The URL can be used to link to this page

05/11/2021 - Packet Utilities Committee Meeting Agenda May 11, 2021, 5:00 p.m. Pursuant to the Governor’s “Stay Home - Stay Safe” Order, the City is prohibited from conducting meetings unless the meeting is NOT conducted in-person and instead provides options for the public to attend through telephone access, internet or other means of remote access, and also provides the ability for persons attending the meeting (not in-person) to hear each other at the same time. Therefore; Remote access only Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84129451171?pwd=Y3NBQ1BsUDhsZ293UGRsbnk5QlRtdz09 Meeting ID: 841 2945 1171 • McCormick LS#1 – Update • 2020 NPDES Phase II Annual Report o https://www.cityofportorchard.us/documents/2020-npdes-phase-ii-annual- report/ • Sidney Avenue Sewer & Roadway Repair – Update53200 • Foster Pilot Project – Update o Well #11, #12 & #13 Impacts • McCormick Water Campus (580 Res, Well #12 & Main) – Update • Splash Pad – Update • Marina PS Funding – Update • DOH-DWSRF Loan – Update: o Well #11 Pre-Construction Award ($500k) o Well #13 Project Close-out & Scope Reduction • 2020 (Consumer Confidence) Water Quality Report • Water Use Efficiency Program • 390/580 Zones Consolidation Study • Utility Department Program – Update: o Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan o Water CIP’s & CFC Adjustments o Water CFC Credits o Water & Sewer Rates o WSP Update Adoption o 2022 GSP Update o 2023 Comp Plan Update • Next Meeting: June 8, 2021 Future Agenda Items: • Cross Connection Control & FOG Programs - Discussion • Option to Levy Excise Taxes on W/S - Discussion • SKWRF Nutrient Cap - Update • 2019-2024 NPDES Permit Draft Comments - Update • Bay Street - Street Lighting & Marquee - Update • Water System Fluoridation - Update • Sanitary Side Sewer Policy - Discussion The City of Port Orchard boasts a vibrant and active community in one of the most beautiful waterfront scenes of the Pacific Northwest. It is the combination of great peo- ple and excellent resources that make the City a desired place in which to be connect- ed. Part of that connection is the precious resource of wa- ter that we all treasure so much. It is a primary focus of the City to not only protect this re- source, but to make improve- ments as we look toward the future. Our water has always been within the federal regu- lations set by the EPA, howev- er we are striving to not just meet these federal standards but to make every effort to provide the best quality water possible. In doing this we plan to provide exceptional water quality for years to come. Part of striving for such high water quality standards in- cludes capital planning both in the short and long term. In 2019, the city completed a major treatment plant de- signed to remove aesthetical- ly displeasing particles like Manganese. Manganese is a naturally occurring mineral that can be found in water. Although our water is below the Federal standard, it can still cause minor discoloration in drinking water. Additionally the City is plan- ning to bring some new wells online. Two of these projects are in the construction phase with another being designed this year. These wells are designed and located in areas that allow us not only to have enough water today, but also for the demand of tomorrow as the City continues to grow. As Mark Dorsey, Public Works Director/City Engineer puts it, “Water is our most precious resource and as stewards of that water we strive to protect and deliver the best quality drinking water to the people we serve everyday.” This is a principle that we focus on daily and we hope that it is apparent to you today and as we move into the future. SECURING A BETTER WATER FUTURE WATER QUALITY REPORT FOR 2020 PORT ORCHARD WATER D EPARTMENT, ID#68900 City Council meets at 6:30 PM on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month at the Robert Geiger Council Chambers, City Hall, 216 Prospect Street. The public is always encouraged to attend. For questions about our water contact the Utility Manager, Jacki Brown, at (360) 876-4991 Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act over 30 years ago and gave the EPA the job of establishing rules to ensure the drinking water in the U.S. is safe. In 1996, Con- gress revised these rules and required the drinking water systems to give their consum- ers important information about their water. This report is in accordance with the EPA Code of Federal Regulations, National Drinking Water Reg- ulations Parts 141 and 142. The City of Port Orchard sup- ports this legislation as we feel that it is important to keep our citizens informed about the water that rely on everyday. In this report you will see information regarding the quality of our water, rec- ords that we meet or surpass federal regulations, important updates about our water sys- tem, and improvements that are in various stages. Why we publish this report— Page 1 Secondary Compounds We are pleased to report that your water supply meets and exceeds all federal and state drinking water standards. The City of Port Orchard uses chlorine to ensure our water remains safe to drink throughout the distribution sys- tem. Additionally, we add trace amounts of fluoride to the water to promote dental health. Protecting our water sources is of the utmost importance and to that end, our Wellhead Protection Plan was adopted in 2012. It iden- tifies our well recharge areas and potential sources of contamination and is available for viewing in the Public Works Department at City Hall. The Washington State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water has rated our wells in the low and moderate susceptibility ranges. Source water assessments for all Class A Community Water Systems in the State are available online at http://www.doh.wa.gov/communityandenvironment/drinkingwater/sourcewaterprotection/assessment.aspx. In Washington State, lead in drinking water comes primarily from materials and components used in household plumbing. The more time water has been sitting in pipes, the more dissolved metals, such and lead, it may con- tain. Elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially in pregnant women and young chil- dren. To help reduce potential exposure to lead, flush water through the tap until the water is noticeably colder before using it for drinking or cooking. You can use the flushed water for water plants, washing dishes, or gen- eral cleaning. Only use water from the cold water tap for drinking, cooking, and especially for making baby for- mula. Hot water is likely to contain higher levels of lead. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water is available from EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or online at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. To ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the Department of Health and EPA prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. The Food and Drug Administration and the Washington State Department of Agriculture regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled wa- ter that must provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some con- taminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More infor- mation about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hot- line (1-800-426-4791). Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno- compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their helath care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). The sources of drinking water (both tap and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and well. