within SKIA including the Public Works Annex, plus the Household Hazardous Waste Facility and the Olympic View Transfer Station operated by Waste Management. The former Kitsap County Landfill is also within the SKIA. This facility has been closed and capped. Historically, leachate from this facility was spread on the vegetation ground cover. The City has recently reached an agreement for the leachate to be trunked to the City sewer system for discharge into a manhole in Bay Street at SW Wilkens Drive. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 25 O'ml ri;;iMI6)BQI!A!&WOW�%vj?.-,'S2'.\ I �--W-;'ANW fffi-mN M WRN i wf4l CrA VAJ W: RIM � URI P 2-1 -F M. . - F, jI 0 X-1 I E Of IS j I'TAO! ANINNINEIr■ito - ggg D 0 4 111 m - . I rill LWAN&L WO .1 'b- W I I Iva L Tim K=I - �:; JK augg 04 Im IN A aml YI MI Fail PIPE jr G. M-m 10 amm ISPIEW T X, oil 1610 mm art In 16mrpap '1=MIa mWi-I .11 sm MEW W mw IN= 11r-faivill—M Muni ti. eEM 0 ®I m Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 5. WASTEWATER FLOWS Exhibit F Page 123 of 332 5.1 Historic Wastewater Flows All wastewater from the City sewer system passes through the Marina Pump Station to reach the South Kitsap Water Reclamation Facility. Flow at the pump station is metered. Wastewater flow for Port Orchard is seasonal, as it is for most western Washington communities. Late summer from July through September is usually dry and flows are minimal. Early winter brings significant rainstorms and wastewater flow rises accordingly. Review of metered wastewater flow over several recent years allows four flow parameters to be identified that are useful in projecting future flow conditions: • The total annual flow defines the average daily flow. • Summer minimal flows define the approximate sewage component • Winter flows during periods without significant rain, less the summer minimum, defines the infiltration component • Winter flow during or following a significant rainstorm defines the rain -induced infiltration inflow component Selected City flow records for the Marina Pump Station are summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Marina Pump Station Flow Summary Monthly Average Flow in Millions of Gallons per Day Month 2007 2006 2005 2004 July 0.679 0.658 0.657 na August 0.663 0.633 0.643 0.675 September 0.688 0.641 0.651 0.683 Average 0.677 0.644 0.650 0.679 January 0.902 1.266 0.843 1.037 February 0.740 0.849 0.728 0.794 November 0.778 1.128 0.792 0.722 December 1.087 1.001 0.991 0.856 Average 0.877 1.061 0.839 0.852 Maximum Day 3 Dec @ 3.84 14 Dec @ 3.37 18 Jan @ 1.75 10 Dec @ 2.08 Rain inches 1 5.15 1 2.41 1 1.50 1 2.15 Note: Flow data are not available for some months, and other months are incomplete. The early December 2007 storm event was likely an abnormal occurrence. The maximum daily flow was recorded on 3 December 2007 was 3.84 MGD, which is within the existing station capacity of 4,000 GPM (5.8 MGD) as discussed in Section 3.2. Average daily flows over entire years for the City sewer system are computed as shown in Table 5-2 for the calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006 from City records for the Marina Pump Station. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 26 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Table 5-2 Page 124 of 332 Annual Average Daily Flow in MGD Month 2007 2006 2005 2004 Jan 0.902 1.266 0.843 1.037 Feb 0.740 0.849 0.728 0.794 Mar 0.802 0.744 0.766 0.758 Apr 0.699 0.702 0.796 0.687 May 0.721 0.692 0.726 0.714 Jun 0.708 0.684 0.695 0.700 Jul 0.679 0.658 0.657 0.000 Aug0.663 0.633 0.643 0.675 Sep 0.688 0.641 0.651 0.683 Oct 0.716 0.644 0.681 0.000 Nov 0.758 1.128 0.792 0.722 Dec 1.097 1.001 0.991 0.856 Total 9.164 9.642 8.969 7.626 Average 0.764 0.804 0.747 0.763 As shown in Table 5-2, the 2006 calendar year included three months with flows averaging more than 1.000 MGD. These high months may have been unusual due to severe rainstorms such as the event on December 2nd when 5.15 inches of precipitation was recorded. These severe events form the benchmarks to gage the capacity of the sewer system. No overflow occurred during that event any where in the City sewer system - meaning, the sewer system has adequate capacity to accommodate such peak storm events under existing conditions. 5.2 Existing Unit Flows Annual average daily flows as shown in Table 5-2 divided by the number of ERU described in Section 3.1 for the referenced year, including McCormick Woods, provides the unit flow in gallons per day per ERU. These computations are summarized in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 Average Day Flow per ERU Parameter 2007 2006 2005 2004 Annual Average Day Gallons 764,000 804,000 747,000 763,000 ERU 5,036 4,935 4,830 Gallons per ERU 160 151 158 Table 5-3 indicates that on an annual average day basis, each equivalent residential unit connected to the City sewer system contributes about 160 gallons. At the City housing rate of Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 27 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 125 of 332 2.4 persons per household, the historic per capita wastewater generation rate has been about 67 GPD per person, which is similar to other communities in the Puget Sound area. Wastewater flow per employee is a more difficult value to derive. Commercial flow varies widely. Retail stores may generate little wastewater. Food establishments and some industries may generate high flows per employee. Even establishing the number of employees within city limits poses challenges. Puget Sound Regional Council has employment data; however the basis of PSRC data collection changed between 2004 and 2005, which resulted in significantly different employment numbers. This is the best employment data available and provides the best basis for estimating the average wastewater flow generated in the City as summarized in Table 5- 4 based on 160 GPD per ERU divided by the Employees per ERU for the relevant year. Table 5-4 Wastewater Flow per Employee Year Employment Commercial ERU Employees per ERU GPD per Employee 2006 4,778 1,377 3.5 45.7 2005 4,873 1,308 3.7 43.2 2004 2,108 1,290 1.6 100.0 2003 1,910 1,224 1.6 100.0 The data for 2005 and 2006 appears to be the most complete in terms of an accurate estimate of employment connected to City sewers. An average day wastewater flow of 45 GPD per employee is believed to be similar to the experience of other Puget Sound jurisdictions, though slightly higher, and will be used for this planning analysis. 5.3 Peaking Factors Comparison of the maximum day events recorded in recent years defines the peak day factors experienced by the City sewer system. These comparisons are summarized in Table 5-5. Table 5-5 Historic Peak Day Factor for City Sewer System Peaking Elements 2007 2006 2005 2004 Peak Day of Year in MGD 3.838 3.367 1.754 2.075 Average Day of Year in MGD 0.764 0.804 0.747 0.763 Peak Day Factor 5.0 4.2 2.3 2.7 Available data is not sufficient to establish the peak hour flow for the City sewer system. The peak hour factor needs to recognize that the storm hydrograph as it moves through the sewer system may coincide with the diurnal peak for the day. Accordingly, the peak hour factor for the City sewer system is estimated at 6 multiplied by the average day flow. For the year 2007, the peak hour flow is estimated to have been about 6 x 0.764 MGD = 4.6 MGD. This rate is within the existing capacity of the Marina Pump Station as discussed in Section 3-2. Since the station was able to accommodate the 14 December 2006 event without an overflow, this peaking factor Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 28 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 126 of 332 is believed to be appropriate. The general experience of most communities is that peaking factors decline as the population and employment increases, especially if the sewer system is rehabilitated to reduce extraneous flows such as infiltration and inflow. 5.4 South Kitsap Industrial Area Projections The potable water demand stated for the projected 9,350 employees in the SKIA Plan is presented as the average day demand in 2017 being 1.4 MGD, or about 150 GPD per employee. The industrial development is projected to generate an average day wastewater flow of about 1.2 MGD, or about 85 percent of the potable water demand. This is a typical relationship. However, historic recorded flows indicate wastewater averages about 28 GPD per employee. No specific quantity is mentioned in the SKIA Plan for peak hour wastewater flow. Peak hour industrial/commercial/business wastewater flow is usually at least double the average, which would be about 2.4 MGD. An allowance for infiltration/inflow must also be included. These extraneous flows during a winter storm may average 800 GPD per acre. At that rate the 550 net developed acres would produce about 0.44 MGD. Therefore, the total peak hour SKIA wastewater flow projected from the Plan would be about 2.84 MGD. The projected water demand stated in the SKIA Plan is considerably more than the 101 GPD/employee used in 1997 (the only date referenced). Even the 1997 value is about triple the usual water use in commercial and business park development. The SKIA Plan could be indicative that a water -intensive industrial use is expected within SKIA. This seems unlikely. The high water use recorded in 1997 may be due to washing of aircraft stored at the airport, which is not a water demand likely to increase significantly. The Kitsap County Solid Waste Facility is located within the SKIA and leachate from that facility has been discussed as a possible contribution to any sewerage facilities serving the area. The projected wastewater volume would seem adequate to include this flow, though the pollutant loading may need separate consideration. The SKIA is a large site with many possibilities for future development, such as a NASCAR race track or another major facility. However, these possibilities are only speculative for now. Consequently, longer term or build -out projections of wastewater flow projection for the SKIA have not yet been developed by the City of Bremerton or the Port of Bremerton. 5.5 McCormick Woods The June 2005 `Sewer Capacity Analysis' prepared for McCormick Woods North Phase 1 summarizes the current land use planning for parcels within the McCormick Woods development that will be tributary to the Old Clifton Road sewer as shown on Figure 5-1 (an excerpt from the planning map prepared for that development). That `Analysis' provides more detail of future development than the TAZ projections shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5; and such detail is appropriate to the largest development area now served by the City. Those development parcels that will be tributary to the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 through the 15-inch pipe from the west can be summarized as follows for average day wastewater flow conditions: Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 29 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 127 of 332 Residential 2,677 units Commercial 4,291 employees High School 1,100 students & staff Recreation Park little use during school Projected Average Day Domestic Sewage Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update 160 GPD/unit 45 GPD/employee 26 GPD/person 0.428 MGD 0.193 MGD 0.029 MGD 0.010 MGD 0.660 MGD This portion of the McCormick Woods development totals about 487.1 acres. Under wet weather conditions, infiltration and rain -induced inflow may average 800 GPD per acre at peak hour for these parcels that include many homes using low pressure sewer systems instead of conventional gravity sewers. The resulting extraneous flow is projected to total about 0.390 MGD. Total flow from the west in the 15-inch pipe in Old Clifton Road under peak hour conditions is estimated as follows: Domestic Sewage = 0.428 MGD x 3.0 peak factor = 1.284 MGD Infiltration & Inflow = 487.1 acres x 800 GPD/acre = 0.390 MGD Total peak hour wastewater flow 1.674 MGD Additional parcels enter Pump Station No 2 through other piping as summarized below: Residential 808 units 160 GPD/unit 0.129 MGD Commercial 347 employees 45 GPD/employee 0.016 MGD Club House 90 persons 50 GPD/person 0.005 MGD Inn/Motel 200 rooms 130 GPD/room 0.026 MGD Total average day sewage flow 0.176 MGD These additional parcels encompass about 658.6 acres. Under wet weather conditions, this land area may average 800 GPD per acre. The total peak hour flow from these parcels is estimated as follows: Domestic Sewage = 0.176 MGD x 3.0 peak factor = 0.528 MGD Infiltration & Inflow = 487.1 acres x 800 GPD/acre = 0.527 MGD Total peak hour wastewater flow 1.055 MGD Pumping capacity required for the McCormick Woods parcels at Pump Station 2 is summarized as follows: From the west in Old Clifton Road 1.674 MGD From other parcels 1.055 MGD Total Peak Hour Flow 2.729 MGD = 1,895 GPM This value indicates that when the parcels are fully developed some years in the future, the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 capacity will need to be about doubled. The influent gravity pipes and the force main have adequate capacity to accommodate this increase. Several additional parcels are planned to discharge through separate pump stations downstream of the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2. The flow from these parcels is summarized below: Residential 687 units 160 GPD/unit = 0.110 MGD x 3.0 peak = 0.330 MGD Land area 338.7 acres 800 GPD/acre = 0.271 MGD Total additional peak hour flow to force main = 0.601 MGD Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 30 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 128 of 332 The peak hour flow from McCormick Woods parcels without SKIA in the 15-inch gravity sewer in Old Clifton Road between McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 and No 1 would total about 2.729 + 0.601 = 3.33 MGD, which is well within the flowing full capacity of 4.8 MGD for this pipe stretch. 5.6 Sedgwick Road Developments The sewer basins along SW Sedgwick Road and Pottery Avenue as shown on Figure 3-6 as Basins 3, 12, 13, and 14 are experiencing considerable development interest. The build -out population for Basin 3 in particular may exceed the projections shown in Table 4-5 due to the proposed Stetson Heights development proposed by Quadrant Homes. This development alone is planned for 385 single family homes. At the typical household size for Port Orchard of 2.4 persons, these homes would contain over 900 people; yet Table 4-5 projects the population for the entire basin as only 530 people. A number of commercial developments have occurred in recent years and others are planned for this area. However, available data does not indicate a reason to question the employment projections. 5.7 Projected Wastewater Flows Wastewater flows are projected to future conditions to identify the sewerage facilities needed to accommodate residential and commercial developments based on the land uses established by current zoning for the urban growth area tributary to the City sewer system. Build -out conditions were projected first to establish the maximum capacities needed as summarized in Table 5-6 assuming future unit flows are similar to those recorded in the past based on the basin delineation shown in Figure 3-6 and including SKIA. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 31 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Table 5-6 Page 129 of 332 Projected Build -Out Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities Trunk Facility Contributing Basins Avg. Day GPD Peak Factor Peak Hour Flow Build -Out Capacity Needed A 4 43,000 5.0 0.21 MGD B 5 109,000 5.0 0.55 MGD Bay Street 4 & 5 152,000 5.0 0.76 MGD & 630 GPM C-east 6 & Coast PS 471,000 5.0 2.32 MGD C-west D & F 2,553,000 4.0 10.21 MGD D 8 + E & H 2,471,000 3.5 8.65 MGD Marina PS C-east & west 3,016,000 4.5 12.07 MGD & 10,060 GPM Sed wick 14-S 23,000 5.0 0.115 MGD & 96 GPM E 11,13,&14-N + Bravo & Albertson 501,000 4.5 2.45 MGD F 10 82,000 5.0 0.41 MGD G 3 & 13 354,000 3.0 1.42 MGD Albertson PS 3 & 13 154,000 3.0 0.46 MGD & 390 GPM H 7 + McCormick PS 1 1,608,000 4.0 6.43 MGD McCormick 1 I 1,793,000 4.0 7.17 MGD & 5,000 GPM Ridge PS 16 15,000 5.0 0.074 MGD & 62 GPM I 2, 9, 15 + Ridge & McCormick 2 1,793,000 4.0 7.17 MGD McCormick 2 J & K 1,617,000 3.0 4.85 MGD & 4,000 GPM J 1, 17, & 18 1,386,000 3.5 4.85 MGD K 19, 20, & 21 231,000 5.0 1.16 MGD SKIA SKIA 1,197,000 2.4 2.87 MGD & 2,000 GPM Future peaking factors identified in Table 5-5 from historic data are expected to decline as the system expands and population grows, as shown in Table 5-6 for several reasons: • Some decline can be expected simply as sewer systems increase in size and the local peaks become averaged with the broader system. • New constriction is anticipated to allow less infiltration and inflow to enter the sewers, which is a major contributor to peak flows. • Some rehabilitation of existing sewers will also occur, which should at least allow the existing sewers to maintain the historic peaking factors and may reduce these factors somewhat. Accordingly, a peak factor of less than 5 multiplied by average day flow is believed appropriate for several parts of the system. This factor will decrease to about 4.0 or even 3.0 as more trunks are combined. Commercial areas will be a further exception, since their peaking factors are normally even less; perhaps as low as 2.4 may be appropriate. Conditions were then projected for 2025 to establish the facilities needed in a more immediate timeframe as summarized in Table 5-7. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 32 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Table 5-7 Page 130 of 332 Projected 2025 Wastewater Flow in Trunk Conveyance Facilities Trunk Facility Contributing Basins Avg. Day GPD Peak Factor Peak Hour Flow A 4 42,000 5.0 0.21 MGD B 5 88,000 5.0 0.42 MGD Bay Street 4 & 5 130,000 5.0 0.65 MGD & 540 GPM C-east 6 & Coast PS 407,000 5.0 2.04 MGD C-west D & F 2,405,000 4.5 9.62 MGD D 8 + E & H 2,314,000 4.5 8.10 MGD Marina PS C-east & west 2,813,000 4.0 11.25 MGD & 9,380 GPM Sed wick 14-S 23,000 5.0 0.12 MGD & 96 GPM E 11,13,&14-N + Bravo & Albertson 381,000 4.5 1.72 MGD F 10 91,000 5.0 0.46 MGD G 3 & 13 343,000 4.0 1.37 MGD Albertson PS 3 & 13 150,000 3.0 0.45 MGD & 370 GPM H 7 + McCormick PS 1 1,525,000 4.0 6.10 MGD McCormick 1 I 1,661,000 4.5 6.65 MGD & 5,540 GPM Ridge PS 16 11,000 5.0 0.057 MGD & 48 GPM I 2, 9, 15 + Ridge & McCormick 2 1,661,000 4.0 6.65 MGD McCormick 2 J & K 1,533,000 3.0 4.60 MGD & 3,830 GPM J 1, 17, & 18 1,378,000 3.5 4.82 MGD K 19, 20, & 21 155,000 5.0 0.78 MGD SKIA SKIA 1,197,000 2.4 2.87 MGD The projected peak hour flows shown in Tables 5-6 and 5-7 allow the existing conveyance facilities to be evaluated for adequate capacities to accommodate future flow conditions. Average day flow in 2025 is projected from the population projection shown in Table 4-4 at 67 GPD per capita, plus the projected employment at 45 GPD per employee. The 2025 average day flow projection is 2.813 MGD, which is about 3.5 times the average day flow recorded at the Marina Pump Station for 2006 as shown in Table 5-2. The projected annual average day flow for the Build -Out Projection shown in Table 4-4 is about 3.016 MGD, which is only about 7 percent above the 2025 projected average day flow. These values are only projections based on data currently available. Planning assumptions do change over the years. The flow projections should be reviewed from time to time as better planning data becomes available. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 33 City of Port Orchard WASHINGTON Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 131 of 332 Feet 0 300 600 1200 Data Source: Goldsmith and Associates, Inc Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis, June 29, 2005 McCormick Woods Urban Village Conceptual Master Plan Figure 5-1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update 6. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM 6.1 Existing City Sewer Pipe System Evaluation Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 132 of 332 Not all of the flows projected in Table 5-6 and 5-7 can be conveyed by the existing City sewer system of interceptor pipes, pump stations, and force mains. Table 6-1 summarized the City conveyance system in relation to the projected peak hour flows to identify which elements will be stressed. Table 6-1 Projected Conveyance Pipe Capacity Limitations Peak Hour Flow Projections Trunk Location Exist Inches Diameter 2025 Projection Build -out Projection MGD Pipe Inches MGD Pipe Inches A Bay Street 12 0.21 ok 0.21 ok B Bay Street 10 0.42 ok 0.55 ok C-east Bay Street 18 2.04 ok 2.32 ok C-west Bay Street 24 9.62 33 10.21 ok D — 1 Port Orchard 12 new 8.10 ok 8.65 ok D — 2 Port Orchard 12 old 18 18 E ravine 10 1.72 15 2.45 15 F Bay Street 18 0.46 ok 0.41 ok G Pottery Avenue 10 1.37 15 1.42 15 H Tremont Street 15 6.10 21 6.43 24 I Old Clifton Road 15 6.65 18 7.17 18 J Old Clifton Road 15 4.82 18 4.85 18 K McCormick Woods 10 0.78 ok 1.16 12 Several of the trunks are shown in Table 6-1 to need more capacity for 2025 or built -out flow projections. These trunks are discussed below; and the alternatives believed appropriate are explored in the next chapter. 6.2 Existing Sewer Pump Stations Table 6-2 provides a summary of capacity limitations for the principal pump stations of the City trunk sewer system, and the associated force mains. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 34 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Table 6-2 Page 133 of 332 Projected Pump Station Capacity Limitations Pump Existing Parameters 2025 Projection Build -out Projection Station GPM Force Main Inches GPM Pipe Inches GPM Pipe Inches Coast 515 none — lift station 540 ok 630 ok Marina 3,700 18 9,380 24 10,060 24 McCormick 1 1,000 16 5,000 ok 5,540 18 McCormick 2 1,000 16 3,830 ok 4,000 ok Albertson 176 6 380 ok 370 ok Sed wick 180 6 96 ok 96 ok Force main should be designed with sufficient pipe diameter that velocities remain below 8 feet per second under peak flow conditions and above 2 feet per second at low flow conditions, which is the criteria used to indicate acceptable force mains in Table 6-2. Engineering field inspections were conducted for three pump stations within the City sewer system to identify improvements needed that should be included in the capital improvement program. The McCormick Woods Pump Stations No 1 and No 2 plus the Marina Pump Station are the most important stations to the functioning of the City sewer system, and were selected for this evaluation. Marina Pump Station Existing Facilities: Marina lift station is located on Bay Street and was built in 1983. The pump control and generator room was built on an existing concrete wastewater treatment tank, likely a clarifier. The exact age of the tank and surrounding sheet pile is unknown, but it was likely built in the early 1960s. The pump station wet well and drywell were also constructed in 1983 and are in the parking lot just south of the control building. The structure that houses the wetwell and drywell is substantial with 18-inch reinforced concrete walls and a 36-foot by 28.5- foot by 24-foot deep building envelope. The Marina Pump Station is located at the shoreline and is the last pump station before the City wastewater reaches the treatment plant. The station collects sewage from the upper basin and the heavy STEP component that entering McCormick Woods Pump Stations 1 and 2 has been diluted. The Marina Pump Station does receive a great deal of storm water flow form older parts of the sewer system during storm events. Odor is confined to the wet well and corrosion associated with sewage does not seem to be an issue. The pump station is designed with two 25 HP chopper pumps to convey typical sewage flow and two larger 150 HP centrifugal pumps to convey high flows associated with storms. The large pumps are each rated for 2,600 GPM at 115 feet of lift. Storm flows that exceed the capacity of the two main pumps discharge excess flow through an overflow pipe leading to Sinclair Inlet. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 35 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 134 of 332 The large 150 HP pumps are plumbed from the wet well and to an 18-inch force main with 14- inch ductile iron pipe. Each large pump is equipped with a 14-inch plug valve on the inlet side and a 14-inch check valve and plug valve on the discharge side. The smaller 25 HP chopper pumps are plumbed from the wet well and to the force main in a similar fashion with 8-inch pipe and valves. Separate flow meters measure flow from the large pump and the small pumps and are located before the 18-inch force main. These flow meters measure low flows associated with sanitary sewer and the high flows discharged during storm events. The drywell is in excellent condition and the valves are likely to be in working order. Verification of the valve's heath and proper operation is recommended. The capacity of these valves and force mains are in excess of the current pump discharge rates and provide capacity into the future. For example, the large pumps are rated for force main are ideally designed between 4 and 8 feet per second (fps) fluid velocity. Following this criteria a 14-inch valve can convey approximately 3,900 GPM at 8 fps and an 18-inch force main can convey about 6,800 GPM at 8 fps. A detailed list of equipment sizes and dimensions of equipment was developed for this evaluation based on a field visit on July 91h, 2008, and on plans developed by KCM, Incorporated for the Marina Pump Station, dated March 1983. Deficiencies: The main deficiencies at the Marina Pump Station include the following: The large pumps are reaching the end of their lifespan. Control of the large pump includes one VFD system and one constant speed system resulting in the VFD controlled pump being operated more often causing uneven wear. The engine -generator is becoming difficult to maintain as parts are becoming scarce, the generator's automatic transfer switch (ATS) is 25 years old, and the generator fuel storage does not provide secondary containment. The drywell ventilation needs to be continuous and provide 6 air exchanges per hour to meet DOE requirements. The ventilation duct work appears to be adequately sized and a new fan and controls may be all that is needed. The sheet pile structure around the water side of the control room is beginning to fail potentially compromising the building foundation. Items that need further investigation before it can be determined if replacement, repair or modification is required include, the plug and check valves around the pumps and on force main, drywell and control room lighting, the potable water connection for cross connection control, drywell sump pump, wetwell access, wetwell condition, and the level sensing system. Recommendations: Replace the two large 150 HP pumps and replace the constant speed controller of Pump 2 with new VFD system. Replace generator, fuel tank and ATS. Replace ventilation fan and controls in drywell ventilation system to provide 6 air exchanges per hour and to operate continuously. Construct new ring of sheet pile around control room and replace backfill. Upon further investigation the following items may need to be replaced or rehabilitated if they are determined to be in poor condition. These items include, check and plug valves in drywell associated with pumps and force main, the drywell sump pump, the wet well interior, the level sensor system, and the potable water system cross connection control valve. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 36 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 135 of 332 Optional changes that would improve the stations operation, but are not absolutely required are described as follows. Replace the existing VFD that controls Pump 1 to provide a matched set of controllers. Improve lighting in the drywell and control room. Increase access to wet well for better maintenance. McCormick Woods Pump Stations No 1 and No 2 Existing Conditions: McCormick Woods Pump Stations 1 and 2 were built as part of ULID No 6 in late 1994 or 1995. Pump Station No 1 is located on Old Tremont Street just west of SR 16 and Pump Station No 2 is located on Old Clifton Road near McCormick Woods. The pump stations share a common design with the exception of the pump and generator size. Both pump stations are designed with duplex submersible pumps, an exterior control panel, a stand alone generator, a 10-foot by 10-foot fiberglass reinforced building to house chlorine bleach injection equipment and air compressor for force main corrosion control, chemical holding tank and an air scrubber for odor control. Both pump stations are constructed with the same valve arrangement. A 10-inch check and plug valve follow each pump, piping then combines to flow through a 16-inch isolation plug valve and into the force main. The capacity of these valves and force mains are well in excess of the current pump stations demands and provide capacity well into the future. For example, force main are ideally designed between 4 and 8 feet per second (fps) fluid velocity. Following this criteria a 10-inch valve can convey approximately 2,000 GPM at 8 fps and a 16-inch force main can convey about 5,100 GPM at 8 fps. A detailed list of equipment sizes and dimensions of equipment was developed based on a field visit on July 9th, 2008, plus plans developed by NL Olson and Associates for ULID No. 6, McCormick Woods Lift Stations 1 and 2, dated June 1994. Pump Station No 1 collects flow from the County Juvenile Detention Center, an office park, the decant facility operated by the City, and flow from McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2. The sewage is a mixture of fresh gravity sewage and aged STEP sewage from Pump Station No 2. Odor and corrosion is an issue, but not as severe as Pump Station 2. Ragging is occasionally a problem as a result of the inmates at the detention center flushing items down the toilets. Pump Station No 2 receives sewage from the McCormick Woods development. Most houses in the McCormick Woods area have septic tanks with effluent pumps (STEP systems) that discharge the effluent to Pump Station No 2. As a result, the sewage reaching the pump station is aged and odorous. Efforts to reduce the odor and possibly other constituents in the aged influent sewage with chlorine bleach (NaOCI) have led to tremendous corrosion problems. Deficiencies: Pump Station 1 and 2 have similar problems with those at Station 2 being more severe. Each station has corrosion issues with aged valves that do not operate, pipe saddles that are corroded and have failed or are close to failure, check valves that are slow to close due to Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 37 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 136 of 332 missing or rusted springs resulting in loud operation and pressure surges in the force main, and rails and rail mounts that are corroded and need replacement. Discharge piping from the pump up to the elbow exiting the wet well is designed with an 8-inch force main. This pipe is oversized, likely to provide for future growth. The problem that can occur from the excess size is the exit velocity can be too low to carry larger solids up the stack. As a result, a chunk of gravel or other large and dense solid can get trapped near the pump causing unnecessary damage. This is not likely a problem with STEP systems as in Pump Station 2, but may be a problem with Pump Station 1. Odor control systems that filter the exhaust air are not currently operated at the either pump station since they are not effective at removing odor. Operator reports that the odor control systems have never worked effectively suggest the media in the systems may not have been well matched for the odor creating chemicals present in the STEP system effluent. Related to odor control is the wet well storage volume. The construction drawings show 7-feet of active storage in the wet well. This provides excessive storage causing sewage in the wetwell to age unnecessarily. The active storage in the wet well should about one -quarter the volume for Station 2 and one-third the volume for Station 1 to protect the pumps against over -cycling. Chemical injection systems at each pump station use chlorine bleach that is hazardous, causes corrosion, and may inhibit treatment processes down stream at the wastewater treatment plant. The pumps and control systems are close to 25-years old and are likely nearing the end of their lifespan. This was reinforced by the fact that on the day of my site visit, one of the pumps failed at Pump Station 2. No equipment is available to remove and service pumps other than independent contractor. No area lighting provided. These deficiencies make maintenance difficult. More examination of the wetwell, force main and discharge piping is recommended. The existing equipment is sized large enough for future use. For this report is assumed that the structures may be reused. Recommendations: Replace pump system including pumps, controls and panels, level sensors, rails and reducers connecting to existing discharge elbows. Provide free standing roof structure above the pump control panel with integrated lights to illuminate area and to protect workers from the rain with a design similar to the McCormick Ridge installation. Replace check valves, plug valves and saddles downstream of the pump station in kind. Reduce the volume of storage in the wet well to reduce odors caused by long residence time. Employ new corrosion control system utilizing less toxic chemicals. If odor remains an issue at the station with the new corrosion control system, provide an odor control system that treats hydrogen sulfide and also the complex odors formed by STEP system effluent. Purchase a truck with a Pump with a swinging boom to be used to service all the pump stations. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 38 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F 6.3 Infiltration and Inflow Page 137 of 332 Ecology Publication No 97-03 defines criteria for determination of whether excessive infiltration or inflow may exist in a sewer system based on the served population. Table 6-3 shows the maximum day flow recorded at the Marina Pump Station in relation to the annual average day flow. The ratio of these flows is an indication of the magnitude of infiltration and the response to rainfall. The approximate served population shown in Table 6-3 was derived from the historic populations shown in Table 4-1 and the residential ERU shown in Table 4-2 at 2.4 persons per residential unit. Table 6-3 Marina Pump Station Flow Summary Monthly Average Flow in Millions of Gallons per Day Month 2007 2006 2005 2004 Maximum Day 3 Dec @ 3.84 14 Dec @ 3.367 18 Jan @ 1.754 10 Dec @ 2.075 Rain inches 5.15 2.41 1.50 2.15 Annual Average 0.764 0.804 0.747 0.763 Ratio 5.0 4.2 2.3 2.7 Served Population 7,333 7,272 7,226 6,948 Average GPD per Capita 104 110 103 110 Average GPD per Capita in Storm 702 463 243 299 The early December 2007 storm event was likely an abnormal occurrence. The maximum daily flow was recorded on 3 December 2007 was 3.84 MGD, which is within the existing station capacity of 3,700 GPM (5.33 MGD) as discussed in Section 2.2. Average daily flows over entire years for the City sewer system are computed as shown in Table 6-3 for the calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006 from City records for the Marina Pump Station. As shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, the 2006 calendar year included three months with flows averaging more than 1.000 MGD. These high months may have been unusual due to severe rainstorms such as the event on December 14t' when 2.41 inches of precipitation was recorded. These severe events form the benchmarks to gage the capacity of the sewer system. No overflow occurred during that event any where in the City sewer system — meaning, the sewer system has adequate capacity to accommodate such peak storm events. `Possibly excessive infiltration' is defined in Ecology Publication No 97-03 as annual average day flow exceeding 120 GPD per capita. Table 6-3 shows the annual average day flow was typically 110 GPD per capita. Infiltration into the Port Orchard sewer system as a whole does not appear excessive. Selected pipe reaches within the system may exceed this criteria and warrant rehabilitative efforts. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 39 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 138 of 332 `Possibly excessive inflow' is defined in Ecology Publication No 97-03 as annual average day flow exceeding 275 GPD per capita during significant rain storms. Table 6-3 shows the flow per capita during the largest storm of the year exceed that criteria during some years. However, the publication defines `significant rain storms' as `any storm that creates surface ponding and runoff. Clearly the largest storms of the year exceed that criteria, and are not intended as the basis for `possibly excessive inflow' determination. However, even the peak storm of some years does not exceed the criteria. Therefore, inflow does not appear to be excessive into the City sewer system as a whole. Selected pipes within the system, however, may exceed the criteria and may warrant rehabilitation efforts. A more local picture of infiltration/inflow issues can be achieved by evaluating the records of individual pump stations. Table 6-4 compares flows from McCormick Woods No 2 and through McCormick Woods No 1 for 2007. Table 6-4 2007 Flow Comparisons in GPD McCormick Woods No 1 and 2 Month McCormick 1 McCormick 2 Difference Jan 82,839 63,677 19,162 Feb 70,071 53,571 16,500 Mar 75,290 56,129 19,161 Apr 69,200 52,800 16,400 May 73,161 54,387 18,774 Jun 73,400 54,000 19,400 Jul 74,129 54,774 19,355 Aug74,323 53,226 21,097 Sep 78,600 54,200 24,400 Oct 78,581 51,677 26,904 Nov 84,600 56,400 28,200 Dec 108,968 70,452 38,516 Annual Average 78,597 56,275 22,322 Maximum Day 342,000 (Dec 3) 282,000 Dec 3) 60,000 Ratio 4.35 5.02 2.69 Table 6-4 indicates that the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 experiences larger peak flows than McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1. This means that a significant infiltration/inflow contribution comes from within the McCormick Woods development. These results indicate that construction and long-term integrity of the sewer system within McCormick Woods has not matched design expectations, and thus is using more system capacity than originally intended. Some system rehabilitation would seem appropriate to minimize capacity additions to the interceptors and three major pump stations. As shown in Table 6-3, flow through the Marina Pump Station for the peak day during 2007 also was five times the annual average day flow. This indicates that some areas downstream from Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 40 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 139 of 332 McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1 also have a sufficient response to rainfall to increase the peaking factor back up to about five times the annual average day flow. These areas are likely to be among the older sections of the sewer system, and those pipe reaches in depressions with high ground water. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 41 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F 7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Page 140 of 332 7.1 Trunk Sewers Required for Build -Out There are four basic alternatives to address capacity concerns within the trunk piping system: 1. Allow pipe to surcharge since the capacity is only needed for brief peak hour flows 2. Replace the trunk with a larger pipe, or install a parallel pipe 3. Divert some or all flow to a new or different trunk 4. Intercept some flow to a satellite treatment facility for reclamation and reuse as stream augmentation, irrigation, or other purposes Each of the trunks identified in Table 6-1 as requiring additional capacity for build -out conditions are discussed below. It is best to consider first the capacity that may be needed in comparison with the need projected for build -out flow conditions. Capacity needed by 2025 as shown in Table 6-1provides an indication of the urgency the capacity issue should be addressed. Trunk C-west — Bay Street Existing Conditions: The existing 24-inch pipe in Bay Street extends from Port Orchard Boulevard to the Marina Pump Station. The pipe burial is reported to average about 10-feet of cover reported for most pipe reaches. Deficiencies: Future peak hour flows under the build -out scenario may cause the pipe to surcharge for periods of several hours. Alternatives: Three alternatives are possible: A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there are no basements known to exist along this alignment. B. Pipe capacity can be increased by pipe bursting or by installing a parallel pipe. C. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed water for stream augmentation or reused in other manners. Trunk D — Port Orchard Boulevard Existing Conditions: Two 12-inch pipes have been installed at different dates in ravine corridor containing Port Orchard Boulevard. Deficiencies: Some portions of the older pipe in this alignment have only 4-feet of cover. Alternatives: Three alternatives are possible: A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there are no basements known to exist along this alignment. B. Pipe capacity can be increased by pipe bursting or by installing a parallel pipe. C. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed water for stream augmentation or reused in other manners. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 42 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Trunk E — Port Orchard Ravine Page 141 of 332 Existing Conditions: An existing 10-inch pipe connects Pottery Avenue into the dual 12-inch trunks flowing north from Tremont Street in Port Orchard Boulevard. This existing 10-inch pipe is laid in an easement with the stream corridor without the benefit of a dedicated public right-of- way. The stream is a `sensitive area', which severely limits access for maintenance or reconstruction. Five lateral or collector sewers discharge into the existing 10-inch sewer along this stretch of pipe. Deficiencies: Maintenance access is currently difficult for this stretch of pipe. South up Pottery Avenue towards Sedgwick Road is one of the rapidly developing areas of the City. Additional sewer capacity will be needed in the immediate future. Yet the `sensitive area' designation severely limits opportunities to reconstruct or replace this pipe, even at abnormally high costs. Alternatives: Two basic alternatives are possible regarding capacity limitations for the 10inch pipe, and combinations of these two basic alternatives offer a range of variations: A. Construct a new pump station on Pottery Avenue at Lippert Drive with a force main north in Pottery Avenue to discharge into the sewer in Tremont Street. B. Using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology, construct a satellite wastewater treatment facility near Pottery Avenue at Sedgwick Road to produce reclaimed water for the new commercial development occurring in this vicinity and/or augment flow in Blackjack Creek. Excess flow and sludge from the MBR facility would continue to flow through the existing 10- inch sewer. Trunk G —Pottery Avenue Existing Conditions: The existing trunk in Pottery Avenue is 10-inch diameter. Deficiencies: Development in the Pottery-Sedgwick-Sidney area is threatening to exceed the capacity available. Alternatives: Two alternatives seem feasible: A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there are no basements known to exist along this alignment. B. A satellite MBR wastewater treatment facility could be built near Pottery Avenue at Sedgwick Road to produce reclaimed water for the new commercial development occurring in this vicinity and/or augment flow in Blackjack Creek. Trunk H— Tremont Street Existing Conditions: The 16-inch force main from McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1 discharges into an existing gravity sewer is 15-inch diameter in Tremont Street, which extends Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 43 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 142 of 332 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update from the hospital east to Pottery Avenue. The record drawings indicate the minimum pipe gradient is about 0.69 percent. Deficiencies: The existing 15-inch pipe receives the 1,000 GPM (1.44 MGD) discharge from McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1, which is within the pipe capacity when flowing full of about 3.4 MGD. The pipe also receives the 50 GPM discharge from the Canyon Court Pump Station as well as the Harrison Hospital Pump Station at 350 GPM. The pipe capacity is clearly adequately at present but will be exceeded in 2025 when flow is projected to reach 6.10 MGD. Alternatives: The existing 15-inch pipe should be replaced with a pipe having capacity for about 4,500 GPM or about 6.5 MGD. A 24-inch pipe at a gradient of 0.30 percent would be adequate. Trunk I — Old Clifton Road Existing Conditions: The lower part of Old Clifton Road contains a 15-inch trunk from the terminus of the 16-inch force main from McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2 east and north into McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1. Deficiencies: The existing pipe may need additional capacity when the SKIA properties reach full development. Alternatives: A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there are no basements known to exist along this alignment. B. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed water for stream augmentation or reused in other manner. Trunk J— Old Clifton Road Existing Conditions: A 15-inch trunk exists in upper Old Clifton Road from the west edge of the McCormick Woods tract at Feigley Road east to McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2. Deficiencies: The existing pipe may need additional capacity when the SKIA properties reach full development. Alternatives: A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there are no basements known to exist along this alignment. B. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed water for stream augmentation or reused in other manner. Trunk K —McCormick Woods Existing Conditions: A 10-inch trunk convey wastewater from the STEP systems within McCormick Woods north to the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 2. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 44 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 143 of 332 Deficiencies: This pipe capacity may be inadequate when McCormick Woods is fully developed. Alternatives: Three alternatives may be feasible: A. Surcharging of the sewer pipe may be acceptable for limited time periods as there are no basements known to exist along this alignment. B. Pipe capacity can be increased by pipe bursting or by installing a parallel pipe. C. Flow can be reduced by use of satellite treatment facilities to produce reclaimed water for stream augmentation or reused in other manners. The alternatives described above for each of the trunk sewer capacity concerns is believed feasible. Cost considerations can be generally described as follows: > Surcharging the sewer pipes as indicated has no apparent capital cost; and little risk beyond the possibility of a brief sewer overflow should peak flow briefly exceed projections, which may involve some maintenance cost if cleanup becomes required. > Pipe reconstruction, either by pipe bursting, installing a parallel sewer, or by replacing the existing pipe has significant capital cost, though little added on -going maintenance or operating costs. The community disruption during construction may be severe however. > Building and operating satellite MBR treatment facilities likely have the most expensive direct costs. However, such facilities may have off -setting savings in extending available water sources, environmental benefits, and improved community relations. Selection of which alternative to implement for each of the various trunk capacity issues may vary depending on the preferences of the participating property owners, funding available, and the community priorities. SKIA Wastewater Flow Management Existing Conditions: The SKIA is presently served by onsite sewage systems. These facilities are adequate for current conditions and may remain sufficient indefinitely. The City of Port Orchard has the potential to provide at least some capacity for the SKIA in Trunk J and onwards to the wastewater treatment facility. Deficiencies: Capacities of the existing onsite systems will eventually be exceeded in accordance with the development projected in the SKIA Plan. The existing capacity in the City system is limited and may not suffice for build -out development planned for the SKIA. Alternatives: The City has two basic alternatives to providing added wastewater capacity: A. Enlarge all downstream facilities B. Provide a satellite treatment facility within the SKIA Alternative A is very expensive and disruptive. Alternative B can be implemented when needed at SKIA, the water can be reclaimed and percolated into the ground for aquifer recharge, and the sludge can be trucked or pumped to the existing sewer in Old Clifton Road. Discharge can be Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 45 Ordinance No. 034-09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Exhibit F Page 144 of 332 managed to occur only during off-peak times so capacities throughout the City sewer system do not need to consider SKIA at all in defining peak hour capacities. 