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, may come from sewage treatment plants, sep- tic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, can be naturally occurring or result from urban storm water runoff, industrial, or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, ur- ban storm water runoff, and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production. They can come from gas stations, urban storm water runoff, and septic systems. Radioactive contaminants can be naturally occurring or the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. A message from the EPA regarding water contaminants: Page 2 City of Port Orchard Testing Schedule Water Quality Data The water quality information presented in this table is from the most recent round of testing done according to the regulations. The presence of contaminants in the water does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. The EPA, through the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water, requires us to monitor for certain contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants do not change frequently. Some of the data, though representative of the water quality, is more than one year old. The Office of Drinking Water reduced the monitoring requirements for Inorganic, Synthetic Organic, and Volatile Organic Chemicals because the sources are not at risk of contamination. The last sample collected for these con- taminants was found to meet all applicable standards. Contaminants MCL MCL G Highest Level Range of Detection Sample Date Violation Typical Source of Contamination Arsenic (ppb) 10 0 3.3 4/18 No Erosion of natural deposits; Runoff from orchards; Runoff from glass and electronics production wastes Fluoride (ppm) 4 4 0.91 10/20 No Erosion of natural deposits; Water addi- tive which promotes strong teeth; Discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories Nitrate (ppm) 10 10 0.45 4/16 No Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits Gross Alpha (ppb) 15 N/A 3.8 5/20 No Erosion of natural deposits Radium (ppb) 5 N/A 0.8 .0.1—0.8 4/17 No Erosion of natural deposits Haloacetic Acids (ppb) 60 N/A 2.6 ND—2.6 12/19 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Total trihalomethanes (ppb) 80 N/A 10 7.1—10 12/19 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Contaminants with Action Levels rather than MCLs AL MCL G 90th % Level Range of Detection Sample Date Exceeds AL Typical Source Copper (ppm) 1.3 1.3 0.02 ND—0.05 9/18 No Corrosion of household plumbing; Erosion of natural deposits Lead (ppb) 15 0 0.001 ND—0.004 9/18 No Corrosion of household plumbing; Erosion of natural deposits Unregulated Contaminants Germanium (ppb) 0.317 0.317 6/19 N/A EPA has not established standards for unregulated contaminants. The pur- pose of this monitoring is to help EPA determine their occurrence in drinking water and potential need for future reg- Definitions Page 3 Action Level (AL) - The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other require- ments that a water system must follow. Lead and Copper 90th Percentile—Out of every 10 homes sampled, 9 were at or below this level. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLG as feasible using the best available treatment technology. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. Parts Per Million (PPM) - One part per million or one milligram per liter (mg/L) corresponds to one penny in $10,000. Treatment Trigger (TT) - A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. ND— Not detected in the sample The system is supplied by groundwater from four wells located throughout the City that vary in depth from 240 feet to 806 feet below ground level including two flowing artesian wells. In addition, the City periodically pur- chases water from the City of Bremerton, which is supplied by numerous groundwater wells and their reservoir behind Casad Dam on the Union River. The City also has an emergency intertie with West Sound Utility District’s water system. Where your water comes from The City of Port Orchard is proud to serve this beautiful area and all those that come here to live or to visit. Understanding the needs of our region is paramount in establishing a future that provides clean, abundant drinking water for years to come, and that is the future we plan to provide. In general, the installation of plumbing in compliance with the plumbing code will provide adequate protection for your plumbing system from contamination. However, the water purveyor may require (as a condition of service) the installation of a backflow prevention assembly on the water service to provide additional protection for the public water system. A backflow preven- tion assembly will normally be required where a single-family residence has special plumbing that increases the hazard above the normal level found in residential homes, or where a hazard survey cannot be completed. To help determine if a backflow prevention assembly is required, the water purveyor may send residential cus- tomers a Cross Connection Control Survey Questionnaire. The water purveyor will evaluate the returned ques- tionnaires to assess the risk of contamination to the public water system. Based on the results of the evalua- tion, the installation of backflow prevention assemblies may be required on services to some customers. Protecting Your Drinking Water Page 4 The City of Port Orchard boasts a vibrant and active community in one of the most beautiful waterfront scenes of the Pacific Northwest. It is the combination of great peo- ple and excellent resources that make the City a desired place in which to be connect- ed. Part of that connection is the precious resource of wa- ter that we all treasure so much. It is a primary focus of the City to not only protect this re- source, but to make improve- ments as we look toward the future. Our water has always been within the federal regu- lations set by the EPA, howev- er we are striving to not just meet these federal standards but to make every effort to provide the best quality water possible. In doing this we plan to provide exceptional water quality for years to come. Part of striving for such high water quality standards in- cludes capital planning both in the short and long term. In 2019, the city completed a major treatment plant de- signed to remove aesthetical- ly displeasing particles like Manganese. Manganese is a naturally occurring mineral that can be found in water. Although our water is below the Federal standard, it can still cause minor discoloration in drinking water. Additionally the City is plan- ning to bring some new wells online. Two of these projects are in the construction phase with another being designed this year. These wells are designed and located in areas that allow us not only to have enough water today, but also for the demand of tomorrow as the City continues to grow. As Mark Dorsey, Public Works Director/City Engineer puts it, “Water is our most precious resource and as stewards of that water we strive to protect and deliver the best quality drinking water to the people we serve everyday.” This is a principle that we focus on daily and we hope that it is apparent to you today and as we move into the future. SECURING A BETTER WATER FUTURE WATER QUALITY REPORT FOR 2020 MCCORMICK WOODS WATE R SYSTEM, ID#40529 City Council meets at 6:30 PM on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month at the Robert Geiger Council Chambers, City Hall, 216 Prospect Street. The public is always encouraged to attend. For questions about our water contact the Utility Manager, Jacki Brown, at (360) 876-4991 Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act over 30 years ago and gave the EPA the job of establishing rules to ensure the drinking water in the U.S. is safe. In 1996, Con- gress revised these rules and required the drinking water systems to give their consum- ers important information about their water. This report is in accordance with the EPA Code of Federal Regulations, National Drinking Water Reg- ulations Parts 141 and 142. The City of Port Orchard sup- ports this legislation as we feel that it is important to keep our citizens informed about the water that rely on everyday. In this report you will see information regarding the quality of our water, rec- ords that we meet or surpass federal regulations, important updates about our water sys- tem, and improvements that are in various stages. Why we publish this report— Page 1 Secondary Compounds We are pleased to report that your water supply meets and exceeds all federal and state drinking water standards. The City of Port Orchard uses chlorine to ensure our water remains safe to drink throughout the distribution sys- tem. Additionally, we add trace amounts of fluoride to the water to promote dental health. Protecting our water sources is of the utmost importance and to that end, our Wellhead Protection Plan was adopted in 2012. It iden- tifies our well recharge areas and potential sources of contamination and is available for viewing in the Public Works Department at City Hall. The Washington State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water has rated our wells in the low and moderate susceptibility ranges. Source water assessments for all Class A Community Water Systems in the State are available online at http://www.doh.wa.gov/communityandenvironment/drinkingwater/sourcewaterprotection/assessment.aspx. In Washington State, lead in drinking water comes primarily from materials and components used in household plumbing. The more time water has been sitting in pipes, the more dissolved metals, such and lead, it may con- tain. Elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially in pregnant women and young chil- dren. To help reduce potential exposure to lead, flush water through the tap until the water is noticeably colder before using it for drinking or cooking. You can use the flushed water for water plants, washing dishes, or gen- eral cleaning. Only use water from the cold water tap for drinking, cooking, and especially for making baby for- mula. Hot water is likely to contain higher levels of lead. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water is available from EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or online at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. To ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the Department of Health and EPA prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. The Food and Drug Administration and the Washington State Department of Agriculture regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled wa- ter that must provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some con- taminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More infor- mation about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hot- line (1-800-426-4791). Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno- compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their helath care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). The sources of drinking water (both tap and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and well. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, may come from sewage treatment plants, sep- tic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, can be naturally occurring or result from urban storm water runoff, industrial, or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, ur- ban storm water runoff, and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production. They can come from gas stations, urban storm water runoff, and septic systems. Radioactive contaminants can be naturally occurring or the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. A message from the EPA regarding water contaminants: Page 2 City of Port Orchard Testing Schedule Water Quality Data The water quality information presented in this table is from the most recent round of testing done according to the regulations. The presence of contaminants in the water does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. The EPA, through the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water, requires us to monitor for certain contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants do not change frequently. Some of the data, though representative of the water quality, is more than one year old. The Office of Drinking Water reduced the monitoring requirements for Inorganic, Synthetic Organic, and Volatile Organic Chemicals because the sources are not at risk of contamination. The last sample collected for these con- taminants was found to meet all applicable standards. Contaminants MCL MCLG Highest Level Sample Date Violation Typical Source of Contamination Nitrate (ppm) 10 10 .35 4/17 No Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits Gross Alpha (ppb) 15 N/A -0.5 4/17 No Erosion of natural deposits Radium (ppb) 5 N/A 0.3 4/17 No Erosion of natural deposits Haloacetic Acids (ppb) 60 N/A 1.4 9/20 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Total trihalomethanes (ppb) 80 N/A 13 8/20 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Contaminants with Action Levels rather than MCLs AL MCLG 90th % Level Range of Detec- tion Sample Date Typical Source Copper (ppm) 1.3 1.3 0.02 ND—0.05 8/18 Corrosion of household plumbing; Erosion of natural deposits Lead (ppb) 15 0 0.001 ND— 0.004 8/18 Corrosion of household plumbing; Erosion of natural deposits Definitions Page 3 Action Level (AL) - The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other require- ments that a water system must follow. Lead and Copper 90th Percentile—Out of every 10 homes sampled, 9 were at or below this level. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLG as feasible using the best available treatment technology. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. Parts Per Million (PPM) - One part per million or one milligram per liter (mg/L) corresponds to one penny in $10,000. Treatment Trigger (TT) - A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. ND— Not detected in the sample The system is supplied by groundwater from four wells located throughout the City that vary in depth from 240 feet to 806 feet below ground level including two flowing artesian wells. In addition, the City periodically pur- chases water from the City of Bremerton, which is supplied by numerous groundwater wells and their reservoir behind Casad Dam on the Union River. The City also has an emergency intertie with West Sound Utility District’s water system. Where your water comes from The City of Port Orchard is proud to serve this beautiful area and all those that come here to live or to visit. Understanding the needs of our region is paramount in establishing a future that provides clean, abundant drinking water for years to come, and that is the future we plan to provide. In general, the installation of plumbing in compliance with the plumbing code will provide adequate protection for your plumbing system from contamination. However, the water purveyor may require (as a condition of service) the installation of a backflow prevention assembly on the water service to provide additional protection for the public water system. A backflow preven- tion assembly will normally be required where a single-family residence has special plumbing that increases the hazard above the normal level found in residential homes, or where a hazard survey cannot be completed. To help determine if a backflow prevention assembly is required, the water purveyor may send residential cus- tomers a Cross Connection Control Survey Questionnaire. The water purveyor will evaluate the returned ques- tionnaires to assess the risk of contamination to the public water system. Based on the results of the evalua- tion, the installation of backflow prevention assemblies may be required on services to some customers. Protecting Your Drinking Water Page 4 1 Water Use Efficiency Program 5/7/21 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD WATER USE EFFICIENCY PROGRAM 1. System Information Name: City of Port Orchard DOH ID #68900 McCormick Woods Water System DOH ID #40529 Address: 216 Prospect Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: (360) 876‐4991 Contact Person: Jacki Brown, Utility Manager 2. Geographic Location The City of Port Orchard maintains two separate public water systems, both of which are Group A public water systems. Both systems are located on the Kitsap Peninsula of Washington State along the southern shore of Sinclair Inlet of the Puget Sound. This Water Use Efficiency Program covers both the Port Orchard and McCormick Woods water systems. 3. Water Use Efficiency Rule The City of Port Orchard developed a Water Use Efficiency Goal for compliance with the Water Use Efficiency Rule of the Municipal Water Law. The City has adopted the following goals after the requisite public process and has developed a plan for monitoring progress toward the established goal and reevaluation of water use efficiency measures on an annual basis. GOAL #1: Reduce Residential Usage by 0.5% per year through 2030 Over the next ten-year period, the City of Port Orchard plans to reduce water consumption by 0.5% per year. The following measures will be evaluated and/or implemented to assist in attaining this goal: ▪ Include water conservation information in the City's annual Consumer Confidence Report (annual water system report to consumers). ▪ Evaluate the inclusion of inserts as part of the monthly water bills that present information regarding the importance of water conservation and actions individuals can implement to reduce their water use. ▪ Investigate a Water Conservation School Outreach Program that may include school presentations, preparation of curriculum material, water conservation education handout material, and tours of water system facilities. ▪ Provide water conservation materials at public outreach events. GOAL #2: Continue and Expand Educational Outreach with Customers The City is a member of the County-wide conservation board and the Water Purveyors Association of Kitsap County (WaterPAK), the City is active in planning, setting up, and manning the WaterPAK booth at the Kitsap County Fair. Conservation is a principal message at the booth. WaterPAK’s projects include distributing County-wide indoor conservation kits, summer lawn water calendars, and high efficiency toilet (HET) rebates; establishing coordination between water purveyors, fire districts, Kitsap County, and state agencies; coordinating the development of a groundwater model with USGS; and developing the County-wide Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP). 