7.2 Pump Station Improvements Required for Build -Out Capacity needed for build -out conditions at the principal pump stations in the City sewer system are summarized in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Projected Pump Station Capacities Needed for Built -Out Conditions Station Existing GPM Required GPM Station Adequacy Existing Force Main - inches Force Main Needed - inches Bay Street 515 633 no none lift into trunk Bravo Terrace 180 96 ok 6 Adequate Albertson 176 390 no 6 Adequate Ride 200 46 ok 6 Adequate McCormick 1 1,000 2,237 no 16 Adequate McCormick 2 1,000 1,749 no 16 Adequate Marina 3,500 6,217 no 15 Adequate Force mains shown in Table 7-1 may be adequate with velocities less than 8 feet per second at the Build -Out peak pumping rate. The resulting dynamic head loss and power requirements to use the existing force mains may warrant some replacements though. 7.3 Trunk Sewers Required for 2025 Table 7-1 also indicates that several pump stations will need additional capacity under projected Build -Out conditions. Conditions were then projected for 2025 to establish the facilities needed in a more immediate timeframe as shown in Table 7-2. Table 7-2 Projected Facility Capacities Needed for 2025 Conditions Facilities Exceeded at Build -Out Pi a Capacity Available/Required in MGD Existing Build -Out 2025 Upgrade Needed Trunks C-west 4.3 10.21 9.62 Surcharge ok in 2025 D 5.1 8.65 8.10 Surcharge ok in 2025 E 0.83 2.45 1.72 Yes G 0.70 1.42 1.37 Yes H 3.4 6.43 6.10 Yes I 4.70 7.17 6.65 Surcharge ok in 2025 J 3.90 4.85 4.82 Surcharge ok in 2025 K 0.80 1.16 0.78 No — maybe @ build -out Pump Stations Bay Street 515 630 540 No — maybe @ build -out Albertson 176 390 370 Yes McCormick 1 1,000 5,000 5,540 Yes Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 46 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 145 of 332 McCormick 2 1,000 4,000 3,830 Yes Marina 3,700 10,060 9,380 Yes Table 7-2 indicates that under the current routing of wastewater flows, Trunks C-west, E, H, and I plus the three larger pump stations will needed to be upgraded before 2025. 7.4 Sewer Service Alternatives for SKIA Both Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 indicate substantial capacity increases are needed to accommodate peak hour wastewater flows from the SKIA as reflected in subsequent tables through Table 7-2. The City can provide this capacity through reconstruction of the existing facilities. However, there is little indication that the SKIA is prepared to provide the necessary funding in the short term for the benefit conferred. It is therefore necessary and appropriate that the City consider alternatives if sewer service is to be extended to the SKIA under the six -year capital improvement program developed in subsequent chapters. Examination of the SKIA properties shows that almost all of the parcels proposed for development and served by the proposed water main extensions lie within the Union River watershed, including. Some approximate key elevations are summarized below: SW Barney White @ SR 3 440 SW Barney White @ west SKIA boundary 240 SR 3 crest to northeast & Gorst 460 East boundary of the SKIA 480 Old Clifton Road @ Feigley Road SW 530 The SW Barney Road at SR 3 intersection can be considered as approximating the center of the developed area. The main SKIA pump station could be located near this interception. A tributary pump station would be needed near the west SKIA boundary on SW Barney White Road, and perhaps at other locations.. For wastewater from SW Barney White Road at SR 3 to reach the nearest City sewer in Old Clifton Road requires a pipeline length of about 13,000 feet. Table 5-6 identified the required pumping capacity as 2,000 GPM, which would need a 16-inch diameter force main to convey wastewater at about 3.3 feet per second with about 50 feet of dynamic head loss. The static head would be about 90 feet plus the wet well depth, for a total lift approaching 160 feet. This is near the limit for most wastewater pumping systems. Each pump would need at least a 125 horsepower motor. Odor and corrosion control would be an even more of a challenge than at present in the interceptor system from Old Clifton Road through McCormick Woods Pump Station 2, thence to Pump Station 1, and on to the Marina Pump Station. However, the wastewater volumes shown in Table 5-6 are projected in the SKIA Plan only through about 2017, and only for 550 acres of 2,300 total acres that are considered developable. Build -out wastewater capacity needs for the entire site have not been estimated. The existing development is served through an on -site septic system with a capacity of 72,000 GPD. The SKIA Plan envisions development in phases. The first phase would extend until capacity is reached with the existing on -site system. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 47 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 146 of 332 The second phase would provide connection to the City sewer system. Given the uncertainties involved and the funding constraints, this second phase might need an average day wastewater capacity of about 150,000 GPD, which is double the existing on -site capacity. This capacity would be provided by duplex 310 GPM pumps with 25 horsepower motors and an 8-inch force main to Old Clifton Road. A third phase would be initiated with the second phase capacity is reached by constructing a satellite treatment facility using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) process to produce `Class A' reclaimed water. Sludge wasted from the treatment facility would be sent through the phase 2 pump station and force main to the City sewer at old Clifton Road. The reclaimed water could be used by local businesses such as gravel washing, concrete production, or other processes. The water would also be available to augment the three streams draining from the SKIA: ➢ Gorst Creek flowing into Sinclair Inlet ➢ Union River flowing into Hood Canal ➢ Coulter Creek flowing into Case Inlet The MBR treatment process would be designed in modular packages so it can be expanded as wastewater flows from the SKIA increase. The resulting impacts to the existing City sewer system downstream from Old Clifton Road would be significantly reduced as shown in Table 7-3 for the affected trunk sewers and pump stations. Table 7-3 Sewer Improvements Revised for Reduced SKIA Flow Facilities Exceeded at Build -Out Pipe apacity Available/Required in MGD Trunks Location Existing Build -Out 2025 Upgrade Needed J Upper Old Clifton 3.9 1.2 1.2 No McCormick 2 McCormick Woods 1.4 1.7 1.5 Yes I Lower Old Clifton 4.7 3.0 2.6 No McCormick 1 SR 16 1.4 3.0 2.5 Yes H Tremont 3.4 4.5 3.6 Yes D Port Orchard Blvd 5.1 5.0 4.4 No C-west Bay Street 4.3 6.0 5.4 see note Marina PS Bay Street 5.8 7.7 7.1 Yes Note: Trunk C-west may surcharge for a few hours during peak storm events Comparison of the capacity needs shown in Table 7-3 with the capacity requirements shown in Table 7-1 and 7-2 shows that planning for a satellite MBR facility will significantly reduce the upgrades required to existing City sewer facilities, and the cost to operate the smaller resulting pump stations. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 48 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 7.5 Satellite Treatment Alternatives Exhibit F Page 147 of 332 Intercepting at least some wastewater flow into a satellite treatment facility offers the potential to eliminate, reduce, and/or delay the need for capacity additions to several existing interceptor sewers and to the three major pump stations. Membrane bioreactors (MBR) are currently the accepted `state-of-the-art' treatment process for reclaiming wastewater to `Class A' standards for reuse applications that may involve public contact. MBR processes are available from several manufacturers using two basic technologies: flat plate and hollow fiber. Both processes can readily produce `Class A' reclaimed water. The hollow fiber process may be best suited to larger installations because the membrane density is higher. The flat plate processes has simpler, less expensive maintenance requirements. Regulatory requirements to produce `Class A' reclaimed water are defined in `Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards' September 1997 by the Departments of Ecology and Health, which is based on regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. `Class A Reclaimed Water' is defined as an oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected wastewater. An MBR process does not normally include coagulation as a treatment step. However, the State of California has accepted the MBR technology as providing an equivalent treatment quality, and the State of Washington has followed suite. The required minimum effluent standards to qualify as Class A reclaimed water can be summarized as follows: 1. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) not exceeding 30 milligrams per liter (mg/L). 2. Average monthly operating turbidity not exceeding 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and not exceeding 5 NTU at any time. 3. Median total coliform not exceeding 2.2 organisms per 100 milliliters (mL) for the past seven days and no sample exceeding 23 per 100 mL. 4. Chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L during conveyance from the reclamation facility to the use areas. The MBR process will routinely exceed the Class A requirements as the effluent typically produced from a flat plate membrane will be less than 5 mg/L for BOD and TSS, while the turbidity will be less than 0.2 NTU. About 4-Log coliform reduction will occur through the membrane, though disinfection will still be required to meet the standard for viruses. Nitrogen will be a concern with reclaimed water applications where surface streams or groundwater may be affected. The drinking water standard of 10 mg/L is generally the minimum requirement. Removal of nitrogen compounds is usually done through a biological process that is somewhat temperature dependent. A single stage nitrification-denitrification process can be included with an MBR facility and will remove total nitrogen to below 10 mg/L. A two -stage process will reduce total nitrogen to below 5 mg/L. All MBR processes have significant limitations. The ability to accommodate peak flows is a major concern. Most MBR processes can accept flow at about twice the design rate for a limited time period. However, wastewater flow under storm conditions in Port Orchard can result in Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 49 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 148 of 332 peak flows of three, or four, or five, or more times the average day flow rates. Consequently, reliability and redundancy are key requirements in the treatment process design. Some of these considerations can be outlined as follows: 1. The treatment facility requires continuous monitoring with alarms providing warning for emergency conditions, which typically include at least power failure, high flow, aeration failure, disinfection failure, and disposal failure. These alarms will use a notification tree to individuals for appropriate responses. 2. Emergency power is usually provided through a standby generator with an automatic transfer switch with sufficient capacity to start and operate all required treatment and disposal components. The alarm and notification system will have an additional battery backup provision. 3. All treatment components shall have at least two units, with one unit capable of treating the design flow when one unit is out of service. 4. Flow equalization is required where influent flows may have peak rates exceeding the design capacity of the MBR process. 5. Emergency storage for at least 24-hours of influent flow is needed in the event the treatment process fails, or diversion to an alternate treatment facility provided. 6. Additional emergency storage of the treated effluent is required should the reuse/disposal facility fail or become unavailable, or an alternate disposal system provided. A wide variety of reuse options for reclaimed water are described in the literature. Many uses are only seasonal and may not be suitable for Port Orchard. Some of the reuse opportunities that may be applicable to at least parts of the City system are briefly described as follows: • Commercial uses can include water features or fountains, street cleaning, dust control, fire protection, as well as toilet and urinal flushing. Some of these uses can be designed into new structures, though they are often not cost-effective as retrofitting or remodeling. • Industrial applications can include ship ballast, washing aggregate, making concrete, industrial cooling, and process water. Such uses may appear in the future though no immediate demands are known to exist. • Irrigation can be provided for landscaping, golf courses, and agricultural produce; however, the application of water has to be at the agronomic rate suitable to the crop and growing season. This usually mean irrigation can only occur seasonally, and is not suitable during the winter, wet season when wastewater flows are generally largest and disposal needs are greatest. • Stream augmentation is currently provided by the City using potable water at several locations within the sewer service area. These demands could be met with reclaimed water, though the requirement only exists during summer, low flow conditions. However, it may be feasible and acceptable to augment stream flows year-round if a beneficial use can be substantiated. • Percolation to groundwater can be used through a surface application such as a percolation basin, drainfield, drip irrigation, or similar technology; provided the water quality protects public health and water quality standards as well as providing a net environmental benefit, but the quality does not have to meet the standards for groundwater aquifer recharge. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 50 Ordinance No. 034-09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Exhibit F Page 149 of 332 • Wetlands can be constructed to receive reclaimed water, and natural wetlands other than Category I or salt water can be used, provided beneficial use is demonstrated. The hydraulic loading can not exceed 2 centimeters per day (cm/day) for Category II or 3 cm/day for Category II and IV. The vegetation must be protected so the water level can not be increased more than 10 cm above average. Class A reclaimed water facilities are required to meet various setback distances. Reclaimed water pipelines must be at least 50 feet from a potable well. A wetland or unlined reclaimed water storage pond must be at least 500 feet from a potable well unless the impoundment is sealed, in which case 100 feet of setback is required. Several opportunities exist in and around Port Orchard where satellite treatment facilities may be appropriate. Three of these are briefly described below: McCormick Woods, either within the existing developments or the proposed McCormick West, could have a satellite treatment facility with the reclaimed water used for irrigation of the existing golf course or similar sites, augmentation of Anderson Creek or other streams, or flow through various existing wetlands. 2. Stetson Heights and other existing or proposed developments near the Sedgwick Road interchange with SR 16 could produce reclaimed water for augmentation of Blackjack Creek or through several existing wetlands. 3. SKIA offers several possibilities for reclaimed water. As an industrial area, commercial and/or industrial applications may be created. Stream augmentation is possible. There are wetlands that may be suitable. The airfield has extensive open space that may be suitable for percolation year-round. Site requirements for an MBR facility are modest for just the treatment facilities, depending primarily on the design flow volume, the peak flow management, and the maintenance facilities to be included at the site. The area required for disposal is more variable and depends on the reuse concept employed, local soils, and the flow volumes. 7.6 Conveyance Improvement Priorities The magnitude of difference between `Existing Capacity' and `Capacity Required in 2025' as shown in Tables 7-2 and 7-3 is an approximate indicator of the urgency as to when these existing conveyance upgrades will needed. The indicated priorities for pipe improvements are approximately as follows: 1. Trunk H in Tremont Street Need 2.2 x existing capacity 2. Trunk E in ravine Pottery to Tremont Need 2.1 x existing capacity 3. Trunk G in Pottery/Sidney Avenue Need 2.0 x existing capacity Improvements are also required to at least three pump stations as indicated in Table 7-3. A similar indication of priority can be assembled as shown below: Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 51 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update 1. McCormick Woods PS 2 2. Marina Pump Station 3. McCormick Woods PSI Need 1.8 x existing capacity Need 1.2 x existing capacity Need 1.1 x existing capacity Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 150 of 332 Section 6.2 outlined the principal deficiencies for these pump stations and described the recommended improvements, except for the recommended pumping capacities. 7.7 Proposed Interception Improvements The three trunk alignments indicated in Tables 7-2 and 7-3 as needing to be upgraded before the year 2025, can be addressed as summarized below: • Trunk H extends east in Tremont Street from the McCormick Woods Pump Station No 1 force main under SR 16 on east to Port Orchard Boulevard and Trunk D. No real alignment alternative exists. Capacity can be increased in either of two ways: ➢ The existing pipe can be pipe burst to achieve the desired new diameter ➢ A new pipe can be installed in a new trench, which allows service to continue in the existing pipe. • Trunk E extends south from the Port Orchard Boulevard intersection with Tremont Street up the creek and wetlands to Pottery Avenue and thence south to Fireweed Street. The wetlands make reconstruction by any method along the existing alignment questionable as to obtaining environmental permits. A more realistic approach to adding capacity may be to construct a new pump station on Pottery Avenue at Lippert Drive with the force main extending north in Pottery Avenue to join Trunk H in Tremont Avenue. • Trunk G is in Sidney Avenue north from Sedgwick Road until it becomes Pottery Avenue thence to Lippert Drive. No real alignment alternative exists. Capacity can be increased in either of two ways: ➢ The existing pipe can be pipe burst to achieve the desired new diameter ➢ A new pipe can be installed in a new trench, which allows service to continue in the existing pipe. The alternative approach for managing capacity in these trunks and the associated pump stations would build satellite MBR facilities for McCormick Woods and/or near the Sidney/Sedgwick intersection. Table 5-6 and 5-7 indicate the potential reductions in trunk sewer flows, and the approximate treatment capacities needed, as restated in Table 7-4. Table 7-4 Potential Satellite Treatment Facilities Capacities in Millions of Gallons per Day Parameters SKIA McCormick Sidne -Sed wick Totals 2025 Average Day 1.20 0.16 0.34 1.70 Average Day Max Month 1.56 0.21 0.44 2.21 Peak Hour 2.90 0.78 1.37 5.05 Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 52 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 151 of 332 Build -out Average Day 1.50 0.23 0.35 2.08 Average Day Max Month 2.00 0.30 0.46 2.76 Peak Hour 4.00 1.16 1.42 6.58 MBR Design Flow (in 2020) 1.00 0.22 0.45 1.67 Projected build -out flows not available for SKIA. The values shown in Table 7-4 are assumed. Table 7-4 indicates that satellite treatment facilities could remove about 5.0 MGD of peak hour flow from the rest of the City sewer system for 2025. That exclusion would reduce the need to add capacity to trunk piping, the pump stations, and the Karcher Creek treatment facility. Only for the SKIA MBR facility is likely to show direct cost benefits. However, there are other considerations that may make the McCormick Woods and/or the Sidney-Sedgwick facilities attractive. Washington State now requires reuse of wastewater be considered in all general sewer plans. However, implementation of an MBR treatment facility would be a major change in the operation of the City sewer utility. The technology is well -proven; however, there are a number of issues to be resolved besides just the capital cost comparisons. Some of these are outlined below: • Acceptance of reclaimed water at the golf course • Rate structure to pay the cost of operating the MBR facility • Revisions to the City agreement with the Sewer District regarding wastewater treatment capacity and operations These are issues that can be resolved during the next several years while the more immediate needs are implemented through the six -year capital improvement program. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 53 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Exhibit F Page 152 of 332 8.1 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program Section 7.6 indicates that three sewer trunks may need at least double the existing capacity before the year 2025. Three major pump stations need at least rehabilitation and some capacity increase. Some of these improvements need to be addressed in the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) to be completed by about the year 2014. These CIP decisions necessarily mean decisions should also be made regarding future wastewater management for the SKIA. Actual development planned for the SKIA is only conceptual at this point. It is not prudent for the City of Port Orchard to invest in capital improvements that may not be needed in the foreseeable future. This is particularly true since a satellite wastewater treatment facility using some form of land application within the SKIA- Airport property is almost certainly more environmentally responsible and cost-effective. An MBR treatment and reuse facility for the SKIA would require capacity based on the average day during the maximum month of the design year, which is usually about 1.3 multiplied by the annual average day. Table 7-4 indicates that about 2,000,000 GPD for the average day of the maximum month may eventually be needed. Specific satellite treatment capacity would be made through a Facilities Plan for the SKIA to be provided in modular units bought and installed as flows increase. However, projections shown in the SKIA Plan indicate that the existing on -site treatment and disposal system will be adequate for at least 10 to 15 years. When additional capacity is needed; an improved on -site or satellite facility can be developed. It may be that a modest pump station with a force main to the City trunk in Old Clifton Road will eventually be cost-effective for movement of leachate and sludge. Required increases in the capacities of other City facilities can be further minimized if satellite treatment facilities are built for McCormick Woods and/or Sidney-Sedgwick. However, in addition to the direct comparison of project costs, several other considerations deserve attention: • Irrigation of the golf course currently uses water from a well that could become a potable water source, which has a significant dollar value. • Below market interest rate loans or even grants may be available to implement water reuse facilities, so the funding availability would affect the life cycle cost comparison. • At some point, additional treatment capacity would be required at the Karcher Creek treatment facility in lieu of the MBR at McCormick Woods. • The `green' image created through water reuse at the golf course has some value to the City of Port Orchard, and some environmental value in reducing discharge of secondary effluent into Sinclair Inlet, which may help relations with Tribes and other groups. A facilities plan in accordance with the State Revolving Fund (SRF) checklist will be the appropriate method to develop the decision and preliminary design for these MBR treatment facilities and the Class A water reuse systems. An expanded SEPA Checklist may provide adequate environmental review for these projects. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 54 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 153 332 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Some additional property rights will be needed for the Pottery Pump Station, the MBR facility, the SKIA percolation site, and the McCormick irrigation site within the privately owned golf course. The actual sites for these facilities have not been established. Specific locations will affect facilities like force main lengths and pumping horsepower required, so only opinions are currently available. These details should be resolved through preparation of engineering reports for the specific projects that leads to preliminary design and SEPA once the implementation timing is defined. Subject to the above assumptions, Table 8-1 summarizes the projects that appear to require action in the immediate future. Table 8-1 Capital Improvement Program Project Improvement Description Construction Cost Estimate Project Cost Estimate A Bay Street PS (09 budget) Engineering Construction $------------ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 1,100,000 B Trunk H - En r Report Preliminary design ------------ 20,000 C Interim McC PS 2 Im rov Odor, mech & elect 180,000 200,000 D Marina PS En r Report Preliminary design ------------- 50,000 E Trunk H -Tremont 1,00 LF x 24-inch $ 500,000 $ 650,000 F Marina Pump Station 5,000 GPM x 150 HP 1,740,000 2,100,000 G Pottery PS En r Report Preliminary design ------------- 20,000 H Trunk E: Pottery PS Force Main 1,300 GPM x 50 HP 2,500 LF x 12-inch 1,300,000 400,000 1,600,000 500,000 I Sidne -Sed wick PS Preliminary Design ------------- 20,000 J Sidne -Sed wick PS Construct PS & FM 850,000 1,000,000 K McC PS 1 En r Report Preliminary design ------------- 25,000 L McCormick PS 1 2,000 GPM x 120 HP 680,000 820,000 M Trunk G - Sidney Av 7,000 LF x 15-inch 2,510,000 3,060,000 N McC PS 2 En r Report Preliminary design ------------ 25,000 O McCormick PS 2 1,400 GPM x 50 HP 630,000 740,000 P SKIA Facilities Plan MBR, PS, & FM ------------- 100,000 Q SKIA - Pump Station Force Main 310 GPM x 25 HP 13,000 LF x 8-inch 360,000 1,470,000 430,000 1,800,000 R Tremont Place PS Mechanical & elect 120,000 140,000 S I/I Exist Pipe Rehab $25,000 annually 150,000 150,000 Estimated Total ------------ $ 11,890,000 $ 14,800,000 Our opinion of construction costs as shown in Table 8-1 are based on recent construction bids in the Puget Sound area for similar work, including state sales tax and contingencies for 2008 prices. However, the facilities described are only developed in a cursory manner and may change when more detailed engineering is performed. Similarly, our opinion of project costs include engineering design, construction oversight, Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 55 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 154 of 332 property acquisitions, permit applications, environmental review, and project contingencies. These costs will be revised as the project specific requirements become better defined through the engineering reports. Financing costs are not included as these costs depend on the financing program actually adopted. Improvements listed in Table 8-1 fall into two categories: Some are dependent on new development to drive the capacity increase and for those developments to provide the funding. The remaining improvements are needed to existing facilities, and are the financial responsibility of the City. A series of engineering reports and one facilities plan are shown in Table 8-1. These documents would develop preliminary designs for the relevant facilities to verify that the capacities identified in the General Sewer Plan are appropriate for the time frame envisioned when construction is expected. This is a particular concern regarding the SKIA facilities where projected 2017 employment is rather large and the wastewater volume projected is larger than typical for such employment. These large projections affect capacity planning for downstream facilities including both McCormick Woods pump stations and the Marina pump station, plus the wastewater treatment facility. Facilities along Pottery and Sidney Avenues are also dependent on specific development plans. It is appropriate that the City prepare these engineering documents in advance of when the actual facilities may be needed so the designs are coordinated and funding can be secured, either from the property owners/developers or from other sources. Accordingly, the improvements shown in Table 8-1 can be reorganized and numbered as shown in Table 8-2 to identify facilities that will be funded by the City -funded under some priority. Table 8-2 Funding of Capital Improvements Project Improvement Construction Cost Estimate Project Cost Estimate 1 Bay Street Pump Station Improve $ 1,000,000 $ 1,350,000 2 McCormick PS 2 Interim Improve 180,000 200,000 3 Trunk H — Engineering Report ---------- 20,000 4 Trunk H — Construct -Tremont Widening 500,000 6509000 5 Marina PS Engineering Report ---------- 50,000 6 Marina PS Improvements 1,740,000 2,100,000 7 Pottery PS — Engineering Report ---------- 20,000 8 Pottery Pump Station & Force main 1,700,000 12,100,000 9 Sidne -Sed wick PS — Engineer Report ---------- 201000 10 Sidney-Sedgwick PS & FM Const 850,000 1,000,000 11 McCormick PS 1 — Engineer Report ---------- 25,000 12 McCormick PSI - Construction 680,000 820,000 14 McCormick PS 2 — Engineer Report ---------- 25,000 15 McCormick PS 2 — Construction 630,000 740,000 16 Existing Pipe Rehabilitation 150,000 150,000 Estimated City Total $ 7,430,000 $ 9,270,000 Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 56 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 155 of 332 Additional improvements required as development occurs will be funded as an integral part of those projects under a less definite time frame. Some further sewer extensions from the existing system will also be required to serve specific parcels within the various developments. These extensions are not included in the CIP and can not be identified until the development plan actually materializes, which may occur in several phases. The City -funded improvements required by 2014 are organized into a six -year capital improvement program as shown in Table 8-3. Table 8-3 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program Improvement Annual Funding in $ 000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total I -Bay Street PS 250 1,100 1,350 2-McCorm 2 Interim 20 180 200 3-Trunk H Eng Rep 20 20 4 Trunk H Construct 50 600 650 5-Marina PS Eng Rep 50 50 6-Marina PS Improve 200 1,900 2,100 7-Pottery Eng Rep 20 20 9-Sidney PS Eng Rep 20 20 10-McCorm 1 Eng R 25 25 11-McCormick 1 PS 100 720 820 12-McCorm 2 Eng R 25 25 13-McCorm 2 Const 240 500 740 14-Ex Pipe Rehab 25 25 25 25 25 25 150 Totals 135 1,805 1,350 2,050 985 545 6,170 Escalated Totals 135 1,149 1,460 2,306 1,152 663 6,865 Estimated costs shown in Table 8-3 are shown in current 2009 dollars; then escalated at 4 percent annually to provide appropriate budget information. 8.2 Planned Facilities for Build -out Conditions Tables 7-1 and 7-1 indicate the capacities needed to accommodate projected peak hour wastewater flow under build -out conditions based on the urban growth area as presently defined and the established land use densities. Conveyance facilities to be built under the six -year CIP or other programs should adhere to these capacity requirements unless different requirements are established in future land use plans or development agreements. 8.3 Sewer Extensions into Undeveloped Basins New sewer extension will be needed to serve developments envisioned for several basins in and adjacent to McCormick Woods as shown on Figure 5-2. Specific plans for the sewer extensions Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 57 Ordinance No. 034-09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Exhibit F Page 156 of 332 have not been prepared and will be the responsibility of the developer. Some of the developments shown will require local pump stations. Specific plans for the development of the SKIA also remain to be prepared. Developments within the SKIA are intended to occur in phases over a number of years. This phasing scheme and local economic conditions may cause some adjustment to the sewer improvements planned by the City to serve these parcels. Major land developers will be preparing site -specific plans for street layouts, residential lot distribution, commercial parcels, sensitive area delineations, required setbacks with buffers, and other land use intentions for approval by the permitting authorities. These land use decisions, and the timing of when specific parcels are developed will influence the sewer collection facilities within these basins. Some basins may use traditional gravity sewers, perhaps supplemented by one or more local pump stations, as has been the case for Basins 15 and 16. Other basins may consider alternative, innovative collection systems such as E-1 grinder pumps for individual homes, or vacuum sewer systems. The City of Port Orchard has decided that no additional STEP units will be allowed. Any of these sewer collection technologies can be compatible with an MBR treatment facility and reuse of the water. Basin 10 presents a different development challenge, and for the extension of sewers. Trunk F currently extends about 2,500 feet west in Bay Street from Port Orchard Boulevard. This sewer can be extended further by using a pump station. However, most of the properties fronting Bay Street have steep slopes and may not be suitable for development. More suitable sites exist on the plateau about 200 feet above sea level. These parcels are separated by the Ross Creek gorge from other developments with sewer service west of Pottery Avenue. Either an additional pump station will be needed for the plateau to transfer wastewater into Basin 7, or a sewer can be laid down the steep slope west of Ross Creek to connect into Trunk F. These decisions need to be made in association with the interests of the property owners some time before 2025, and may or may not involve participation by the City for over -sizing or late -comer financing. Some coordination between the City and the West Sound Utility District will be required as properties are developed along the fringes of their two sewer service areas to establish which agency will serve which properties. These sewer extensions are not expected to require significant financial investment by the City. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 58 IN 5& �O t Creak yS Vn 12 & 13 M 7&8 SE Mari v SE 0 o: City of Port Orchard WASHINGTON Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F LEGEND Page 157 of 332 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Pump Station Trunk Upgrade 1}0- Developer Extensions & Pump Stations 00- Improvement Number from Table 8-3 EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM 0 Pump Station �v Sewer Gravity Trunks /*%/ Sewer Force Mains /\/ Sewer Pipes BASE MAP City of Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Unincorporated Urban Growth Area City of Bremerton Parcels ` Water Bodies ^�--- Rivers & Streams 1 inch = 2,500 feet Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Data Sources: Kitsap County 2009 This map is a geographic representation based on information available. It does not represent survey data. No warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. MAP DATE: DECEMBER 132007; UPDATED NOVEMBER 2009 Capital Improvement Program Figure 8-1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Exhibit F Page 158 of 332 9.1 Financial Situation Sewerage operation and finances for the City of Port Orchard comprise two parts: • Sewer collection and interception system — totally the responsibility of the City • Wastewater treatment facilities — Joint Partnership with West Sound Utility District The Joint Partnership built the treatment facility using a utility local improvement district. Bonds for this construction have since been paid off. The Partnership continues to set the monthly rate per ERU for operating the treatment facility. An ERU is defined by the Partnership as 180 GPD. The Partnership has also established a Facilities Fee per ERU to pay for future capital improvements at the treatment facilities. In addition to the Partnership fees, the City determines and collects an additional charge to operate and maintain the sewer collection system, the pump stations, and the transmission piping. An additional Facilities Fee is also collected from new connections to pay for capacity upgrades to the City sewer system. 9.2 Wastewater Funding Options The identified capital improvements are divided between improvements needed to increase capacity, such as a new interceptor extension or enlarging an existing pipe. Facilities charges paid by new customers are a key funding source for these improvements. Other improvements are needed simply to maintain the existing system, such as replacing mechanical or electrical equipment that is worn out. Corroded valves and piping replacement is another example. These costs are paid by existing customers through monthly service charges. 9.3 Sewer Rates Chapter 13.04.020 of the City Code defines the present bimonthly sewer rates in effect. Sewer rates are defined for 19 customer classes. Class 1 being single-family residences, for example, which are billed $72.00 for two months of sewer service. Additional classes are defined for apartments, offices, various types of businesses, and public facilities with bimonthly sewer rates established for each class as a multiple or a fraction of the single-family rate. Several classes have defined sub -classes based on size (such as square feet or seating capacity) or by the inclusion particular services (such as a bakery or private kitchen). 9.4 Sewer Capital Facilities Charge City Code Chapter 13.04.040 defines the Sewer Capital Facilities Charge as two components: • General Facilities Fee $2,770.00 per ERU • Wastewater Treatment Facility Fee $3,230.00 per ERU Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 59 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Page 159 of 332 Properties within Divisions 1 through 10 of the McCormick Woods Land Company are charged a Wastewater Treatment Fee of only $ 791.25, however. These two charge components represent first, the capital costs of the general sewer facilities operated and maintained by the City; and second, the capital costs of those treatment facilities operated and maintained by the Partnership. 9.5 Financial Summary of Sewer Operations Recent years have combined the financial accounting for water and sewer operations. Separate accounting has been maintained for revenues and direct operating expenses. Generally speaking, administrative expenses like management and billing are divided equally between the two utilities. Records for the past fives years are summarized in Table 9-1. Table 9-1 Sewer Operations Financial Summary OPERATING REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Sewer Service - Flat Rate 1,326,830 1,572,023 1,845,635 1,923,341 1,479,138 Service to Public Municipalities 5,432 6,707 7,633 7,763 5,760 Sales to Public Authorities 118,553 134,873 153,573 148,023 100,894 Late Payment * Penalties* 12,387 13,959 14,613 16,044 15,326 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 1,463,202 1,727,562 2,021,454 2,095,170 1,601,118 OPERATING EXPENSES Power Purchased for Sewer Pumping 18,836 20,224 24,164 27,619 18,398 Labor & Expenses for Lift Stations 32,003 40,066 36,752 40,366 29,727 Maintain Pump Station Structures 256 444 10,360 1,923 615 Maintain Power Production Equipment 0 0 632 1,740 0 Maintain Pump Equipment 14,572 34,807 51,846 36,830 50,776 Chemicals - Sewage Treatment 16,740 11,634 11,860 14,416 1,012 Operations, Labor & Equipment - Sewage Treat 602,969 940,179 1,088,654 1,149,091 858,997 Maintenance Labor - Sewer Mains 43,453 54,615 71,166 195,173 129,697 Maintenance of Service 53,475 55,601 65,314 68,229 78,012 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 782,304 1,157,570 1,360,748 1,535,388 1,167,234 CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS Customer Records & Collection Expense* 71,484 68,601 77,848 79,413 64,846 ADMINISTRATION/GENERAL EXPENSE* Administration & General Salaries 61,851 58,482 66,140 72,885 54,217 General Salaries - Clerical 42,531 59,063 64,485 90,387 84,480 Office Supplies & Other Expenses 10,744 14,793 13,669 16,905 11,475 Administrative Expense Transferred Overhead 4,104 2,488 2,102 5,558 3,411 Outside Services Employed 5,785 26,925 6,224 2,141 4,600 Property Insurance 17,157 13,702 14,725 16,339 13,150 Injury & Damages - Liability Insurance 25,736 20,553 22,087 24,508 19,725 Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 60 Ordinance No. 034-09 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Exhibit F Page 16o of 332 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Employee Pensions - Personnel Retirement 3,736 1,976 0 0 0 Employee Benefits - Vacation 11,017 14,560 13,462 18,139 12,918 Employee Benefits - Sick Leave 8,710 10,146 7,457 8,684 6,869 Employee Benefits - Holiday 9,597 7,441 7,777 8,647 6,367 Maintenance of General Plant 19,242 17,975 23,050 21,635 15,771 Transportation of Equipment Expense 10,876 11,215 15,515 13,298 15,723 TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE* 222,878 254,343 252,489 288,010 241,883 TAXES - CITY & STATE City B&O Tax 72,419 84,219 100,267 103,390 85,409 State Excise Tax 19,685 17,020 20,749 27,706 21,859 TOTAL TAXES 92,104 101,239 121,016 131,096 107,267 TOTAL REVENUES 1,463,202 1,727,562 2,021,454 2,095,170 1,601,118 TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES 1,168,770 1,581,754 1,812,101 2,033,906 1,581,230 OPERATING INCOME LOSS 294,432 145,808 209,352 61,264 19,889 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 239,238 266,080 229,137 233,898 175,424 NET OPERATING INCOME LOSS 55,194 120,272 19,784 172,634 155,535 Note * Totals for these accounts reflect a split of 50% Water and 50% Sewer Table 9-1 indicates that Total Revenue for the Sewer Utility exceeded Total Expenses & Taxes for the past five years. However, when Depreciation Expenses are included the sewer system has been operating at a loss. An increase in Sewer Rates of about 10 to 12 percent has been needed for the past several years, according to Table 9-1. 9.6 Affect of CIP on Sewer Rates Specific funding for the $14,800,000 Capital Improvement Program shown in Table 8-1 has not yet been established by the City. Some these improvements will be dependent upon developer or property owner funding. It is hoped that some of the $9,270,000 of City -funded improvements shown in Table 8-2 will be funded through the federal economic stimulus program, and some projects will not be needed within the next six years. It is anticipated that the remainder of the CIP cost will be funded in part through the General Facilities Fee with the rest financed by loans repaid through Sewer Rates. Table 8-3 shows the Capital Improvement Program being implemented over six years and the resulting cost escalation to become $6,865,000 Table 4-2 indicates that the City can anticipate adding an average of about 1 percent annually in population. A similar increase in ERU can be expected, or about 44 ERU annually. At the present General Facilities Fee, these additional ERU would generate about $730,000 during the six year of the proposed CIP. As part of the general increase in the capital valuation of the City sewerage facilities, an increase the General Facilities Fee of $500 is assumed realistic, which would generate an additional $130,000 during the six -year period of the CIP. Therefore funding generated by the General Facilities Fee is estimated to total about $860,000. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan - Nov 09 61 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 161 of 332 Accordingly, the anticipated funding for the City portion of the CIP can be summarized as follows: Federal Economic Stimulus $1,000,000 General Facilities Fee 860,000 Debt Funded through Rates 5,005,000 Total City -funded CIP $6,865,000 A single bond issue for $5,005,000 to fund the CIP may carry a municipal interest rate of about 4 percent over a maturity of 20 years. The resulting capital recovery factor of 0.07358 would cost about $368,000 annually. For the approximately 4,500 existing customer ERU, the increased cost would be about $6.80 monthly, or an impact of about $13.60 for the bimonthly sewer bill. Projects/Port Orchard/Sewer Plan — Nov 09 C2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 162 of 332 Appendix A SEPA Checklist Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 163 of 332 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Adoption of the 2009 update to Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan Element: Wastewater Capital Facilities Plan. PROPONENT: City of Port Orchard, Planning Department 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: City Service Areas LEAD AGENCY: City of Port Orchard, Planning Department SEPA OFFICIAL: James Weaver, Development Director 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4991 DETERMINATION: The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). The decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This Information is available to the public on request. The DNS is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2)(a)(v); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. NOTE: The issuance of this DNS does not constitute project approval. The applicant must comply with all other applicable requirements of the City of Port Orchard and the State of Washington. DATE OF ISSUE: October 16, 2008 COMMENT DEADLINE: October 30, 2008 aver, AICP, City Development Director October 16, 2009 Date APPEAL PERIOD: Pursuant to RCW 43.21C, any person wishing to appeal this determination may file such an appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of issuance of this DNS. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. There is a $250 fee to appeal this determination. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 164 of 332 SEPA RULES RCW 197-11-960 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Port Orchard - 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update 2. Name of applicant: City of Port Orchard Public Works Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: City of Port Orchard Public Works Department 216 Propsect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4991 Contact. Mark R. Dorsey, P.E. 4. Date checklist prepared: September 25, 2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Port Orchard Planning Department Washington State Department of Ecology 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The proposed date for adoption of the 2009 Comprehensive Saintary Sewer Plan Update by the Port Orchard City Council is expected to be November 13, 2009. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a non -project action adopting the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. In addition to the City's Comprehansive Sanitary Sewer Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), incremental sanitary sewer facilities may be constructed in conjunction with private development, as they occur. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, directly related to this proposal. City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update, December 2008 City of Port Orchard 2009 Water System Plan Update (adoption pending) City of Port Orchard 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan City of Port Orchard SKIA Infrastructure Assessment & Technical Memorandum, July 2008 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Update, December 2006 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F West Sound Utility District Sewer Comprehensive Plan, November 2007 Page 165 of 332 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Property owners and developers have, and are expected to apply for approval of development that will require sanitary sewer service. These developments are not addressed specifically in the Plan. The Plan provides for necessary public sewer collection and treatment improvements necessary to support such development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and development code. All project -level improvements will be subject to environmental review at the time of their application. No pending proposal will affect this non -project action. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The Plan must be approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Review by other jurisdictions and agencies include Kitsap County, West Sound Utility District, The City of Bremerton, the City of Port Orchard City Council, Kitsap County Health District and the State Department of Health. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description). As needed for for demonstrating compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), this proposal involves adoption of amendments to the 2000 City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The amendments identify three categories of action: Programmatic — Updating the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to address a revised 25-year population forecast for the urban growth area which has been expanded since the 2000 Plan. This will enable the City to address future needs for sanitary sewer service within the defined urban growth area. Capital Protects — Updating the list of specific capital projects that are necessary to implement the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. These will be included in the Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvement Program Element. Subsequent project -level environmental review will be conducted at the time these projects are proposed for implementation. Operation, Maintenance& Repair — Day-to-day and periodic projects necessary to maintain the current and future sewer system in working order are described in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as further addressed in the sewer utility operations and maintenance standards and procedures. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur aver a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(S). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 166 of 332 The service area covered by the 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update includes area within the current City of Port Orchard municipal limits and portions of the designated Urban Growth Area (UGA), which includes established boundaries of Kitsap County ULID #6, as agreed upon by Kitsap County, the City of Bremerton and the West Sound Utility District. Port Orchard is located on the Kitsap peninsula, south of Sinclair Inlet. The main body of Puget Sound is to the east. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep, slopes, mountainous, other. The City of Port Orchard is characterized by shoreline adjacent to Sinclair Inlet. The topography is generally hilly with some flat areas. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There are steep slopes with in the City, however, this non -project action will not impact slopes generally, and any project proposed under this ordinance will be reviewed separately for SEPA compliance where required. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils and soil types are not generally impacted by this non -project action. An extensive discussion of the soils and their properties can be found in the USDA Soil Survey ofKitsap County. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils and steep slopes will not generally be impacted by this non -project action. Separate site -specific review will determine impacts to soils and slopes and SEPA compliance. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No filling or grading is proposed as part of this non -project action. Fill or grading related to site - specific proposals under this ordinance will be reviewed separately for SEPA compliance. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No clearing or construction is proposed as part of this non -project action. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No construction is proposed as part of this non -project action. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any? No specific measures are proposed as part of this non -project action. Each project will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review for compliance with SEPA and other regulations in the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 167 of 332 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know. This non -project action will have no impact on air quality. Air quality will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. This non -project action will have no impact on air quality. Air quality will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: This non -project action will have no impact on air quality. Air quality will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds wetlands)/ If yes, describe type and provide names, if appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Port Orchard is bordered on the north by the waters of Puget Sound. There are numerous wetlands, streams and creeks. Impacts on shoreline, surface water, seasonal streams and wetlands will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described water? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. This non -project action will not require any work over, in or adjacent to these waters. Impacts on wetlands, surface water, seasonal streams and shoreline will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. This non -project action will not require any filling or dredging. Impacts as a result of filling or dredging will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This non -project action will not require any surface water withdrawals or diversions. The proposed permit, policy, and ordinances will provide additional protection for all water bodies. Impacts of this type will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 168 of 332 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Some areas of the City are identified as lying within the 100-year flood plain (as defined in the Federal Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.) This non -project action does not impact flood areas specifically. Any proposal involving flood areas will comply with Chapter 15.38, Flood Damage Prevention, of the Port Orchard Municipal Code and will be evaluated as part of site - specific review and SEPA analysis. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. This non -project action will not require discharge of materials to surface waters. The proposed ordinance will prohibit the discharges of water materials and provide additional protection for all water bodies. Impacts of this type will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This non -project action will not require any withdrawal of groundwater or discharge to groundwater. Impacts of this type will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. This non -project action will not require any discharge of waste material to groundwater. Existing health regulations control the location, type and density of development which utilizes septic tanks. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if know). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. This non -project action will not impact surface and stormwater. Stormwater flow and outfall will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This non -project action will not impact ground or surface waters and the goals to minimize the effects of discharge of waste materials. Possible contamination of ground or surface waters with waste materials will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 5 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 169 of 332 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: This non -project action will not have a effect on surface, ground or runoff waters. Possible impacts surface, ground, and runoff water impacts will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other VO evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other VO shrubs VO grass pasture VO crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This non -project action will have no effect on vegetation removal or alteration. Vegetation removal and enhancement will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This non -project action will have no impact on threatened or endangered species. Flora will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No landscaping is proposed as part of this non -project action. Open space and planting regulations will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis Animals a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: sea lion, raccoon fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This non -project action will not have an effect on wildlife. Effects of proposals on wildlife will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 6 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 170 of 332 Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Puget Sound, including Port Orchard, is an important nesting place, feeding area, and wintering ground for thousands of birds in the Pacific Flyway. This non -project action will have no effect on migration patterns. Effects on wildlife will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. This non -project action will not have an effect on animals or birds. Effects of individual proposals on wildlife will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No energy is required for this non -project action. Energy consumption will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis and in accordance with the Washington State Energy Code which the City has adopted. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This non -project action will have no effect on solar access. Solar access will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. The City uses the Washington State Energy Code to enhance electricity conservation. Energy conservation features will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. This non -project action not effect threats of environmental health hazards. Environmental health hazards will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency measures will be required as part of this non -project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards are necessary as part of this non - project action. b. Noise 7 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 171 of 332 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise levels in Port Orchard are regulated under Chapter 9.24 (Offenses Against Public Order) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. This non -project action will not be affected by noise levels. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. This non -project action will have no effect on noise levels. Noise impacts of individual proposals will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise levels on Port Orchard are regulated under Chapter 9.24 (Offenses Against Public Order) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Land uses in Port Orchard are primarily residential and commercial, with some industrial, light Manufacturing, recreation, and open space. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not applicable. Describe any structures on the site. The proposal is a non -project action, and includes no specific development activity. Therefore there are no structures associated with the proposal. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This non -project action requires no demolition. Any future proposed demolition will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Zoning in Port Orchard is according to the Official Zoning Map, adopted December 9, 2008, which is available at the Department of Planning and Community Development. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Comprehensive Plan designations are according to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, adopted December 9, 2008, in accordance with GMA requirements. The Land Use Map is available at the Department of Planning and Community Development. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. N. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 172 of 332 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Environmentally sensitive areas in Port Orchard include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, continuous and seasonal streams and waters including the waters of Puget Sound, and fish and wildlife habitat. These areas are inventoried in the City's Comprehensive Plan and are regulated under Chapter 14.04, State Environmental Policy Act, of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Environmentally sensitive areas will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable to this non -project action. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable to this non -project action. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable to this non -project action. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This non -project action will have no effect on existing and projected land uses and plans. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable to this non -project action. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. No units will be eliminated by the non -project action. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? This non -project action has no effect on building and structure height. Building and structure height are regulated in the Zoning Code. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This non -project action will have no impact on views. View alteration and obstruction is regulated by the Zoning Code and the Shoreline Management Master Program. Views will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. X Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 173 of 332 Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This non -project action will not produce any light and/or glare. Light and glare will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This non -project action will not produce any light and/or glare. Light and glare will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? This non -project action will not be affected by any off -site source of light or glare. Off -site sources of light and glare will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable to this non -project action. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. This non -project action will not displace any existing recreational uses. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Archeological and historic resources are recorded at the State of Washington Departments of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A map and listing of all the historic resources is available at the Department of Planning and Community Development, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA. 98366. 10 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 174 of 332 Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. State Route 16 connects the City with the balance of the Kitsap Peninsula. The City has an extensive system of arterials, suburban and local public streets. Location of, and access to, public streets and highways will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The City is served by Kitsap Transit. Kitsap Transit operates a commuter system which is coordinated with the ferry schedules in neighboring communities in addition to a dial -a -ride service. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This is a non -project action. Parking requirements are contained in Chapter 16.45, Parking Standards, of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). This non -project action will not create the need for any new or improved streets. Transportation facilities will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. Will the project use or occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The various modes of transportation will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This non -project action will have no direct impact on vehicular trips. Trip generation and the cumulative impact will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: This non -project action will have no direct impact on transportation. Transportation impacts will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Is so, generally describe. 11 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 175 of 332 This non -project action will have little effect on public services, except as would normally be required for individual proposals. The need for public services will be evaluated as part of site - specific project review and SEPA analysis. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. This non -project action will have no effect on public services. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. This non -project action will not directly affect public utilities. The provision of utilities for individual proposals will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them it make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted June 3, 2009 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This non -project action will have no effect on discharges to water bodies. No negative impacts will occur in terms of emissions to air; production or storage of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise 12 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Page 176 of 332 Effects on discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise will be reviewed as part of site -specific review and SEPA analysis. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? This non -project action will have no effects to plants, animals, fish or marine life. All specific effects to plant, animal, fish and other marine life will be evaluated as part of site -specific project review and SEPA analysis. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Effects of individual proposals on wildlife and marine life will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non -project action will not affect energy or natural resources. Effects of individual proposals on energy or natural resources will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Construction of individual projects is reviewed under the Washington State Energy Code, adopted under Chapter 15 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This non -project action not impact environmentally sensitive areas or other areas designated for protection. Effects of individual proposals on environmentally sensitive areas or other protected areas will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Impacts of individual proposals on environmentally sensitive areas or other protected areas will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? This non -project action will not affect land or shoreline use. Impacts of individual proposals on land or shoreline use will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Impacts of individual proposals on land or shoreline use will be reviewed as part of site -specific review, and SEPA analysis. 13 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 177 of 332 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This non -project action will have no effect on the demand for transportation or public service and utilities. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. Projects approved under this ordinance are subject to review by the City Planning Department, Public Works Department, and the local Health District. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws requirements for the protection of the environment. The non -project proposal is consistent with all local, state and federal requirements for the protection of the environment. 14 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 178 of 332 Appendix B Public Hearing Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 179 of 332 The Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update before the City Council is scheduled for Tuesday November 24t", 2009. Any public comments made during the Public Hearing will be included in the meeting record. Adoption of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan by the City Council is scheduled for Tuesday December 8t", 2009. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 18o of 332 Appendix C City of Port Orchard &West Sound Utility District Agreement Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 181 of 332 City of Port Orchard & West Sound Utility District Agreement is on file in city Hall and is available for public review. Copies can be provided to interested parties. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 182 of 332 Appendix D Fact Sheet —Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 183 of 332 FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA-002034-6 PORT ORCHARD/KARCHER CREEK SEWER DISTRICT JOINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SUMMARY There are three entities involved in wastewater treatment in the Port Orchard area: The City of Port Orchard collection system, Karcher Creek Sewer District collection system, and the Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility (treatment plant). The treatment plant is considered a separate entity which is jointly owned by the City of Port Orchard (City) and Karcher Creek Sewer District (Sewer District). The City has contracted with the Sewer District to operate the treatment plant. The treatment plant was recently upgraded and expanded to accommodate increasing demand for sewer service in the City's and Sewer District's service areas. The existing activated sludge treatment plant was upgraded with the addition of a Zenon - membrane bioreactor (MBR) - treatment process. In addition, a ballasted clarifier was added at the plant to provide advanced primary treatment for peak flows during wet weather periods. The new plant began operation in March 2006. During normal operation, the incoming wastewater is provided secondary treatment via the activated sludge and MBR treatment processes. Effluents from both these secondary treatment processes are combined and disinfected prior to discharging to Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound. When influent flows to the plant exceed 6 million gallons per day (MGD), the excess wastewater (greater than 6 MGD) is provided advanced primary treatment via the ballasted clarifier treatment system. Effluents from all three treatment processes are combined and disinfected prior to discharging to Sinclair Inlet. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 2 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit F Page 184 of 332 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION................................................................................................5 DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY.................................................................................5 History...................................................................................................................... 5 Description of the Wastewater Collection System..................................................5 Wastewater Sources.................................................................................................5 Wastewater Characteristics......................................................................................6 Description of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Discharge Outfall..................6 ResidualSolids.........................................................................................................7 FlowBlending..........................................................................................................7 PERMITSTATUS...............................................................................................................8 SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS........................................................................................8 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING PERMIT................................8 PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................9 DESIGN CRITERIA...........................................................................................................9 TECHNOLOGY -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS..................................................10 SURFACE WATER QUALITY -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS .........................10 Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life...........................................I I Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ........................................ I I NarrativeCriteria................................................................................................... I I Antidegradation......................................................................................................11 CriticalConditions................................................................................................. I I MixingZones......................................................................................................... I I Description of the Receiving Water.......................................................................12 Surface Water Quality Criteria..............................................................................12 Consideration of Surface Water Quality -Based Limits for Numeric Criteria .......13 Whole Effluent Toxicity........................................................................................16 HumanHealth........................................................................................................17 SedimentQuality...................................................................................................17 GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS..............................................................17 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITS WITH THE EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITS..........................................................................17 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................18 LAB ACCREDITATION..................................................................................................19 OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS.................................................................................................19 REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING........................................................................19 PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING...........................................................19 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE(O&M)................................................................19 RESIDUAL SOLIDS HANDLING...................................................................................19 PRETREATMENT............................................................................................................19 GENERAL CONDITIONS...............................................................................................20 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 185 of 332 Page 3 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES.........................................................................................20 PERMIT MODIFICATIONS............................................................................................20 RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE........................................................20 REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES........................................................................21 APPENDIX APUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION...................................................22 APPENDIX B—GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................23 APPENDIX COUTFALL LOCATION AND TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC .......28 OUTFALL LOCATION IN SINCLAIR INLET...............................................................28 TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC.........................................................................29 APPENDIX D—REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATION FOR WATER QUALITYCRITERIA.............................................................................................................30 APPENDIX E—WATER QUALITY -BASED PERMIT LIMITS CALCULATIONS FORCHLORINE......................................................................................................................32 APPENDIX F—LIST OF POLLUTANTS FOR TESTING REQUIRED IN PERMIT CONDITIONS2.A.(3)..............................................................................................................33 APPENDIX G—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS..........................................................................34 Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 4 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 INTRODUCTION Exhibit F Page 186 of 332 The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications, 1977, 1981, and 1987) established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United States. One of the mechanisms for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits), which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has authorized the State of Washington to administer the NPDES permit program. Chapter 90.48 RCW defines the Department of Ecology's authority and obligations in administering the wastewater discharge permit program. The regulations adopted by the State include procedures for issuing permits (chapter 173-220 WAC), technical criteria for discharges from municipal wastewater treatment facilities (chapter 173-221 WAC), water quality criteria for surface and ground waters (chapters 173-201A and 200 WAC), and sediment management standards (chapter 173-204 WAC). These regulations require that a permit be issued before discharge of wastewater to waters of the state is allowed. The regulations also establish the basis for effluent limitations and other requirements which are to be included in the permit. One of the requirements (WAC 173-220-060) for issuing a permit under the NPDES permit program is the preparation of a draft permit and an accompanying fact sheet. Public notice of the availability of the draft permit is required at least thirty (30) days before the permit is issued (WAC 173-220-050). The fact sheet and draft permit are available for review (see Appendix A Public Involvement of the fact sheet for more detail on the public notice procedures). The fact sheet and draft permit have been reviewed by the Permittee. Errors and omissions identified in this review have been corrected before going to public notice. After the public comment period has closed, the Department will summarize the substantive comments and the response to each comment. The summary and response to comments will become part of the file on the permit and parties submitting comments will receive a copy of the Department's response. The fact sheet will not be revised. Comments and the resultant changes to the permit will be summarized in Appendix G Response to Comments. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 Facility Name and Address City of Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant 1165 Beach Drive Port Orchard, WA 98366 Type of Treatment Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) and Activated Sludge — Secondary Treatment System Discharge Location Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound Latitude: 47' 33' 10" N. Longitude: 122' 36' 40" W. Waterbody ID Number 1224026474620 Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 5 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility BACKGROUND INFORMATION Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY Page 187 of 332 HISTORY The treatment plant was recently upgraded and expanded to accommodate increasing demand for sewer service in the City's and Sewer District's service area. The plant was upgraded by adding a new Zenon - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) - treatment process to provide additional secondary treatment capacity at the plant. In addition, a new ballasted clarifier was added at the plant to provide advanced primary treatment to peak flows during wet weather periods. Effluents from these treatment processes are combined and disinfected. The plant effluent is discharged to Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound. The new plant began operation in March 2006. DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM The City's sewage collection system consists of a combination of many neighborhood systems. The age of the sewer mains in the City vary from 70 years old to brand new. The older areas of the City have noticeable flows from infiltration and inflows (I/I) in the system. As part of the I/I reduction efforts, many roof drains have been disconnected from sanitary sewers and the pipe joints air tested and grouted. However, groundwater still enters the system. Currently, the City allocates approximately $25,000 per year for the I/I reduction program. The Sewer District's sewage collection system includes two major trunk sewers, collector sewer lines, and 18 pump stations and associated forcemains. Developments constructed in the 1990s have primarily installed PVC pipes for the collector sewers and laterals. Developments constructed prior to 1990 primarily used concrete pipe for collector sewers. A small percentage of the collector sewers have concrete asbestos and clay pipe. Based on the I/I reports submitted for the treatment plant, annual I/I (from 1991 through 2004) has ranged from 12 to 28 percent of the plant inflow. Both the City and the Sewer District have ongoing programs to reduce I/I. The City's efforts to reduce I/I include grouting of leaking joints, and locating and eliminating inflow sources. The Sewer District's Capital Improvement Plan includes wartime (World War II) era sewer replacement projects over the next 20 years. WASTEWATER SOURCES Primary sources of wastewater tributary to the facility are domestic sewage from residential and light commercial activities in the sewer service areas of the City of Port Orchard and Karcher Creek Sewer District. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 188 of 332 Page 6 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS Wastewater received at the facility is typical domestic wastewater with conventional pollutants and low levels of metals, as shown in the following table. The influent and effluent monitoring data for conventional pollutants are the annual averages for the year 2004. The effluent measurements for copper and zinc shown in the table below are the highest of the measurements from effluent monitoring conducted during July 1995 through January 2006. Effluent measurements during this period, for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and silver were all below method detection limit (MDL). PARAMETERI INFLUENT EFFLUENT Concentration (m /L) Mass Emission (lbs/da) Concentration (m /L or u /L) Mass Emission (lbs/da ) Flow -------------- -------------- 1.59 MGD -------------- BOD5 236 m /L 3051 lbs/da 20 m /L 265 1bs/da TSS 340 m /L 4035 lbs/da 16 m /L 2101bs/da Fecal Coliform -------------- --------------- 55/100 mL -------------- --------------- a Zinc I -------------- I --------------- 536 u --------------- Effluent sample measurement of 16 µg/L for copper is less than the reportable detection limit (RDL). DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND DISCHARGE OUTFALL The liquid stream treatment at the plant consists of three different treatment systems: (1) The activated sludge (secondary) treatment system. (2) The MBR (secondary) treatment system. (3) The ballasted clarifier (advance primary) treatment system for treatment of peak flows when influent flows exceed 6 MGD. The liquid stream treatment system at the plant includes 3 (mechanically cleaned) rotary fine screens and 1 (manually cleaned) standby bar screen, 3 vortex grit removal units (2 units preceding primary clarifiers for use during dry weather, and 1 unit preceding ballasted clarifier for use during wet weather), 3 primary clarifiers, a ballasted clarifier for primary treatment of peak flows (when influent flows exceed 6 MGD), 2 aeration basins (with 3 chambers per basin) for activated sludge treatment, 2 secondary clarifiers, 2 MBR basins, 2 chlorine contact channels (along the outer periphery of the secondary clarifiers) for disinfection by sodium hypochlorite, a sodium bisulfite dechlorination unit for effluent dechlorination, and a Parshall flume for effluent flow measurement. The solids stream treatment system at the plant includes 4 sludge storage tanks, 2 anaerobic digesters, and 2 centrifuges for sludge dewatering and thickening. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 189 of 332 Page 7 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Treated and disinfected effluent from the plant is discharged to Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound. The effluent is discharged via a 36-inch diameter outfall terminating 1600 feet offshore into Sinclair Inlet at a depth of approximately 52 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW). The terminal portion of the outfall consists of a 10-port diffuser with 8-inch diameter risers at 10-foot spacing. The diffuser ports discharge horizontally in alternating directions. Appendix C includes diagrams of the outfall location in Sinclair Inlet and the treatment process schematic. RESIDUAL SOLIDS The treatment plant removes solids from the wastewater at the headworks (grit and screenings), and at the primary and secondary clarifiers (primary and secondary sludge), in addition to incidental solids (rags, scum, and other debris) removed as part of the routine maintenance of the equipment. Grit, rags, scum, and screenings are disposed of as solid waste at a local landfill. Primary and secondary sludge are thickened, stabilized, and dewatered for utilization. The dewatered sludge is transported to any Class B site as permitted by local health departments. FLOW BLENDING The wastewater treatment system is designed for a maximum month flow of 4.2 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak (wet weather) flow of 16 MGD. The primary treatment train at the plant consists of primary clarifiers, followed by a secondary biological treatment (conventional activated sludge or MBR) system, and secondary clarifiers. This portion of the treatment plant is designed to provide secondary treatment for a minimum of 6 MGD peak flow without compromising its integrity. During the plant's design life, influent flows are expected to exceed 6 MGD only a few times during wet weather months, in any given year. Therefore, a ballasted clarifier with a design capacity of 10 MGD was constructed at the plant to provide primary treatment for flows that would need to be bypassed around the secondary treatment system to protect its integrity. The ballasted clarifier provides advanced primary treatment and is expected to remove 90% or greater total suspended solids and 40% or greater BOD. As described in the engineering report for the treatment plant, approved by the Department of Ecology, influent flows in excess of 6 MGD as a result of precipitation may bypass secondary treatment and receive primary treatment via the ballasted clarifier. During such events, the ballasted clarifier effluent is blended with the secondary treated effluent prior to disinfection and discharge. The practice of flow blending is used to protect the secondary treatment process from major upsets that can detrimentally impact effluent quality. Condition S 11 of the proposed permit, Flow Blending, allows influent flows greater than 6 MGD to bypass the secondary treatment system. The permit requires that all bypassed flows must be provided advanced primary treatment through the ballasted clarifier, and that the combined effluent from the ballasted clarifier and secondary treatment must comply with the secondary treatment limits specified in Condition S LA at all times. This alternative would ensure compliance with the permitted effluent limits without compromising the secondary treatment system at the plant. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 190 of 332 page 8 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Port Orchard area experienced very heavy rains during November and December 2006. Highest daily average flows recorded at the plant were 3.94 MGD and 4.6 MGD in November and December 2006, respectively. Rainfalls recorded on these days were 2.1 inches and 2.41 inches, respectively. During this period, the flows at the plant did not reach high enough to have any flow to bypass the secondary treatment system, and there was no need to operate the ballasted clarifier. PERMIT STATUS The existing permit for the plant expired on June 30, 2006. An application for permit renewal was received by the Department on September 6, 2005, and accepted by the Department on March 9, 2006. The existing permit was extended by the Department on June 9, 2006. The treatment plant is currently operating under the terms and conditions of the extended permit. SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS A Class I inspection of the treatment plant was conducted on March 18, 2005, by the Department's Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) staff. Construction of the plant expansion/upgrade using two new technologies - Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) and High Rate (Ballasted) Clarification (HRC) - was under way at the time of this inspection. All the treatment units appeared to be operating well at the time of this inspection. The effluent looked very clear, and the plant appeared to be well operated and maintained. The inspection reports are on file at the Department's NWRO office. As stated in Port Orchard/KCSD 5 Mixing Zone Study, Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, May 2002, the outfall and diffuser were visually inspected by a certified diver and licensed professional engineer on April 11, 1998. The diffuser ports were found to be flowing fully with no significant structural damage to the diffuser. The study report includes photographs of the outfall and diffuser ports. SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING PERMIT Based on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to the Department, from November 1, 2001 through February 1, 2006, there were three violations of the BOD effluent limits, two violations of the TSS effluent limits, and one violation of the chlorine effluent limit. Two BOD and the chlorine effluent limits violations were minor violations. One BOD and the two TSS effluent limits violations occurred during the month of August 2004, when the plant received excessive influent TSS loading. During this month, the influent TSS exceeded the approved design criteria for the plant. Based on DMRs submitted to the Department, the Permittee has remained in compliance with the effluent limits and there have been no exceedance of influent design criteria since August 2004. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 9 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS Exhibit F Page 191 of 332 Federal and state regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in an NPDES permit must be either technology- or water quality -based. Technology -based limitations for municipal discharges are set by regulation (40 CFR 133, and chapters 173-220 and 173-221 WAC). Water quality -based limitations are based upon compliance with the surface water quality standards (chapter 173-201A WAC), ground water standards (chapter 173-200 WAC), sediment quality standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992.) The most stringent of these types of limits must be chosen for each of the parameters of concern. Each of these types of limits is described in more detail below. The limits in this permit are based in part on information received in the application. The effluent constituents in the application were evaluated on a technology- and water quality -basis. The limits necessary to meet the rules and regulations of the state of Washington were determined and included in this permit. Ecology does not develop effluent limits for all pollutants that may be reported on the application as present in the effluent. Some pollutants are not treatable at the concentrations reported, are not controllable at the source, are not listed in regulation, and do not have a reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation. Effluent limits are not always developed for pollutants that may be in the discharge but not reported as present in the application. In those circumstances the permit does not authorize discharge of the non -reported pollutants. Effluent discharge conditions may change from the conditions reported in the permit application. If significant changes occur in any constituent, as described in 40 CFR 122.42(a), the Permittee is required to notify the Department of Ecology. The Permittee may be in violation of the permit until the permit is modified to reflect additional discharge of pollutants. DESIGN CRITERIA In accordance with WAC 173-220-150 (1)(g), flows or waste loadings shall not exceed approved design criteria. The following design criteria are taken from the plans and specifications for the treatment plant, approved by the Department of Ecology on September 2, 2004. Parameter Phase I Design Criteria Average flow for the maximum month 4.2 MGD BOD5 influent loading for the maximum month 6340 lbs/da TSS influent loading for the maximum month 6910 lbs/da Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 10 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 TECHNOLOGY -BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Exhibit F Page 192 of 332 Municipal wastewater treatment plants are a category of discharger for which technology -based effluent limits have been promulgated by federal and state regulations. These effluent limitations are given in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CFR Part 133 (federal) and in chapter 173-221 WAC (state). These regulations are performance standards that constitute all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment for municipal wastewater. The following technology -based limits for pH, fecal coliform, BOD5, and TSS are taken from chapter 173-221 WAC are: Parameter Limit Shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units. H Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monthly Geometric Mean = 200 organisms/100 mL Weekly Geometric Mean = 400 organisms/ 100 mL BOD5 Average Monthly Limit is the most stringent of the following: (concentration) - 30 mg/L - may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the average influent concentration Average Weekly Limit = 45 m /L TSS Average Monthly Limit is the most stringent of the following: (concentration) - 30 mg/L - may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the average influent concentration Average Weekly Limit = 45 m /L The following technology -based mass limits are based on WAC 173-220-130(3)(b) and 173-221-030(11)(b). Monthly average effluent mass loadings for BOD5 and TSS = 4.2 MGD (maximum monthly design flow) x 30 mg/L (concentration limit) x 8.34 (conversion factor) = 1051 lbs/day. Weekly average effluent mass loadings for BOD5 and TSS = 4.2 MGD (maximum monthly design flow) x 45 mg/L (concentration limit) x 8.34 (conversion factor) = 1577 lbs/day. SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASEDEFFLUENTLIMITATIONS In order to protect existing water quality and preserve the designated beneficial uses of Washington's surface waters, WAC 173-201A-060 states that waste discharge permits shall be conditioned such that the discharge will meet established surface water quality standards. The Washington State surface water quality standards (chapter 173-201A WAC) is a state regulation designed to protect the beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state. Water quality -based effluent limitations may be based on an individual waste load allocation (WLA) or on a WLA developed during a basin -wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL). Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 11 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE Exhibit F Page 193 of 332 "Numerical" water quality criteria are numerical values set forth in the state of Washington's water quality standards for surface waters (chapter 173-201A WAC). They specify the levels of pollutants allowed in a receiving water -body while remaining protective of aquatic life. Numerical criteria set forth in the water quality standards are used along with chemical and physical data for the wastewater and receiving water to derive the effluent limits in the discharge permit. When surface water quality -based limits are more stringent or potentially more stringent than technology -based limitations, they must be used in a permit. NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH The state was issued 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human health by the U.S. EPA (EPA 1992). These criteria are designed to protect humans from cancer and other disease and are primarily applicable to fish and shellfish consumption and drinking water from surface waters. NARRATIVE CRITERIA In addition to numerical criteria, "narrative" water quality criteria (WAC 173-201A-030) limit toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material concentrations below those which have the potential to adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic toxicity to biota, impair aesthetic values, or adversely affect human health. Narrative criteria protect the specific beneficial uses of all fresh (WAC 173-201A-130) and marine (WAC 173-201A-140) waters in the state of Washington. ANTIDEGRADATION Washington State's Antidegradation Policy requires that discharges into a receiving waterbody shall not further degrade the existing water quality of the waterbody. In cases where the natural conditions of a receiving waterbody are of lower quality than the criteria assigned, the natural conditions shall constitute the water quality criteria. Similarly, when receiving waters are of higher quality than the criteria assigned, the existing water quality shall be protected. More information on the Washington State Antidegradation Policy can be obtained by referring to WAC 173-201A-070. CRITICAL CONDITIONS Surface water quality -based limits are derived for the waterbody's critical condition, which represents the receiving water and waste discharge condition with the highest potential for adverse impact on the aquatic biota, human health, and existing or characteristic waterbody uses. MIXING ZONES The water quality standards allow the Department of Ecology to authorize mixing zones around a point of discharge in establishing surface water quality -based effluent limits. Both "acute" and "chronic" mixing zones may be authorized for pollutants that can have a toxic effect on the aquatic environment near the point of discharge. The concentration of pollutants at the boundary of these mixing zones may not exceed the numerical criteria for that type of zone. Mixing zones Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 194 of 332 Page 12 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility can only be authorized for discharges that are receiving all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART) and in accordance with other mixing zone requirements of WAC 173-201A-100. The National Toxics Rule (EPA, 1992) allows the chronic mixing zone to be used to meet human health criteria. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING WATER The treatment plant effluent is discharged to Sinclair Inlet, Puget Sound, which is designated as Class A -Marine Waters, in the vicinity of the outfall. Characteristic uses include the following: Class A (Excellent) water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural); stock watering; fish migration; fish and shellfish rearing, spawning and harvesting; wildlife habitat; primary contact recreation; sport fishing; boating and aesthetic enjoyment; commerce and navigation. Water quality of this class shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses. SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA Applicable criteria are defined in chapter 173-201A WAC for aquatic biota. In addition, U.S. EPA has promulgated human health criteria for toxic pollutants (EPA 1992). Criteria for this discharge are summarized below: Parameter Fecal Coliforms Criteria 14 or anisms/100 mL maximum geometric mean 6 m /L minimum Dissolved Oxvaen Temperature 16 degrees Celsius maximum or incremental increases above background H 7.0 to 8.5 standard units Turbidity Less than 5 NTUs above background Toxics No toxics in toxic amounts The Federal Clean Water Act (Section 303(d)) requires the state to prepare a list of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. This list is called the 303(d) list because the process is described in section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Department is required to submit the 303(d) list to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After approval by the EPA, the Department is required to develop water clean up plans, also known as Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs, for each of the water bodies on the 303(d) list. The latest approved 303(d) list is the 2002/2004 303(d) list, which lists Sinclair Inlet for various parameters for both water and tissue mediums. The parameters listed for water medium in this list are dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, pH, and temperature. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 195 of 332 page 13 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Of the parameters listed for water medium in Sinclair Inlet in the 2002/2004 303(d) list, only DO is listed as Category 5; the rest are listed as Category 2, Waters of Concern. The parameters included in Category 2 of the 303(d) list are the ones that show some evidence of water quality problem, but not enough to require a TMDL study at this time. Additional monitoring for these parameters would need to be conducted to determine if a TMDL study needs to be conducted. The Department, in the near future, is planning to conduct a TMDL study in Sinclair Inlet to address noncompliance with the water quality standards for DO. The results of the TMDL study will be used to determine whether wasteload allocations for BOD and nutrients are necessary. Nutrients can contribute indirectly to DO depression by stimulating phytoplankton growth). Fecal coliform bacteria in Sinclair Inlet are listed as Category 2, Waters of Concern, on the 2004 303(d) list, also called the Water Quality Assessment. A fecal coliform TMDL was initiated in 2000 based on the 1998 303(d) listing of fecal coliform bacteria in Dyes and Sinclair Inlets. Though these listings are not on the 2004 303(d) list, the marine waters of nearshore areas of Sinclair and Dyes Inlets have been shown to be impaired through additional monitoring conducted for the TMDL and routine monitoring conducted by Kitsap County Health District and Washington State Department of Health. The Department of Ecology is continuing to develop the TMDL in a cooperative effort with Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) in Bremerton and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10. The Department plans to establish wasteload allocations for fecal coliform bacteria from point sources (wastewater treatment plants and Municipal Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permittees) and from nonpoint sources that discharge to Sinclair Inlet. If the fecal coliform waste load allocation for the Permittee's treatment plant results in lower than permitted effluent limits, the Department may impose the more stringent TMDL-based limits through permit modification or issuance of an Administrative Order. A reasonable time period may be given to the Permittee to make plant modifications, if needed, to comply with the more stringent limits. CONSIDERATION OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY -BASED LIMITS FOR NUMERIC CRITERIA Pollutant concentrations in the proposed discharge exceed water quality criteria with technology -based controls which the Department has determined to be AKART. Acute and chronic mixing zones are authorized in accordance with the geometric configuration, flow restriction, and other restrictions for mixing zones in chapter 173-201A WAC. Mixing zone boundaries for discharges to estuaries such as Sinclair Inlet are defined as follows: (a) In estuaries, mixing zones, singularly or in combination with other mixing zones, shall: (i) Not extend in any horizontal direction from the discharge port(s) for a distance greater than 200 feet plus the depth of water over the discharge port(s) as measured during mean lower low water; and (ii) Not occupy greater than 25 percent of the width of the waterbody as measured during mean lower low water. (b) In estuarine waters, a zone where acute criteria may be exceeded shall not extend beyond ten percent of the distance established in (a) above, as measured independently from the discharge port(s). Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 196 of 332 Page 14 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility (c) Vertical limitations for both chronic and acute zones is the depth of water over the discharge port(s) as measured during mean lower low water (MLLW). The acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries for the plant's discharge are determined based on the above definitions and are specified in Condition S LB of the proposed permit. The dilution ratios of effluent to receiving water that occur within these zones have been determined at the critical condition by using near -field and far -field dilution modeling. The modeling provides dilution predictions under critical (worst case) receiving water conditions and for the range of receiving water conditions expected at the discharge site. The dilution modeling and results are discussed in the "Port Orchard/KCSDS Mixing Zone Study, " Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, May 2002. The effluent flows used in the model are Phase II design flows (for the year 2020) for the plant - 4.8 MGD maximum month flow and 16 MGD maximum day flow. The current (Phase I) capacity of the treatment plant is 4.2 MGD maximum month flow and 16 MGD maximum day flow. Model -predicted dilutions for the 2020 (Phase II) discharge conditions (4.8 MGD maximum month flow and 16 MGD maximum day flow) are as follows: Dilution Ratios for the Year 2020 (Phase I1) Design Conditions - 4.8 MGD Maximum Month Flow, and 16 MGD Maximum Day Flow: Acute Chronic rAquatice 25 321 alth, Non -carcinogen 321 Human Health, Carcinogen 6. Pollutants in an effluent may affect the aquatic environment near the point of discharge (near -field) or at a considerable distance from the point of discharge (far -field). Toxic pollutants, for example, are near -field pollutants —their adverse effects diminish rapidly with mixing in the receiving water. Conversely, a pollutant such as BOD is a far -field pollutant whose adverse effect occurs away from the discharge even after dilution has occurred. Thus, the method of calculating water quality -based effluent limits varies with the point at which the pollutant has its maximum effect. The derivation of water quality -based limits also takes into account the variability of the pollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the receiving water. BOD5—This discharge with technology -based limitations results in a small amount of BOD loading relative to the large amount of dilution (321:1) occurring in the receiving water at critical conditions. Technology -based limitations will be protective of dissolved oxygen criteria in the receiving water. Temperature —Due to the high dilution achieved (321:1) under critical conditions, there is no predicted violation of the water quality standard for surface waters. Therefore, no effluent limitation for temperature is placed in the proposed permit. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 197 of 332 Page 15 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility pH —Because of the high buffering capacity of marine water, compliance with the technology -based limits of 6.0 to 9.0 will assure compliance with the water quality standards for surface waters. Fecal ColiformAs stated earlier, the Department is planning to develop wasteload allocations for fecal coliform for various point and non -point sources that discharge to Sinclair Inlet. Until then, technology -based fecal coliform limits (200/100 mL monthly average and 400/100 mL weekly average) are placed in the proposed permit. If the fecal coliform wasteload allocation for the treatment plant results in lower than permitted effluent limits, the Department will impose the more stringent TMDL-based limits through permit modification or issuance of an Administrative Order. Toxic Pollutants —Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.44) require NPDES permits to contain effluent limits for toxic chemicals in an effluent whenever there is a reasonable potential for those chemicals to exceed the surface water quality criteria. This process occurs concurrently with the derivation of technology -based effluent limits. Facilities with technology -based effluent limits defined in regulation are not exempted from meeting the water quality standards for surface waters or from having surface water quality -based effluent limits. The following toxics were determined to be present in the discharge: chlorine, ammonia, and metals. A reasonable potential analysis (see Appendix D of this fact sheet) was conducted for ammonia and metals to determine whether or not effluent limitations would be required in this permit. Of the various metals measurements, only copper and zinc were determined to be present in the effluent. The effluent metals measurements were in the form of "Total Metals," whereas, the water quality standards are in the form of "Total Recoverable Metals." Total metal measurements in a water sample are always either equal to or greater than total recoverable metal measurements. By using total metal values, the results of this reasonable potential analysis for metals are more conservative. The determination of the reasonable potential for ammonia, copper and zinc, to exceed the water quality criteria was evaluated with procedures given in EPA, 1991 (Appendix C) at the critical condition. The dilution ratios used in the critical condition modeling are as follows: acute dilution ratio 25:1 and chronic dilution ratio 321:1. Valid ambient background data was available for ammonia, copper, and zinc. Calculations using all applicable data resulted in a determination that there is no reasonable potential for this discharge to cause a violation of water quality standards. The plant effluent is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite. Since chlorine is toxic to aquatic life, effluent limits were derived for chlorine using methods from EPA, 1991, as shown in Appendix E of this fact sheet. The resultant effluent limits for chlorine are: (i) Average Monthly 0.13 mg/L, and (ii) Maximum Daily 0.33 mg/L. These limits are specified in Condition SLA. of the permit. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 16 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY Exhibit F Page 198 of 332 The water quality standards for surface waters require that the effluent not cause toxic effects in the receiving waters. Many toxic pollutants cannot be detected by commonly available detection methods. However, toxicity can be measured directly by exposing living organisms to the wastewater in laboratory tests and measuring the response of the organisms. Toxicity tests measure the aggregate toxicity of the whole effluent, and therefore this approach is called whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. Some WET tests measure acute toxicity and other WET tests measure chronic toxicity. Acute toxicity tests measure mortality as the significant response to the toxicity of the effluent. Dischargers who monitor their wastewater with acute toxicity tests are providing an indication of the potential lethal effect of the effluent to organisms in the receiving environment. Chronic toxicity tests measure various sublethal toxic responses such as retarded growth or reduced reproduction. Chronic toxicity tests often involve either a complete life cycle test of an organism with an extremely short life cycle or a partial life cycle test on a critical stage of one of a test organism's life cycles. Organism survival is also measured in some chronic toxicity tests. Accredited WET testing laboratories have the proper WET testing protocols, data requirements, and reporting format. Accredited laboratories are knowledgeable about WET testing and capable of calculating an NOEC, LC50, EC50, IC25, etc. All accredited labs have been provided the most recent version of the Department of Ecology Publication No. WQ-R-95-80, Laboratory Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Review Criteria, which is referenced in the permit. Any Permittee interested in receiving a copy of this publication may call the Ecology Publications Distribution Center at (360) 407-7472 for a copy. Ecology recommends that Permittees send a copy of the acute or chronic toxicity sections(s) of their permits to their laboratory of choice. If the Permittee makes process or material changes which, in the Department's opinion, results in an increased potential for effluent toxicity, then the Department may require additional effluent characterization in a regulatory order, by permit modification, or in the permit renewal. Toxicity is assumed to have increased if WET testing conducted for submission with a permit application fails to meet the performance standards in WAC 173-205-020, "whole effluent toxicity performance standard." The Permittee may demonstrate to the Department that changes have not increased effluent toxicity by performing additional WET testing after the time the process or material changes have been made. Toxicity caused by unidentified pollutants is not expected in the effluent from this discharge as determined by the screening criteria given in chapter 173-205 WAC. However, in order to determine the impacts of the facility's discharge on the receiving waterbody, whole effluent toxicity characterization testing is required in this permit. In addition, Part E, Toxicity Testing Data of the EPA Form 3510-2A, NPDES application, requires treatment plants with design flows equal to or greater than 1.0 MGD to test for whole effluent toxicity. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 17 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 HUMAN HEALTH Exhibit F Page 199 of 332 Washington's water quality standards now include 91 numeric health -based criteria that must be considered in NPDES permits. These criteria were promulgated for the state by the U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992). Based on monitoring data submitted by the Permittee, the Department has determined that the applicant's discharge does not contain chemicals of concern. The discharge will be reevaluated for impacts to human health at the next permit reissuance. SEDIMENT QUALITY The Department has promulgated aquatic sediment standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) to protect aquatic biota and human health. These standards state that the Department may require Permittees to evaluate the potential for the discharge to cause a violation of applicable standards (WAC 173-204-400). The Department has been unable to determine at this time the potential for this discharge to cause a violation of sediment quality standards. If the Department determines in the future that there is a potential for violation of the sediment quality standards, an order will be issued to require the Permittee to demonstrate that either the point of discharge is not an area of deposition or, if the point of discharge is a depositional area, that there is not an accumulation of toxics in the sediments. GROUND WATER QUALITYLIMITATIONS The Department has promulgated ground water quality standards (chapter 173-200 WAC) to protect uses of ground water. Permits issued by the Department shall be conditioned in such a manner so as not to allow violations of those standards (WAC 173-200-100). This Permittee has no discharge to ground and therefore no limitations are required based on potential effects to ground water. COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITS WITH THE EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITS Comparison of the proposed and existing effluent limits (monthly averages) is shown in the following table. The effluent limits for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform bacteria, and pH) in the proposed permit are same as the ones in the existing permit. The effluent limits for chlorine are technology -based limits in the existing permit, but (more stringent) water quality -based limits in the proposed permit. Parameter Existing Effluent Limits Proposed Effluent Limits BOD5 (average monthly concentration) 30 m /L 30 m /L TSS (average monthly concentration) 30 m /L 30 m /L Fecal Coliform (average monthly concentration) 200/100 mL 200/100 mL pH (standard units) 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 Total Residual Chlorine (average monthly concentration 0.5 mg/L 0.13 mg/L Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 18 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Exhibit F Page 200 of 332 Monitoring, recording, and reporting are required (WAC 173-220-210 and 40 CFR 122.41) to verify that the treatment process is functioning correctly and the effluent limitations are being achieved. The monitoring schedule is detailed in the proposed permit under Condition S2. Specified monitoring frequencies take into account the quantity and variability of discharge, the treatment method, past compliance, significance of pollutants, and cost of monitoring. The required monitoring frequency is consistent with agency guidance given in the current version of Ecology's Permit Writer's Manual (Publication No. 92-109) for Activated Sludge Plant with 2.0 to 5.0 MGD Average Design Flow. Priority pollutants (listed in Appendix F of this fact sheet) and conventional pollutants monitoring is required [see Condition S2.A.(3) and (5) of the permit] for reporting in the next permit application. Monitoring for additional nitrogen compounds (nitrite, nitrate and TKN) is required for use by the Department in the Sinclair Inlet TMDL study. It should be noted that the Permittee has been monitoring effluent from its new MBR treatment system for various parameters including, BOD, TSS, and ammonia. MBR system effluent is also continuously monitored for turbidity. Grab samples of MBR system effluent are collected periodically for these analyses. The Permittee has submitted analytical results for samples collected from March 2006 through January 2007. Based on the sample results, the MBR treatment system is producing effluent with very low turbidity and very low concentrations of BOD, TSS, and ammonia. Based on the monitoring data submitted by the Permittee, the summary of the analyses in the table below indicates the quality of effluent produced by the MBR treatment system. The Permittee through sampling and analysis has shown the effectiveness of the new MBR treatment system in producing good quality effluent. MBR Effluent Analyses Results from March 2006 through January 2007 PARAMETER SAMPLE DATES NUMBER OF SAMPLE RESULTS SAMPLES BOD 03/21/2006 through 47 34 samples < 1 mg/L 12/28/2006 1 sample > 10 mg/L TSS 03/20/2006 through 29 All samples < 2 mg/L 01/12/2007 Ammonia (NH3-N) 05/16/2006 through 76 63 samples < lmg/L 01/17/2007 6 samples > 10 m /L Turbidity 3/14/2006 through 50 All samples < 0.11 NTU 10/13/2006 Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 19 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 LAB ACCREDITATION Exhibit F Page 201 of 332 With the exception of certain parameters, the permit requires all monitoring data to be prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. The laboratory at this facility is accredited for BOD, TSS, ammonia, fecal coliform, and pH. Samples for analyzing other parameters are sent to commercial laboratories. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING The conditions of S3 are based on the authority to specify any appropriate reporting and record keeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-220-210). PREVENTION OF FACILITY OVERLOADING Overloading of the treatment plant is a violation of the terms and conditions of the permit. To prevent this from occurring, RCW 90.48.110 and WAC 173-220-150 require the Permittee to take the actions detailed in proposed permit requirement S4 to plan expansions or modifications before existing capacity is reached and to report and correct conditions that could result in new or increased discharges of pollutants. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) The proposed permit contains condition S5. as authorized under RCW 90.48.110, WAC 173-220-150, chapter 173-230 WAC, and WAC 173-240-080. It is included to ensure proper operation and regular maintenance of equipment, and to ensure that adequate safeguards are taken so that constructed facilities are used to their optimum potential in terms of pollutant capture and treatment. RESIDUAL SOLIDS HANDLING To prevent water quality problems, the Permittee is required in permit Condition S7 to store and handle all residual solids (grit, screenings, scum, sludge, and other solid waste) in accordance with the requirements of RCW 90.48.080 and state water quality standards. The final use and disposal of sewage sludge from this facility is regulated by U.S. EPA under 40 CFR 503, and by Ecology under chapter 70.95J RCW and chapter 173-308 WAC. The disposal of other solid waste is under the jurisdiction of the local health department(s). PRETREATMENT Since the pretreatment program has not been delegated to the Permittee, the pretreatment Condition S8 in the permit is a standard condition derived from the Federal Regulation 40 CFR 403.5. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 20 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 GENERAL CONDITIONS Exhibit F Page 202 of 332 General Conditions are based directly on state and federal law and regulations and have been standardized for all individual municipal NPDES permits issued by the Department. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES PERMIT MODIFICATIONS The Department may modify this permit to impose numerical limitations, if necessary, to meet water quality standards, sediment quality standards, or ground water standards, based on new information obtained from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, outfall studies, and effluent mixing studies. The Department may also modify this permit as a result of new or amended state or federal regulations. RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE This proposed permit meets all statutory requirements for authorizing a wastewater discharge, including those limitations and conditions believed necessary to protect human health, aquatic life, and the beneficial uses of waters of the state of Washington. The Department proposes that this permit be issued for the full allowable five (5)-year period. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 21 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES Page 203 of 332 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1992. National Toxics Rule. Federal Register, V. 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001. 1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Washington State Department of Ecology Laws and Regulations hqp://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/index.html Permit and Wastewater Related Information htip://www.ecy.wa.aov/proarams/wq/wastewater/index.html 1994. Permit Writer's Manual. Publication Number 92-109 City of Port Orchard and Karcher Creek Sewer District 2004. City of Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion Phase 11— Facility Expansion Construction Plans and Specifications, RH2 Engineering 2002. City of Port Orchard and Karcher Creek Sewer District Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Engineering Report, RH2 Engineering 2002. Port Orchard/KCSD S Mixing Zone Study, Cosmopolitan Engineering Group Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 22 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F APPENDIX A —PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION Page 204 of 332 The Department has tentatively determined to reissue a permit to the applicant listed on page 1 of this fact sheet. The permit contains conditions and effluent limitations which are described in the rest of this fact sheet. Public Notice of Application (PNOA) was published on March 10 and 17, 2006, in the Kitsap Sun to inform the public that an application had been submitted and to invite comment on the reissuance of this permit. The Department published a Public Notice of Draft (PNOD) on May 24, 2007, in the Kitsap Sun to inform the public that a draft permit and fact sheet were available for review. Interested persons were invited to submit written comments regarding the draft permit. The draft permit, fact sheet, and related documents were available for inspection and copying between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, by appointment, at the regional office listed below. Written comments were mailed to: Water Quality Permit Coordinator Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 — 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Any interested party may comment on the draft permit or request a public hearing on this draft permit within the thirty (30)-day comment period to the address above. The request for a hearing shall indicate the interest of the party and the reasons why the hearing is warranted. The Department will hold a hearing if it determines there is a significant public interest in the draft permit (WAC 173-220-090). Public notice regarding any hearing will be circulated at least thirty (30) days in advance of the hearing. People expressing an interest in this permit will be mailed an individual notice of hearing (WAC 173-220-100). Comments should reference specific text followed by proposed modification or concern when possible. Comments may address technical issues, accuracy and completeness of information, the scope of the facility's proposed coverage, adequacy of environmental protection, permit conditions, or any other concern that would result from issuance of this permit. The Department will consider all comments received within thirty (30) days from the date of public notice of draft indicated above, in formulating a final determination to issue, revise, or deny the permit. The Department's response to all significant comments is available upon request and will be mailed directly to people expressing an interest in this permit. Further information may be obtained from the Department by telephone, (425) 649-7201, or by writing to the address listed above. Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 23 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 APPENDIX B—GLOSSARY Exhibit F Page 205 of 332 Acute Toxicity —The lethal effect of a pollutant on an organism that occurs within a short period of time, usually 48 to 96 hours. AKARTAn acronym for "all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment." Ambient Water Quality —The existing environmental condition of the water in a receiving water body. Ammonia —Ammonia is produced by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in waste water. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect waste water. Average Monthly Discharge Limitation —The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month (except in the case of fecal coliform). The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. Average Weekly Discharge Limitation —The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that week. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. Best Management Practices (BMPs)Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/or managerial practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMPs include treatment systems, operating procedures, and practices to control: plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment BMPs. BOD5Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of measuring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria. The BOD5 is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in a receiving water after effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes organisms less competitive and less able to sustain their species in the aquatic environment. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act. Bypass —The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. CBOD5—The quantity of oxygen utilized by a mixed population of microorganisms acting on the nutrients in the sample in an aerobic oxidation for five days at a controlled temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, with an inhibitory agent added to prevent the oxidation of nitrogen compounds. The method for determining CBOD5 is given in 40 CFR Part 136. Chlorine —Chlorine is used to disinfect waste waters of pathogens harmful to human health. It is also extremely toxic to aquatic life. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 2o6 of 332 Page 24 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Chronic Toxicity —The effect of a pollutant on an organism over a relatively long time, often 1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction or growth rates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound or combination of compounds. Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)—The event during which excess combined sewage flow caused by inflow is discharged from a combined sewer, rather than conveyed to the sewage treatment plant because either the capacity of the treatment plant or the combined sewer is exceeded. Compliance Inspection - Without SamplingA site visit for the purpose of determining the compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes and regulations. Compliance Inspection - With Sampling —A site visit to accomplish the purpose of a Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling and as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all parameters with limits in the permit to ascertain compliance with those limits; and, for municipal facilities, sampling of influent to ascertain compliance with the percent removal requirement. Additional sampling may be conducted. Composite SampleA mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at different times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing a minimum of four discrete samples. May be "time -composite" (collected at constant time intervals) or "flow -proportional" (collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or collected by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots). Construction Activity —Clearing, grading, excavation, and any other activity which disturbs the surface of the land. Such activities may include road building; construction of residential houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings; and demolition activity. Continuous MonitoringUninterrupted, unless otherwise noted in the permit. Critical Condition —The time during which the combination of receiving water and waste discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water environment. This situation usually occurs when the flow within a water body is low, thus, its ability to dilute effluent is reduced. Dilution Factor —A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the effluent fraction for example, a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the receiving water 90%. Engineering Report —A document which thoroughly examines the engineering and administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report shall contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 207 of 332 Page 25 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Fecal Coliform Bacteria —Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteria in wastewater discharges are controlled by disinfecting the waste water. The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the presence of animal feces. Grab Sample —A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short a period of time as is feasible. Industrial User —A discharger of wastewater to the sanitary sewer which is not sanitary wastewater or is not equivalent to sanitary wastewater in character. Industrial Wastewater —Water or liquid -carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business; from the development of any natural resource; or from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities. Infiltration and Inflow (I/1)"Infiltration" means the addition of ground water into a sewer through joints, the sewer pipe material, cracks, and other defects. "Inflow" means the addition of precipitation -caused drainage from roof drains, yard drains, basement drains, street catch basins, etc., into a sewer. InterferenceA discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both: Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and Therefore is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with the following statutory provisions and regulations or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent state or local regulations): Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) [including Title II, more commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and including State regulations contained in any State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA], sludge regulations appearing in 40 CFR Part 507, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Major FacilityA facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of > 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact. Maximum Daily Discharge Limitation —The highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. Method Detection Level (MDL)—The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is above zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 208 of 332 Page 26 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Minor FacilityA facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of < 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact. Mixing ZoneA volume that surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality criteria may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's permit and follows procedures outlined in Washington State regulations (chapter 173-201A WAC). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)—The NPDES (Section 402 of the Clean Water Act) is the federal wastewater permitting system for discharges to navigable waters of the United States. Many states, including the state of Washington, have been delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State permit writers are joint NPDES/State permits issued under both state and federal laws. Pass -through —A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the state in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation), or which is a cause of a violation of state water quality standards. pH —The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral, and large variations above or below this value are considered harmful to most aquatic life. Potential Significant Industrial UserA potential significant industrial user is defined as an Industrial User which does not meet the criteria for a Significant Industrial User, but which discharges wastewater meeting one or more of the following criteria: a. Exceeds 0.5 % of treatment plant design capacity criteria and discharges <25,000 gallons per day; or b. Is a member of a group of similar industrial users which, taken together, have the potential to cause pass -through or interference at the POTW (for example, facilities which develop photographic film or paper, and car washes). The Department may determine that a discharger initially classified as a potential significant industrial user should be managed as a significant industrial user. Quantitation Level (QL)A calculated value five times the MDL (method detection level). Significant Industrial User (SIU)- 1) All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N; and 2) Any other industrial user that discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler blow -down wastewater); contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or is designated as such by the Control Authority* on the basis that the industrial user has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement [in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6)]. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 209 of 332 Page 27 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Upon finding that the industrial user meeting the criteria in paragraph 2, above, has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, the Control Authority* may at any time, on its own initiative or in response to a petition received from an industrial user or POTW, and in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6), determine that such industrial user is not a significant industrial user. *The term "Control Authority" refers to the Washington State Department of Ecology in the case of non -delegated POTWs or to the POTW in the case of delegated POTWs. State Waters —Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, wetlands, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Stormwater—That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water drainage system into a defined surface water body, or a constructed infiltration facility. Technology -based Effluent LimitA permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment method to reduce the pollutant. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—Total suspended solids are the particulate materials in an effluent. Large quantities of TSS discharged to a receiving water may result in solids accumulation. Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion. Upset —An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology -based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation. Water Quality -based Effluent LimitA limit on the concentration or mass of an effluent parameter that is intended to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its water quality criterion after it is discharged into a receiving water. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 210 of 332 Page 28 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District ,. Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility APPENDIX C—OUTFALL LOCATION AND TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC OUTFALL LOCATION IN SINCLAIR INLET Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 29 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility TREATMENT PROCESS SCHEMATIC Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 211 of 332 n 4 C •] z Alf Aar s 9 H xd lit; yayk g - - j yyygg � ail � I y IF �. n � L.J Nil g�. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 212 of 332 Page 30 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility APPENDIX D—REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATION FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA Several of the Excel® spreadsheet tools used to evaluate a discharger's ability to meet Washington State water quality standards can be found on the Department's homepage at (htlp://www.ecy.wa.,vov/programs/wq/wastewater/index.html AMMONIA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA CALCULATION Calculation of seawater fraction of un-ionized ammonia from Hampson (1977). Un-ionized ammonia criteria for salt water are from EPA 440/5-88-004. Based on Lotus File NH3SALT.WK1 Revised 19-Oct-93 INPUT 1. Temperature (deg C): 18.0 2. pH: 8.4 3. Salinity (g/Kg): 28.0 OUTPUT 1. Pressure (atm; EPA criteria assumes 1 atm): 1.0 2. Molal Ionic Strength (not valid if >0.85): 0.574 3. pKa8 at 25 deg C (Whitfield model "B"): 9.312 4. Percent of Total Ammonia Present as Unionized: 6.776% 5. Unionized ammonia criteria (mg un-ionized NH3 per liter) from EPA 440/5-88-004 Acute: 0.233 Chronic: 0.035 6. Total Ammonia Criteria (mg/L as NH3) Acute: 3.44 Chronic: 0.52 7. Total Ammonia Criteria (mg/L as NH3-N) Acute: 2.83 Chronic: 0.42 Ordinance No. 043 09 Exhibit F Fact She tf r N2p£S Permit W2-00 0 4 4 rage 21 0 J32 Gage 71 Port Orcha d Ka c e Creek Sewer District- Joint Wastewater Treatment Facpity REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATION TO DETERMINE £XC££DANC£ OF WATER QUALITY -BASED CRITERIA 7k)/k§k $!|t)!§!§ \ /\\\}\\j\ 1.2 ts k )0 E J|<c2 ! \)a5 § ! § ! ! @ ! § ! \(E)#\2) ® ! !� !\ ) ) ) ( ( ) ) § ( k - � k] \\ §) 2; 2; 2 2 2 2; 2 >; ) / ! 2/ \ | ( �\/`)#§ § ! 5 3 ! !! - :E }\\\ \{ \\ ;) - _ ti !§E/ Fact She tf r NPDES Permit W2-00 0 4 4 Page/2 Port Orcha d Ka c e Creek Sewer District— Joint Wastewater Treatment Facpity Ordinance No. 034 09 APPENDIX £—WATER QUALITY -BASED Exhibit PERMIT LIMITS CALCULATIONS FOR CHLORINE Page 21 0 332 Several of the Excels spreadsheet tools used mevaluate aakhm2%ability to meet Washington mate water qa!ltystandards can bfound othe Department's hmeaOk G±dwww.ey. Ijzov/ogram£» »me»&e/£index: m \S ![ | ƒ\ -t , f : < 20 _ ) )/\ j` \}} \ }\ )([ �S (\/ �° :!a Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 33 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility APPENDIX F—LIST OF POLLUTANTS FOR TESTING REQUIRED IN PERMIT CONDITION S2.A.(3) Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 215 of 332 EPA "PART_D" NPDES_ APPLICATION_ FORM 2A TESTING REQUIREMENTS The following pollutant scan data are required at the time of NPDES permit application for municipal treatment facilities with design flow greater than 1.0 mgd. At Ieast three scans are to be conducted during the term of the permit. The metals are to be analyzed as "Total recoverable Metals" Section 4.1.4, Publication EPA-60014-79-020, Methods for Chemical Analysis of water and Wastes, 1979. Please see Condition S2.A(4) of the permit. METALS & MISC. VOL. ORGANICS (Cant.) BASE NEUTRALS (Cont.) Antimony Eth ibenzene Bis (2-Chloroeth 1)-Ether Arsenic Methyl Bromide Bis (2-Chloroiso-Pro1) Ether Beryllium Methyl Chloride Bis (2-Eth lhex 1) Phthalate Cadmium Methylene Chloride 4-Bromo hen 1 Phenyl Ether Chromium 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-Ethane Butyl Benz l Phthalate C2p2er Tetrachloro-Ethylene 2-Chlorona hthalene Lead Toluene 4-Chlorphenyl Phenyl Ether Mercury 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Chrysene Nickel 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Di-N-But l Phthalate Selenium Trichloreth lene Di-N-Oct 1 Phthalate Silver -Vinyl Chloride Dibenzo(A,H) Anthracene Thallium 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Zinc ACID EXTRACTABLES 1,3-Dichlorobenzene Cyanide P-Chloro-M-Cresol 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Total Phenolic Compounds 2-Chlorohenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine Hardness (As CaCO3) 2,4-Dichloro henoi Diethyl Phthalate 2,4-Dimeth 1 henoi Dimeth l Phthalate VOLATILE ORGANICS 4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Acrolein 2,4-Dinitro henol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Acrylonitrile 2-Nitrophenol Fluoranthene Benzene 4-Nitrophenol Fluorene Bromoform Pentachloro henoi Hexachlorobenzene Carbon Tetrachloride Phenol Hexachlorobutadiene Clorobenzene 2,4,6-Trichioro henol Hexachloroc clo-Pentadiene Chlorodibromo-Methane Hexachloroethane Chloroethane BASE NEUTRALS Indeno(1,2,3-CD)P rene 2-Chloro-Eth loin 1 Ether Acena hthene Iso horone Chloroform Acena hth lene Na hthalene Dichlorobromo-Methane Anthracene Nitrobenzene 1,1-Dichioroethane Benzidine N-Nitrosodi-N-Pro lamine 1,2-Dichloroethane Benzo(A)Anthracene N-Nitrosodi-Meth lamine Trans-1,2-Dichloro Ethylene 3,4 Benzo-Fluoranthene N-Nitrosodi-Phen lamine LI-Dichloroeth lene Benzo(Ghi)Per lene Phenanthrene 1,2-Dichloro ro ane Benzo(K)Fluoranthene Pyrene 1,3-Dichloro-Prolene Bis (2-Chloroethox ) Methane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA-002034-6 Page 34 Port Orchard/Karcher Creek Sewer District — Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F APPENDIX G—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Page 216 of 332 No comments were submitted to the Department of Ecology during the public notice period. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 217 of 332 Appendix E Pump Station Site Visit, July 9, 2008, by John Freck PE, BHC Consultants City of Port Orchard Pump Station Site Visit July 9th, 2008 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 218 of 332 John Frech of BHC Consultants toured four sewage pump station facilities with Jay Cookson and Dave Boltz. Three of the pump stations, McCormick Woods #1, McCormick Woods #2 and Marina Pump Station have been identified as stations most needing repair. The fourth pump station visited, McCormick Ridge, was recently constructed and is considered a model for other pump stations. Pump Station constructed around 1994 Pumps Submersible Centrifugal Sewage Pump Manufactured by Hydromatic S6LX Configuration - duplex Power - 25 hp, 1,750 RPM, 460 Volt, 3 Phase Flow — 1, 000 gpm at 59.74 ft TDH Rail system — dual rail for each pump complete with discharge elbow. Wetwell 12-foot diameter fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) manhole Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches Float system control Valve Vault 10-foot diameter fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) manhole Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches 2 sets of valves to provide control for each pump 10-inch check valve 10-inch plug valve Isolation Valve Vault 5-foot diameter fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) manhole Access — one 31" x 39" aluminum hatch One 16" plug valve One Saddle for chemical injection Generator Size ? Make — Stamford Generator Configuration — externally mounted with manufacturer's enclosure Footprint — 6'-8" x 9'-0" Sound Attenuation —exhaust muffler only Building Structure — 10' x 10' fiberglass enclosure with divider wall. One side for aeration pump, the second side for chemical feed system. The building is set on a concrete foundation that is in sound condition. Exterior — fiberglass appears to be weathering well Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 219 of 332 Electrical — lights and heater are being corroded by Chlorine chemical attack Ventilation — exhaust fan Control Panel Size — 200 amp x 460 volt Each pump has a 70 amp x 460 volt breaker Minimal Corrosion Pump Power and Float Connection Boxes Corrosion free in interior Chemical Feed System Chemical System — 12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite Containment — Fiberglass storage tank Secondary Containment — Concrete floor and raised perimeter with sump draining to wetwell. 