2 Water Use Efficiency Program 5/7/21 The City also maintains a page on their website (https://www.cityofportorchard.us/) which describes the benefits of conservation and links to other resources regarding conservation-at-home measures to help educate its customers about water use efficiency. 4. Water Use Efficiency Tracking Port Orchard Water Department gallons percentage 2016 277858531 267667240 10191291 3.67 2017 267138796 257609875 9528921 3.57 2018 305494416 269650890 35843526 11.73 * 2019 312726730 271860151 40866579 13.07 * 2020 291531336 266226432 25304904 8.68 TOTALS 1454749809 1333014588 121735221 8.14 average annually daily 2016 267631670 2017 237476840 12450 19074.44 52.26 2018 249387340 13440 18555.61 50.84 2.720075607 2019 259506771 14276 18177.83 49.80 2.035884811 2020 241954498 14314 16903.35 46.31 7.011223671 McCormick Woods Water System gallons percentage 2016 83677846 83609600 68246 0.08 2017 84373263 81500000 2873263 3.41 2018 105212017 101582290 3629727 3.45 2019 107588945 100757850 6831095 6.35 2020 98619902 97346850 1273052 1.29 TOTALS 479471973 464796590 14675383 2.92 average annually daily 2016 83605600 2017 72667000 4306 16875.75 46.23 2018 85574290 4851 17640.55 48.33 -4.53189519 2019 90850000 5646 16091.04 44.09 8.783789071 2020 90415000 6013 15036.59 41.20 6.5530298 *Anomolies based on under-reporting of unmetered uses % year production authorized uses leakage metered sales meters billed per capita use % year production authorized uses leakage metered sales meters billed per capita use Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation City of Port Orchard Port Orchard, Washington March 31, 2021 Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | i Certificate of Engineer The material and data contained in this report were prepared under the direction and supervision of the undersigned, whose seal as a professional engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Washington, is affixed below. __________________________________ Sarah Lingley, PE HDR Engineering, Inc. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation ii | March 31, 2021 Contents 1 Project Information .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and Purpose .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Design Standards ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Pump Station Design.................................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Pipeline Velocity ........................................................................................................... 5 2 Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Alternative 1 - Old Clifton .......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Alternative 2 - Glenwood ........................................................................................................... 6 3 Modeling Scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 9 4 Analysis Results ................................................................................................................................ 11 4.1 Baseline Results ...................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.1 Baseline Results in Old Clifton Area .......................................................................... 11 4.1.2 Baseline Results in Glenwood Area ........................................................................... 13 4.1.3 Baseline Low Pressure Areas in 390 Zone ................................................................ 13 4.1.4 Baseline High Pressure Areas in 580 Zone ............................................................... 15 4.2 Old Clifton Alternative Results ................................................................................................ 16 4.2.1 Pump Station at Elevation 317 Feet ........................................................................... 16 4.2.2 Pump Station at Elevation 284 Feet ........................................................................... 17 4.2.3 Pump Station at Elevation 265 Feet ........................................................................... 19 4.2.4 Low Pressure Areas in 390 Zone ............................................................................... 19 4.2.5 High Pressure Areas in 580 Zone .............................................................................. 19 4.3 Glenwood Alternative Results ................................................................................................. 19 4.3.1 Pump Station at Elevation 280 Feet ........................................................................... 20 4.3.2 Pump Station at Elevation 210 Feet ........................................................................... 20 4.3.3 Two Pump Stations in Series ..................................................................................... 21 4.3.4 Low Pressure Areas in 390 Zone ............................................................................... 22 4.3.5 High Pressure Areas in 580 Zone .............................................................................. 22 4.4 Reverse Flow Capacity ........................................................................................................... 22 4.5 Results Summary .................................................................................................................... 22 5 Project Cost ....................................................................................................................................... 23 5.1 Old Clifton Alternative .............................................................................................................. 23 5.2 Glenwood Alternative .............................................................................................................. 23 6 Funding Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 23 Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | iii Tables Table 1-1. 580 / 660 Zone source capacity analysis for 2039 demands .................................................... 4 Table 3-1. Hydraulic modeling scenarios ................................................................................................. 10 Table 4-1. Baseline at Old Clifton Tank area ........................................................................................... 13 Table 4-2. Baseline at Glenwood area ..................................................................................................... 13 Table 4-3. Baseline at low pressure area ................................................................................................. 14 Table 4-4. Baseline at high pressure area ............................................................................................... 15 Table 6-1. Funding Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 25 Figures Figure 1-1. City of Port Orchard Water System Overview ........................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1. Alternative 1 - Old Clifton .......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-2. Alternative 2 - Glenwood ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4-1. Baseline areas ......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4-2. Baseline pressure at Atlas Apartments during 2037 PHD ...................................................... 14 Figure 4-3. Baseline pressure in Eldon Trails Community during 2037 PHD............................................ 16 Figure 4-4. 