8'x12' containment Small metering pumps feed system PVC piping used for feed lines. Pipe glue attacked by chlorine and requires intermittent replacement. Injection Points — chemical injected into wetwell. In the past injection occurred in the wetwell and direct injection into the pipe in the last valve vault Metering System No pressure gauge No flow meter No pump amp meter. Portable unit available to check amperage Hour meter -Analog totalizers time each pump -Separate Analog totalizer sums all pump hours Flow calculated by multiplying time x pump rate Telemetry New system installed recently — 2006+/- Monitored items: • Communication — enabled or disabled • Alarm - displays enabled or not • Alarm — intrusion will be indicated if control panel is opened w/o dearming • Power source — displays if primary power is providing power or not • Pump 1 and 2 — displays on, off or removed for each pump Aesthetics Noise from generator Bad odor from wetwell Safety Chlorine gas emitted in building could be hazardous Security Comfortable with current level of security Security sign added to fence has helped Intrusion alarm on control panel Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 220 of 332 Deficiency Corrosion — caused by chlorine feed system and increased by aggressive STEP influent sewage • Pump rails and rail mounts are heavily corroded • Pump power cable insulation may be compromised where exposed to wetwell gases • Building lights and heaters are being corroded by chlorine • Check valves o Springs are rusted off o Backflow is occurring during pump shutoff causing valve to slam • Plug handles are rusted off and many valves are inoperable • Saddle at second valve vault appears structurally compromised • Concrete lids of wetwell and valve vaults — coatings are split and rusty residue is leaking out Chemical Feed • Sodium hypochlorite is not recommended due to corrosion, potential danger, chlorinated byproducts and ability to upset biology of waste stream prior to reaching treatment plant. • New storage tank, feed pumps and injection cycle may be needed with new chemical • Secondary containment - the concrete area provided for secondary containment should not be allowed to automatically drain to wetwell Lighting • No area lighting Pumps Pump failed during visit. May be reaching end of useful life Generator • May be too loud for future neighboring houses • Size may be too small for future pumps Pump Removal • City has to contract out service to remove pumps. Makes maintenance difficult. Truck with swinging boom desired by City Maintenance Activities • Daily site visit to read hour meters and look over station • Vactor out wetwell when needed Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 221 of 332 • Cleaning not required frequently since STEP effluent is typically free from grease and solids that will clog the pumps Space provided for maintenance • Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatches allow access the wetwell • Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for valve vault • One 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for second valve vault Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F McCormick Woods 1 Pump Station: Page 222 of 332 Pump Station constructed around 1995 Pumps Submersible Centrifugal Sewage Pump Manufactured by ??? Configuration - duplex Power - 60 hp, 460 Volt, 3 Phase Flow — gpm at TDH Rail system ?? Loud with significant vibration during operation Wetwell 12-foot diameter concrete manhole Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches Float system control (Did not look at wetwell) Valve Vault 10-foot diameter concrete manhole Access — two 31" x 39" aluminum hatches 2 sets of valves to provide control for each pump 10-inch check valve 10-inch plug valve Plug valves not exercised regularly and may not close if needed. Check valve slams when pump stops Isolation Valve Vault Concrete Manhole Access — one 31" x 39" aluminum hatch One 16" plug valve Generator Size 280 KVA Make — Stamford Generator stamped June1995 Configuration — externally mounted with manufacturer's enclosure Footprint — 6'-8" x 1 V-0" Sound Attenuation —exhaust muffler only Building Structure — 10' x 10' fiberglass enclosure with divider wall. One side for aeration pump, the Second side for chemical feed system. The building is set on a concrete foundation that is in sound condition. Exterior — fiberglass appears to be weathering well Electrical — lights and heater are being corroded by Chlorine chemical attack Ventilation — exhaust fan Control Panel Size — 400 amp x 460 volt Minimal Corrosion Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 223 of 332 Pump Power and Float Connection Boxed Corrosion free in interior Bolts to secure panel shut are corroded and should be replaced Chemical Feed System Chemical Used — 12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite 1200 gallons/year Containment — Fiberglass storage tank. Sprung a leak a few years back and injured two workers Secondary Containment — Concrete floor and raised perimeter with sump draining to wetwell. 8'x12' containment Small metering pumps feed system PVC piping used for feed lines. Pipe glue attacked by chlorine and requires intermittent replacement. Injection Points — chemical injected into wetwell. In the past injection occurred in the wetwell and direct injection into the pipe in the last valve vault Metering System Pressure gauge is broken No flow meter No pump amp meter. Portable unit available to check amperage Hour meter • Analog totalizers time each pump • Separate Analog totalizer sums all pump hours Flow calculated by multiplying time x pump rate Telemetry New system installed recently — 2006+/- Monitored items: • Communication — enabled or disabled • Alarm - displays enabled or not • Alarm — intrusion will be indicated if control panel is opened w/o dearming • Power source — displays if primary power is providing power • Pump 1 and 2 — displays on, off or removed for each pump • Phone monitoring line cuts out frequently Aesthetics Noise from generator OK for area. No future houses sited nearby. Safety Chlorine gas emitted in building could be hazardous Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 224 of 332 Security Comfortable with current level of security Security sign added to fence has helped Intrusion alarm on control panel Deficiency Corrosion — less corrosion than McCormick PS#2 • Pump power cable insulation may be compromised where in wetwell • Building lights and heaters are being corroded by chlorine • Check valves o Backflow is occurring during pump shutoff causing valve to slam • Plug valves are not operated frequently and may be inoperable. Chemical Feed • Sodium hypochlorite is not recommended due to corrosion, potential danger, chlorinated byproducts and ability to upset biology of waste stream prior to reaching treatment plant. • New storage tank, feed pumps and injection cycle may be needed with new chemical • Secondary containment - the concrete area provided for secondary containment should not be allowed to automatically drain to wetwell Lighting • No area lighting Pump Removal • City has to contract out service to remove pumps. Makes maintenance difficult. Truck with swinging boom desired by City Maintenance Activities • Daily site visit to read hour meters and look over station • Vactor out wetwell when needed • Cleaning not required frequently since STEP effluent is typically free from grease and solids that will clog the pumps. Have occasionally had ragging caused by activities at Juvenile Detention Center Space provided for maintenance • Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatches allow access the wetwell • Two 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for valve vault • One 39" x 31" aluminum hatch for second valve vault Marina Pump Station: Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 225 of 332 Pump Station originally constructed in 1983, new chopper pumps in 2004 Pumps Dry Pit Configuration — 4 pumps: 2 large and 2 small Pumps 1 and 2: Power - 150 hp GE motors, 460 Volt, 3 Phase, 1175 RPM Flow - 2,600 gpm at 115 TDH Control - VFD pump 1, Constant speed pump 2 2 Dry Pit Centrifugal Sewage Pump Manufactured by McGraw Edison Worthington Pumps 3 and 4 Power - 25 hp Baldor, 460 Volt, 3 Phase, 1175 RPM Flow - ??? gpm at 115 TDH Control - VFD pump 1, Constant speed pump 2 2 Dry Pit Chopper Pump Manufactured by Vaughn Pumps are relatively new and appear to be in good condition (pump 3 has had seal issues- problem seems to be resolved) Wetwell (Did not look at wetwell due to difficult access) Access — Manhole lid and concrete rectangular panel Dry Pit Large open room Access Personnel - single mandoor at top of staircase Equipment - Removable concrete panel at top of structure in parking lot to permit removal of pumps by crane Valves — Each pump has valves to prevent backflow and provide isolation Small pumps: 8-inch check valve 8-inch plug valve Big pumps: 14-inch check valve 14-inch plug valve Valves appear to be in good condition, need to be exercised to determine proper operation Generator Size 281 KVA, 301 hp diesel engine Make — Mitusbishi (difficult to get parts) External fuel tank — single wall, no secondary containment, positioned near floor drain Configuration — internally mounted Sound Attenuation — concrete structure and muffler. Louvers are non sound attenuating. Noise — moderate outside during operation, neighbors. Building Structures — Wet pit and dry pit below grade Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 226 of 332 no complaints from nearby marina Dry Pit: Appears to be in good condition. Small deposits formed where groundwater has leaked through. Lighting is minimal, but adequate. Analysis of ventilation and entrance protocol may be required to protect workers from dangers of confined space. Control and Generator Building: Interior in good condition. Leak in ceiling fixed in past waterfront improvement project. Lighting is minimal, but adequate. Exterior foundation being compromised by rusting sheet pile around the perimeter of the structure located at the shoreline. Control Panels Pump 1 — Robocon VFD Pump 2 — Klockner Mueller JBox 480 volt, 3 phase, 180 amp Pump 3 and 4 — General Electric 8000 Model No Visible corrosion No Chemical Feed System Metering System Pressure gauge for each pump Flow meter: 1 meter for small pumps and 1 meter for large No pump amp meter, can use portable unit to check amperage Hour meter -Analog totalizers time each pump -Separate analog totalizer sums all pump hours Telemetry System installed ??? Monitored items: • Communication — enabled or disabled • Alarm - displays enabled or not • Alarm — intrusion will be indicated if door is opened to control room?? • Power source — displays if primary power is providing power or if generator is operating • Pump 1 and 2 — displays on, off or removed for each pump Aesthetics Pump station and control building are very well hidden. Odor coming from manhole near wetwell has been addressed by placing treated aggregate in a basket located in the manhole chimney. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Safety Page 227 of 332 Confined space to drywell could be hazardous. Ventilation and entrance protocol should be examined. Security Comfortable with current level of security Fence to prohibit access to waterfront side of control room has reduced vandalism Intrusion alarm on control room door Deficiency Lighting - increased lighting in control room and dry pit may be desired Generator - parts availability limited and fuel storage needs secondary containment Access to wetwell is challenging. Makes routine inspection difficult. Confined space to drywell could be hazardous. Ventilation and entrance protocol should be examined. Maintenance Activities • Daily site visit to read hour meters and look over station Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 228 of 332 Appendix F Pump Station Flow Evaluation Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 229 of 332 City of Port Orchard Watewater Flow Recorded through Marina Pump Station MONTHLY FLOWS 2007 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD JAN 1 2.431 804175 9315003 1.10 45.1 1.14 2 4.165 804239 9325332 1.96 47.2 0.42 3 2.801 804838 9338983 1.20 42.8 0.24 4 2.189 804894 9350401 0.87 39.7 0.32 5 3.596 804957 9358452 1.80 50.2 2.08 6 2.877 805377 9372296 1.44 50.0 0.54 7 3.961 805578 9384670 1.58 39.8 0.84 8 2.377 805836 9397853 0.98 41.2 0.02 9 2.083 805901 9406996 0.94 45.2 0.32 10 1.836 805925 9416174 0.83 45.4 0.50 11 1.809 805938 9424375 0.78 43.4 0.00 12 1.605 805963 9431968 0.75 46.9 0.00 13 1.680 806002 9439104 0.70 41.6 0.00 14 1.635 806027 9445849 0.76 46.4 0.00 JAN 15 1.718 806050 9453202 0.73 42.4 0.24 16 1.515 806072 9460260 0.70 45.9 0.00 17 1.637 806095 9466987 0.76 46.2 0.28 18 1.612 806117 9474337 0.75 46.7 0.16 19 1.539 806140 9481641 0.72 46.9 0.23 20 1.540 806180 9488461 0.78 50.4 0.02 21 1.577 806204 9495990 0.71 44.8 0.01 22 1.527 806227 9502828 0.77 50.2 0.01 23 1.403 806237 9510387 0.88 62.4 0.00 24 1.533 806276 9518757 0.52 34.2 0.00 25 1.488 806290 9523859 0.74 49.6 0.00 26 1.443 806329 9530852 0.62 43.0 0.00 27 1.505 806368 9536664 0.73 48.3 0.00 28 1.872 806392 9543694 0.79 42.4 0.00 29 1.402 806415 9551401 0.72 51.7 0.00 30 1.622 806453 9558264 0.69 42.6 0.00 31 1.569 806483 9564866 0.66 41.9 0.00 Total 28.0 7.37 Average 0.902 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 230 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD FEB 1 1.516 806518 9571089 0.75 49.4 0.00 2 1.582 806554 9578222 0.71 44.8 0.00 3 1.541 806579 9585054 0.74 47.9 0.06 4 1.580 806616 9592064 0.65 41.2 0.00 5 1.519 806654 9598190 0.69 45.5 0.00 6 1.592 806691 9604725 0.70 44.2 0.00 7 1.417 806706 9611610 0.71 50.3 0.00 8 1.483 806728 9618522 0.74 49.9 0.10 9 1.397 806752 9625689 0.66 47.1 0.09 10 1.600 806776 9632027 0.81 50.9 0.40 11 1.877 806800 9639933 0.68 36.4 0.25 12 1.482 806823 9646528 0.70 46.9 0.02 13 1.446 806861 9653101 0.70 48.3 0.00 14 1.522 806899 9659711 0.71 46.9 1.00 FEB 15 1.527 806935 9666482 0.71 46.7 0.00 16 1.431 806947 9673492 0.67 46.7 0.50 17 1.573 806984 9679807 0.70 44.5 0.00 18 1.490 807018 9686465 0.68 45.8 0.18 19 1.873 807042 9693056 0.91 48.6 0.59 20 1.661 807068 9701899 0.83 50.2 0.05 21 1.518 807092 9709998 0.70 46.4 0.23 22 1.666 807118 9716777 0.65 38.8 0.00 23 1.432 807143 9722989 0.78 54.8 0.24 24 2.020 807166 9730606 0.91 44.8 0.44 25 2.029 807190 9739425 1.01 49.6 0.31 26 1.767 807214 9749253 0.70 39.7 0.04 27 1.537 807255 9755855 0.81 52.7 0.02 28 1.530 807277 9763740 0.70 46.1 0.02 Total 20.7 4.54 Average 0.740 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 231 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD MAR 1 1.515 807315 9770409 0.66 43.2 0.02 2 1.345 807338 9776729 0.70 52.4 0.02 3 1.526 807362 9783538 0.75 49.0 0.24 4 1.779 807398 9790652 0.78 43.8 0.00 5 1.559 807422 9798197 0.70 45.0 0.06 6 1.601 807449 9804939 0.73 45.8 0.01 7 1.860 807484 9811921 0.83 44.5 0.24 8 2.158 807508 9819950 0.94 43.4 0.60 9 1.779 807533 9829055 0.86 48.1 0.90 10 2.143 807557 9837373 1.03 48.1 0.08 11 2.376 807583 9847413 1.32 55.5 0.72 12 2.300 807613 9860300 1.08 47.1 1.02 13 1.843 807639 9870876 0.77 42.0 0.01 14 1.714 807664 9878369 0.76 44.4 0.05 MAR 15 1.768 807693 9885682 0.76 43.0 0.00 16 1.607 807722 9892996 0.82 51.1 0.00 17 1.637 807762 9900806 0.59 36.2 0.10 18 1.851 807786 9906486 0.79 42.8 0.00 19 2.034 807809 9914170 0.80 39.6 0.74 20 1.672 807833 9921976 0.89 53.4 0.01 21 1.683 807844 9930788 0.64 38.2 0.15 22 1.690 807883 9936830 0.70 41.3 0.00 23 1.702 807908 9943558 0.76 44.5 0.68 24 2.298 807941 9950805 0.87 37.9 0.30 25 1.983 807965 9959275 0.84 42.6 0.03 26 1.897 807988 9967484 0.80 42.1 0.11 27 1.922 808012 9975225 0.73 37.9 0.19 28 1.657 808035 9982282 0.75 45.1 0.00 29 1.629 808068 9989424 0.76 46.5 0.00 30 1.605 808101 9996674 0.73 45.6 0.48 31 1.846 808126 10003750 0.72 39.2 0.02 Total 24.9 6.78 Average 0.802 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 232 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD APR 1 1.710 808150 10010743 0.62 36.5 0.00 2 1.470 808173 10016762 0.69 47.0 0.08 3 1.570 808197 10023430 0.66 41.8 0.00 4 1.490 808236 10029604 0.63 42.2 0.00 5 1.480 808259 10035667 0.67 45.1 0.00 6 1.420 808293 10042009 0.63 44.3 0.00 7 1.560 808327 10047957 0.69 44.2 0.08 8 1.710 808350 10054624 0.77 45.1 0.48 9 1.560 808361 10062232 0.22 14.3 0.00 10 1.650 808384 10064226 0.37 22.6 0.00 11 1.610 808420 10067596 0.07 4.4 0.05 12 1.670 808458 10067930 2.18 130.7 0.00 13 1.610 808481 10089523 0.63 39.3 0.25 14 1.600 808518 10095479 0.70 43.7 0.00 APR 15 1.500 808543 10102224 0.75 50.1 0.02 16 1.550 808586 10109302 0.68 44.2 0.02 17 1.540 808638 10115630 0.73 47.6 0.20 18 1.510 808671 10122627 0.72 47.5 0.24 19 1.520 808708 10129435 0.75 49.3 0.00 20 1.470 808748 10136525 0.70 47.9 0.00 21 1.520 808771 10143338 0.74 49.0 0.22 22 1.690 808795 10150545 0.72 42.8 0.02 23 1.560 808830 10157428 0.70 45.1 0.20 24 1.490 808864 10164129 0.70 47.3 0.04 25 1.540 808902 10170791 0.73 47.3 0.00 26 1.560 808926 10177842 0.74 47.1 0.00 27 1.370 808949 10184966 0.67 49.2 0.02 28 1.420 808984 10191357 0.71 50.0 0.00 29 1.630 809013 10198167 0.66 40.2 0.00 30 1.530 809036 10204493 0.72 46.9 0.12 Total I I 1 21.0 2.04 Avera e I I 1 0.699 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 233 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD MAY 1 1.507 809068 10211355 0.71 47.3 0.13 2 1.480 809103 10218127 0.71 48.0 0.50 3 1.465 809152 10224738 0.72 49.3 0.08 4 1.440 809190 10231585 0.70 48.7 0.15 5 1.517 809225 10238243 0.70 46.0 0.01 6 1.628 809248 10244997 0.71 43.8 0.00 7 1.410 809272 10251887 0.76 54.2 0.00 8 1.601 809294 10259314 0.70 43.5 0.00 9 1.473 809331 10265909 0.72 48.8 0.00 10 1.475 809369 10272723 0.74 50.0 0.00 11 1.387 809403 10279762 0.84 60.6 0.00 12 1.448 809429 10287905 0.67 45.9 0.05 13 1.582 809452 10294325 0.65 41.2 0.00 14 1.656 809484 10300527 0.74 45.0 0.00 MAY 15 1.457 809506 10307756 0.71 48.8 0.00 16 1.352 809545 10314479 0.70 51.8 0.00 17 1.507 809577 10321164 0.72 47.9 0.00 18 1.407 809615 10327999 0.73 52.2 0.24 19 1.484 809650 10334998 0.67 45.0 0.18 20 1.804 809688 10341289 0.75 41.5 0.56 21 1.580 809712 10348532 0.74 47.0 0.25 22 1.450 809724 10355833 0.70 48.4 0.00 23 1.548 809753 10362559 0.74 48.1 0.00 24 1.580 809789 10369641 0.78 49.6 0.00 25 1.415 809826 10377111 0.68 48.2 0.00 26 1.520 809865 10383545 0.69 45.7 0.00 27 1.462 809900 10390137 0.68 46.3 0.04 28 1.533 809923 10396673 0.86 56.3 0.00 29 1.489 809946 10405080 0.67 45.0 0.00 30 1.436 809970 10411542 0.70 48.6 0.00 31 1.426 810006 10418157 0.75 52.3 0.00 Total 22.4 2.19 Average 0.721 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 234 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD J U N 1 1.422 810029 10425384 0.62 43.3 0.00 2 1.409 810066 10431171 0.79 56.2 0.00 3 1.589 810091 10438840 0.59 37.2 0.00 4 1.528 810114 10444514 0.70 45.9 0.00 5 1.407 810137 10451298 0.72 51.4 0.21 6 1.361 810182 10458082 0.70 51.5 0.00 7 1.532 810241 10464507 0.75 49.2 0.00 8 1.415 810264 10471821 0.72 51.0 0.00 9 1.546 810306 10478620 0.79 51.3 0.39 10 1.640 810346 10486155 1.15 70.0 0.00 11 1.448 810368 10497415 0.22 14.9 0.00 12 1.349 810399 10499261 0.72 53.4 0.00 13 1.538 810420 10506258 0.72 46.6 0.00 14 1.432 810451 10513114 0.73 51.1 0.00 J U N 15 1.394 810475 10520190 0.75 54.0 0.00 16 1.440 810506 10527401 0.73 50.6 0.22 17 1.554 810540 10534347 0.70 44.9 0.13 18 1.504 810552 10541205 0.72 47.9 0.00 19 1.612 810592 10548002 0.72 44.9 0.00 20 1.652 810629 10554866 0.70 42.2 0.00 21 1.569 810657 10561557 0.72 46.1 0.22 22 1.513 810682 10568541 0.68 44.7 0.00 23 1.440 810731 10574817 0.67 46.7 0.07 24 1.580 810768 10581176 0.65 40.9 0.05 25 1.416 810802 10587302 0.95 67.1 0.00 26 1.632 810828 10596549 0.48 29.3 0.00 27 1.402 810864 10600974 0.68 48.4 0.03 28 1.457 810906 10607338 0.70 48.3 0.23 29 1.614 810944 10613990 0.77 47.6 0.00 30 1.600 810971 10621401 0.71 44.2 0.00 Total 21.3 1.55 Average 0.708 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 235 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD J U L 1 1.320 811010 10628087 0.71 53.5 0.00 2 1.489 811056 10634694 0.73 49.3 0.00 3 1.336 811080 10641793 0.65 48.5 0.00 4 1.395 811115 10647926 0.70 50.5 0.00 5 1.475 811138 10654735 0.70 47.6 0.00 6 1.470 811163 10661505 0.62 41.9 0.00 7 1.485 811187 10667428 0.63 42.6 0.00 8 1.438 811232 10673305 0.63 43.8 0.00 9 1.500 811266 10679259 0.64 42.4 0.00 10 1.443 811345 10684823 0.75 52.0 0.00 11 1.441 811451 10691271 0.63 43.8 0.00 12 1.362 811425 10697844 0.67 49.0 0.00 13 1.467 811458 10704193 0.63 42.7 0.00 14 1.473 811469 10710352 0.62 42.3 0.00 J U L 15 1.455 811484 10716432 0.69 47.5 0.00 16 1.435 811564 10722546 0.64 44.7 0.16 17 1.425 811595 10728648 0.70 49.1 0.10 18 1.548 811627 10735322 0.71 46.0 0.02 19 1.516 811667 10742041 0.70 46.4 0.03 20 1.527 811707 10748673 0.74 48.1 0.12 21 1.626 811742 10755674 0.75 46.2 0.60 22 1.715 811767 10762932 0.67 39.0 0.19 23 1.655 811791 10769387 0.68 41.3 0.00 24 1.496 811832 10775811 0.69 46.0 0.00 25 1.512 811877 10782239 0.69 45.8 0.00 26 1.392 811901 10788920 0.72 51.7 0.00 27 1.541 811938 10795748 0.67 43.5 0.00 28 1.468 811974 10802098 0.59 40.4 0.00 29 1.461 811987 10807892 0.72 48.9 0.00 30 1.556 812049 10814422 0.71 45.6 0.00 31 1.389 812077 10821231 0.66 47.2 0.00 Total 21.0 1.22 Average 0.679 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 236 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD AUG 1 1.646 812118 10827373 0.64 38.7 0.00 2 1.397 812157 10833348 0.67 47.8 0.03 3 1.467 812186 10839741 0.63 43.2 0.00 4 1.354 812228 10845665 0.63 46.2 0.00 5 1.506 812250 10851702 0.65 43.0 0.00 6 1.429 812277 10857905 0.67 46.6 0.00 7 1.425 812317 10864163 0.67 46.8 0.03 8 1.481 812372 10870276 0.66 44.4 0.02 9 1.405 812402 10876558 0.69 48.8 0.02 10 1.392 812439 10883045 0.67 48.0 0.00 11 1.425 812468 10889435 0.60 42.1 0.00 12 1.371 812506 10895050 0.65 47.3 0.00 13 1.423 812532 10901272 0.68 47.8 0.00 14 1.272 812572 10907678 0.62 48.4 0.00 AUG 15 1.385 812601 10913549 0.68 49.3 0.00 16 1.668 812624 10920141 0.67 40.4 0.00 17 1.081 812662 10926504 0.66 61.4 0.00 18 1.425 812699 10932772 0.69 48.6 0.15 19 1.623 812721 10939482 0.65 39.8 0.28 20 1.628 812761 10945539 0.74 45.6 0.24 21 2.046 812795 10952625 0.68 33.4 0.00 22 1.466 812835 10959060 0.69 46.8 0.00 23 1.457 812873 10965537 0.72 49.2 0.00 24 1.419 812912 10972309 0.66 46.4 0.00 25 1.430 812945 10978565 0.64 45.0 0.05 26 1.386 812968 10984776 0.64 46.2 0.00 27 1.373 813015 10990708 0.67 48.9 0.00 28 1.296 813044 10997126 0.67 51.7 0.00 29 1.401 813089 11003370 0.64 45.8 0.00 30 1.463 813138 11009301 0.67 46.0 0.00 31 1.553 813169 11015718 0.67 43.4 0.00 Total 20.6 0.82 Average 0.663 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 237 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD SEP 1 1.504 813208 11022069 0.67 44.5 0.00 2 1.631 813247 11028369 0.63 38.3 0.00 3 1.632 813270 11034392 0.76 46.6 0.30 4 1.559 813293 11041763 0.69 44.5 0.24 5 1.400 813332 11048312 0.57 40.6 0.00 6 1.560 813374 11053580 0.76 48.9 0.00 7 1.377 813414 11060814 0.56 40.3 0.00 8 1.500 813442 11066087 0.69 46.2 0.00 9 1.421 813510 11072330 0.75 52.6 0.00 10 1.591 813558 11079329 0.11 6.7 0.00 11 1.477 813002 11085950 1.23 83.3 0.00 12 1.775 813625 11092025 0.67 37.6 0.00 13 1.482 813655 11098392 0.72 48.4 0.00 14 1.343 813695 11105170 0.69 51.1 0.00 SEP 15 1.620 813740 11111583 0.65 40.2 0.00 16 1.789 813764 11117858 0.72 40.1 0.24 17 1.515 813796 11124718 0.72 47.8 0.04 18 1.332 813828 11131644 0.67 50.0 0.04 19 1.576 813857 11138011 0.68 42.9 0.00 20 1.390 813884 11144507 0.72 51.5 0.00 21 1.351 813907 11151438 0.59 43.5 0.23 22 1.503 813946 11156921 0.64 42.7 0.04 23 1.480 813987 11162929 0.73 49.5 0.00 24 1.495 814033 11169799 0.70 46.5 0.00 25 1.403 814062 11176460 0.66 46.8 0.00 26 1.428 814102 11182625 0.67 47.1 0.00 27 1.478 814142 11188946 0.68 45.7 0.36 28 1.440 814180 11195318 0.67 46.8 0.12 29 1.454 814208 11201784 0.87 59.8 0.52 30 2.180 814221 11210344 0.80 36.8 1.03 Total 20.64 3.16 Avera e I I I L 1 0.688 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 238 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD OCT 1 1.702 814244 11218129 0.82 48.4 0.32 2 1.831 814268 11226123 0.84 45.8 0.29 3 1.708 814295 11234243 0.72 42.3 0.15 4 1.641 814317 11241246 0.76 46.3 0.50 5 1.780 814340 11248617 0.66 36.8 0.00 6 2.065 814379 11254778 0.74 35.7 0.06 7 1.873 814418 11261758 0.70 37.5 0.32 8 1.841 814457 11268393 0.74 40.4 0.36 9 1.644 814480 11275592 0.70 42.7 0.24 10 1.613 814518 11282226 0.73 45.1 0.04 11 1.582 814550 11289178 0.70 44.3 0.02 12 1.437 814590 11295787 0.62 43.2 0.00 13 1.429 814637 11301519 0.62 43.5 0.00 14 1.434 814675 11307350 0.65 45.3 0.00 OCT 15 1.600 814732 11313282 0.60 37.3 0.14 16 1.470 814741 11319160 0.58 39.3 0.19 17 1.525 814782 11324520 0.66 43.5 0.56 18 1.582 814830 11330674 0.69 43.7 0.35 19 2.270 814857 11337316 0.97 42.6 0.00 20 2.013 814883 11346733 0.76 37.6 0.04 21 1.949 814897 11354164 0.78 40.1 0.12 22 1.704 814921 11361746 0.73 43.1 0.00 23 1.635 814945 11368850 0.70 42.8 0.00 24 1.726 814985 11375451 0.74 42.8 0.25 25 1.680 815024 11382454 0.71 42.5 0.02 26 1.526 815047 11389363 0.66 43.5 0.00 27 1.604 815069 11395784 0.71 44.0 0.00 28 1.805 815107 11402457 0.71 39.5 0.00 29 1.667 815146 11409199 0.84 50.4 0.00 30 1.618 815186 11417203 0.65 39.9 0.00 31 1.614 815224 11423281 0.69 42.8 0.00 Total 22.19 3.97 Average 0.716 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 239 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD NOV 1 1.510 815264 11429785 0.72 47.5 0.00 2 1.660 815302 11436575 0.69 41.4 0.00 3 1.590 815340 11443068 0.68 42.8 0.01 4 1.840 815362 11449651 0.71 38.6 0.00 5 1.680 815375 11456623 0.69 41.0 0.00 6 1.480 815407 11463193 0.69 46.4 0.05 7 1.560 815445 11469683 0.73 46.8 0.05 8 1.630 815483 11476607 0.68 41.5 0.14 9 1.450 815506 11483148 0.65 44.9 0.25 10 1.530 815544 11489280 0.68 44.2 0.08 11 1.750 815566 11495827 0.86 49.1 0.96 12 2.190 815604 11504042 1.05 48.1 0.48 13 1.650 815630 11514311 0.68 41.1 0.00 14 1.620 815669 11520700 0.80 49.3 0.35 NOV 15 3.070 815693 11528448 1.39 45.1 1.68 16 1.930 815762 11541615 0.89 46.0 0.02 17 2.010 815804 11550081 0.81 40.1 0.34 18 1.860 815829 11557896 0.75 40.4 0.00 19 1.690 815853 11565177 0.77 45.4 0.08 20 1.830 815894 11572435 0.74 40.4 0.00 21 1.620 815917 11579590 0.70 43.1 0.00 22 1.650 815957 11586177 0.74 45.1 0.00 23 1.620 815981 11593379 0.70 43.0 0.00 24 1.560 816004 11600113 0.72 46.4 0.00 25 1.820 816026 11607128 0.71 38.9 0.00 26 1.570 816065 11613820 0.76 48.2 0.43 27 1.520 816104 11620995 0.69 45.3 0.00 28 1.660 816115 11627765 0.73 44.1 0.25 29 1.610 816153 11634707 0.74 45.8 0.08 30 1.550 816191 11641693 0.63 40.8 0.00 Total 22.75 5.25 Average 0.758 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 240 of 332 DATE STP HIGH LOW CITY PERCENT RAIN FLOW FLOW MGD DEC 1 1.915 816229 11647632 0.94 48.9 0.84 2 4.593 816253 11656747 3.37 73.4 5.15 3 8.755 818542 11667571 3.84 43.8 3.14 4 3.876 821923 11672142 1.76 45.3 0.14 5 2.472 822266 11686286 1.03 41.5 0.05 6 2.167 822293 11696272 0.88 40.7 0.03 7 1.961 822317 11704854 0.85 43.4 0.00 8 1.782 822341 11713128 0.71 40.0 0.00 9 1.999 822365 11720014 0.72 36.0 0.00 10 1.827 822388 11726982 0.77 42.2 0.00 11 1.671 822411 11734465 0.73 43.5 0.00 12 1.952 822448 11741366 0.80 41.1 0.00 13 1.824 822484 11749030 0.66 36.2 0.05 14 1.626 822513 11755340 0.78 48.0 0.50 DEC 15 2.290 822540 11762882 0.94 40.9 0.78 16 2.188 822565 11772006 0.96 44.0 0.62 17 2.093 822591 11781376 0.95 45.2 0.17 18 2.457 822618 11790565 1.14 46.2 0.78 19 2.539 822644 11801660 1.26 49.7 0.58 20 2.291 822669 11814025 0.92 40.0 0.02 21 1.890 822693 11822952 0.81 43.0 0.30 22 2.124 822718 11830829 0.96 45.3 0.24 23 2.540 822743 11840199 1.16 45.8 0.48 24 1.851 822768 11851580 0.84 45.6 0.10 25 1.845 822793 11859773 0.86 46.6 0.21 26 2.113 822819 11868115 0.79 37.6 0.42 27 2.438 822844 11875800 1.02 41.7 0.00 28 2.102 822870 11885699 0.96 45.7 0.10 29 1.957 822897 11895038 0.85 43.6 0.23 30 1.942 822921 11903336 0.70 35.9 0.00 31 1.883 822947 11910045 0.75 39.7 0.00 822971 11917278 Total 33.71 14.93 Average 1.087 An Total 9.164 53.82 An Avg 0.764 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 241 of 332 Appendix G Trunk Sewer Capacities City of Port Orchard Trunk Sewer Capacities Build -Out Capacities Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 242 of 332 28-Aug-08 UpStream Contributing Basins Wastewater Flow Pipe Pump Trunk Basins/PS Basin Population Employees GPD/Capita GPD/Employee Avg Day GPD Peak Factor Peak Hour MGD inch GPM A None 4 512 186 67 45 42,674 5.0 0.213 8 B None 5 935 1,035 67 45 109,220 5.0 0.546 8 Coast PS 4 & 5 151,894 0.759 12 633 C-east Coast PS 6 2,832 2,707 67 45 311,559 5.0 2.469 C-e total 463,453 5.0 2.317 18 C-west D & F none 2,552,913 4.0 10.212 24 D E & H 8 957 426 67 45 83,289 4.5 0.375 D Total 2,471,254 3.5 8.649 12+18 E Albertson 11 1,955 343 67 45 146,420 4.5 G 3,356 2,879 354,407 E Total 5,311 3,222 500,827 4.0 2.452 15 F None 10 1,022 293 67 45 81,659 5.0 0.408 18 G None 3 1,000 247 67 45 78,115 12 182 1,318 67 45 71,504 Albertson PS 3&12 1,182 1,565 149,619 3.0 0.449 374 Bravo Terrace 14-S 211 197 67 45 23,002 5.0 0.115 96 14-N 1,848 604 67 45 150,996 4.5 13 115 513 67 45 30,790 4.5 G Total 3,356 2,879 354,407 4.0 1.418 18 H McCormick 1 7 1,117 422 67 45 93,829 4.5 0.422 H Total 1,887,138 4.0 7.549 18 McCormick 1 1 1,793,309 4.0 7.173 18 5,978 1 J & K 2 1,038 18 67 45 70,356 5.0 9 585 536 67 45 63,315 5.0 15 415 9 67 45 28,210 5.0 1 subtotal 161,881 5.0 0.809 Ridge PS 16 165 83 67 45 14,790 5.0 0.074 62 1 Totals 1,793,309 4.0 7.173 18 J None 17 401 452 67 45 47,207 18 705 0 67 45 47,235 1 1,410 0 67 45 94,470 SKIA 0 9,350 0 128 1,196,800 J Totals 2,516 9,802 1,385,712 3.5 4.850 12 K 19 623 37 67 45 43,406 20 1,245 28 67 45 84,675 21 1,535 0 67 45 102,845 K Totals 3,403 65 230,926 5.0 1.155 15 McCormick 2 J & K 1,616,638 3.0 4.850 16 4,042 Marina C-east & west 3,016,366 4.0 12.065 18 10,055 SKIA None SKIA None 9,350 0 128 1,196,800 2.4 2.872 15 2,394 Ordinance No. 034-09 City of Port Orchard Exhibit F 8-Aug-08 Trunk Sewer Capacities 2025 Capacities Page 243 of 332 UpStream Contributing Basins Wastewater Flow Pipe Pump Trunk Basins/PS Basin Population Employees GPD/Capita GPD/Employee Avg Day GPD Peak Factor Peak Hour MGD inch GPM A None 4 508 186 67 45 42,406 5.0 0.212 8 B None 5 611 1,035 67 45 87,512 5.0 0.438 8 Coast PS 4 & 5 129,918 0.650 12 541 C-east Coast PS 6 2,319 2,707 67 45 277,188 5.0 2.165 C-e total 407,106 5.0 2.036 18 C-west D & F none 2,405,513 4.0 9.622 24 D E & H 8 942 426 67 45 82,284 4.5 0.370 D Total 2,314,206 3.5 8.100 12+18 E Albertson 11 1,955 343 67 45 146,420 4.5 G 3,179 2,879 342,548 E Total 5,134 3,222 488,968 4.0 2.416 15 F None 10 1,166 293 67 45 91,307 5.0 0.457 18 G None 3 1,000 247 67 45 78,115 12 240 1,318 67 45 75,390 Albertson PS 3&12 1,240 1,565 153,505 3.0 0.461 384 Bravo Terrace 14-S 211 197 67 45 23,002 5.0 0.115 96 14-N 1,613 604 67 45 135,251 4.5 13 115 513 67 45 30,790 4.5 G Total 3,179 2,879 342,548 4.0 1.370 18 H McCormick 1 7 937 422 67 45 81,769 4.5 0.368 H Total 1,742,954 4.0 6.972 18 McCormick 1 1 1,661,185 4.0 6.645 18 5,537 1 J & K 2 642 18 67 45 43,824 5.0 9 513 536 67 45 58,491 5.0 15 165 9 67 45 11,460 5.0 1 subtotal 113,775 5.0 0.569 Ridge PS 16 165 83 67 45 14,790 5.0 0.074 62 1 Totals 1,661,185 4.0 6.645 18 J None 17 387 452 67 45 46,269 18 599 0 67 45 40,133 1 1,410 0 67 45 94,470 SKIA 0 9,350 0 128 1,196,800 J Totals 2,396 9,802 1,377,672 3.5 4.822 12 K 19 385 37 67 45 27,460 20 771 28 67 45 52,917 21 1,113 0 67 45 74,571 K Totals 2,269 65 154,948 5.0 0.775 15 McCormick 2 J & K 1,532,620 3.0 4.598 16 3,832 Marina C-east & west 2,812,619 4.0 11.250 18 9,375 SKIA None SKIA None 9,350 0 128 1,196,800 2.4 2.872 15 2,394 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 244 of 332 City of Port Orchard 16-Oct-08 Trunk Sewer Capacities Revised SKIA Flows in 2025 UpStream Contributing Basins Wastewater Flow Pipe Pump Trunk Basins/PS Basin Popula Employ GPD/Cap GPD/Employ Avg GPD Peak Pk Hr MG1 inch GPM A None 4 508 186 67 45 42,406 5.0 0.212 8 B None 5 611 1,035 67 45 87,512 5.0 0.438 8 Coast PS 4 & 5 129,918 0.650 12 541 C-east Coast PS 6 2,319 2,707 67 45 277,188 5.0 2.165 C-e total 407,106 5.0 2.036 18 C-west D & F none 1,358,713 4.0 5.435 24 D E & H 8 942 426 67 45 82,284 4.5 0.370 D Total 1,267,406 3.5 4.436 12+18 E Albertson 11 1,955 343 67 45 146,420 4.5 G 3,179 2,879 342,548 E Total 5,134 3,222 488,968 4.0 2.416 15 F None 10 1,166 293 67 45 91,307 5.0 0.457 18 G None 3 1,000 247 67 45 78,115 12 240 1,318 67 45 75,390 Albert PS 3&12 1,240 1,565 153,505 3.0 0.461 384 Bravo Terr 14-S 211 197 67 45 23,002 5.0 0.115 96 14-N 1,613 604 67 45 135,251 4.5 13 115 513 67 45 30,790 4.5 G Total 3,179 2,879 342,548 4.0 1.370 18 H McCorm 1 7 937 422 67 45 81,769 4.5 0.368 H Total 696,154 4.0 2.785 18 McCorm 1 1 614,385 4.0 2.458 18 2,048 1 J & K 2 642 18 67 45 43,824 5.0 9 513 536 67 45 58,491 5.0 15 165 9 67 45 11,460 5.0 1 subtotal 113,775 5.0 0.569 Ridge PS 16 165 83 67 45 14,790 5.0 0.074 62 1 Totals 614,385 4.0 2.458 18 J None 17 387 452 67 45 46,269 18 599 0 67 45 40,133 1 1,410 0 67 45 94,470 SKIA 0 9,350 0 128 150,000 J Totals 2,396 9,802 330,872 3.5 1.158 12 K 19 385 37 67 45 27,460 20 771 28 67 45 52,917 21 1,113 0 67 45 74,571 K Totals 2,269 65 154,948 5.0 0.775 15 McCorm 2 J & K 485,820 3.0 1.457 16 1,215 Marina C-east & west 1,765,819 4.0 7.063 18 5,886 SKIA None SKIA None 9,350 0 128 150,000 2.4 0.360 15 300 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 245 of 332 Build -out Flows with Revised SKIA Flow UpStream Contributing Basins Wastewater Flow Pipe Pump Trunk Basins/PS Basin Popula Employ GPD/Cap GPD/Employ Avg GPD Peak Pk Hr MG1 inch GPM B None 5 935 1,035 67 45 109,220 5.0 0.546 8 Coast PS 4 & 5 109,220 0.546 12 455 C-east Coast PS 6 2,832 2,707 67 45 311,559 5.0 2.213 C-e total 420,779 5.0 2.104 18 C-west D & F none 1,506,113 4.0 6.024 24 D E & H 8 957 426 67 45 83,289 4.5 0.375 D Total 1,424,454 3.5 4.986 12+18 E Albertson 11 1,955 343 67 45 146,420 4.5 G 3,356 2,879 354,407 E Total 5,311 3,222 500,827 4.0 2.452 15 F None 10 1,022 293 67 45 81,659 5.0 0.408 18 G None 3 1,000 247 67 45 78,115 12 182 1,318 67 45 71,504 Albertson PS 3&12 1,182 1,565 149,619 3.0 0.449 374 Bravo Terrace 14-S 211 197 67 45 23,002 5.0 0.115 96 14-N 1,848 604 67 45 150,996 4.5 13 115 513 67 45 30,790 4.5 G Total 3,356 2,879 354,407 4.0 1.418 18 H McCormick 1 7 1,117 422 67 45 93,829 4.5 0.422 H Total 840,338 4.0 3.361 18 AcCormick 1 746,509 4.0 2.986 18 2,488 1 J & K 2 1,038 18 67 45 70,356 5.0 9 585 536 67 45 63,315 5.0 15 415 9 67 45 28,210 5.0 1 subtotal 161,881 5.0 0.809 Ridge PS 16 165 83 67 45 14,790 5.0 0.074 62 1 Totals 746,509 4.0 2.986 18 J None 17 401 452 67 45 47,207 18 705 0 67 45 47,235 1 1,410 0 67 45 94,470 SKIA 0 9,350 0 128 150,000 J Totals 2,516 9,802 338,912 3.5 1.186 12 K 19 623 37 67 45 43,406 20 1,245 28 67 45 84,675 21 1,535 0 67 45 102,845 K Totals 3,403 65 230,926 5.0 1.155 15 AcCormick ; J & K 569,838 3.0 1 1.710 16 1,425 Marina C-east & west 1,926,892 4.0 7.708 18 6,423 SKIA None SKIA None 9,350 0 128 150,000 2.4 0.360 15 300 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 246 of 332 Appendix H Capital Cost Estimation Spreadsheets Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 247 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP Gravity Trunk Sewer G Item No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 149,796 $ 149,796 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 3 Dewatering LS 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 4 Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing LS 7000 $ 1 $ 7,000 5 Sawcutting Pavement LF 14000 $ 4 $ 56,000 6 Pavement Removal SY 4667 $ 4 $ 18,667 7 Temporary Sewer Bypass LS 0 $ 10,000 $ - 8 8-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 0 $ 80 $ - 9 10-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 0 $ 90 $ - 10 12-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 0 $ 100 $ - 11 15-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 7000 $ 110 $ 770,000 12 48-inch Dia Manhole, 0' to 8' deep EA 23 $ 4,000 $ 92,000 13 48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth VF 23 $ 300 $ 6,900 14 Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC EA 0 $ 1,500 $ - 15 Import Trench Backfill TN 5200 $ 20 $ 103,992 16 Crushed Surfacing, Base Course TN 1970 $ 25 $ 49,259 17 Crushed Surfacing, Top Course TN 985 $ 25 $ 24,630 18 HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22 TN 1089 $ 150 $ 163,333 19 Restoration LS 1 $ 68,089 $ 68,089 20 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 $ 68,089 $ 68,089 Subtotal 40% Contingency Subtotal 8.6% State Sales Tax Estimated Total Construction Costs PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits Construction Services District Project Administration Legal Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 1,647,755 $ 659,102 $ 2,306,856 $ 198,390 $ 2,505,246 $ 300,630 $ 175,367 $ 50,105 $ 25,052 $ 551,154 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 3,056,400 S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 248 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP Gravity Trunk Sewer H Item No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 51,413 $ 51,413 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 3 Dewatering LS 1 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 4 Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing LS 2400 $1 $ 2,400 5 Sawcutting Pavement LF 4800 $ 4 $ 19,200 6 Pavement Removal SY 1600 $ 4 $ 6,400 7 Temporary Sewer Bypass LS 0 $ 10,000 $ - 8 8-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 0 $ 80 $ - 9 10-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 0 $ 90 $ - 10 12-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 0 $ 100 $ - 11 15-inch Sanitary Sewer LF 2400 $ 110 $ 264,000 12 48-inch Dia Manhole, 0' to 8' deep EA 8 $ 4,000 $ 32,000 13 48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth VF 8 $ 300 $ 2,400 14 Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC EA 0 $ 1,500 $ - 15 Import Trench Backfill TN 1783 $ 20 $ 35,654 16 Crushed Surfacing, Base Course TN 676 $ 25 $ 16,889 17 Crushed Surfacing, Top Course TN 338 $ 25 $ 8,444 18 HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22 TN 373 $ 150 $ 56,000 19 Restoration LS 1 $ 23,369 $ 23,369 20 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 $ 23,369 $ 23,369 Subtotal $ 565,539 40% Contingency $ 226,216 Subtotal $ 791,755 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 68,091 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 859,846 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 103,181 Construction Services $ 60,189 District Project Administration $ 17,197 Legal $ 8,598 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 189,166 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 1,049,012 S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 249 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP Force Main E Item No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 32,782 $ 32,782 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 3 Dewatering LS 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 4 Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing LS 2500 $1 $ 2,500 5 Sawcutting Pavement LF 5000 $ 4 $ 20,000 6 Pavement Removal SY 494 $ 4 $ 1,975 7 Temporary Sewer Bypass LS 0 $ 10,000 $ - 8 8-inch Sanitary Sewer LF $ 80 $ - 9 10-inch Sanitary Sewer LF $ 90 $ - 10 12-inch Sanitary Sewer LF $ 100 $ - 11 12-inch Force Main LF 2500 $ 60 $ 150,000 12 48-inch Dia Manhole, 0' to 8' deep EA 0 $ 4,000 $ - 13 48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth VF 0 $ 300 $ - 14 Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC EA 0 $ 1,500 $ - 15 Import Trench Backfill TN 1662 $ 20 $ 33,230 16 Crushed Surfacing, Base Course TN 626 $ 25 $ 15,638 17 Crushed Surfacing, Top Course TN 313 $ 25 $ 7,819 18 HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22 TN 346 $ 150 $ 51,852 19 Restoration LS 1 $ 14,901 $ 14,901 20 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 $ 14,901 $ 14,901 Subtotal $ 360,597 40% Contingency $ 144,239 Subtotal $ 504,836 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 43,416 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 548,252 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 65,790 Construction Services $ 38,378 District Project Administration $ 10,965 Legal $ 5,483 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 120,616 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 668,868 S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 250 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP Force Main South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Item No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 88,126 $ 88,126 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 3 Dewatering LS 1 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 4 Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing LS 13000 $1 $ 13,000 5 Sawcutting Pavement LF 8000 $ 4 $ 32,000 6 Pavement Removal SY 2370 $ 4 $ 9,481 7 Temporary Sewer Bypass LS 0 $ 10,000 $ - 8 8-inch Sanitary Sewer LF $ 80 $ - 9 10-inch Sanitary Sewer LF $ 90 $ - 10 12-inch Sanitary Sewer LF $ 100 $ - 11 8-inch Force Main - In Road LF 4000 $ 45 $ 180,000 12 8-inch Force Main - X Country LF 9000 $ 40 $ 360,000 13 48-inch Dia Manhole, V to 8' deep EA 0 $ 4,000 $ - 14 48-inch Dia Manhole, extra depth VF 0 $ 300 $ - 15 Lateral Connection, 6-inch PVC EA 0 $ 1,500 $ - 16 Import Trench Backfill TN 2658 $ 20 $ 53,169 17 Crushed Surfacing, Base Course TN 1001 $ 25 $ 25,021 18 Crushed Surfacing, Top Course TN 500 $ 25 $ 12,510 19 HMA Trench Patch, CL 1/2, PG 58-22 TN 553 $ 150 $ 82,963 20 Restoration LS 1 $ 40,057 $ 40,057 21 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 $ 40,057 $ 40,057 Subtotal 40% Contingency Subtotal 8.6% State Sales Tax Estimated Total Construction Costs PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits Construction Services District Project Administration Legal Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 969,384 $ 387,754 $ 1,357,138 $ 116,714 $ 1,473,852 $ 176,862 $ 103,170 $ 29,477 $ 14,739 $ 324,247 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 1,798,099 S:\Projects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 251 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP Marina Pump Station 2010 Upgrade - Replace Large Pumps Item Description No. Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 103,860 $ 103,860 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 3 Temporary Flow Bypass Demolition of Mechanical - Remove Existing Pumps and Valves Demolition of Electrical Cross Connection Control Replace Valves 8" Check Valve 8" Plug Valve LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 4 LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 5 LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 LS 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 6 LS 1 $ 52,600 $ 52,600 2 $ 2,025 5 $ 1,350 14" Check Valve 2 $ 6,600 14" Plug Valve 4 $ 4,650 18" Cut In Valve 1 $ 10,000 18" Plug Valve 0 $ 6,000 7 Replace Louvers 9' x 12' LS 1 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 LS 1 $ 5,000 9' x 8' LS 1 $ 4,000 8 Pumps 4000 gpm x 200 HP x 140 feet TDH LS 1 $ 476,000 $ 476,000 Level Sensing System 1 9 Drywell Repair LS 1 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 Ventilation 1 $ 10,000 Lighting 1 $ 2,000 Heater 1 $ 2,000 10 Control Building Repair LS 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Lighting 1 $ 2,000 Heater 1 $ 2,000 11 Electrical LS 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 12 600 KW Generator and ATS LS 1 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 13 Seawall Repair LS 1 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 13 Restoration LS 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 14 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 T $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Subtotal $ 1,144,460 40% Contingency $ 457,784 Subtotal $ 1,602,244 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 137,793 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 1,740,037 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 181,603 Construction Services $ 121,803 District Project Administration $ 34,801 Legal $ 17,400 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 355,607 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 2,095,644 SAProjects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 252 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP Marina Pump Station 2020 Upgrade - Replace Small Pumps Item Description No. Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 17,900 $ 17,900 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 3 Temporary Flow Bypass LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 4 Demolition of Electrical LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 5 Pumps 1500 gpm x 60 HP LS 1 $ 147,000 $ 147,000 6 Electrical LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 7 Restoration LS 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 8 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Subtotal $ 197,900 40% Contingency $ 79,160 Subtotal $ 277,060 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 23,827 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 300,887 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 27,080 Construction Services $ 21,062 District Project Administration $ 6,018 Legal $ 3,009 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 57,169 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 358,056 SAProjects\Port Orchard\Sewer Plan\Appendices\H-Cost Estimates City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP McCormick Woods Number 1 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 253 of 332 Item Description No. Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 40,914 $ 40,914 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ - $ - 3 Temporary Flow Bypass LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 4 Demolition of Mechanical LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 Demolition of Electrical Bypass Connection Vault Replace Valves LS 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 LS 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 6 LS 1 $ 10,800 $ 10,800 10" Check Valve 2 $ 3,150 10" Plug Valve 2 $ 2,250 16" Plug Valve 0 $ 5,250 7 Replace Piping 8" Discharge Piping LS 1 $ 19,376 $ 19,376 30 $ 88 8" Elbow (FLxFL) 2 $ 686 8" x 10" Reducers (FLxFL) 2 $ 1,182 10" Discharge Piping 40 $ 102 10" Elbow (FLxFL) 2 $ 1,116 10"x16" Cross w/ 16" Blind (FLxFL) 1 $ 6,688 8 Pumps 2000 gpm x 120 HP x 140 feet TDH LS 1 $ 165,200 $ 165,200 Discharge Elbows 2 Rails 2 Level Sensing System 1 9 Wetwell Repair LS 1 $ 9,816 $ 9,816 Wet well lid 12' diameter (3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20 10 Valve Vault Repair LS 1 $ 7,452 $ 7,452 Valve vault lid 10' diameter (3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20 Ladder 11 Isolation Vault Repair LS 0 $ 2,643 $ - Isolation valve vault lid 6' Diameter 3'x4' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20 Ladder 12 Electrical LS 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 13 250 KW Generator and ATS LS 1 $ 87,500 $ 87,500 14 Odor and Corrosion Control using existing structure LS 1 $ 5,500 $ 5,500 15 Restoration LS 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 16 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Subtotal $ 450,058 40% Contingency $ 180,023 Subtotal $ 630,081 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 54,187 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 684,268 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 61,584 Construction Services $ 47,899 District Project Administration $ 13,685 Legal $ 6,843 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 130,011 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 814,278 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP McCormick Woods Number 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 254 of 332 Item Description No. Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 37,199 $ 37,199 2 Traffic Control Labor and Equipment LS 1 $ - $ - 3 Temporary Flow Bypass LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 4 Demolition of Mechanical LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 Demolition of Electrical Bypass Connection Vault Replace Valves LS 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 LS 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 6 LS 1 $ 10,800 $ 10,800 10" Check Valve 2 $ 3,150 10" Plug Valve 2 $ 2,250 16" Plug Valve 0 $ 5,250 7 Replace Piping 8" Discharge Piping LS 1 $ 19,376 $ 19,376 30 $ 88 8" Elbow (FLxFL) 2 $ 686 8" x 10" Reducers (FLxFL) 2 $ 1,182 10" Discharge Piping 40 $ 102 10" 90 elbow (FLxFL) 2 $ 1,116 10"x16" Cross w/ 16" Blind (FLxFL) 1 $ 6,688 8 Pumps 1400 gpm x 50 HP x 90 feet TDH LS 1 $ 144,900 $ 144,900 Discharge Elbows 2 Rails 2 Level Sensing System 1 9 Wetwell Repair LS 1 $ 9,816 $ 9,816 Wet well lid 12' diameter (3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20 10 Valve Vault Repair LS 1 $ 7,452 $ 7,452 Valve vault lid 10' diameter (3) 3'x3' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20 Ladder 11 Isolation Vault Repair LS 1 $ 2,643 $ 2,643 Isolation valve vault lid 6' Diameter 3'x4' Aluminum Access Hatch H-20 Ladder 12 Electrical LS 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 13 100 KW Generator and ATS LS 1 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 14 Odor and Corrosion Control using existing structure LS 1 $ 5,500 $ 5,500 15 Restoration LS 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 16 Cleanup and Testing LS 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Subtotal $ 411,184 40% Contingency $ 164,474 Subtotal $ 575,658 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 49,507 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 625,165 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 56,265 Construction Services $ 43,762 District Project Administration $ 12,503 Legal $ 6,252 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 118,781 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 743,946 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 255 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP Pottery Pump Station Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Amount No. I I Price Lynden Pump Station Difference in Cost Between Stations Escallation from 1/2006 to 10/2008 (8623/7883) Lb 1 $ 725,000 $ 125,000 LS 1 $ (249,000) $ (249,000) Subtotal $ 476,000 9.39% $ 44,683 Subtotal $ 520,683 40% Contingency $ 208,273 Subtotal $ 684,273 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 58,848 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 743,121 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 66,881 Construction Services $ 52,018 District Project Administration $ 14,862 Legal $ 7,431 Land Acquaition (3000 SF) $ 45,000 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 186,193 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 929,314 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 256 of 332 City of Port Orchard Capital Improvement Projects Cost Estimate CIP SKIA PUMP STATION Item Description Unit Quantity I Unit I Amount No. Price Rockaway Beach PS - similar configuration 194k in 6/2004 LS 1 $ 194,000 $ 194,000 Escallation from 1/2006 to 10/2008 (8623/7883) 21.30% $ 41,316 Subtotal $ 235,316 Difference in Cost Between Stations ODOR CONTROL LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Subtotal $ 245,316 40% Contingency $ 98,126 Subtotal $ 333,443 8.6% State Sales Tax $ 28,676 Estimated Total Construction Costs $ 362,119 PROJECT ALLIED COSTS Engineering Design, Survey, Geotechnical and Permits $ 32,591 Construction Services $ 25,348 District Project Administration $ 7,242 Legal $ 3,621 Subtotal Project Allied Costs $ 68,803 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 430,921 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 257 of 332 Appendix I Financial Documentation CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Ordinance No. 034-09Exhibit F OPERATING STATEMENT 4th QUARTER 2005 Page 258 of 332 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE OPERATING REVENUES 460 UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA 30 156 2,241 2,428 461.1 METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS 142,337 145,351 298,116 182,147 767,951 461.2 PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 115 130 140 155 540 461.3 SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA 625 1,032 2,312 878.38 4,848 461.4 METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 15,225 18,113 17,374 19,531 70,244 462.1 SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE 303,867 298,848 462,705 506,603 1,572,023 462.2 SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER 996 1,571 1,800 2,339 6,707 462.3 SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 22,455 32,735 32,097 47,587 134,873 470 LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES 7,092 5,607 7,463 7,756 27,918 471 MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF 635 710 750 500 2,595 472 RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES 9,174 8,242 8,313 8,998 34,727 474 OTHER WA SW REVENUES 910 1,185 1,380 1,810 5,284 474.1 OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER 176,143 180,370 336,006 224,016 916,535 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER 327,318 333,155 496,602 556,529 1,713,604 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 503,461 513,525 832,608 780,546 2,630,138 OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER 602.1 PURCHASED WATER 267 118 345 395 1,125 603.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER - 611.1 MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV 45 - 67 444 555 614.1 MAINTENANCE OF WELLS 7 1 - 8 616.1 MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS - 621.1 FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER 622.1 POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE - 623.1 PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER 16,180 15,330 22,942 16,330 70,782 624.1 PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER 7,684 7,238 7,176 9,555 31,653 631.1 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP 7 26 7 253 293 632.1 MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER - 633.1 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER 6,323 8,561 14,496 6,254 35,634 641.1 CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT 3,998 4,036 1,974 3,154 13,162 642.1 MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER 12,980 15,240 11,504 13,862 53,586 652.1 MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP - 665.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY 670.1 OLD CLIFTON LANDFILL -ENGINEERING 671.1 MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER - 672.1 MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES 4,206 6,142 1,656 7,024 19,028 673.1 MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA 11,115 10,631 40,098 24,014 85,857 675.1 MAINT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN 13,407 13,082 31,049 30,554 88,092 676.1 MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER (1,381) 9,050 4,078 4,033 15,780 677.1 MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER (1,004) - 3,956 - 2,951 TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER 73,832 89,456 139,350 115,871 418,506 OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER 622.2 POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER - 623.2 POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER 5,148 4,485 5,240 5,351 20,224 624.2 PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION 9,518 9,542 9,382 11,624 40,066 631.2 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP 22 239 53 129 444 632.2 MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW - 633.2 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER 9,840 4,857 8,711 11,399 34,807 641.2 CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT 1,025 1,079 8,438 1,091 11,634 642.2 OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT 313,668 234,976 234,935 156,600 940,179 673.2 MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER 3,672 9,562 33,144 8,237 54,615 675.2 MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER 8,279 25,276 13,511 8,535 55,601 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER 351,172 290,017 313,414 202,966 1,157,570 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW 425,004 379,473 452,763 318,837 1,576,076 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD OPERATING STATEMENT 4th QUARTER 2005 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 259 of 332 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 902 METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER 8,208 2,280 3,194 4,084 17,766 903 CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP 33,854 32,317 32,988 38,044 137,203 TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 42,062 34,596 36,182 42,128 154,968 ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 920.1 ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES 19,846 27,087 35,394 34,636 116,964 920.2 GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL 27,028 27,714 30,625 32,759 118,125 921 OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE 5,979 10,829 4,146 8,631 29,585 922 ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD (1,879) (1,298) (887) (913) (4,977) 923 OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED 7,232 2,608 23,721 20,289 53,850 924 PROPERTY INSURANCE 7,401 7,401 6,851 5,750 27,404 925 INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS 11,102 11,102 10,276 8,626 41,106 926.2 EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT 3,953 - - 3,953 926.3 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT - 926.4 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION 2,949 4,670 12,224 9,276 29,120 926.5 EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE 5,982 2,252 4,983 7,075 20,292 926.6 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY 5,631 2,321 2,988 3,943 14,883 930 MISC GENERAL EXPENSE - 931 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS 272 (272) - 932 MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT 7,009 10,654 8,916 9,371 35,950 933 TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE 4,913 6,073 3,811 7,634 22,431 TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 107,419 111,141 143,048 147,077 508,684 TAXES CITY & STATE 408.11 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR 10,167 8,231 15,905 8,206 42,509 408.12 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR 13,404 8,819 16,471 8,536 47,230 TOTAL TAXES -WATER 23,571 17,050 32,376 16,741 89,740 408.21 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR 20,383 16,658 24,830 22,349 84,219 408.22 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR 3,840 4,369 4,284 4,528 17,020 TOTAL TAXES SEWER 24,223 21,027 29,114 26,877 101,240 TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE 47,794 38,077 61,490 43,618 190,979 TOTAL REVENUES 503,461 513,525 832,608 780,546 2,630,138 TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES 622,279 563,287 693,484 551,659 2,430,707 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (118,818) (49,762) 139,124 228,886 199,430 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE (122,132) (122,132) (122,132) (122,131) (488,527) NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (240,950) (171,894) 16,992 106,755 (289,097) Page 2 of 2 Ordinance No. 034-09 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Exhibit F WATER -SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT Page 26o of 332 4th QUARTER 2006 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE OPERATING REVENUES 460 UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA 1,435 30 1,858 16,675 19,999 461.1 METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS 146,463 145,669 326,832 190,070 809,034 461.2 PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 83 549 (1,125) 1,033 540 461.3 SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA 558 1,218 2,942 1,381 6,099 461.4 METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 10,132 18,087 23,002 20,254 71,474 462.1 SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE 413,340 402,836 521,753 507,706 1,845,635 462.2 SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER 1,368 2,088 1,944 2,233 7,633 462.3 SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 29,668 43,956 34,037 45,912 153,573 470 LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES 7,308 6,404 7,391 8,122 29,225 471 MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF 262 685 450 670 2,067 472 RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES 9,140 8,240 8,333 9,822 35,535 474 OTHER WA SW REVENUES 1,411 1,350 1,173 950 4,884 474.1 OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE - TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER 176,793 182,232 370,856 248,976 978,857 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER 444,376 448,880 557,735 555,851 2,006,841 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 621,169 631,111 928,590 804,827 2,985,698 OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER 602.1 PURCHASED WATER - 78 79 1 159 603.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER - - 611.1 MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV 6 135 144 105 390 614.1 MAINTENANCE OF WELLS 29 - 17 46 616.1 MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS - - 621.1 FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER 622.1 POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE - - - 623.1 PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER 18,732 18,230 24,403 21,384 82,749 624.1 PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER 6,269 7,072 6,558 6,293 26,191 631.1 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP 6 133 - 139 632.1 MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER - - - 633.1 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER 14,945 3,858 4,082 11,899 34,785 641.1 CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT 1,819 2,315 3,836 3,432 11,402 642.1 MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER 14,112 (14,112) 10,165 39,571 49,735 652.1 MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP - - 665.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY 670.1 OLD CLIFTON LANDFILL -ENGINEERING 671.1 MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER - - 672.1 MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES 2,063 2,977 5,371 15,765 26,176 673.1 MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA 15,518 17,573 7,838 20,485 61,415 675.1 MAINT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN 21,603 11,054 5,774 4,710 43,142 676.1 MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER 2,812 27,159 373 134 30,478 677.1 MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER 13 734 - 417 1,165 TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER 97,928 77,073 68,756 124,213 367,972 OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER 622.2 POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER - 623.2 POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER 6,439 5,184 4,933 7,608 24,164 624.2 PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION 7,405 7,604 10,727 11,016 36,752 631.2 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP 49 283 10,028 10,360 632.2 MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW 632 632 633.2 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER 17,918 8,417 4,339 21,173 51,846 641.2 CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT 1,135 9,030 1,696 11,860 642.2 OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT 363,028 272,097 272,097 181,433 1,088,654 673.2 MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER 30,759 22,555 6,780 11,072 71,166 675.2 MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER 9,187 29,652 10,538 15,937 65,314 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER 434,784 346,645 318,726 260,595 1,360,748 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW 532,713 423,718 387,482 384,808 1,728,720 Ordinance No. 034-09 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD WATER -SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT 4th QUARTER 2006 Exhibit F f o Page 261 g 332 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 902 METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER 4,011 5,460 3,058 8,375 20,903 903 CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP 38,364 39,688 32,607 45,037 155,696 TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 42,375 45,148 35,664 53,412 176,599 ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 920.1 ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES 29,262 36,660 30,424 35,933 132,279 920.2 GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL 28,653 33,730 29,375 37,212 128,970 921 OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE 8,640 7,688 5,632 5,377 27,338 922 ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD (1,226) (633) (850) (1,495) (4,204) 923 OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED 3,853 367 - 8,228 12,447 924 PROPERTY INSURANCE 7,362 7,362 7,362 7,362 29,449 925 INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS 11,043 11,043 11,043 11,043 44,173 926.2 EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT - - 926.3 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT - - 926.4 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION 2,419 7,433 11,327 5,743 26,923 926.5 EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE 6,402 3,657 1,328 3,528 14,914 926.6 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY 6,797 1,892 2,324 4,539 15,553 930 MISC GENERAL EXPENSE - - 931 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS - - - 932 MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT 9,114 16,868 8,533 11,585 46,100 933 TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE 6,793 9,667 7,009 7,561 31,030 TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 119,114 135,735 113,507 136,616 504,972 TAXES CITY & STATE 408.11 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR 9,977 8,257 17,739 9,354 45,327 408.12 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR 10,352 8,654 18,383 10,202 47,591 TOTAL TAXES -WATER 20,329 16,910 36,122 19,556 92,918 408.21 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR 27,695 22,402 27,887 22,284 100,267 408.22 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR 5,784 4,007 6,019 4,939 20,749 TOTAL TAXES SEWER 33,478 26,409 33,906 27,223 121,016 TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE 53,808 43,319 70,028 46,779 213,934 TOTAL REVENUES 621,169 631,111 928,590 804,827 2,985,698 TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES 748,009 647,920 606,681 621,615 2,624,224 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (126,840) (16,808) 321,909 183,213 361,474 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE (114,568) (114,568) (114,568) (114,568) (458,273) NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (241,409) (131,377) 207,341 68,645 (96,799) CITY OF PORT ORCHARD WATER -SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT 4th QUARTER 2007 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F f o Page 262 g 332 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE OPERATING REVENUES 460 UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA 273 108 236 243 860 461.1 METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS 141,221 137,233 317,636 181,819 777,909 461.2 PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 115 130 140 155 540 461.3 SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA 654 1,245 2,819 1,694 6,412 461.4 METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 10,969 20,630 24,997 23,170 79,766 462.1 SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE 418,478 410,076 550,445 544,342 1,923,341 462.2 SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER 1,392 2,050 1,944 2,376 7,763 462.3 SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 28,520 42,066 32,164 45,273 148,023 470 LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES 8,189 6,400 9,515 7,982 32,087 471 MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF 790 410 940 860 3,000 472 RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES 9,965 9,665 9,460 11,894 40,983 474 OTHER WA SW REVENUES 1,020 1,340 1,330 1,070 4,760 474.1 OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER 169,102 173,962 362,315 224,895 930,274 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER 452,484 457,393 589,311 595,982 2,095,170 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 621,586 631,355 951,626 820,877 3,025,444 OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER 602.1 PURCHASED WATER 78 78 603.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER - - - - 611.1 MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV 159 7,936 182 49,964 58,241 614.1 MAINTENANCE OF WELLS 14 142 2,615 35,980 38,751 616.1 MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS - - - - - 621.1 FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER 622.1 POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE - - - - - 623.1 PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER 17,301 15,629 26,745 18,101 77,776 624.1 PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER 6,009 5,343 5,163 6,668 23,183 631.1 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP 22 185 135 - 342 632.1 MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER - - - - 633.1 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER 3,882 6,021 5,387 5,707 20,997 641.1 CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT 540 3,717 4,119 1,989 10,365 642.1 MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER 12,313 20,080 13,687 13,376 59,455 652.1 MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP - - 2,785 480 3,265 665.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY - - - 670.1 OLD CLIFTON LANDFILL -ENGINEERING - - - 671.1 MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER 1,388 (18) - - 1,370 672.1 MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES 2,111 1,914 4,437 9,086 17,547 673.1 MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA 13,845 12,935 12,154 15,591 54,525 675.1 MAINT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN 19,131 10,259 6,456 8,180 44,025 676.1 MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER 8,279 12,873 8,224 3,968 33,344 677.1 MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER 238 637 - - 875 TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER 85,231 97,652 92,088 169,167 444,139 OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER 622.2 POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER - - - - - 623.2 POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER 6,573 5,482 5,244 10,321 27,619 624.2 PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION 10,383 7,865 10,778 11,340 40,366 631.2 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP 325 366 1,077 155 1,923 632.2 MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW - 1 - 1,739 1,740 633.2 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER 8,420 7,162 10,220 11,028 36,830 641.2 CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT 2,381 - 10,371 1,665 14,416 642.2 OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT 383,106 287,217 287,290 191,478 1,149,091 673.2 MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER 9,551 61,059 66,048 58,515 195,173 675.2 MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER 12,866 36,033 7,029 12,301 68,229 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER 433,605 405,185 398,058 298,541 1,535,388 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW 518,836 502,837 490,145 467,708 1,979,526 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD WATER -SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT 4th QUARTER 2007 Ordinance No. 034-09Exhibit F Page 263 of 332 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 902 METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER 4,641 5,251 3,300 7,106 20,298 903 CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP 32,971 37,038 36,038 52,779 158,826 TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 37,611 42,290 39,338 59,885 179,124 ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 920.1 ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES 31,099 34,424 31,235 49,011 145,770 920.2 GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL 36,193 41,885 39,985 62,711 180,774 921 OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE 9,571 11,349 4,369 8,521 33,810 922 ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD (859) (3,540) (2,624) (4,094) (11,117) 923 OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED - 353 - 3,930 4,283 924 PROPERTY INSURANCE 8,169 8,169 8,169 8,169 32,678 925 INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS 12,254 12,254 12,254 12,254 49,016 926.2 EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT - - - 926.3 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT - - - 926.4 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION 1,761 4,451 13,086 16,979 36,277 926.5 EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE 6,670 3,461 2,869 4,369 17,369 926.6 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY 6,914 2,110 3,000 5,270 17,293 930 MISC GENERAL EXPENSE - - - 931 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS - 0 - 932 MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT 10,559 10,787 7,901 14,023 43,270 933 TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE 4,996 6,822 6,193 8,585 26,595 TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 127,328 132,525 126,437 189,729 576,019 TAXES CITY & STATE 408.11 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR 9,734 7,967 17,291 8,176 43,169 408.12 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR 10,520 8,742 18,032 9,351 46,645 TOTAL TAXES -WATER 20,254 16,709 35,324 17,527 89,814 408.21 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR 27,972 22,710 29,228 23,481 103,390 408.22 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR 9,149 5,072 7,571 5,914 27,706 TOTAL TAXES SEWER 37,121 27,782 36,798 29,395 131,096 TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE 57,375 44,491 72,122 46,922 220,910 TOTAL REVENUES 621,586 631,355 951,626 820,877 3,025,444 TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES 741,151 722,143 728,043 764,243 2,955,580 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (119,564) (90,788) 223,584 56,634 69,865 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE (116,949) (116,949) (116,949) (116,949) (467,796) NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (236,513) (207,737) 106,635 (60,315) (397,931) CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Ordinance No. 034-09 WATER - SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT Exhibit F 3RD QUARTER 2008 Page 264 of 332 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE OPERATING REVENUES 460 UNMETERED SALES CUSTOMERS -WA 2,430 171 402 3,003 461.1 METERED WA SALES-GEN CUSTOMERS 148,426 139,737 373,947 662,110 461.2 PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 115 130 152 397 461.3 SALES TO PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES - WA 715 1,098 3,102 4,915 461.4 METERED SALES -PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 10,500 17,893 23,466 51,859 462.1 SEWER SERVICES FLAT RATE 457,072 435,723 586,342 1,479,138 462.2 SVS-PUBLIC MUNICIPALITIES -SEWER 1,584 2,016 2,160 5,760 462.3 SALES TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 27,967 41,302 31,625 100,894 470 LATE PAYMENT / PENALTIES 10,851 8,948 10,854 30,653 471 MISC SVS REV. -WA SW SVS T-OFF 1,000 920 1,000 2,920 472 RENT -UTILITY PROPERTIES 11,546 10,646 10,744 32,937 474 OTHER WA SW REVENUES 1,279 1,450 1,739 4,468 474.1 OTHER WA SW REVENUES -INS REIMBURSE - TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE WATER 181,437 176,519 419,979 777,935 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE SEWER 492,049 483,515 625,555 1,601,118 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 673,486 660,034 1,045,534 2,379,054 OPERATING EXPENSES -WATER 602.1 PURCHASED WATER 60 30 125 215 603.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER - 611.1 MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES&IMPROV 417 65 12 493 614.1 MAINTENANCE OF WELLS 5,422 13 412 5,846 616.1 MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLY MAINS - 621.1 FUEL POWER PRODUCTION -WATER 622.1 POWER PROD LABOR & EXPENSE - 623.1 PWER PURCH FOR PUMPING -WATER 18,216 19,310 25,142 62,669 624.1 PUMPING LABOR & EXPENSE -WATER 7,097 6,406 7,862 21,366 631.1 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -WA PUMP 919 11 28 958 632.1 MAINTAIN PWR PRODCTN EQUIP -WATER - 633.1 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -WATER 6,018 3,481 4,017 13,517 641.1 CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT 3,231 2,501 4,729 10,462 642.1 MAINT, OPERATION, LBR,EXP-WATER 13,818 17,221 11,551 42,590 652.1 MAINT WATER TREATMENT EQUIP 2,427 2,156 976 5,559 665.1 MISC EXPENSE - WATER INVENTORY - 671.1 MAINT TRANSMSN DIST EXP-WATER - 672.1 MAINT DISTRBTN RSRVR& ST PIPES 5,353 4,348 2,025 11,726 673.1 MAINT TRNSMSN&DISTRBTN MAINS -WA 7,012 15,540 14,698 37,251 675.1 MAINT OF SVS-WA TRNSMSN DISTRBN 15,191 7,845 4,963 27,998 676.1 MAINTENANCE OF METERS -WATER 3,374 8,916 7,364 19,654 677.1 MAINT OF HYDRANTS -WATER 258 3,184 13 3,455 TOTAL OPERTATING EXPENSES -WATER 88,814 91,028 83,916 263,757 OPERATING EXPENSES -SEWER 622.2 POWER PROD LABOR&EXPENSE-SEWER - 623.2 POWER PURCHASED FOR PUMPING -SEWER 6,684 6,487 5,228 18,398 624.2 PUMP LABOR & EXP-SW LIFT STATION 7,385 10,685 11,658 29,727 631.2 MAINTAIN STRUCTURES -SW PUMP 755 (160) 20 615 632.2 MAINT POWER PRODUCTN EQUIP -SW - 633.2 MAINTAIN PUMP EQUIPMENT -SEWER 5,016 14,358 31,402 50,776 641.2 CHEMICALS -SEWER TREATMENT 1,012 - 1,012 642.2 OPER,LABOR, EXP-SEWER PLANT 344,130 255,975 258,891 858,997 673.2 MAINT,COST OF LABR MAINS -SEWER 97,360 16,501 15,836 129,697 675.2 MAINT OF SERVICE -SEWER 15,208 38,587 24,217 78,012 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES SEWER 476,539 343,444 347,251 1,167,234 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES WA/SW 565,353 434,471 431,167 1,430,992 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD WATER - SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT 3RD QUARTER 2008 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 265 of 332 ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH YEAR QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER TO DATE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 902 METER READINGS CUST EXP-WATER 4,886 6,195 3,149 14,230 903 CUSTOMER RECORD & COLLECTION EXP 47,760 45,496 36,436 129,692 TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 52,646 51,691 39,585 143,922 ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 920.1 ADMIN/GENERAL SALARIES 920.2 GENERAL SALARY -CLERICAL 921 OFFICE SUPPLIES & OTHER EXPENSE 922 ADMIN EXPENSE TRANSFERRED OVERHEAD 923 OUTSIDE SERVICES EMPLOYED 924 PROPERTY INSURANCE 925 INJURY & DAMAGES -LIABILITY INS 926.2 EMPLOYEE PENS-PERS RETIREMENT 926.3 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -II MED AID SUPPORT 926.31 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS-MED PLAN 100% 926.4 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -VACATION 926.5 EMPLOYEE BENEIFTS-SICK LEAVE 926.6 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -HOLIDAY 930 MISC GENERAL EXPENSE 931 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RENTS 932 MAINT OF GENERAL PLANT 933 TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT EXPENSE 34,087 43,436 30,910 108,434 49,483 60,120 59,357 168,960 8,972 7,628 6,350 22,951 (1,821) (2,424) (2,578) (6,823) 4,941 3,871 388 9,200 8,766 8,766 8,766 26,299 13,150 13,150 13,150 39,449 (4) (4) 3,842 6,363 15,631 25,836 4,576 3,107 6,056 13,739 6,531 3,015 3,187 12,733 9,629 14,327 7,586 31,543 6.804 7,093 17.549 31.446 TOTAL ADMIN/GENERAL EXPENSE 148,961 168,454 166,347 483,762 TAXES CITY & STATE 408.11 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX WA -DR 10,287 7,951 20,053 38,292 408.12 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -WA DR 11,098 10,413 21,113 42,625 TOTAL TAXES -WATER 21,385 18,365 41,167 80,916 408.21 CITY GROSS EARN-UTIL TAX SW -DR 30,450 23,952 31,006 85,409 408.22 CITY GROSS EARN UT TAX STATE -SW DR 8,489 6,045 7,325 21,859 TOTAL TAXES SEWER 38,939 29,997 38,331 107,267 TOTAL TAXES CITY & STATE 60,324 48,362 79,498 188,184 TOTAL REVENUES 673,486 660,034 1,045,534 2,379,054 TOTAL EXPENSES/TAXES 827,284 702,978 716,597 2,246,860 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (153,799) (42,944) 328,937 0 132,194 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE (116,949) (116,949) (116,949) (350,847) NET OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (270,748) (159,893) 211,988 0 (218,653) Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 266 of 332 Appendix J Comments Received Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 267 of 332 Responses to Comments West Sound Utility District All comments accepted and revisions entered City of Bremerton All comments are acknowledged. References to the SKIA have been revised to refer to `potential sewer service'. Overton & Associates All comments are acknowledged. References to the SKIA have been revised to refer to `potential sewer service'. West Sound UTILITY O 1 5 T R I C T 28 October 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 268 of 332 District Review Comments for Draft City Comprehensive Sewer Plan PAGE REFERENCE COMMENT Fig 1.1 The chart does not show treatment plants at Port Gamble and Hartstene Pointe. 4 Service Areas The City policy does not recognize that the unincorporated UGA is served by WSUD. Typically, the City policy has been to serve those areas in the UGA that have not been designated to be served by WSUD. 5 Agreements There should be a note that states that West Sound Utility District is responsible for Karcher Creek agreements. This will avoid confusion in the future. 5 Service Extensions Only homes within 200 feet of the sewer that have failing on -site systems and are in the urban area have to connect to the sewer. Unless the City is becoming more stringent. 6 Mutual Aid The City should join WA -WARN which is a statewide mutual aid program. 11 Facility Construction This fee is restricted to projects at the South Kitsap Fee Water Reclamation Facility, as jointly approved by the City and District. This should be noted to avoid confusion in the future. 16 WSUD Facilities The sentence stating "Flows exceeding 6 MGD are treated" should read "may be treated". The December 3 2007 storm produced 8.8 MGD, not 12 MGD. The Annual Average Flow for 2007 was 1.7 MGD, not 1.5 MGD. Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 269 of 332 16 Service Areas The agreement for service areas was based on topography and was a SAC discussion item. The District serves east of Blackjack Creek, except for the SR 16 intersection. The dividing line is between Geiger Road and Ramsey Road. The intent is to send the wastewater to the agency that can provide the least cost infrastructure expense to the developer. That is not "everything east to about Bethel Road". 19 Table 3-6 There is no water intertie on Mitchell 22 Plant Operation WSUD operates the SKWRF 25 Historic Wastewater The plant is the South Kitsap Water Reclamation Flows Facility; not the "Karcher Creek Treatment Facility" 38 Existing Conditions What is the "1,200 in this sentence? Pump Station No 1 collects flow from the County Juvenile Detention Center, an office park the 1,200 decant facility operated by the City, Aj r1 � MEMERTON 7HE CITY Of PRIDE AND OPPORTUNITY CECIL MCCONNELL, MAYOR PRO-TEM njayar@d-bremerton.wa.us October 28, 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F RECEIVED Page 270 Of 332 OCT 2 9 2009 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD CITY CLERKS OFFICE e1360-473-5266 ax 360-473-5883 45 6" Street, Suite 600 ramerton WA 98337 RE C'EIV EIL); Port Orchard City Council G�: i 2 9 2009 216 Prospect Street CT OF PORT ORCJ-1,p Port Orchard, WA 98366 -PLANNING DrPAR7,Av x Nj RE: City of Bremerton's Comments on DNS issued on October 16, 2009 and Port Orchard's 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Dear City Council, The City of Bremerton ("Bremerton") is in receipt of SEPA DNS issued by the City of Port Orchard ("Port Orchard") on October 16, 2009. This letter addresses Bremerton's comments regarding the DNS issued for Port Orchard's "Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update" dated September 2009, as well as the plan as follows: I. BACKGROUND Bremerton annexed approximately 3200 acres of land in 2009 known as South Ki#sap Industrial Area ("SKIA") urban growth area ("UGA"), City of Bremerton Ordinance Nos. 5053 & 5057. This area was officially annexed on March 1, 2009 and April 1, 2009 utilizing the 75% annexation method as allowed for by RCW 35.13.125. Notification was provided to the Office of Financial Management as required by RCW 35.13.260, and officially recorded with Kitsap County as required by RCW 35.13.150. Bremerton is the planning authority for all territory within our city limits and our associated UGA'S including the SKIA area. This planning authority extends to planning for all urban services (such as storm water, water, and wastewater) as required by state law under the Growth Management Act by RCW 36,70A,040. As you may be aware, Bremerton has previously appealed Port Orchard's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update regarding comments and inclusion of the SKIA region in their planning documents (GMHB Case # 09-3-0003). The City of Bremerton agreed to a settlement with the City of Port Orchard regarding this matter on the basis that Port Orchard removed all reference to SKIA as a "preferred" sewer service provider from their 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update and label as "potential" sewer service provider. • Page 2 October 28, 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 271 of 332 II. BREMERTON'S COMMENTS ON SEPA DNS ISSUED OCTOBER 16, 2009: General Comments: The City of Port Orchard has provided inadequate analysis throughout this planning document regarding expansion of sewer services to SKIA. The City of Bremerton finds this data arbitrary for the issuance of the DNS to meet SEPA requirements. Additionally, the SEPA checklist does not address expansion of service area including SKIA. Below the City of Bremerton comments on specific sections of plan document: a. Table 3-2 there seems to be a conflict with the information provided in Table 3-2 and the paragraph immediately following Table 3-2. If the Marina Pump Station's firm capacity is defined as the capacity with the largest pump out of service, then the firm capacity is 2400 GPM or 3.46 MGD. It is not appropriate to add the capacity of the smaller pumps to the larger pump as they do not have the ability to overcome the larger pump's TDH. This is important as the Marina Pump Station capacity is cited when basin planning for the upstream basins. This is a critical component of Port Orchard's basin capacity planning that is not accurately portrayed. b. Chapter 4.5 Population Projections does not adequately address the projected population for the SKIA Area; The City of Bremerton intends to complete a full analysis of growth needs during the SKIA Sub Area planning process. c. Chapter 5.4 Wastewater flows utilizes data from the 2003 South Kitsap Industrial Area Plan. This is an out of date document which did not anticipate the City of Bremerton's Annexation of SKIA and is not current with projections recognized by the Kitsap County's Capital Facilities Plan. On March 10, 2008 Kitsap County adopted Ordinance 409-2008, which incorporates updates to their Comprehensive Plan and six year Capital Facilities Plan. Additionally, The City of Bremerton has calculated peak flows for this area in the City of Bremerton September 2008 Sewer Planning Document. Bremerton's 2008 Sewer Planning Document projects higher flows than the old SKIA plan that is being utilized by the City of Port Orchard for this update. All references to Port Orchard being an authorized sewer provider to SKIA should be removed as Bremerton has not requested that Port Orchard provide service in this area. d. In addition to the comments made above, the City of Bremerton incorporates section three below for comment on the DNS issued on October 16, 2009. III. THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE SANITARY SEWER UPDATE General Comments: The Plan references the City of Port Orchard as an "authorized" sewer service provider for SKIA. The City of Bremerton opposes any language making reference to Port Orchard as an authorized sewer provider to the SKIA region as this territory is in the City of Bremerton. • Page 3 October 28, 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 272 of 332 Bremerton recognizes that inter -jurisdictional coordination is an important part of the urban planning process. The City of Bremerton as part of the development of a sub -area plan for SKIA will research and make findings regarding how the area will be served with municipal utilities required by RCW 36.70A.070. Exactly who and where specific services will be provided will be determined by Bremerton and it is premature to conclude anything more definitive right now as to how that planning process will handle the issue. Port Orchard should not do anything in their comprehensive sewer plan to assert sewer service area "authorization" for any part of SKIA let alone all of it. At this time the City of Bremerton has not entered into any agreements with Port Orchard to provide sewer services within Bremerton's City limits. The City of Bremerton believes that the City of Port Orchard could be a potential provider of service to portions of SKIA. After consulting with the City of Port Orchard, Bremerton will determine how each service will be provided and funded. Below the City of Bremerton comments on the specific sections as follows', a. Sewer Service Area, Section 3.34, This section identifies SKIA as Port Orchard's sewer service area. This area is in the City of Bremerton. The required services needed for future growth in this region will be planned for by the City of Bremerton. Bremerton recognizes that inter -jurisdictional coordination is an important part of the urban planning process and will properly coordinate planning efforts as appropriate during the development of the South Kitsap Industrial Area sub area planning process. b. Wastewater Flows, section 5.4, This section provides in part: "The SKIA is a large site with many possibilities for future development, such as a NASCAR race track or another major facility. However, these possibilities are only speculative for now. Consequently, longer term or build -out projection of wastewater flow projection for the SKIA have not yet been developed by Kitsap County or the Port of Bremerton" (Page 30, Port Orchard Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan). Kitsap County is no longer the authorized planning agency for this region. The City of Bremerton is the authorized planning agency for this area and as such the city will determine the wastewater flows as part of its planning process. c. The map figures found throughout the document lack proper labeling, titles, and explanation of what it is to represent. 1. The City of Bremerton is not properly shown in many of the maps; it appears that the City of Port Orchard is using old data to create these maps. New data is available at the Kitsap County GIS website. 2. Figure 1.2 is not labeled properly, assuming that this is the map immediately following Figure 1.1, the city limits of Bremerton include SKIA and need to be properly represented. The SKIA area should be removed from your map as an assigned service area. 3. Port Orchard is representing that SKIA is part of their sewer service area in some of these maps. Their titles are unknown; therefore properly referencing them is not possible. The City of Bremerton requests that • Page 4 October 28, 2009 Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 273 of 332 accurate data is utilized to create all maps and that Bremerton's city limits and sewer provider area include SKIA. In closing, the City of Bremerton requests the Port Orchard remove all reference to the SKIA area of Bremerton in their planning documents. It is premature for Port Orchard to anticipate servicing the entire SKIA region. Bremerton will cooperate with regional jurisdictions during the sub area planning phase of the SKIA area. It should be noted that at this time there are multiple "potential" sewer services providers to consider. The City of Bremerton recognizes the efforts Port Orchard has taken to develop this major update to its Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, and we hope that the city will consider our comments as it deliberates on the draft and finalizes the document prior to adoption. We appreciate Port Orchard's effort to complete this challenging and complicated task. Sincerely, Cecil McCo Wert II Mayor Pro-Tem Cc: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Port Orchard City Clerk Department of Ecology Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 274 of 332 MCCULLOUGH HILL, Ps L . OCT 3 12009 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD October 30, 2009 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SENT VIA FAX AND US MAIL Port Orchard City Council 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 Re: Overton & Associates Comments on 2009 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update and SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance Dear City Council: This is on behalf of Overton & Associates Holdings, LLC ("Overton"). We are writing to provide comments on the City's 2006 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update ("Sewer Plan Update") and SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS"), dated October 16, 2009. Overton is a long-term owner of significant acreage in Kitsap County, near the City of Port Orchard ("City"). Overton has an interest in ensuring that the City's land use plans and policies are logical, lawful, and consistent with neighboring jurisdictions' plans, particularly with respect to the South Kitsap Industrial Area ("SKIA") recently annexed by the City of Bremerton. We have two primary comments on the Sewer Plan Update and DNS. First, these documents identify SKIA as within Port Orchard's sewer service area. This is not accurate. The SKIA area was annexed by the City of Bremerton earlier this year, and the City of Bremerton will soon embark on a sub -area planning process that will identify appropriate municipal utility providers, consistent with RCW 36.70A.070. It is inappropriate and premature for the City of Port Orchard to identify itself as a sewer service provider for the SKIA area at this time. Second, the Sewer Plan Update and DNS appear to be based on outdated, inaccurate information. Chapter 4.5 of the DNS (Population Projections) does not adequately address the projected population for the SKIA area, and Chapter 5.4 of the DNS (Wastewater flows) utilizes inaccurate data from the 2003 South Kitsap Industrial Area Plan. In addition, Section 5.4 of the Sewer Plan Update states that the SKIA area is currently in Kitsap County's jurisdiction, although it was annexed to the City of Bremerton this year. The Sewer Plan Update and DNS should be revised to reflect the most recent, accurate information available. In sum, Overton agrees with the issues raised in the City of Bremerton's October 28, 2009 comment letter, and we ask you to consider these comments as you complete the Sewer Plan Update process. 701 Fifth Avenue - Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 - Fax 206.812.3389 - www.mhseattle.com Port Orchard City Council October 30, 2009 Page 2of2 We appreciate your attention to these comments. ZVeVe y yours, Cour e . ora cc: Cecil McConnell, Mayor Pro -Tern, City of Bremerton Port Orchard City Clerk Department of Ecology David Overton Ordinance No. 034-09 Exhibit F Page 275 of 332 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 276 of 332 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2009-2014 South Kitsap School District Board of Directors Patty Henderson Keith Garton Naomi Polen Jay Rosapepe Kathryn Simpson Dave LaRose, Superintendent "Nurturing Growth Inspiring Achievement Building Community" The South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan was prepared by the following individuals: Staff Terri Patton, Assistant Superintendent, Business and Support Services Tom O'Brien, Director, Facilities and Operations Jeff Greene, Planning Consultant The Capital Facilities Plan was adopted by the South Kitsap School District Board of Directors on May 6, 2009. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Tom O'Brien, Director of Facilities and Operations at 360-874-6000. Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 277 of 332 Welcome to South KitsU School District Dave LaRose, Superintendent 360-874-7000 Welcome to the South Kitsap School District! I am honored by the privilege of serving as South Kitsap School District's new superintendent. I am excited to continue the great work we are doing in our schools and within our community for the children we share. Our vision to Nurture Growth, Inspire Achievement and Build Community will remain the driving force behind our efforts to reach and teach every child. a M l * At South Kitsap, we are committed to relationships — with our internal family (Collaboration time for staff), the families and community we serve (Our Family Friendly Schools initiative), and the children we are privileged to reach and teach every day (Developmental Assets). Trusting relationships are essential for our work together, and will empower us to accomplish great things on behalf of the children who learn and grow every day in our schools. South Kitsap School District is a people -centered organization, and thus, our employees are our greatest resource. We have a highly motivated team who live our vision on a daily basis. We also have tremendous community pride and are fortunate to have community members who devote hundreds of hours in our schools and thousands of dollars in resources annually to our district. What lies within all of us is a common bond — an interest in giving every child the chance to lead a happy, rewarding, and successful life. Whether you're a long-time South Kitsap resident, current staff member or parent, I hope you can see that we are passionate about our vision to Nurture, Inspire, and Build. This is what makes the South Kitsap School District and community a great place to live, work, learn, and play. Again, I welcome you to our school district. I look forward to meeting you and thank you for your interest in South Kitsap Schools. Sincerely, Dave LaRose, Superintendent Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 278 of 332 INDEX WELCOME Page 2 INDEX Page 3 THE SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 12 SCHOOL DISTRICT MAPS Page 13 I. SUMMARY Page 15 Definitions Page 20 II. FACILITY CAPACITY INFORMATION Page 22 TABLE 1: Capital Facilities Inventory Page 23 TABLE 2: Inventory of Additional Facilities Page 24 TABLE 3: Summary of Existing Facilities Page 25 III. STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Page 26 TABLE 4: Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections Page 28 TABLE 5: Projected Student Enrollment by Grade Span Page 28 TABLE 6: Year 2030 Projected Enrollment by Grade Span Page 28 ATTACHMENT A: Enrollment History & Growth Projections Page 31 CHART 1: Growth Projection 2009-2030 Page 33 ATTACHMENT B: School Service Area Projections Page 35 IV. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AND CAPACITY CALCULATION Page 39 V. PROJECTED FACILITY NEEDS (Years 2009-2014) Page 42 TABLE 7: Projected Housing Needs 6-3-3 Model Page 42 TABLE 8: Projected Housing Needs 5-3-4 Model Page 42 TABLE 9: Projected Housing Needs 6-2-4 Model Page 43 VI. PROJECTED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Page 44 TABLE 10: 2009-2014 Growth Related Construction Projects Page 45 TABLE 11: 2015-2030 Needs Forecast -Existing Facilities Page 47 TABLE 12: 2014-2025 Needs Forecast -New Facilities Page 47 VII. DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN Page 48 TABLE 13: Capital Finance Plan Page 50 VIII. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Page 51 IX. APPENDIX A Page 54 3 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 279 of 332 THE SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT OUR DISTRICT The South Kitsap School District (SKSD) is the second largest school district in Kitsap County and has one of the largest three-year high schools in Washington State. The District serves 10,237 students within its 360 square miles. The District's 16 learning centers include ten elementary schools, three junior high schools, one three-year comprehensive high school, one school of choice and one alternative learning center. Our ten elementary schools offer language arts, reading, mathematics, and other basic programs for students in grades K-6. Specialists in music, art, and physical education are provided at each school. Highly capable, gifted, and special education student's benefit from programs designed to accommodate their learning levels. Our three junior high schools offer state -required and elective courses for students in grades 7 through 9, as well as a growing advanced -placement program. Music programs are also available within the curriculum. Our high school programs serve students in grades 10 through 12. Twenty-two credits are required for graduation and an emphasis is placed on fine arts, career exploration and preparation, and physical education. A variety of vocational programs are offered as well as comprehensive special education services, including an educational program for hearing - impaired students. OUR STAFF The South Kitsap School District is proud to have a knowledgeable and dedicated staff of 1,165 employees, 683 of whom are teachers. The average tenure of our teachers is approximately 13.5 years, and over 60 percent of them have at least a master's degree. OUR VISION Nurturing Growth, Inspiring Achievement, Building Community OUR MISSION The students, staff, parents, family and community of South Kitsap all play a vital role in our District's success as a center of learning. In order to nurture growth, inspire achievement and build community, we will: • Value and develop the gifts, talents and abilities of all our students through a caring and devoted partnership with our community; • Foster a dynamic, responsive and nurturing learning environment that empowers our students to achieve their full potential through academic success, productive citizenship and personal responsibility; 4 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 28o of 332 • Focus on student learning by embracing diversity, encouraging creativity and real -world experience, and ensuring mutual respect and equal opportunities; • Graduate highly skilled, motivated students who will thrive and contribute to the world community; and, • Hold ourselves accountable to our community to establish and maintain a tradition of excellence that is evident in the success of our students. OUR VALUES Education and Community • The presence of outstanding schools benefits everyone in the community. Efforts to further strengthen schools and their programs and services enhance this benefit. • Each student is an important member of the community who needs, and deserves, the love, respect and support of the entire community to grow and mature successfully, which in turn benefits the community as a whole. • Parents, local business people and other community members, as well as school staff, must collectively embrace the value of education at all levels and work together to instill pride in our schools and in our students' accomplishments. Parent and Family Involvement • The active, ongoing involvement of parents and families is critical to student success in school. • Each school must seek to increase parent and family support for education and expand opportunities for involvement by being a social and cultural center that welcomes families and other community members. Students • Students are active community members demonstrating shared responsibility and mutual respect. • The District believes in the importance of providing opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills to real life situations within their schools and in the community. • The District values and encourages the vitality, talents and unique perspectives youth provide to their community. • The learning process is a team effort that involves families, teachers and students as equally invested in the success of all participants. • The District empowers students to recognize they are responsible and accountable for their education. • The District recognizes that students need opportunities to develop positive leadership skills. 5 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 281 of 332 Teaching and Learning • The primary objective of our efforts must be to both challenge and enable each student to acquire the skills and understandings needed to become a productive and satisfied adult. • All children can learn and be successful, but not all children learn in the same way. The nature of both learning and success are unique to each child. • All children can learn and be successful, whatever preparation they received before entering school and whatever level of support they receive at home. • The acts of teaching and learning are dynamic and complex human processes. In their highest forms, both require understanding, commitment and passion to realize full potential. • A strong core curriculum and a District commitment to continuous improvement in curriculum and instruction are essential to successful teaching and learning. Expectations and Accountability • In a community as richly diverse as ours, we have a responsibility to provide a high - quality, well-rounded education for all our students every day. • We should expect every student to play a role in preserving a school environment that fosters mutual respect and personal accountability and responsibility, and we should support teachers and administrators in their efforts to protect that environment. • It is important to identify and acknowledge the things we currently do well and to apply these successful practices throughout the District. • Developing and maintaining outstanding schools and educational programs that enable all of our students to be successful will require effective communication across the District, within each school and between schools and their families and communities. • We must craft recommendations that are both meaningful and realistic, proposing new initiatives that offer significant value to students within the context of the District's staff and resource capabilities. • Students and staff perform better in school environments that are safe, secure, healthful, comfortable, and well maintained. OUR INITIATIVES Collaboration — Late Start Wednesdays As part of a new initiative to improve teaching and learning, South Kitsap School District staff collaborate each Wednesday morning during the school year to analyze student data, review best instructional practices, and modify and improve instruction based on student needs. Students are asked to arrive at school 45 minutes after their normal start time on Wednesdays. Family Friendly Schools In this era of high expectations and increased accountability, it is more critical than ever that we make our schools as welcoming and inclusive as they can be. Schools, families and communities must work in tandem to create a culture in which all students can thrive and reach their fullest potential. South Kitsap School District has teamed up with the Family Friendly Schools Institute, a nationally recognized family engagement program, to help create a culture of family friendly 6 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 282 of 332 schools in our district. Family Friendly Schools Official Website:http://www;familyfriendlyschools.com Developmental Assets The South Kitsap Developmental Assets project was initiated in 2002 to encourage commitment and integrate this philosophy throughout the community. Search Institute has identified 40 positive experiences and qualities called "Developmental Assets", that all of us have the power to bring into the lives of children and youth. For many, these assets have become the source of ideas and inspiration. Developmental Assets Official Web site: http://www.search-institute.or-a/assets/ OUR PROGRAMS Special Education The District offers special education and related services to students who have a disability that creates an adverse impact on educational performance and requires specially designed instruction. Special services for students who qualify may include support in the area(s) of learning, social, daily living, behavior, motor, and communication skills. Special education services are free and are designed to allow students to actively participate in general education instruction to the maximum extent appropriate. Federal and state laws require school districts to provide free and appropriate public educational programs in the least restrictive environment to eligible students determined to have a disability. Parents are actively involved in the planning of special education services through their participation in an annual meeting to develop an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Parents are encouraged to become involved in their children's programs by participating in our schools, district committees, and organizations. Alternative Education Our two alternative education options are both accredited by the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools. The alternative high school program, Discovery, is provided on an application basis for students who are not able to continue their education within a traditional setting. The program provides a teen -parent component. Explorer Academy was developed to meet the needs of families who seek a very active role in their child's educational experience. Based on state guideline performance requirements, rigorous academic participation is expected from our students. We are working to create a "learning culture" in a community atmosphere where all feel valued and accepted for who they are and what they can achieve. A home and hospital instruction program is also available for students who are recuperating from injury or have a long-term illness. Gifted Education - Quest Program Designed for students who are highly capable and academically talented, Quest serves students from third through the ninth grades. High school students may participate in the Running Start and Advanced Placement courses which enable them to earn college credit while still in high school. Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 283 of 332 Educational Assistance Programs The federally -funded Title I program meets the needs of students who are below grade level, or who are at the greatest risk of failing to meet academic standards. Supplemental instruction is provided in reading, language arts, and/or mathematics. Five elementary and two junior high schools qualify for Title I funds. Learning Assistance Program (LAP) The LAP Program is state funded and is also available at five elementary schools and two junior high schools. LAP serves students with academic deficits who are below grade level in basic skills. Indian Education Program This federally funded SKSD program serves Native American students from approximately 68 different tribes. The District provides services in homework assistance and a home -school liaison paraprofessional who assists students and families. Our cultural summer school program teaches native crafts and cultures. English as a Second Language (ESL) Program Students for whom English is not their primary language receive assistance through this state - funded program. College Prep / Advance Placement / College in the High School Students going on to college after high school are encouraged to consider taking College Prep, Advance Placement and/or College in the High School classes to assist in preparing them for college. South Kitsap High School offers these types of classes in English, Social Studies, Math, Science, and Foreign Language. Depending on their degree of ambition, ability, and future goals, college -bound students are encouraged to take the most competitive academic programs possible at South Kitsap High School so that they are best prepared for the rigorous demands of college. Running Start The Running Start program provides an opportunity for qualified high school juniors and seniors to take college -level courses tuition -free at local community colleges. Running Start students earn both high school and college credits, which may be applied toward high school graduation and a two-year college degree. Tech Prep Tech Prep is a program whereby students enrolled in specific Career and Technical Programs are eligible to earn community college credit while attending their high school classes. Classes that offer Tech Prep credit are: MOS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, A+ Certification, Associate Webmaster, Marketing, Networking, Windows 2000 Server Professional, Server +, Ornamental Horticulture, Engineering CADD, American Sign language (ASL), Auto Mechanics Technology, Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 284 of 332 Exploring Childhood, Child Development, and Careers in Education. Students can also earn college credits in American Sign Language and Athletic Medicine based on academic articulation agreements in those areas with Western Oregon University (ASL) and Eastern Washington University (Athletic Medicine). Students are able to earn credits from those institutions while completing their regular high school courses. Career and Technical Certifications South Kitsap High School offers programs that enable students to complete high school classes, take a national examination, and receive an industry -recognized certification. The State of Washington recognizes South Kitsap High School as having model Information Technology Programs for students. These programs include: Web Master, Microsoft User Specialist (MOS), Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP), Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE), A+, Oracle and IC3. West Sound Technical Skills Center West Sound Tech offers juniors and seniors an opportunity to receive training, education, and hands-on experience in various career technical education programs to prepare them for the workforce, apprenticeship programs, technical schools, or community college. The Skills Center, located in nearby Bremerton, is supported by all local school districts of the West Sound Consortium. Vol Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 285 of 332 South Kitsap School District Vision Nurturing G rowt h Building Community Inspiring Achievement 10 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 286 of 332 SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND VALUES FOR SCHOOL DESIGN 1. LEARNING Our schools are student -centered learning environments where: • Differentiated instruction meets the individual needs of every student. • The focus is on critical thinking, inquiry, reflection, collaborative learning, and connections. • Technology transparently supports student -centered learning and enhances connections. • All students have equal access to high quality instructional programs and extra- curricular activities. 2. RELATIONSHIPS AND CONNECTIONS Positive relationships are at the core of student, staff, and community success. • Collaborative connections are valued and encouraged: between students, between students and teachers, between teachers and teachers, and between families and staff. • Within and beyond the school, connections between our students and real -world experiences are vital to learning, as are connections between new learning and prior learning, connecting ideas. • Up-to-date technology is integrated to enhance communication and strengthen the connections. 3. SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY Our schools serve as community centers where: • Community members of all ages and backgrounds gather for meetings and activities. • Partnerships with community agencies and organizations that support and share our vision are developed and enhanced. 4. SAFETY AND SECURITY Our schools provide an atmosphere where students, staff, community members, and guests feel welcome and safe. A climate that is structurally and relationally safe and secure promotes quality teaching and enhances learning. 5. FACILITIES SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING Our school facilities support and therefore do not constrain teaching and learning. • Flexibility: Our schools are flexible for curriculum changes and community use, provide for a variety of teaching and learning styles, and can be expandable for growth. • Environmental: Our schools are environmentally friendly, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing, using both natural and man-made materials. In addition, our schools reflect a feeling of warmth and provide a nurturing and personalized environment for students, staff and the community. • Cost Efficiency: Our schools are cost effective to build, maintain, and operate, reflecting the desired educational features while acknowledging the paramount need to use public dollars wisely. 11 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 287 of 332 SIX YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2009-2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan is a six year plan intended to be reviewed annually and revised as necessary. It provides a planning window that encompasses the school years 2009 through 2014. For the purposes of this plan school years extend from September 1" through August 3 1 " annually. The Capital Facilities Plan is developed with an understanding of the development and population implications of the City of Port Orchard, City of Bremerton and Kitsap County Comprehensive Plans. The District is committed to planning in a manner consistent with the community's vision of its future as represented in these and other development policy documents. The plan assesses the ability of district facilities to support the delivery of the district educational program. Facility capacity is reviewed and modified periodically as the District revises programs, policies, staffing formulas and schedules. The plan also projects future enrollment in order to evaluate the demand and need for new facilities. This plan addresses the types of facilities required, and the timing for providing those facilities. The District receives development impact fees per county ordinance to mitigate costs associated with the construction of new homes in unincorporated Kitsap County. The District also serves students living in the City of Bremerton, a jurisdiction that does not currently collect school impact fees. The City of Port Orchard's new Comprehensive Plan, adopted in December 2008, provides for the collection of impact fees. 12 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G r Page 288 of 342 KITSAP COUNTY Washington School Districts and Facilities Schuul Types _ Epmerlary.^,cM9 e I HK]h'Nme G" a IIpM K16p �d�Oj CeNaI1C�p;e011 SMAN'>sapS�l aum Masm [dN] Fcaan Iraan Re?crcatlar5 Q Hillary Fatly ar, aanealltn '.:Gr!Hlglaaay \� ?�n6jalMttW N .. ^.,ecaWary N�IwCnl[etF j e[[sap CountyOepar mt oFinlorma[[on SeMc t 0 0 c 0 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 289 Of 332 @sbd soy 700 i NnOO NOSVVY 11 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 290 of 332 I. SUMMARY Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan This Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a six year rolling planning document. It is intended to be reviewed and revised annually using the best available information. It provides the District, Kitsap County, the City of Port Orchard, the City of Bremerton and the local community with a description of the facilities that may be needed to accommodate projected student enrollment at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) over a twenty year period. It also provides a significantly more detailed discussion of the projected capital improvements that will be needed over the six year life of the plan (2009-2014). This CFP was prepared by the South Kitsap School District based upon information available in the fall of 2008. It is consistent with current South Kitsap School District policies, procedures, and population projections. The plan addresses anticipated capital facility needs through the 2014-15 school year and beyond. In accordance with the Growth Management Act, this CFP contains the following required elements: • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by SKSD, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities; • A forecast of the future needs/demands (i.e., student enrollment) for capital facilities by the SKSD; • A discussion of the need for expanded or new capital facilities: and • A six -year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities, which identifies the sources of public money for such purposes. This CFP also identifies (a) deficiencies in school facilities serving existing development, (b) the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time, (c) additional demands placed on existing school facilities by new development, and (d) the additional school facility improvements required to serve new development. This plan provides a summary of existing school buildings with site sizes, capacities, and addresses, projected student enrollment, a list of potential capital projects and a six -year capital projects financial plan. The list of potential capital projects includes site acquisitions, new construction, modernization, remodeling and other site modifications as well as rough estimates of the potential costs by type. SKSD will provide this CFP to local jurisdictions within the District's boundaries for their review. The GMA requires each of these local jurisdictions (a) to reassess its comprehensive plan land use elements if school facility resources fall short of meeting existing or projected future enrollment needs and (b) to determine that this CFP is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the jurisdiction. Overview of South Kitsan School District South Kitsap School District is located in Kitsap County, Washington. It is bounded on the north by the Bremerton and Central Kitsap School Districts, on the south by Peninsula School District and on the west by the North Mason School District. The City of Port Orchard is located within the boundaries of the South Kitsap School District. 15 South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Faciliti Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Plan Page 291 of 332 The South Kitsap School District serves a student population of 10,237 as of October 2008 with ten elementary schools, three junior high schools, one high school, one alternative high school program (Discovery) and an academy designed to meet the needs of families who seek to take a very active role in their child's educational experience (Explorer). Enrollment Proiections From a facilities planning perspective, enrollment projections and the selection of a district grade configuration model are the driving forces behind the number and size of elementary, middle and high schools that will be needed in the future. Enrollment projections prepared for the South Kitsap School District predict increasing enrollment over the next twenty (20) years. Significant increases in the student population are projected at the elementary grade level within the next six (6) years. South Kitsap School District anticipates these enrollment increases will require a major revision of elementary service area boundaries, conversion to a K-5, 6-8, 9-12 grade span model and the construction of a 1200 student comprehensive high school over the life of this six -year plan. A major modernization project for Cedar Heights Junior High School that would increase its capacity is also recommended. In order to keep pace with growth and improve educational offerings, a major remodel of South Colby Elementary School, the construction of one additional elementary (# 11), construction of a fourth junior high/middle school and a 600 student addition to the new comprehensive high school will also likely be necessary between 2015 and 2030. SKSD owns a site on Old Clifton Road suitable for the construction of a second high school. There is also enough space on this property for the construction of an eleventh elementary school. In addition, the District will need to acquire a fourth middle school/junior high school site to serve increasing enrollments projected through 2030. The District will also need a twelfth elementary school site at some point in the future to meet its enrollment driven long term facilities planning objectives. It is anticipated that the focus of enrollment growth in the South Kitsap School District will continue to be west of SR-16. Where possible the District will seek to negotiate agreements with developers that can convey or dedicate land or use impact fees for the purchase of future school sites. Grade Span Configuration Prior to 1970 the dominant grade span configuration in U.S. schools was K-6, 7-9, 10-12. Today the dominant configuration is K-5, 6-8, 9-12. The chart that follows depicts the change in national educational philosophy that occurred during the 30 year period 1971 through 2000. 16 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 292 of 332 Middle School Grade Organization 1971-2000 (Source: Middle Level Leadership Center, July 2000) Grade Configuration 1971 % 1971 2000 % 2000 1971-2000 Change 1971-2000 %Chan e 5-8 772 7% 1,379 10% +607 +79% 6-8 1,662 16% 8,371 59% +6,709 +404% 7-8 2,450 24% 2,390 17% -60 -2% 7-9 4,711 45% 689 5% -4,022 -85% Other 1 850 8% 1 1,278 1 9% 1 +428 1 +50% Total 1 10,445 1 100% 1 14,107 1 100% 1 +3,662 1 +35% The continuing decline in educator support for the 7-9 junior high school model was evidenced in a 2002 national survey of 1,423 middle and junior high school principals. When administrators were asked to identify the ideal grade configuration for early adolescent students only 3 percent favored the grades 7-9 junior high school plan. Sixty-two percent responded that a grade 6-8 middle school best served students (Valentin, Clark, Hackmann and Petzko, A National Study of Leadership in Middle Level Schools, March 2002). Grade configuration was studied by the South Kitsap School District as part of a school construction bond planning process that extended from November 2005 through May 2006. There were two separate phases to this analysis. First, a Leadership Team Facilities Planning group (Leadership Team) composed of district administrators and staff, met from November through February. This team was tasked to create a consensus within the district leadership that would "determine the direction the district should take with regard to significant issues that impact facilities planning, such as grade configuration and the use of technology". This group's recommendations were then provided to a follow-on Facilities Planning Task Force. This larger group, consisting of district staff and community members, was chartered to provide formal recommendations to the School District Board of Directors for the development of a district - wide facility improvement bond measure. Within the Leadership Team there was an overwhelming consensus that 9th graders were best served in a high school environment and that the best way to accomplish this was through a 9-12 high school configuration. The team also solicited district -wide feedback from teaching staff, support staff and other administrators. The results of these inquiries indicated that there was overwhelming support, particularly among teaching staff, for a K-5, 6-8, 9-12 grade span configuration. In the final analysis there were meaningful discussions among staff as to whether K-5 or K-6 was preferable but there was virtual unanimity in the proposition that ninth graders needed to be at the high school. The Leadership Team's final recommendations on grade span configuration were then reviewed, discussed and accepted by the Facilities Planning Task Force where they became a key component in the bond recommendation that group forwarded to the South Kitsap School District Board of Directors. This recommendation for a change to a 9-12 grade configuration at the high school level was then incorporated into the decision process that led to the Board's adoption of its school construction and modernization resolution in October 2006. 17 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 293 of 332 Other Significant Facility Planning Issues The acquisition of new school sites in advance of enrollment needs is critical in preparing the District to meet the challenge of increasing enrollment. Sites identified as unsuitable for development may be surplused or exchanged for more suitable sites in other locations. To address existing facility deficiencies, the District relies on good maintenance practices, preventive maintenance and building system upgrades. The District strives to improve its facilities and respond to new programs, technology changes and safety concerns to the maximum extent possible through the use of operating funds. To address enrollment changes resulting from new residential construction, portable classrooms have been and will continue to be installed at district schools to temporarily accommodate enrollment growth. Assumptions This Capital Facilities Plan will help guide the modernization and maintenance of existing facilities as well as the development of new facilities and acquisition of new building sites. The following assumptions were used in developing this plan: 1 2 3. The District will seek state and federal funding to the maximum extent available to supplement its own financial resources. Until changed by legislative action the State will continue to fund new facilities using the following space allowances: Grades K-6 Grades 7-8 Grades 9-12 Classrooms for handicapped (See WAC 392-343-032) 90 square feet per pupil 117 square feet per pupil 130 square feet per pupil 144 square feet per pupil New schools will normally be designed to the following capacity standards: Elementary School - 550 students Middle/Junior High School - 900 students High School - 1800 students 4. The District will continue to provide for the delivery of educational services in portable classrooms as required during the school construction process or when funding for permanent facilities is not available. 5. The District will continue to acquire building sites in advance of construction needs and take advantage of purchasing opportunities as they arise. 6. The District will continue to maintain its facilities in the best possible condition within applicable funding constraints. 18 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 294 of 332 7. Budget recommendations shall be made each year to repair, maintain and recondition facilities as warranted to operate facilities in a safe and healthful condition. Improvements to existing facilities will be based on the assumption that building life is unlimited 8. In order to receive approval from OSPI for new facilities the District will comply with all applicable statutes and regulations. 9. The minimum acreage per school site will be 5 usable acres plus one usable acre for each 100 students, plus an added 5 usable acres if the school includes any grade above grade 6 (See WAC 392-342-020). The District ultimately determines site size based on the educational program it chooses to place at the location. Frequently, educational programming standards and the physical attributes of the site will necessitate the selection of sites in excess of the minimum acreage requirement set by OSPI. Currently the average district elementary school site is 14 acres. The average junior high school site is 22 acres. 10. New sites will not be accepted if the attendance policies for the new site will create a racial imbalance within the district (See WAC 392-342-025). 11. Future school sites will only be accepted if all local health, zoning, building and other pertinent regulations can be met. 12. The District will determine its Level of Service (LOS) standards in accordance with adopted policies, this CFP, and other relevant factors, and is not constrained by any LOS assumptions that might be inferred by the OSPI square footage per student calculation used for the allocation of state school construction funding. The primary determinants of building enrollment capacity within SKSD are educational programs, building configuration and class size policy. 13. The District will seek the collection of development impact fees or mitigation payments from developers when their collection is warranted to mitigate the student generation impact created by new residential development. These payments will be used to fund the purchase of land and capital improvements necessary to provide the school facilities that will serve new development. Any mitigation collected will offset a portion of the local share of capital project costs. 14. As portions of this plan are implemented and as development proposals are evaluated, the district's policies and procedures may be amended. As a result, changes may be made to this list of assumptions and to this plan. 15. Revisions to this plan will be reviewed and approved by the South Kitsap School District Board of Directors during a public meeting. 19 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 295 of 332 DEFINITIONS Throughout this Capital Facilities Plan a number of terms are used. They are defined as follows: Area Cost Allowance Area Cost Allowance is the dollar amount per square foot that OSPI sets to establish a theoretical cost for the purpose of calculating state matching funds for new construction or modernization. It is typically adjusted annually to keep pace with increases in school construction costs however; it is constrained by the state budget and does not portray a true cost of construction. WAC 392- 343-060 establishes guidelines for determining the per square foot area cost allowance for new school construction. CFP Capital Facilities Plan; refers to this document. FTE (Full -Time Equivalent) This is a means of measuring student enrollment based on the number of hours per day in attendance at district schools. A student is considered an FTE if he/she is enrolled for the equivalent of a full schedule each school day. The definition of full schedule varies by grade. Kindergarten students normally attend half -day programs and therefore, each kindergarten student at SKSD is counted as 0.5 FTE. GFA (per student) Gross floor area per student. GMA Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW. Headcount Headcount refers to the number of students actually attending school on a designated date. Hours of course work or daily attendance are not considered. Headcount information obtained annually during the first week of October is used for facility planning and capacity analysis. Interim Educational Space Relocatable, modularly constructed education space. Temporary in nature. A portable classroom. Multi -Family Dwelling Unit Two or more attached residential dwelling units. OFM Washington State Office of Financial Management. OSPI Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Permanent Educational Space Educational space located in a non -moveable structure, on a foundation. 20 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 296 of 332 Practical Capacity A measure of a building's student capacity that differs from Theoretical Capacity by taking into account additional factors such as core facility constraints, operating policies, contract limitations, pull out requirements and the need for teacher planning space. Pull Out Space Educational space, normally at the elementary level, used to house programs such as band, music, computer labs and reading or math assistance programs. This space does not house a permanently assigned classroom of students and therefore does not count as a teaching station in the calculation of a school's practical capacity. RCW Revised Code of Washington. SEPA Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21 C RCW. Single -Family Dwelling Units Single unit detached residential dwellings including mobile homes. Theoretical Capacity A measure of building capacity obtained by multiplying the number of teaching stations by the district Level of Service standard. Unhoused Students Enrolled students at a permanent facility in excess of the district rated capacity for that facility. Unhoused student numbers can also be computed by grade or grade -span. WAC Washington Administrative Code. 21 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 297 of 332 II. FACILITY CAPACITY INFORMATION Facility Capacities South Kitsap School District permanent facilities serve a student population of 10,237 in ten elementary schools, three junior high schools, one high school and one alternative high school. Elementary schools provide educational programs for students in kindergarten through grade six. Junior high schools serve grades seven through nine and the South Kitsap High School, and Discovery programs offer educational services for students in grades ten through twelve. Table 1 provides the South Kitsap School District's assessment of the enrollment capacity of each permanent educational facility. In accordance with accepted facility planning practice interim (portable) housing is not included in this assessment. Table 2 details district support facilities. Table 3 summarizes all district building assets and provides information on year of construction and major renovation, site acreage, gross square footage and numbers of portable classrooms. 22 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 298 of 332 Table 1 Capital Facilities Inventory TABLE 1: 2009 INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES NAME *CAPACITY LOCATION Elementary Burley -Glenwood 528 100 SW Lakeway Blvd, Port Orchard 98366 East Port Orchard 467 1964 Hoover Ave. SE, Port Orchard 98366 Hidden Creek 526 5455 Converse Rd. SE, Port Orchard 98366 Manchester 441 1901 California Ave. E., Port Orchard 98366 Mullenix Ridge 480 3900 SE Mullenix RD, Port Orchard 98367 Olalla 408 8100 SE Denny Bond Blvd, Olalla 98359 Orchard Heights 729 2288 Fircrest Dr. SE, Port Orchard 98366 Sidney Glen 467 500 SW Birch Rd., Port Orchard 98367 South Colby 216 3281 Banner Rd. SE, Port Orchard 98366 Sunnyslope 417 4183 Sunnyslope RD. SW, Port Orchard 98367 SUBTOTAL 4,679 Junior Hiah Schools Cedar Heights John Sedgwick Marcus Whitman SUBTOTAL High School South Kitsap Alternative High School SUBTOTAL TOTAL 605 2220 Pottery Ave., Port Orchard 98366 839 8995 SE Sedgwick Rd, Port Orchard 98366 796 1887 Madrona Dr. SE, Port Orchard 98366 2,240 1,972 425 Mitchell Ave., Port Orchard 98366 174 2150 Fircrest Dr. SE, Port Orchard 98366 2,146 9,065 *Capacity is based upon District capacity standards as described herein. All portables are excluded from this permanent capacity calculation. 23 South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 299 of 332 Table 2 Inventory of Additional Facilities TABLE 2: 2009 INVENTORY OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NAME LOCATION Specialized Education Facilities Community Transition Program Explorer Program Support Facilities Administration Center Information Technology Building Transportation Building Food and Nutrition Services District Warehouse Facilities & Operations Undeveloped Property Old Clifton Road Site Banner Forest Site Hoover Parcel 751 Mitchell Ave, Port Orchard 98366 425 Mitchell Ave, Port Orchard 98366 1962 Hoover Ave SE, Port Orchard 98366 2700 Lincoln Ave SE, Port Orchard 98366 2710 Lincoln Ave SE, Port Orchard 98366 1965 Madrona Dr SE, Port Orchard 98366 1695 Madrona Dr SE, Port Orchard 98366 1650 SE Cedar Rd, Port Orchard 98367 56 acres Old Clifton and Feigley Road 3.69 acres Banner Road 2.58 acres Hoover and Lincoln Ave 24 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 300 of 332 Table 3 Summary of Existing Facilities 2008-2009 Orignal Number of Grades Site/ Year Building Area Additions/ Portable School or Building Housed Acres Built (Square Feet) Remodel Total Area Classrooms Burley/Glenwood Elementary K-6 15 1978 50,177 50,177 4 East Port Orchard Elementary K-6 13.4 1972 58,437 2 1990 939 59,376 Hidden Creek Elementary K-6 14.5 1990 48,470 48,470 2 Manchester Elementary K-6 13.31 1978 33,604 5 1989 16,080 49,684 Mullenix Ridge Elementary K-6 15 1990 48,470 48,470 2 Olalla Elementary K-6 15.53 1954 5,921 4 1966 25,953 1973 1,000 1978 11,125 43,999 Orchard Heights Elementary K-6 11.75 1945 54,183 1975 27,219 81,402 Sidney Glen Elementary K-6 10 1990 48,470 48,470 8 South Colby Elementary K-6 10.79 1956 6,906 11 1958 15,199 1966 2,219 1974 4,433 28,757 Sunnyslope Elementary K-6 16.15 1979 26,289 4 1989 22,800 49,089 Total Elementary School 135.43 380,927 126,967 507,894 Cedar Heights Junior High 7-9 29.03 1968 63,438 9 1973 18,665 82,103 John Sedgwick Junior High 7-9 22 1982 102,045 102,045 4 Marcus Whitman Junior High 7-9 16.32 1979 102,045 102,045 8 Total Junior High School 67.35 267,528 18,665 286,193 Madrona Heights Alt High 8.39 1973 24,595 24,595 2 South Kitsap High School 10-12 51.46 1962 66,485 10 1978 254,394 320,879 Total High School 59.85 91,080 254,394 345,474 Administration Center N/A 1 1940 16,541 16,541 Central Kitchen/Warehouse N/A 2 1935 25,625 25,625 Facilities and Operations N/A 1.5 11,500 11,500 Transportation N/A 1.5 1940 23,720 23,720 25 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 301 of 332 III. STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Historic Enrollment Trends The enrollment of the South Kitsap School District increased by over 1800 students between 1987 and 1997. This upward trend in enrollment was seen throughout the Puget Sound region and was consistent with large birth cohorts and strong population gains in and around the Seattle area during this period. Since 1997 enrollment in South Kitsap has declined by more than 1400 students. In Kitsap County overall enrollments have also declined, but there are numerous instances where pockets of growth have required the addition of temporary structures to meet housing needs. In South Kitsap Demographic Trends and Projections — Fall 2008 Update, a study commissioned by the District for facility planning purposes, the consultant predicted that SKSD enrollment would probably not grow rapidly again until the next upward cycle in births. Projections from the State Demographer suggest that this cycle will likely appear sometime between 2010 and 2020. This will produce resurgent growth at the kindergarten and elementary level over time. The present forecast assumes steady growth through 2025, slowing slightly between 2025 and 2030 due to projected smaller anticipated growth cohorts during that time period. Enrollment growth for South Kitsap in the near to mid-term will be dependent upon new or existing housing attracting new residents with children. Although the South Kitsap area appears to be poised to experience rapid housing growth in the Urban Growth Areas west of SR-16, to date, new housing starts have been insufficient to offset the underlying cohort trend. During 2008 the sales of new single family homes in South Kitsap were down 38 percent when compared with 2007. Proiected Student Enrollment Projecting enrollment is a complex endeavor subject to considerable uncertainties. Since forecasting is largely based on the assumption that past trends predict future trends, the shorter the forecast, the more likely it is that it's underlying assumptions and predictions will be accurate. OSPI Student Enrollment Projections OSPI generates enrollment projections for each school district in the State for a six -year forecast period using a cohort survival methodology to project student enrollment for grades 1-12. Kindergarten enrollment is predicted using a linear regression analysis of actual kindergarten enrollment over the previous six years. This methodology assumes that the enrollment trend of the previous six years will generally continue through the next six. It is not designed to consider or predict the component of student population growth created by new home construction. OSPI updates these projections for school districts annually and they play an important role in calculating the level of state matching funds that districts receive for new construction projects. SKSD Student Enrollment Proiections The enrollment projection model adopted by the South Kitsap School District for its facility planning differs in approach from the methodology used by OSPI. The District has adopted a Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 302 of 332 model provided by consultant William L. Kendrick to forecast enrollment. This model makes predictions out to the year 2030. Forecasts adopted for the purpose of this plan are based on the consultant's medium growth rate projections. This medium growth model incorporates the following forecasting assumptions: • The Kitsap County population forecast for population growth was updated with the medium range forecast produced for Growth Management by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) for the State of Washington. It adjusts for the most recent population trends. • The projected birth rates for the County were updated by assuming that they would trend in a manner similar to the State birth forecast provided by OFM. • It was assumed that the South Kitsap School District's share of the county birth cohort would remain constant. • Information about new homes that are currently selling and new homes proposed for future construction and sale was obtained using the New Home Trends Database. The latest housing data shows a slowdown in new home sales within the District, but more homes in the pipeline. Based upon October 2008 headcount data and the assumptions above, the South Kitsap School District predicts small enrollment losses over the next two years followed by enrollment gains from 2011 forward. This delayed enrollment growth may, in some part, be due to a maturation factor in new developments. Kendrick notes in his study that developments that are three to five years old tend to have higher student generation rates than developments that are only one to two years old. SKSD will continue to test and calibrate these projections with census data, updates from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and OFM, and other demographic information as it becomes available. The medium growth variant of the Kendrick study projects a 5.8 percent increase in overall school enrollment between October 2008 and October 2014. More importantly, over the same period it predicts a K-6 enrollment increase of 12.7 percent. Over time increasing birth rates and strong residential construction in the South Kitsap area will cause enrollment to increase at all grade levels. Beyond the year 2014 enrollment growth is projected to increase steadily through 2030. New housing starts are an important component of District growth projections. Changes in the overall economy, employment or interest rates can all have an impact on housing and will be carefully considered during annual plan reviews. A continuing soft economy and slow housing market will likely delay short and medium term growth but have little or no impact on long term South Kitsap enrollment trends. A depiction of the SKSD (Les Kendrick) six -year growth projection is provided as Table 4. The 2008 column represents actual enrollment on October 1, 2008. The December 4, 2008 OSPI enrollment projection used in the allocation of school construction financing is also provided in Table 4 but for reference only. In the evaluation of enrollment trends and for facility planning purposes the District places its confidence in the Les Kendrick medium enrollment projection. 27 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 303 of 332 Table 4 Comparison of Student Enrollment Proiections South Kitsap School District 2008-2014 Projection Actual 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Projected Change '08-`14 Percent Change '08-`14 OSPI 10237 10067 9907 9855 9839 9776 9745 -492 -4.8% SKSD 10237 10116 10026 10209 10444 10631 10829 592 5.8% Student enrollment by grade span based on the SKSD student enrollment projection is provided below in Table 5. Based on the SKSD medium growth model, student enrollment is projected to increase by 653 students at the elementary school level, increase by 135 students at the junior high school level and to decrease by 196 students at the high school level between the 2008-09 and 2014-15 school -years. Table 5 Protected Student Enrollment by Grade Span South Kitsap School District 2008-2014 Grade Span 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Actual Change Elementary K-6 5140 5188 5223 5381 5520 5628 5793 653 Junior High 7-9 2442 2409 2357 2352 2437 2538 2577 135 High School 10-12 2655 2519 2446 2476 2487 2465 2459 196 Total 10237 10116 10026 10209 10444 10631 10829 592 Protected Student Enrollment Through 2030 Twenty-year student enrollment projections can also be useful for long-range comprehensive planning purposes. These enrollment projections are used by the District in the creation of its long-range (twenty-year) facility plan and are included in this plan within Attachment A. The long-range plan also operates as a check on the six -year plan, and is a means to ensure that this CFP is internally consistent, as well as ensuring this plan's consistency with other elements of the local planning jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. A summarized projected enrollment by grade span for the year 2030 is provided as Table 6. Table 6 South Kitsap School District Year 2030 Protected Enrollment by Grade Span Grade Span Projected Student Enrollment Elementary (K-6) 6911 Junior High (7-9) 3474 High School(10-12) 3466 District Total K-12 13850 28 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 304 of 332 School Service Area Proiections (2009-2016) School service area projections can be helpful in determining where new schools should be constructed. A table depicting projected enrollment growth by school through 2016 is provided as Attachment B. Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A (GMA) As discussed in RCW 36.70A.110 (2) this plan is consistent with the County's allocation of planned urban and rural growth based on OFM 20-year projections. Based on OFM-projected population growth allocations to the District under Kitsap County's comprehensive plan for the succeeding twenty-year period, the District will be required to meet the educational space needs of development related enrollment via a combination of existing and new facilities. Use of Student Enrollment Proiections for Capital Facilities Planning District enrollment projections summarized in this section are used to evaluate future school capacity needs. Analysis of future facility and capacity needs is provided in Sections V and VI of this Capital Facilities Plan. Student Generation Factor Based on an analysis comparing the addresses of currently enrolled students to the addresses of permitted units known to be occupied Kendrick estimates that over the six -year life of this plan each new single family residence will increase the enrollment of the South Kitsap School District by an average of 0.52 students. Each new multi -family residence is estimated to have a student generation factor of 0.36 students. 29 South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Faciliti Plan Ordiance Pag e No. 034-09 Exhibit G 305 of 332 30 Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 306 of 332 Attachment "A" South Kitsap School District Growth Projections through 2030 31 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 307 of 332 Lf) F-- o N� O O O C0 " M Ln V M O) N V O M M co " co M O V Ln O Ln Ln 0 Ln Ln o M � C0 � C0 O M W 00 00 O O O N O Z O O V V N O V Ln c Q7I V O O M o0 Ln N 6) 00 O Co O a!') c O 0) C0 N M O M I N N w M 1-- Ln 0) M N M V � C0 00 00 0 0 0 0 O 1� V O O O cn CV cn V — — — — — G0 M M CV O CnV o c"I N I= V V 00 Lf) 00 - M c.0 � Ln co 1• co N CV O M O -,a-o0 N O N V lf) t0 Lf) c O LO C0 a0 O� O M CV M 00 00 (T w 0 0 O Ln V ----- N O M M O M M CV O NI c CV L_I O " O G0 CO c0 CDLn N V 10 C0 M N CV m V M 1-- CIO 'mO O w" M O O c O CO L(J O V O M O N m co 0o m (T 00 0 0 0 0 N 20 a0 N CV M co N O O o N O GO f� O M M CO CO O) O Mr-- M N CV O V 00 CV 1-- � co C0 O V M o V N O O M O M O N co Ln 00 0) 0) 0) O O O O O O O O N V — — — — — — — C10 CV N O M M N O O c CV 1� LC) M M Lf) M O" Ln O O M N V O N V O M I� (T N co LO LO LO .:I-Ln O co c L2') O M Ln O O M N M L2') 00 0) 0) 0) 6) O O CD CD CD CD r- u 'Co I� c N o M N O 6)I C0 c V �I Lo Co O O 6) 00 CO O o0 M O N N M 0) N� 00 M N CM) M V N M N O c 1� LC) C0 M 00 O O M N co '0 CO o0 6) 6) 6) O O O O O O O C) Cv? CO O N Co co M N � 001 O o N MI O C0 � 0) O C0 0) C0 C0 O N M N M o0 0) N� 0) O O C, M C0 O N Ln CO o cn Ln M R Lo Ln 00 O M O N co LC) 00 00 00 O O O 0 0 0 () Ln O C0 co cn N ti c a0 N N O M O o0 a0 O 1� CO 1l_ C0 Lf) � C1 N N Ln 00 " � Co O oD V 0") O V mo O 00 O O co Ln o0 O N O N co Lc� 00 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O Lf7 () M O O Co M cn N � COI M c lC) V Co Lf) 0) CV 0) N N I-- Lf) CIO 00 C) N m � I— O N V ti O CV CV M CV LO Lf) c r-- -,I-o0 Ln V O N CV M 1` 00 00 00 O 0) 0) mO O O mO M C;,) I 7 N N O O Co co c'M CV O Lnl c O0 0 V CO 1— co CO Co 00 M co CV " N O N V N 00 M Ln E CD I— O O CV Co V UI, 1� r-- 00 00 00 0) 0) 0) O O O O) O) O Lf) N co LC) O (M CV M V I N C.O M N CV O 6) !.c O N U) M co Co 0o mCo � I 00 N M M O V m0o O Ln 1— M M N M c M M N C0 N Ln V O V CV M r— 00 00 0o 0o O) O) O) O O) O) O) 0) O V V 6) 0o C0 N CV N O MI 0) c OI V O 1— 00 -:T LO CO N N V O) 001 CO c O 6) O Ln O N C .O O N O LC) I� w V ti ti CV 0) LL") r C0 00 00 00 O O O O O O 00 m1� N a0 Ln O O O CID o0 CV co � V Co CV CV CV NI L!) o V M O 1-- co co Ln C0 N 00 M Ln Co c O) O CT V 00 O Ln M 1� N Ln Co Co 00 co � 7� I— 00 00 0) O O O O O 00 00 0) Ll') N N O � 00 O co co M co () N CO CV N N O CO c COI M Ln L2'J CO O L(7 ":I-C.O LI'7I C1 M c M Ln CS) O O O C") I� CO O co M Ln Ln N M O r a0 00 00 mO) mO) 00 O) 00 00 M M N N V Ln m f� CO N M C') V N LON N N O O Co c I� LCJ Co Co O Ln co Ln N 0) 0) Ln 00 Ln 00Co � N � 00 co N N M C0 O 00 co I� c Ln N M LO o0 Ln O O M N M M • cococoo0 6) 6) 00 O 00rl-00 O u N V CV 00 co Ln Ln CV N N � � (TI M c O �I M M O O CO Ln O CO 0) Ln 0) Ud C) 00 O � � O) " O) Lf) N 00 V N co c 6) M O 6) f� Ln O O V N M M � C%J o0 00 00 6) 00 00 00 00 � 00 co (> O Ln Ln CV CV N O C0I M c MI V Ln 1� 0) Co Co M I� 6) Lf)I c W W LO O 1� O O O N CO O O Ln 00 O ti V co co Ln O M 1� � � 1— 00 00 00 00 00 co co f - 00 CO 00 a0 N M CO Co Ln V m CV co C+j C, O Ln " CV $ N O M LO � LO LO V CV O L27 NI � LO c O � � O CO .� O O N CD CO Ln O� 00 CO N O zo 00 O � f� 1� � 00 00 � 00 00 00 W ti ti O M N M N M 00 Ln V V O CV CO Ch V N Ln N N � N O COI O o CD V �I V O M CO LO O N_ V C0 " L0 _O I C) CDr— Co O V V 00 O ti CV 00 CDoD M o N C0 OD Ln ti O O N N co C") � � � � 00 CK) 1-- 1-- � 00 O M N (� a0 M co V Ln CV CV CV O Ln N o O O O 00 N O 00 � CDV CD 00 N O Uf l t0 CO M CO O O 00 I-- 00 Ln V V Lf) N O o 0) M 1-- CO N Ln V O mO N N C6 ' Co � � � 00 ti 1` 1` 1` 00 0o 1— co O () O O O N co V Ln N N CV O V O c O O C) N N 1� Ln 00 N M_ V 00 O CV CO O m V co I� Ln Ln I-- Ln V 00 Co Co CV c N 00 O O M O O O O O N M M Co � Co Il- � I— 1` 1` a0 00 � � m () O N V Ln Ln N N _ N O V a) 9 U South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Faciliti Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Plan Page 3o8 of 332 O a co N Q to I- M toto LO 00 M M O N IJJ ti Ln Ln N Cn V 00C N OT m a Ln C w N � tM0 O ca a 0 M It � OC� m OO N N N OD d N Z = FL O P: W w LM C4 N Co Cn N a N L � H � O M N LN 1- LC� N w Co t C N CD a O 00 00 LO w CDCD N m tO r N cC a 00 O Ln N ti LnM N N O O N J O O O O O O O O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0) p 0 J N O 00 CO N = t L Co 33 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 309 of 332 34 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 310 of 332 Attachment `B" School Service Area Projections Medium Growth Model through 2016 35 M r kn `O M r- � N O O N N Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 311 of 332 M 't M O l— 0c 't O 0c N N kn � It kn M V) r O N N 00 00 C1 N y on o ate. m \p 0c O oc -- N \O Vl 0c r �T 00 It �z O N V') 00 r- oo r- O M kn I:t \O 7t V'1 M V'1 r- 00 01 In O v o� o0 �lO Wn O1 0, It W) o0 oc O N O O O1 r O W) r W) O'� -- 1,0 m r oc r -- V) O1 01 kn Rt m W) r Itt oo kn N N r z 00 0o N kn O ^� O M M V') O 00 N N N N M r �D O V') c V> O - 00 V) r r �O M M M r 01 kn It 11C � to cn Ln r It r N N `O 00 00 M kn N N N 00 - M r 01 N 'T N 00 O kn r W) 00 00 rl 00 I O — O N 00 r N N N -- r � It 110 't V') M 110 r It \O m N N � o0 o0 N i i 0 O M 7t oc oc O `O `O 0c r r N m lzt N lzt N O Ic l- �,O a1 0\ M M r-I ti \O lzt M `O r- zt kn " r-I 00 00 M Q =s i y 00 00 V) M M M N M O 00 01 N M M 01 r -t M kn �D �n �n M �O �c kn P N N "C 00 00 N W w w N 00 ti l- \O M M M N 00 l� 00 O O O\ V1 Vt 01 7t 7t V M N N 00 00 N W r 00 00 M �%c It kn r V'1 r M V> � N oo kn 00 r O 110 N N S V7 � Ln M 11C 11C It It r1 IV r 00 00 I O kn N N N 0 V') 00 Ap 0c 00 M r- 00 I c C1 r- V-) Vn 00 "C r a1 aV r- It 01 lzt oc oc IV o N u k m w O N 03 oN to it Cd En W A� W x 0 O v� C/� un CA O 0 � O v � V � C COI O O MO � O O� O [� v N M O � 0 [� N00 ~ M O V O N MO O O en eq � Q O 1 M enV v � O 00 M 00 O Qc \C IT 4--4ct V O E N 5 75 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 312 of 332 N Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 313 of 332 38 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 314 of 332 IV. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS AND ENROLLMENT CAPACITY CALCULATION Enrollment capacity is dictated by the categories and quantities of space available to accommodate district educational programs and standards. Educational program standards incorporated by the South Kitsap School District cover grade configuration, optimum facility and site size, class size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization and scheduling requirements. These standards are established through district instructional planning, school calendar and schedule, teacher contracts, and general organizational structure. The District periodically reviews its facilities and educational programs to determine if changes in program offerings, class sizes, classroom technologies, or the physical aspects or condition of school facilities require revisions to this plan. The South Kitsap School District will continue to study alternative organizations, calendars and schedules to ensure that its programs efficiently and effectively Nurture Growth, Inspire Achievement and Build Community. As new organizational structures, calendars and schedules are adopted to improve district educational offerings, building enrollment capacities will be modified to reflect these changes. Grade Configuration The South Kitsap School District has a long history of housing kindergarten through sixth grades in elementary schools, seventh through ninth grades in junior high schools, and tenth through twelfth grades in a high school setting. In 2006 the District Facilities Planning Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the District convert from a junior high based organizational model to a standard middle school model. This change in grade span philosophy was incorporated into the planning for a school construction bond resolution that was adopted by the Board of Directors that same year. That bond issue did not receive the required 60 percent electoral super majority. As a result the current grade configuration model will likely remain in place until additional secondary school capacity can be provided to support this change. School Schedule/Calendar South Kitsap School District has adopted a traditional calendar beginning in early September and ending in mid June. It offers a standard daily schedule with academic classes beginning between 7:10 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. and completing in mid -afternoon. On Wednesdays the start of the class day is delayed by 45 minutes to provide training and professional collaboration opportunities for teaching staff. Class Size /Level of Service For capacity planning purposes the South Kitsap School District has established a Level of Service (LOS) goal of 24 students per elementary class, 26 students per junior or senior high class, 11 students per self-contained special education class and 30 students per physical education class. 39 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 315 of 332 Permanent and Interim Educational Space The instructional program provided by the South Kitsap School District includes individual and small group work as well as full class activities. Portable classrooms do not support this full range of educational activities and as such are only considered adequate for use as a bridge to temporarily accommodate students generated by new development until such time as permanent facilities can be constructed. Main building structures on foundations are termed permanent space. Relocatable, portable structures are classified as interim space. Most school construction planning is based on the student enrollment capacities of permanent educational space only. This facilities planning approach operates in concert with OSPI's school construction funding strategy where interim space is not considered in the housed/unhoused calculation. Calculation of Student EnrollmentCapacity The enrollment capacity of an educational facility can be theoretically established by multiplying the number of permanent teaching stations by the district Level of Service (LOS) standard. However, due to scheduling conflicts, unique programs, fluctuations in enrollment, the need for specialized teaching spaces, and the need to provide teachers with work space during planning periods, it is never possible to actually achieve 100% teaching station utilization. To calculate student capacities that accurately reflect the educational programs and physical limitations of existing facilities, SKSD uses a standard Practical Capacity Model. Under this model, the use of each teaching station is reviewed and a realistic capacity for its use is assigned. These capacities are then entered into a calculation that determines the number of students each school can reasonably accommodate. Core Facilities, Pull out and Elective Offerings The size of core facilities, such as cafeterias or gyms, the number of restrooms, or the size and number of specialty areas such as shops, can all limit enrollment capacity. The allocation of instructional space for use as pull out classrooms for small group reading and math assistance or tutoring can also impact elementary school capacity. Additionally, in secondary schools, overall classroom occupancy levels can be limited by scheduling constraints and student course selection. For example, South Kitsap High School offers a variety of elective and advanced level courses that may not always attract a full class of students. Additional Program Constraints on Space Requirements Federal or State programs and community expectations can also affect how classroom space is used. Traditional basic educational programs offered by school districts are often supplemented by non-traditional or special programs such as special education, Title 1, LAP, bilingual education, gifted education, preschool programs, computer labs, music and band. The quantity of space devoted to these special, enrichment, and non-traditional programs can have a significant impact on the enrollment capacity of an instructional facility. Practical Capacity Model The Practical Capacity model refines the calculation of student capacity by taking into consideration the limitations that facilities place on educational programs. Operating policies and contractual obligations are also considered. 40 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 316 of 332 In many cases regularly sized classrooms are programmed for uses that support numbers of students that are lower than the typical LOS. This can have the effect of reducing overall building capacity. For instance, when a self contained special education program with an LOS of 11 is permanently located in a classroom that could theoretically support a Level of Service of 24 or 26, the building capacity must be reduced by the difference. At each SKSD elementary school a classroom is reserved, on a pull out basis, to provide a place where students can receive math, reading and special needs related assistance in small groups. In schools housing a Title 1 program an additional classroom is removed from the school's practical capacity to ensure that space exists for Title 1 tutoring programs within the permanent structure. Since these classrooms are used as pull outs, and therefore cannot permanently house a class of students, their official capacities are considered to be zero. Pull out requirements are incorporated into the South Kitsap School District elementary school capacity calculation and have the net effect of reducing the number of teaching stations used to calculate a building's permanent space inventory. At the secondary level, where teaching stations are occupied by teaching staff for plan time one period out of six, the official capacity of the building is reduced by an efficiency factor of 83.3% (5/6). In summary, the determination of the enrollment capacity for each district instructional facility begins by multiplying the number of teaching stations by the district's stated Level of Service. This generates a theoretical capacity for each school. Core and special use facilities are then reviewed to confirm that they are not limiting factors in the computation of capacity. Finally, approved pull out instructional space requirements and teacher work space for planning are deducted. Once all of these factors are properly accounted for in the enrollment capacity calculation the resultant value becomes the facility's practical capacity. A building's practical capacity will normally be lower than the square foot per student driven capacity that is calculated by OSPI in the school funding model. 41 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 317 of 332. V. PROJECTED FACILITY NEEDS (Years 2009-2014) Six -Year Housing Needs (through the 2014-15 School Year) Projected excesses or deficiencies in student enrollment capacity can be derived by subtracting the projected student enrollment for a given year within the forecast period from existing 2008 facility capacity. Deficiencies in student enrollment capacity by grade span, based on this calculation are depicted in Table 7. As discussed in previous chapters, school districts do not incorporate interim space in the capacity calculations that are used in Capital Facilities Plans. If the South Kitsap School District retains the current configuration model, by the end of the six - year forecast period in 2014 additional classroom capacity will be required at the elementary school level. Based on existing facility capacities and conservative (medium rate of growth) forecasts the District projects that 1114 elementary school students will be unhoused by the year 2014. Unhoused students are defined as students that the District anticipates will be attending classes in portable classrooms or in classrooms where class sizes exceed the district level of service standard. At the end of this same period 337 junior high school and 313 high school students will also be unhoused. Projected housing needs by grade span for each year of the six - year forecast period are provided in Table 7. Table 7 Projected Housing Needs (6-3-3 Model) South Kitsap School District 2009-2014 Capacity Surplus or (Deficiency) Grade Span 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Elementary (K-6) (509) (544) (702) (841) (949) (1114) Junior High (7-9) (169) (117) (112) (197) (298) (337) High School (10-12) (373) (300) (330) (341) (319) (313) Table 8 looks at district capacity differently by assuming a traditional 6-8 middle school versus junior high grade span model. This approach would relieve capacity problems at the elementary level but without the addition of additional high school capacity would create a serious unhoused student problem at the high school level. Table 8 Projected Housing Needs (5-3-4 Model) South Kitsap School District 2009-2014 Capacity Surplus or (Deficiency) Grade Span 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Elementary (K-5) 269 230 110 54 (141) (199) Middle School (6-8) (103) (73) (152) (281) (289) (393) High School (9-12) (1217) (1118) (1102) (1152) (1136) (1172) 42 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 318 of 332 Table 9 assumes a less traditional grade span model where only 7th and 8th graders are housed in middle school. This grade span option does not relieve enrollment pressure at the elementary level, generates excess student capacity at the middle school and creates a serious unhoused student problem at the senior high level. Many school districts have used this 6-2-4 configuration as a transitional model while moving from a Junior High to 6-8 Middle School based organization. Table 9 Projected Housing Needs (6-2-4 Model) South Kitsap School District 2009-2014 Capacity Surplus or (Deficiency) Grade Span 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Elementary (K-6) (509) (544) (702) (841) (949) (1114) Middle School (7-8) 675 701 660 614 519 522 High School (9-12) (1217) (1118) (1102) (1152) (1136) (1172) In summary, the predicted pattern of enrollment change over the period of this plan (2009-2014) will result in a growth in unhoused students that can be resolved with either the construction of a second high school that would allow for a grade span change and follow-on elementary school service area revisions or the construction of a new elementary school (#11) that should be located west of SR-16. The first option better positions the District to meet its goal of transitioning to a 5-3-4 grade span model and provides for more flexibility in meeting enrollment growth anticipated through 2030. 43 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 319 of 332 VI. PROJECTED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS This chapter identifies projects and acquisitions that will be considered to address projected enrollment growth and meet the future facilities needs of the South Kitsap School District. Funding strategies for the construction of the facilities identified in this plan are discussed in more detail in Section VII. This district facility improvement plan has five elements: (1) new construction for enrollment growth or modernization: (2) the acquisition of temporary housing to meet enrollment needs caused by residential development occurring through 2014; (3) the acquisition of new school sites for future enrollment growth consistent with residential densities implied by land use plans and demographic projections; (4) bond or non -bond projects that preserve and maintain existing facilities through 2014; and (5) a facilities needs forecast that extends through 2030. 1. OVERALL PLAN FOR ENROLLMENT GROWTH The following package of new construction projects and other actions that provide for projected District enrollment growth is listed in priority order: 1. Construct a new 1200 student 9-12 high school on district property located on Old Clifton Road. The construction of this high school is predicated on enrollment growth projections contained in the district's 2008 enrollment study and a grade span change that will move ninth graders into high school and sixth graders into middle school configurations. 2. Consideration should also be given to a modernization project that will replace Cedar Heights Junior High School on its existing site with a 900 student 6-8 middle school. Based on the condition of this school it is anticipated that this modernization effort would be an excellent candidate for partial funding under a State grant as a New in Lieu of Modernization project. The replacement school could be constructed on the existing Cedar Heights campus while school was still in session in the existing building. It should be designed with a capacity of 900 students for a net increase in permanent capacity of 295 students. 3. The completion of projects one and two above would leave the South Kitsap School District with a projected 199 unhoused elementary students (K-5), 99 unhoused junior high school students and 28 over -housed high school students for the 2014-15 school - year. Both of these projects would require passage of a General Obligation Bond by the South Kitsap electorate. These growth -related construction projects are summarized in Table 10. 4. Significant elementary growth due to residential construction is anticipated to occur west of SR-16 in the McCormick Woods (ULID-6) area during the life of this six -year plan. A conversion to a K-5 elementary school grade span would accommodate this growth. 5. Major elementary school service area boundary adjustments will be necessary within the next six -years with or without an accompanying school construction program. The 44 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 320 of 332 Sunnyslope Elementary School service area in particular will see rapid growth in enrollment due to the construction of new homes in that area (see Attachment B). 6. If growth projections meet expectations and the new construction initiatives recommended in paragraphs one and two above are not in place by 2014 the District will need to purchase additional portable classrooms to meet enrollment requirements. To maintain current class sizes in a mix of permanent and interim facilities the purchase of new elementary and junior high portable classrooms can be accomplished using impact fees. 7. To accommodate projected enrollment growth between 2015 and 2030 additional school sites will be required for the construction of a fourth middle school and possibly a twelfth elementary school. Accordingly, the District should continue to plan for the acquisition of new properties at reasonable prices to meet its future school construction needs. 8. Based on current growth projections, by 2030 the District will need a 600 student addition for its second high school, a remodel of South Colby elementary school that will increase K-5 capacity by 334 students, an eleventh and possibly twelfth elementary school and a fourth middle school to meet future student enrollment needs. Table 10 Growth Related Construction Projects Projected 2009-2014 Facility Location Anticipated Source of Funding Purchase/Relocate Portables TBD Impact Fees New Construction New 1200 Student High School Old Clifton Road Impact Fees/State Match/Bond Issue Modernize Cedar Heights and 2220 Pottery Ave Impact Fees/State Match/Bond Issue Increase capacity by 295 Port Orchard, WA 2. INTERIM HOUSING REQUIREMENTS The planning and construction of new instructional facilities is a lengthy process. To meet the enrollment demands brought on by new development, it may be necessary to make significant use of temporary classrooms while construction options and boundary adjustments are evaluated. The need to temporarily house elementary and middle school/junior high students will require the relocation of existing portables, possible renovation of existing portables and the acquisition and installation of new portables throughout the District. The number of new portables required will be driven by the volume of growth and the timeline used by the District and South Kitsap community to meet this growth. The estimated per building cost for new double classroom portables to support projected 2014 enrollment is $225,000 in 2008 dollars. This is based on the District's last double portable 45 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 321 of 332 purchase in 2004 escalated by 5 percent per annum. The 2014 projected increase in student population at the elementary and junior high levels could theoretically equal the capacity of 15 double classroom portable buildings with an estimated acquisition and installation cost in 2008 dollars of $3,375,000. By renovating and upgrading existing district portable space it is likely that the actual number of new interim classrooms required to meet this growth could be reduced by returning portables used for storage and other purposes to classroom service. At a minimum the District anticipates that three double portable buildings, at a projected cost of $675,000, will be needed to support anomalies in growth during the planning and building construction process. 3. SITE ACQUISITIONS In order to accommodate future growth, the District will need two additional building sites suitable for school construction. Recent development patterns point to a continued increase in residential development on the west side of SR-16. To meet this need the District should seek to acquire an additional elementary school site and a new middle school site to serve projected enrollment requirements through 2030 and beyond. District discussions with a local commercial real estate firm and land developer indicate a reasonable budget number for the acquisition of school sites located within the SKSD urban growth area would be $115,000 per acre. This is based on the assumption that such land would also be suitable for residential development at a rate of five dwelling units per acre. The District average size for an elementary school site is 14 acres. The average size for a middle/junior high school site is 22 acres. Based on these averages, and an estimated land cost of $115,000 per acre, future elementary and middle school site acquisition costs are estimated at $1,610,000 and $2,530,000 for a total of $4,140,000. The District will seek to negotiate the conveyance of school sites from residential developers or use payments from impact fees and voluntary mitigation agreements to fund future school site purchases. 4. DISTRICT SIX -YEAR MAINTENANCE AND MODERNIZATION PLAN The Facilities Department maintains an SKSD Facilities Project Listing on file. This document details $17,848,000 in non -bond related projects identified for the purpose of building asset preservation, minor renovations and retrofits, and grounds related improvements. The project listing was developed in a collaborative effort with district administrative staff, building and support department leadership. The District recommendation to modernize/replace Cedar Heights Junior High School is discussed in section 1 above. 5. NEEDS FORECASTING 2015 — 2030 While the principal focus of this CFP is the period 2009 - 2014, it is also important for the District to look ahead to 2030 in its assessment of facilities planning needs. District schools are getting older. South Colby Elementary School needs to be replaced. Many schools will need upgraded mechanical and electrical systems and several will need general modernizations over the next 20 years. These needs are summarized in Tables 11 and 12. 46 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 322 of 332 Table 11 Needs Forecast (2015 — 2030) Existing Facility Projects Existing Facility Purchase/Relocate Portables Modernizations (Schools) Olalla Elementary Orchard Heights Elementary Burley Glenwood Elementary South Kitsap High School Modernizations (Support Buildings) Transportation Building Central Kitchen/Warehouse Administration Center Location iM 6100 SE Denny Bond 2288 Fircrest Dr SE 100 SW Lakeway Blvd 425 Mitchell Ave 1962 Hoover Ave SE 1695 Madrona Dr SE 1962 Hoover Ave SE Anticipated Source of Funding Impact Fees/Bond Issue State Match/Bond Issue State Match/Bond Issue State Match/Bond Issue State Match/Bond Issue Bond Issue Bond Issue Bond Issue The accuracy of enrollment trends that extend beyond the six -year life of this CFP can be problematic and will need continual annual review to remain relevant for district facility planning. Current enrollment projections support the construction of a 600 student addition to the second high school, a replacement South Colby elementary, a fourth middle school, and an eleventh and twelfth elementary school some time between 2015 and 2030. These needs are summarized in Table 12. New Facility Table 12 Needs Forecast (2015 — 2030) Additions, Replacements and New Facilities Location Anticipated Source of Funding 600 Student Addition for New HS Old Clifton Rd Site Impact Fees/State Match/Bond Issue Replacement South Colby ES 3281 Banner Rd Impact Fees/State Match/Bond Issue New Elementary School #11 Old Clifton Rd Site Impact Fees/State Match/Bond Issue New Elementary School #12 TBD Impact Fees/State Match/Bond Issue New Middle School #4 TBD Impact Fees/State Match/Bond Issue 47 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 323 of 332 VII. DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN The funding for school facility construction and modernization can be secured from a number of sources, with the most important being voter approved bonds. Other sources may include state matching funds and development impact (mitigation) fees. Each of these funding sources is discussed in greater detail below. General Obligation Bonds Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other major capital improvement projects. A 60% voter approval is required to pass a bond. Bonds are then retired over time through the collection of property taxes. The South Kitsap School District currently has an assessed valuation of $7,125,040,667. The bond limit for all outstanding bonds is 5% of assessed value or $356,252,033. The District had $4,737,349 of debt as of August 30, 2008, and a bond capacity of $351,514,684. State Match Funds State Match Funds come from the Common School Construction Fund. Bonds are sold on behalf of the fund then retired from revenues accruing predominantly from the sale of renewable resources (i.e., timber) from state school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the Legislature can appropriate additional funding, or the State Board of Education can ration project funding on a priority basis. School districts may qualify for state matching funds for specific capital projects based on an eligibility system. Eligible projects are prioritized using seven different criteria. Funds are then disbursed to districts on a percentage basis that is based on a formula that compares each district's assessed valuation per pupil relative to the entire state assessed valuation per pupil. This percentage is known as the "State Match Ratio". The base to which this ratio is applied is the cost of construction as determined by the "Area Cost Allowance" multiplied by the "Eligible Area". The Area Cost Allowance is a calculated construction cost that is used by the State to help define or limit its level of financial support for school construction. Unfortunately, this indexed cost rarely approaches the actual cost of school construction in Washington State. The Eligible Area is a categorization, in square feet, of the number of unhoused students to be provided for in an enrollment based project or the building square footage approved for upgrade or replacement in a modernization project. State match funds are available to assist districts with construction costs for enrollment and modernization related school construction projects but cannot be used for site acquisition, the purchase of portables or for normal building maintenance. Because the availability of state match funds may not always keep pace with the enrollment growth or modernization needs of all of Washington's school districts, matching funds from the state may not be received by a school district until two or three years after a school has been constructed. In such cases, the District may need to "front fund" a project. This means the District must be prepared to finance the entire project with local funds. The State's share of the project funding is then provided to the 48 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 324 of 332 district later in the form of a reimbursement. In some cases projects may not receive state match at all. State match funding is not guaranteed. New Development Mitization/Impact Fees The authority for local jurisdictions to condition new development on the mitigation of school impacts is provided for under the State Subdivision Act, Chapter 58.17 RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21 C RCW, and the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW. These state statutes seek to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to meet the demands of new growth by authorizing permitting jurisdictions to condition development approval on the implementation of mitigation measures that enable local jurisdictions to meet the infrastructure demands of new development. • Subdivision Act Mitigation. RCW 58.17.110 requires the permitting jurisdiction to find proposed plats that adequately provide for schools and school grounds. The proposed development must provide land sufficient to ensure that such facilities are provided for potential new students. • SEPA Mitigation. SEPA provides that local jurisdictions may condition the approval of a new development to the mitigation of specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in SEPA environmental documents. See RCW 43.21C.060. Under SEPA, the "built environment" includes public schools. See WAC 197-11-444(2) (d) (iii). • GMA Mitigation. Development impact fees have been adopted by Kitsap County as a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for the construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. The City of Bremerton does not impose an impact fee on new development. The City of Port Orchard's new (December 2008) Comprehensive Plan makes provisions for the establishment and collection of school impact fees. The District participates in the permit review processes of jurisdictions within its boundaries to ensure that its interests are considered when new developments are proposed that will generate additional students. Six -Year Finance Plans The Six -Year Capital Finance Plan (Table 13) portrays how South Kitsap School District intends to fund improvements to school facilities for the years 2009 through 2014. 49 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 325 0f 332 Table 13 Capital Finance Plan Sources: CFP Balance/Impact Funds $ 1,171,395 Impact Fee Collections 2009-2014 (est.) $ 2,100,000 Transfer from General Funds $ 0 State Matching Funds (est.) $ 34,527,246 Sale of General Obligation Bonds $ 0 Improvements to Existing Facilities $ 3,400,000 $ 41,198,641 Uses: Improvements to Existing Facilities $ 17,848,000 Construction for Enrollment Growth $109,373,693 Site Acquisition $ 5,149,885 Construction of Support Facilities (tentative) $ 0 Portables $ 675,000 Program Changes $ 0 $133,046,578 Unfunded Balance: ($91,847,937) 50 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 326 of 332 VIII. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The calculation of the South Kitsap School District impact fee is provided on the attached spreadsheet. The calculation process recognizes projected constructions costs anticipated within the six -year plan, acquisition costs of interim housing, land purchases for future school sites and continuing payments on a 56 acre school site that was purchased in 2005. 51 U) O U LL C O Cc U c0 U a� a) LL U co Q E 0 U) Y U) Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 327 of 332 0 >, >, >% >, >% >, .-. Cl) 0 0 cn 0 °o O Ln ������ coa)a)U o� cn cn cn O a) a "' X X X cn cn O N do O U L U L U L U L U L U L O = U +' cu E 'O -2-- >, O >, N >, O Z' 27 Z' _ X X X 0 C 0) C cn rn to O N a (C Q f3 d (C Q f3 d (C Q f3 a) a) -' L O ++ O � O a -0-0 C L 2 N ++ L OLTOLTOLTL L L L L L 0) N a) O= L cn cn W cu CCtOOO(nfn(n c0 O (n (n (n � C N C : O C: C N C c N c C O C N O U U j d0 a 00 O 40 O 00 O a0 O 0 ow LL C 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E >> O 2 N UJJJotS�tSotS >>> C C C Q QQQ- O_ Q C C UNNNNN 0 0 0 0 0 cn a) L E000000 m `� rn.r:.r m ai maa a �aaaaaQ 0 O V Y U Y U Y U Y U Y U Y U 'C 'C �_ Z •- •` •` _ U p N p U p f/i cu 0 cc$ LL U LL U LL U v " 0 (/) f/i CO f/i Cn >, N N -a'O-a"O'O"O50 L O O 0000dd O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Nj5 N M M a a IL C) C) a) YYYYYY a) a) a) a) a) aU j Z L (n (n (n NNN00"E C) U 0_0 c O O O O O O 0 '2 L ca '2 L ca ca B cu �_ U NNNNNN co cc c .r Y C IL m cu � co U Y U U U U U U — E E E C 0 -2-2-2 C 0 C 0 C 0 -2-2-2 C 0 C a) O O O O O O O O L O O L O O L �' a) +' a) �' a) +' a) �' a) +' a) 0 0 0 O O O ... C C C � cn (n cn cn cn cn L L U L U L U O a) a) a) O a) O O O cp (6 c0 O O O C +J N a) a) a) O a) O N N a) Q N to N O N to LL LL LL LL LL LL U U U O C O O Cn (n Cn N Z) Z) N O \ \ \ \ \ \ U L ) L U g O cn N V7 �••� N ++ UU U\ \U O L 7 0 L 7 0 L 7 0 L 7 O L 7 a) L 7 � fn f/i \\ 0 � cn \a a\ \a cn \ LL \ LL \ LL U� L 0 0 y 0 U L 0 c6 O EA C C C U�v�ma)m������oo0000U N N N C C C cn cn cn O aCL UU �cncncncncncnUUUUUU c�cnc� 0 `n`n`n--- U O — L Cl) L C) -- 0 C 0 O_ U') O 0 0 0 O c c) Ln 0 ICT O0)Il- M I O O O o N N-(D N"T OMNNN�0000� U')Ln N N Ln N O o Ln 0 r-_ 0 0 \ O 3Ia0O�COO�c) N O O O r O 0 O O N Lf� O O� N (D N (D N O O 000 �� 00 O N 4 w w O co O O O O � LO N co LLB O 69 EF> 69 EF> 69 EF> 69 69 69 Z'0 0 0 0 Z'0 0 Z'0 0 0 0 Z'0 0 0 0 Z'O 0 L'O 0 0 0 (p �• L U L N +' t U L N �' L U L N �' L U t ca +' L U L (p �' L U L O +' t U L N �' L U L O +' t U L N +' L U L (n Cam•- O 2 �Co O 2 Cam•-- O 2— C� O) - 2 Cam•- O 2 C� O - 2 Cam•- O 2 C� O - 2 C� O -- 2— �� O 2------ ------ '0 N a) N E4) N Ea' QEa) a) N E4) N Ea) a) E4) N Ea) a) E4) QE4) a) QQQQQQ ca 0�cn a��u; ��cn ��co a��u; ��cn a��u`; a��U); 2�ci� � L O W W W W W W W W W W 2 M 2 2 0 a-+ U O O O C O C O C O ;_ + ;_ O U U U =3 =3 = U C C C y M C222LLLLLL Ocf) c/) cf) O U O U 0 U O O O— — —^^^ U U U O O O fn cu L L L L L L U U U U U U U 0 ci 0 ci 0 ci 0 ci 0 ci 0 ci yL+ 0 +L/ O .lz �' Z' �' m m m O H O H O H j j Z' �' �' a) 7 a) 7 1 U) (C (B (C (3 (C (B C C C . . fL O O O O O O � (� � (u cu m dLLLLLLLLLLL- G C C C C C C UUU 0 Q- 0 Q 0-M-M Q- O O � O a) O a) O a)UUU O O Q O C' O Q a) U >i _ cn w 0 0 0 0 0 0 E E E 0 0 0 3 3 3 E E E 0 m D a) a) a) a) L a) >, > cv m cv cv cv cv O O O O Z O Z O Z 0 H 0 H 0 H LL LL LL O O O O O O O Z O Z O Z 0 H 0 H 0 H — vOi vi c m O J a) C a) C a) C a) C a) C a) C cu M cu a) L 1 1 1 1 1 1 '^ C/) r^ C/) '^ C/) LL LL LL 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 0 a) m m /m/ ly a) v� a) v� � N � X a) a) a) a) a) 0 a) L U a) L U a) L U U Q a) a) a) a) a) a) C +� C C tT fn c (n fn cn O O O cn O U O cn O U O Q + cu cu c cn Q cn Q C 0 0 M QQQ .N .N -N .N -N •N c c c m m ODUUUUU o cv a) 0(n > C C C C C C >+ >+ >+ �cncncncncncn >+ >+ >+ >+ .... >+ >+ O ca co � � � >. >+ >+ >+ >+ >+ U O L O L o L O co O co — cn r- a) 0����_—_� M o _—_—_— E N E N E N cu o co 0 m----_— 0 w w" o L L L L >> L L co Q (n(n(n(n(n(nLLLLLLULLLLLLLLLLL M c0a cu cu coo cu coo cc did dq-LLLLLLLLLLLLQfn(nfn(nQQU>-a- m m m m CL a Q O Q C� (D O U (B U U Q E 0- LL U m O O N m O 0 N O N m Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 328 of 332 School Site Acquisition Cost: CALCULATIONS ((Acres X Cost per Acre)/Facility Capacity) X Student Generation Factor Facility Cost per Facility SGF SGF Cost per Cost per Acreage Acre Capacity SFH MFH SFH MFH Elementary 14 $ 90,000 550 0.28 0.16 $ 641.45 $ 366.55 Middle School 22 $ - 900 0.10 0.09 $ - $ - Sr. High 42 $ 90,000 1200 0.14 0.11 $ 441.00 $ 346.50 $ 1,082.45 $ 713.05 School Construction Cost: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity) X Student Generation Faci ctor) X Per, manent/Total Sq. Ft.) % Perm/ Facility Facility SGF SGF Cost per Cost per Total Sq. Ft. Cost Size SFH MFH SFH MFH Elementary 91 % $ 20,420,581 550 0.28 0.16 Middle School 93% $ 14,431,266 295 0.10 0.09 $ 4,549.52 $ 4,094.57 Sr. High 97% $ 65,346,100 1200 0.14 0.11 $ 7,395.00 $ 5,810.36 $ 11,944.52 $ 9,904.92 Temporary Facility Cost: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity) X Student Generation Factor) X (Temporary/Sq. Ft) % Temp/ Facility Facility SGF SGF Cost per Cost per Total Sq. Ft. Cost Size SFH MFH SFH MFH Elementary 9% $ 225,000 48 0.28 0.16 $ 118.13 $ 67.50 Middle School 7% $ 225,000 52 0.10 0.09 $ 30.29 $ 27.26 Sr. High 3% $ 225,000 52 0.14 0.11 $ 18.17 $ 14.28 $ 166.59 $ 109.04 State Match Credit Area Cost Allowance X SPI Sq. Ft X State Match X Student Generation Factor Area Cost SPI State SGF SGF Cost per Cost per Allowance Footage Match % SFH MFH SFH MFH Elementary $168.79 90.00 56.79% 0.28 0.16 Middle School $168.79 108.00 56.79% 0.10 0.09 $ 1,035.24 $ 931.72 Sr. High $168.79 130.00 56.79% 0.14 0.11 $ 1,744.58 $ 1,370.74 $ (2,779.82) $ (2,302.46) Tax Payment Credit SFH MFH Average Assessed Value $ 195,910.00 $ 97,955.00 Capital Bond Interest Rate 0.00% 0.00% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling Years Amortized 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate $0.00 0.00 Present Value of Revenue Stream $ - $ - FEE SUMMARY SINGLE FAMILY MULTIPLE FAMILY School Site Acquisition Cost $ 1,082.45 $ 713.05 Permanent Facility Cost $ 11,944.52 $ 9,904.92 Temporary Facility Cost $ 166.59 $ 109.04 State Match Credit $ (2,779.82) $ (2,302.46) Tax Payment Credit $ - $ - Subtotal Unfunded Need $ 10,413.74 $ 8,424.55 Unfunded Need @ 50% $ 5,206.87 $ 4,212.27 53 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 329 0f 332 IX. APPENDIX A School Cost Calculations The school cost calculations contained in this appendix and plan are based on the OSPI July 2008 Area Cost Allowance, the OSPI Summary of New Construction Projects Bid 8/l/07 — 7/31/08, and South Kitsap School District student square footage allocation values. This methodology generally underestimates costs over the life of the project and is primarily intended to serve as a basis for the calculation of impact fees. To get the "hard" budget numbers that would be required for the submission of a bond issue the District would conduct a pre -design and educational specification process to properly define the project scope and estimated cost. The final project budget would then also need to anticipate future market bidding conditions, plan for the likelihood of change orders, budget for cost escalation over the life of the project and incorporate a detailed estimate of site planning and development costs. 54 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 330 of 332 SECOND HIGH SCHOOL SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT 2/10/09 HIGH SCHOOL AREA 168,840 STATE MATCH 0.5679 CAPACITY 1200 OSPI UNHOUSED 980 SF/STUDENT 140.7 SF/STUDENT 130 COST/SF 261.33 AREA COST ALLOWANCE 168.79 TOTAL STATE LOCAL CONSTRUCTION COST 44,122,957 12,212,034 31,910,923 BUILDING 44,122,957 SITE OFF -SITE NON -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS PROFESSIONAL FEES 11.00% 8.00% SALES TAX 8.60% 7.00% CO CONTINGENCY 5.00% PERMITS 1.00% SPECIAL INSP. 1.00% 1.00% ART 0.50% NIC WORK 1.00% TEMPORARY FACILITIES 1.00% MOVING/STORAGE 1.00% FURNISHINGS 6.00% 2.00% MANAGEMENT 3.00% 1.00% MITIGATION FEES 2.00% PROJECT CONT. 7.00% TOTAL 48% 19.00% SUBTOTAL 21,223,142 8,383,362 12,839,781 LAND ACQUISITION TOTAL IN 2008 DOLLARS 65,346,100 20,595,396 44,750,704 This estimate is based on 2007-2008 OSPI bid summary information and does not reflect future cost escalation related to bid environment, labor and material pricing, design, site development or permit related expenses. 55 South Kitsan School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G Page 331 of 332 CEDAR HEIGHTS MODERNIZATION SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT NEW IN LIEU PROJECT 2/10/2009 MIDDLE SCHOOL AREA CAPACITY SF/STUDENT COST/SF CONSTRUCTION COST BUILDING SITE OFF -SITE 114,300 STATE MATCH 900 OSPI UNHOUSED 126.9 SF/STUDENT $260.09 AREA COST ALLOWANCE NON -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $29,7289287 $29,728,287 STATE $8,283,476 PROFESSIONAL FEES 11.00% 8.00% SALES TAX 8.60% 7.00% CO CONTINGENCY 5.00% PERMITS 1.00% SPECIAL INSP. 1.00% 1.00% ART 0.50% NIC WORK 1.00% TEMPORARY FACILITIES 1.00% MOVING/STORAGE 1.00% FURNISHINGS 6.00% 2.00% MANAGEMENT 3.00% 1.00% MITIGATION FEES 2.00% PROJECT CONT. 7.00% TOTAL 48.10% 19.00% SUBTOTAL $14,299,306 $5,648,375 LAND ACQUISITION TOTAL IN 2008 DOLLARS $44,027,593 $13,931,850 This estimate is based on 2007-2008 OSPI bid summary information and does not reflect future cost escalation related to bid environment, labor and material pricing, design, site development or permit related expenses. 0.5979 760 108 $168.79 LOCAL $21,444,811 8 650 932 $30,095,743 56 Ordiance No. 034-09 Exhibit G South Kitsap School District 2009 Capital Facilities Plan Page 332 of 332 NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT NEW CONSTRUCTION / NEW IN LIEU 2/10/2009 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AREA 54,450 STATE MATCH 0.5679 CAPACITY 550 OSPI UNHOUSED 320 SF/STUDENT 98.7 SF/STUDENT 90 COST/SF $253.23 AREA COST ALLOWANCE $168.79 TOTAL STATE LOCAL CONSTRUCTION COST $13,788,374 $2,760,648 $11,027,725 BUILDING $13,788,374 SITE OFF -SITE NON -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS PROFESSIONAL FEES 11.00% 8.00% SALES TAX 8.60% 7.00% CO CONTINGENCY 5.00% PERMITS 1.00% SPECIAL INSP. 1.00% 1.00% ART 0.50% NIC WORK 1.00% TEMPORARY FACILITIES 1.00% MOVING/STORAGE 1.00% FURNISHINGS 6.00% 2.00% MANAGEMENT 3.00% 1.00% MITIGATION FEES 2.00% PROJECT CONT. 7.00% TOTAL 48.10% 19.00% SUBTOTAL $6,632,208 $2,619,791 $4,012,417 LAND ACQUISITION TOTAL IN 2008 DOLLARS $20,420,581 $5,380,439 $15,040,142 This estimate is based on 2007-2008 OSPI bid summary information and does not -effect future cost escalation related to bid environment, labor and material pricing, Design, site development or permit related expenses. 57