1,950 GPM Pump Station at 284 Ft, 2037 PHD High Pressure in Eldon Trails Community ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendices Appendix A – Cost Estimates Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 1 1 Project Information 1.1 Background and Purpose The City of Port Orchard (City) has obtained grant funding from the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) to study the feasibility of consolidating the McCormick Woods water system (McCormick Woods) with the City’s water system. The City purchased the McCormick Woods water system in 1998 and has been operating it as a satellite water system. The McCormick Woods water system comprises the 580 Pressure Zone (580 Zone). Additional development in the McCormick Woods area will also create a 660 Pressure Zone (660 Zone) that is fed from the 580 Zone (see Figure 1-1, which is from the City of Port Orchard 2020 Water System Plan (WSP)). The purpose of this feasibility study is to evaluate consolidation of the McCormick Woods’ water system with the City’s water system by connecting the McCormick Woods 580 Pressure Zone to the City’s 390 Pressure Zone. Consolidation will improve source redundancy and resiliency for both systems. The City is considering consolidation of these two systems through a pump station allowing flows to be boosted from the 390 Zone to the 580 Zone and with pressure reducing valves (PRVs) allowing flow to enter the 390 Zone from the 580 Zone. The connection will give both water systems an increased ability to withstand and recover from natural and man-made disturbances. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 2 | March 31, 2021 Figure 1-1. City of Port Orchard Water System Overview 1.2 Approach This study includes the following:  Assessment of existing infrastructure  Identification of system connection alternatives  Analysis of alternatives for functionality  Estimation of costs for each alternative  Identification of funding opportunities for the improvements 1.3 Design Standards This section describes the relevant design standards as listed in the City of Port Orchard Water System Plan (2020). Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 3 1.3.1 Pump Station Design The 580 Pressure Zone is an open system (includes gravity storage). The DOH Water System Design Manual (WSDM) calls for sources to an open system to meet the following criteria: 1. Meet average day demand with the largest source out of service 2. Meet maximum day demand with all sources online 3. Meet maximum day demand while replenishing depleted fire suppression storage within 72 hours with all sources online. Per the City’s WSP, items 1 and 2 are considered with an 18 hour per day capacity (more conservative than the WSDM’s recommended 20 hour per day capacity). Item 3 can be considered with 24 hour per day capacity. Additionally, the City’s WSP requires the inlet side of the pump station to have a minimum pressure of 20 psi during peak hour demand (PHD) conditions or maximum day demand (MDD) conditions with fire flow. The distribution system must also maintain a minimum pressure of 30 psi during PHD with operational and equalizing storage depleted, and a minimum pressure of 20 psi during MDD with fire flow and operational, equalizing, and fire suppression storage depleted. Maximum pressures should stay below 100 psi, and when pressures exceed 80 psi individual costumer PRVs should be included at their connection point. The demands for the proposed pump station were considered using the 2039 demands for the 580 and 660 Zones from the demand forecast in the WSP. (Note that the City’s hydraulic model uses 2037 demands; however, for sizing of the pump station, 2039 demands were used). The total average day demand (ADD) for the 580/660 Zones is 736 gpm while the total MDD is 2,798 gpm. The other sources into the McCormick Woods area includes the following:  Well 1 (580 Zone)- Assumed to be offline as its water rights will transfer to Well 11 (580 Zone).  Well 3 (580 Zone)- Assumed to be offline as its water rights will transfer to Well 11 (580 Zone).  City of Bremerton Intertie (580 Zone) - Assumed to be an emergency supply as part of this study and not a permanent source.  Well 11 (580 Zone) - Future well with an assumed capacity of 750 gpm.  Well 12 (580 Zone) - Future well with an assumed capacity of 1,000 gpm. Section 3.5.7 of the WSP discusses the interconnection between the 580 Zone and the City’s system and states, “a booster station would need to be constructed with an initial pump capacity of 650+/- GPM (2 – 650 GPM pumps, with a future capacity of 1,200+/- GPM)”. Assuming a 1,950 gpm capacity pump station (three 650 gpm pumps), Table 1-1 provides a source capacity analysis of the 580 and 660 Zones for the year 2039. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 4 | March 31, 2021 Table 1-1. 580 / 660 Zone source capacity analysis for 2039 demands Demand / Source Flow (gpm) 580 / 660 Zone 2039 Projected Demand Average Day Demand 736 Maximum Day Demand 2,798 Flow to replenish fire suppression storage in 72 hr 421 Sources Reduced Daily Operation (18 hours per day) City of Bremerton Intertie 0 Well 1 0 Well 3 0 Well 11 563 Well 12 750 390 to 580 BPS Pump 1 488 390 to 580 BPS Pump 2 488 390 to 580 BPS Pump 3 488 Total Capacity 2,775 Total Capacity with Largest Offline 2,025 24 Hour Daily Operation City of Bremerton Intertie 0 Well 1 0 Well 3 0 Well 11 750 Well 12 1,000 390 to 580 BPS Pump 1 650 390 to 580 BPS Pump 2 650 390 to 580 BPS Pump 3 650 Total Capacity 3,700 Total Capacity with Largest Offline 2,700 Source Surplus/(Deficiency) Checks Average Day Demand with Largest Pump Offline 1,289 Maximum Day Demand (23) Fire Storage Replenishment during MDD 861 Source Surplus/(Deficiency) Checks if assuming 20 hour capacity instead of 18 hour capacity Average Day Demand with Largest Pump Offline 722 Maximum Day Demand 286 Fire Storage Replenishment during MDD 861 1This is based off a 1,875 gpm x 2 hour fire flow. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 5 Table 1-1 shows that when assuming an 18 hour per day pumping capacity, there is a slight deficiency of 23 gpm. If assuming 20 hour per day capacity (WSDM recommendation), the deficiency is resolved. For this study, the full buildout pump station capacity was assumed to be 1,950 GPM (which includes three 650 GPM pumps), similar to the WSP. This allows sources into the 580 / 660 Zones to provide the 2,039 MDD with the largest source out of service and without the need for supply from the Bremerton intertie. The McCormick Woods 580 Zone is currently served by a single 0.45 MG tank. A new 0.97 MG tank is proposed to be constructed in the 580 Zone to replace the existing tank. Once the new tank is online, the City of Bremerton will take ownership of the existing 580 Zone tank and it will be separated from the McCormick Woods 580 Zone system. A McCormick Woods 660 Zone tank is proposed to be constructed and connected to the 660 Zone via a proposed 580 to 660 Zone pump station. 1.3.2 Pipeline Velocity Per the WSP, maximum velocity in distribution pipelines shall not exceed 8 feet per second (fps) under PHD conditions and 10 fps during fire flow conditions. 2 Alternatives Assessment of the existing infrastructure revealed two alternatives for connecting the two systems. Both alternatives require installation of a pump station and new distribution system piping. Two alternatives have been selected to be analyzed as part of this study:  Alternative 1 - The first alternative is the northern route along SW Old Clifton Road.  Alternative 2 - The second alternative is the southern route in the Glenwood Road SW area. 2.1 Alternative 1 - Old Clifton The Old Clifton alternative connects the two systems by installing a new 12-inch diameter distribution main along SW Old Clifton Road from Old Clifton Tank road to an existing water main in the Eldon Trails community. This alternative requires installation of approximately 5,800 LF of piping and a 1,950 GPM pump station. To evaluate the impacts of elevation on the suction pressure, three pump station locations were evaluated corresponding to the elevation contours of 317 feet, 284 feet and 265 feet (see Figure 2-1). Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 6 | March 31, 2021 Figure 2-1. Alternative 1 - Old Clifton 2.2 Alternative 2 - Glenwood The Glenwood alternative provides a connection between the two systems by installing a new 12-inch diameter distribution main in an area that is currently undeveloped and outside of the City’s right-of-way, between water mains currently being installed by the Stetson Heights developer and a future water main anticipated to be installed to the west of Stetson Heights by a future developer (northeast of the intersection of SW Dunraven Ln and McCormick Woods Dr SW). This alternative requires installation of approximately 11,700 LF of piping, approximately 10,000 LF of which is anticipated to be installed by a developer, and a 1,950 GPM pump station. To evaluate the impacts of elevation on the suction pressure, two pump station locations were evaluated corresponding to the elevation contours of 280 feet and 210 feet (see Figure 2-2). Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 7 The Stetson Heights developer is providing a 12-inch diameter distribution main from the existing end of the Port Orchard water system at South Sidney along SW Sedgewick Road/Glenwood Road SW to the entrance to the Stetson Heights development. The developer also proposes to install 12-inch diameter water mains within the Stetson Heights development, which extends the Port Orchard water system approximately 4,800 feet west of South Sidney. This route also relies on installation of a new water main from the existing McCormick Woods system at the intersection of SW Dunraven Ln and McCormick Woods Dr SW approximately 2,000 LF to the northeast. As discussed later in Section 4.3.3, to avoid high pressures in the Stetson Heights development, a secondary pump station scenario was evaluated (Pump Station 315 ft). Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 8 | March 31, 2021 Figure 2-2. Alternative 2 - Glenwood Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 9 3 Modeling Scenarios For completing the hydraulic analysis for this study, the City’s InfoWater hydraulic model of the distribution system, developed by BHC Consultants, LLC for the WSP, was used which included demands for years 2017, 2027, and 2037. The 2027 facilities, tank set, reservoir set, valve set, pipe set and control set were used, as these items had not been developed for the 2037 scenario. Two minor modifications were made to the model, including opening a pipe near Lowes and closing a pipe that created an uncontrolled connection between the 390 Zone and 260 Sone. No additional validation or checks of the model were completed except for adding infrastructure and demands specific to this study. The two alternative routes were added to the hydraulic model to determine required pump and distribution main sizing and to evaluate the impacts of the interconnection on the supply zone (Port Orchard 390 Zone) and the discharge zone (McCormick Woods 580 Zone). For the Glenwood alternative two pump station scenario, demands were added to the model for the area of the Stetson Heights development, including 412 ERUs, 195 GPD/ERU, MDD/ADD ratio of 3.8 and PHD/MDD ratio of 1.65. This information was provided by BHC Consultants, LLC. For each of the alternatives, the scenarios in Table 3-1 were used for the evaluation. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 10 | March 31, 2021 Table 3-1. Hydraulic modeling scenarios Scenario Assumptions Supply Zone Discharge Zone Pump Station Capacity Demand Year Discharge Zone Well Status Supply Zone Well Status Demand Condition Pressure Requirement Demand Condition Pressure Requirement Baseline Baseline N/A 2017 ON: Bremerton intertie Off: Well 11 ON: Wells 6, 7, 8, 9 Off: Well 13 (future) PHD 30 PSI PHD 30 PSI MDD+FF 20 PSI MDD 20 PSI N/A 2037 ON: Wells 11, 12 OFF: Bremerton intertie ON: Wells 6, 7, 8, 9, Off: Well 13 (future) MDD+FF 20 PSI MDD 20 PSI PHD 30 PSI PHD 30 PSI Alternative 1 - Old Clifton A 1,950 GPM 2037 ON: Wells 11, 12 OFF: Bremerton intertie ON: Wells 6, 7, 8, 9, Off: Well 13 (future) PHD 30 PSI PHD 30 PSI B MDD + FF 20 PSI MDD 30 PSI C MDD 30 PSI MDD + FF 20 PSI Alternative 2- Glenwood A 1,950 GPM 2037 ON: Wells 11, 12 OFF: Bremerton intertie ON: Wells 6, 7, 8, 9, Off: Well 13 (future) PHD 30 PSI PDH 30 PSI B MDD + FF 20 PSI MDD 30 PSI C MDD 30 PSI MDD + FF 20 PSI Assumptions: Well 11 Capacity is 750 GPM Well 12 capacity is 1,000 GPM New Zone 580 Tank is online and supplying fire flow storage. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 11 4 Analysis Results This section summarizes the results of the hydraulic analysis, including baseline results and the results for the Old Clifton alternative and the Glenwood alternative. 4.1 Baseline Results Baseline condition refers to the existing condition of the distribution system without the addition of a new pump station and connection between the 390 and 580 Zones, for 2017 PHD, 2017 MDD, 2037 MDD, and 2037 PHD. It also describes the baseline low- pressure and high-pressure areas in the 390 and 580 Zones that exist without the addition of new pump stations. Baseline scenarios are described in Table 3-1. 4.1.1 Baseline Results in Old Clifton Area The Old Clifton alternative includes a pump station located along SW Old Clifton Road between the Old Clifton Tank (390 Zone) and McCormick Woods (580 Zone). Table 4-1 establishes the baseline pressure in the 390 Zone distribution system along SW Old Clifton Rd adjacent to the Old Clifton Tank (west of intersection with Highway 16). Figure 4-1 displays this area. These baseline pressures will be referred to in the results analysis section when evaluating the impacts of the new pump station on the existing distribution system pressures. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 12 | March 31, 2021 Figure 4-1. Baseline areas Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 13 Table 4-1. Baseline at Old Clifton Tank area Scenario Pressure 2017 PHD >52 psi 2017 MDD+FF >46 psi 2037 PHD >51 psi 2037 MDD+FF >49 psi 4.1.2 Baseline Results in Glenwood Area Alternative 2 includes a pump station on SW Sedgewick Road/Glenwood Road SW between the intersection of SW Sedgewick Road/Sidney Rd SW (390 Zone) and McCormick Woods (580 Zone). Table 4-2 establishes the baseline pressures in the 390 Zone at the intersection of SW Sedgewick Road/Sidney Rd SW. Figure 4-1 displays this area. These baseline pressures will be referred to in the results analysis section when evaluating the impacts of the new pump station on the existing distribution system pressures. Table 4-2. Baseline at Glenwood area Scenario Pressure 2017 PHD >73 psi 2017 MDD+FF >59 psi 2037 PHD >74 psi 2037 MDD+FF >71 psi Note: Glenwood Area refers to intersection of SW Sedgewick RD and SW Sidney Rd. 4.1.3 Baseline Low Pressure Areas in 390 Zone At baseline conditions, there are areas of the 390 Zone that are modeled to already experience low pressures. Per the City’s WSP Section 3.5.11, “Pressures below 40 psi existing at the following locations…In the 390 zone in the area along Sidney Ave. between Lippert Dr W and Alpha Ln. where elevations are above 300-feet. The model predicts static pressures in this area to be between 20-30 psi, with the Melcher pump station off. However, staff reported that no pressure complaints have been received from the area.” It is important to note that these conditions are anticipated to occur in the system with or without the addition of the new pump station. At baseline conditions, the model indicates pressures along Sidney Avenue from Well 9/Park Reservoir to Well 8 are lower than 30 psi, with pressures being below 20 psi at 1800 Sidney Avenue (Atlas Apartments). Figure 4-2 displays this area with 2037 PHD pressures, and Table 4-3 displays the pressures for multiple scenarios. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 14 | March 31, 2021 Figure 4-2. Baseline pressure at Atlas Apartments during 2037 PHD Table 4-3. Baseline at low pressure area Scenario Pressure 2017 PHD >23 psi 2017 MDD+FF >17 psi 2037 PHD >10 psi 2037 MDD+FF >23 psi Note: Low Pressure Area refers to Atlas Apartments Area. The model results also indicate low pressures in the following areas:  Along Sherman Avenue south of intersection with W Melcher Street, and  Near future Well 13. On March 19, 2021, City staff took pressure readings in this area of the distribution system, to investigate this low pressure situation. The lowest pressure recorded in this area was 44 psi (at a hydrant). This indicates that the model may be representing lower pressures than actually exist in this small area. While outside the scope of this effort, the City may choose to further investigate and refine this area of the hydraulic model. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 15 4.1.4 Baseline High Pressure Areas in 580 Zone At baseline conditions, there are low elevation areas of the 580 Zone distribution system that experience high pressures. It is important to note that these conditions are anticipated to occur in the system with or without the addition of the new pump station. Pressures in the Eldon Trails community (Viridian Ave SW) approach or exceed 100 psi. Per the City’s WSP Section 3.1.5, “when pressures exceed 80 psi, the customer should provide and maintain individual PRVs.” It is anticipated that even without the addition of the new pump station, that PRVs will be needed in this area to maintain pressure below 80 psi. Figure 4-3 displays this area with 2037 PHD pressures, and Table 4-4 displays the pressures for multiple scenarios. Table 4-4. Baseline at high pressure area Scenario Pressure 2017 PHD 103 psi 2017 MDD+FF 96 psi 2037 PHD 100 psi 2037 MDD+FF 103 psi Note: High pressure area refers to Eldon Trails community. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 16 | March 31, 2021 Figure 4-3. Baseline pressure in Eldon Trails Community during 2037 PHD 4.2 Old Clifton Alternative Results This section discusses the results for the Old Clifton alternative route. Analysis of the pipelines at 1,950 GPM indicated a 12-inch pipe would experience 10 psi combined headloss on the suction and discharge distribution main, with 2 ft headloss per 1,000 ft on the discharge and 8 ft headloss per 1,000 ft on the suction. A 16-inch pipe would experience 3 psi headloss. A 12-inch pipe was selected for the analysis. The velocity in the 12-inch water main at 1,950 GPM is approximately 6 fps, which is less than the maximum allowed 8 fps. The pump station was evaluated at three elevation contours: 317 feet, 284 feet and 265 feet. 4.2.1 Pump Station at Elevation 317 Feet The pump station was initially evaluated at 1,950 GPM for an elevation contour of 317 feet at 2037 PHD. See Figure 2-1 for location of this pump station. The results indicate Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 17 10 psi on the suction side of the pump station and 136 psi on the discharge side. At this flow rate, a lower elevation pump station would be required to meet City design standards. Additional analysis was performed at 1,300 GPM. At 2037 PHD, the suction pressure is 16 psi. At this flow rate, a lower elevation pump station would be required to meet City design standards. Additional analysis was performed at 650 GPM. At 650 GPM, the suction pressure is 21 psi and the discharge pressures is 109 psi. At 2037 MDD, with a fire flow of 1,000 GPM in the 390 Zone to the east of Old Clifton Tank, suction pressure at the pump station drops to 16 psi. At this flow rate, a lower elevation pump station would be required to meet City design standards. 4.2.2 Pump Station at Elevation 284 Feet A pump station at an elevation contour of 284 feet (east of intersection with SW Chawla Ct, see Figure 2-1 for location) at 1,950 GPM at 2037 PHD results in approximately 27 psi on the suction side and 155 psi on the discharge size of the pump station. Services between the discharge side of the pump station and the existing McCormick Woods system would require pressure reducing valves. Other than the high-pressure area in the Eldon Trails community (Figure 4-4), pressures within the 580 Zone are generally less than 100 psi. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 18 | March 31, 2021 Figure 4-4. 1,950 GPM Pump Station at 284 Ft, 2037 PHD High Pressure in Eldon Trails Community At 2037 MDD, with a fire flow of 1,000 GPM in the 390 Zone to the east of Old Clifton Tank, suction pressure at the pump station drops to 22 psi. The pressures in the area of the 390 Zone adjacent to the fire flow are greater than 33 psi, which is a reduction of approximately 17 psi from baseline pressures. In general, the addition of a fire flow at 2037 MDD in the McCormick Woods system results in insignificant impacts to pressure in the 580 Zone. The results indicate that the pump station could be installed in this location, but that the new main connecting the existing Port Orchard system to the new pump station would need to be classified as a transmission main and would not be able to serve residential customers along SW Old Clifton Road. To serve these areas, a parallel distribution main would need to be installed from the discharge side of the pump station approximately 500 LF east along SW Old Clifton Road. This distribution main would require a pressure reducing valve to maintain pressures below 100 psi. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 19 4.2.3 Pump Station at Elevation 265 Feet A pump station at an elevation contour of 265 feet (just west of the intersection of the existing Old Clifton Tank main and SW Old Clifton Rd, see Figure 2-1 for location) at a flow rate of 1,950 GPM at 2037 PHD provides approximately 37 psi on the suction side and 165 psi on the discharge side of the pump station. Services off the discharge side of the pump station distribution main would require pressure reducing valves. Other than the high-pressure area previously described in the Eldon Trails community, pressures within the 580 Zone are less than 100 psi. At 2037 MDD, with a fire flow of 1,000 GPM in the 390 Zone to the east of Old Clifton Tank, suction pressure at the pump station drops to 32 psi. The pressures in area of the 390 Zone adjacent to the fire flow are similar to the results of the pump station at an elevation contour 284 feet and are greater than 30 psi. In general, the addition of a fire flow at 2037 MDD in McCormick Woods results in insignificant impacts to pressure in the 580 Zone. This scenario meets the City’s design standards for pump stations. 4.2.4 Low Pressure Areas in 390 Zone The pressures in the baseline low pressure area identified in Section 4.1.3 decrease by approximately 5 psi at PHD and 15 psi at MDD+FF. At current model conditions, this decreases the pressures in this area to approximately 5 psi. Pressures in this area would need to be increased to a baseline of 45 psi such that the pressure drop from the pump station does not drop these areas below 30 psi. Field information obtained by the City per Section 4.1.3 indicates that pressures in this area may be higher than pressures determined by the model. The City may choose to further investigate and refine the model results in this area to evaluate if these impacts are anticipated to be realized in the system. 4.2.5 High Pressure Areas in 580 Zone The pressures in the baseline high pressure areas identified in Section 4.1.4 increase by approximately 20 psi. At current conditions, this increases the pressures in this area to 120 psi. As stated in the City’s Water System Plan (2020), this area requires PRVs in any condition. As such, these high pressures are not a limiting factor on the design of the pump station. 4.3 Glenwood Alternative Results This section discusses the results for the Glenwood alternative route. Analysis of the pipeline at 1,950 GPM indicated a 12-inch pipe would experience 33 psi combined headloss on the suction and discharge distribution main, with 10 ft headloss per 1,000 ft on the mains on both the discharge and suction sides of the pump station. A 16-inch pipe would experience 10 psi combined headloss on the suction and discharge distribution main, with 3 ft headloss per 1,000 ft on the mains on both the discharge and suction sides of the pump station. A 12-inch pipe was selected for the analysis. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 20 | March 31, 2021 The velocity in the 12-inch water main is approximately 6 fps, which is less than the City’s maximum allowed velocity of 8 fps. The pump station was evaluated at two elevation contour locations: 280 feet and 210 feet. An additional scenario evaluated the use of two pump stations in series. 4.3.1 Pump Station at Elevation 280 Feet The pump station was initially evaluated at an elevation contour of 280 feet, with a pump flow rate of 1,950 GPM at 2037 PHD. See Figure 2-2 for location. The results indicate complete pressure loss on the suction side of the pump station. At this flow rate, a lower elevation pump station would be required to meet the City’s design standards. Additional analysis was performed at 1,300 GPM. At 1,300 GPM at 2037 PHD, the suction pressure is 10 psi. At this flow rate, a lower elevation pump station would be required to meet the City’s design standards. Additional analysis was performed at 650 GPM. At 650 GPM, the suction pressure is 22 psi and the discharge pressures is 127 psi. At 2037 MDD, with a fire flow of 1,000 GPM in the 390 Zone at the intersection of SW Sedgewick Rd and Sidney Road SW, suction pressure at the pump station drops to 12 psi. The pressures in the area of the 390 Zone adjacent to the fire flow remain above 50 psi with a decrease of approximately 20 psi from baseline conditions. A suction pressure of 12 psi is below the City’s design standards; however, this option could be considered if the new main connecting the existing Port Orchard system to the new pump station were classified as a transmission main and would not be able to be used to serve residential customers along SW Sedgewick Rd. There currently does not appear to be residences in this area; however, to serve these areas in the future, a parallel distribution main would need to be installed from the discharge side of the pump station approximately 2,000 LF east along SW Sedgewick Road. This distribution main would require a pressure reducing valve to maintain pressures below 100 psi. The pressures in the Stetson Heights development area would exceed allowable pressures, resulting in the need for PRVs at each residence. In addition, by 2039, another pump station would need to be installed at the Old Clifton location to meet MDD, due to the constrained pumping capacity of the Glenwood pump station if built at this location. In general, fire flow in the McCormick Woods system results in insignificant impacts to pressure in the 580 Zone. To improve the suction pressure, the Glenwood pump station could be located at the lower elevation (see next section). 4.3.2 Pump Station at Elevation 210 Feet A pump station at an elevation contour of 210 feet (east of intersection with SW Hepburn Way, see Figure 2-2 for location) at a flow rate of 1,950 GPM at 2037 PHD, provides approximately 23 psi on the suction side and 203 psi on the discharge size of the pump station. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 21 At 2037 MDD, with a fire flow of 1,000 GPM in the 390 Zone at the intersection of SW Sedgewick Rd and Sidney Road SW, suction pressure at the pump station drops to 12 psi. The pressures in the area of the 390 Zone adjacent to the fire flow drop to 21 psi with a decrease of approximately 30 psi from baseline conditions. In general, fire flow in McCormick Woods results in insignificant impacts to pressure in the 580 Zone. Additional analysis was performed at 1,300 GPM at this elevation. At 1,300 GPM and 2037 PHD, the pump station suction pressure is 27 psi and the discharge pressure is 196 psi. At 2037 MDD, with a fire flow of 1,000 GPM in the 390 at the intersection of SW Sedgewick Rd and Sidney Road SW, suction pressure at the pump station is 30 psi. The pressures in area of the 390 Zone adjacent to the fire flow is 37 psi with a pressure decrease of approximately 13 psi from baseline. The pressures in the Stetson Heights development area would exceed allowable pressures, resulting in the need for PRVs at each residence. At an elevation contour of 210 feet, the maximum flow rate that meets the City’s design standards is 1,300 GPM. 4.3.3 Two Pump Stations in Series As described above, with a single pump station, the pressures in the area of the Stetson Heights development were higher than 100 psi and would likely require individual PRVs for each residence. To address the high pressures in this area, two pump stations could be installed in series to create a middle pressure zone (essentially in Stetson Heights) between the 390 Zone and the 580 Zone. The scenario evaluated the following pump stations:  Pump Station 1 (PS1): 1,300 GPM at an elevation of 210 feet, located as described above in Section 4.3.2.  Pump Station 2 (PS2): 1,300 GPM at an elevation of 315 feet, located immediately west of the Stetson Heights development (see Figure 2-2). The model results indicate it is possible to create a middle pressure zone, with PS1 discharge pressures of 127 psi, pressures in the Stetson Heights development ranging between 40 psi and 105 psi, and the suction pressure of PS2 approximately 20 psi higher than the lowest pressure in the middle zone. It may be possible to design PS1 with a small jockey pump and a pressurized bladder tank sized to minimize the number of pump starts during low flow conditions. Alternatively, a small ground level tank could be constructed to serve as a hydraulic break. PS1 would pump into this tank, which then would establish the hydraulic grade of the new middle pressure zone, with PS2 pumping out of it. If this approach were taken, said tank would likely be best located in the northwest portion of the Stetson Heights area, based on elevations. This scenario is required to meet the City’s design standards. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 22 | March 31, 2021 4.3.4 Low Pressure Areas in 390 Zone At 1,300 GPM (the largest flow rate that meets the City’s design standards for a pump station in this area), the pressures in the baseline low pressure area in the 390 Zone identified in Section 4.1.3 decrease by approximately 12 psi at PHD and approximately 25 psi at MDD+FF. At current model conditions, this decreases the pressures in this area to approximately 0 psi. Pressures in this area would need to be increased to a baseline of 55 psi such that the pressure drop from the pump station does not drop these areas below 30 psi. Field information obtained by the City per Section 4.1.3 indicates that pressures in this area may be higher than pressures determined by the model. The City may choose to further investigate and refine the model results in this area to evaluate if these impacts are anticipated to be realized in the system. 4.3.5 High Pressure Areas in 580 Zone At 1,300 GPM (the largest flow rate that meets the City’s design standards for a pump station in this area), the pressures in the baseline high pressure areas in the 580 Zone identified in Section 4.1.4 increase by approximately 18 psi at PHD and approximately 10 psi at MDD+FF. As stated in the Water System Plan (2020), this area requires PRVs in any condition. As such, these high pressures are not a limiting factor on the design of the pump station. 4.4 Reverse Flow Capacity An evaluation was performed to determine the maximum capacity that can flow from the 580 Zone to the 390 Zone through a pressure reducing/sustaining valve. The Old Clifton route is able to flow 2,300 GPM while maintaining greater than 20 psi in the 580 Zone. The Glenwood route is able to flow 2,400 GPM while maintaining greater than 20 psi in the 580 Zone. 4.5 Results Summary In summary, a 1,950 GPM pump station to connect the 390 Zone with the 580 Zone in the Old Clifton area would need to be located at 284 feet to meet the City’s design standards and in combination with Well 11 and Well 12 will provide MDD for both the 580 Zone and 660 Zone with the largest pump offline and an assumed 20 hours of pumping per day. If this location were selected, the City may consider installing a 500 LF parallel distribution main to serve customers on the pipe between the City’s existing system and the suction side of the pump station. To improve the suction pressures, a pump station could be installed at an elevation contour of 265 feet. This location would require installation of PRVs for customers on the discharge pipe between the pump station and the existing McCormick Woods water system. For the Glenwood area, the pump station that meets the City’s design standards is a 1,300 GPM pump station at an elevation contour of 210 feet. A pump station of this size will meet MDD through 2023; however, an additional pump station would need to be constructed along Old Clifton to meet future demands. The additional pumping capacity Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 23 needed to meet 2039 MDD is 650 GPM. In order to minimize high pressures in the Stetson Heights development area, a second pump station could be installed to the west of the development. This analysis indicates that an area within the City’s system that is currently predicted in the hydraulic model to have low operating pressures may see said pressures reduced even further with the addition of the proposed pump station (in either location). This area of potential concern is located near Atlas Apartments on Sidney Avenue. However, as noted above in Section 4.1.3, the City has not received low pressure complaints in this area and field information indicates actual pressures are higher than those resulting from the model, so it is unclear how significant an issue this presently is. Prior to proceeding with predesign efforts on the pump station, it is recommended that this issue be further evaluated, including field testing of current pressures and potentially recalibration of the model in this area. 5 Project Cost This section summarizes the costs associated with each alternative. 5.1 Old Clifton Alternative The preferred Old Clifton alternative includes installation of 5,800 LF of 12-inch ductile iron water main within Old Clifton Road and construction of a 1,950 GPM pump station at an elevation contour of 265 feet. The cost associated with this alternative, including construction and engineering fees, is estimated to be $3.7M. See Appendix A for details of the estimate. 5.2 Glenwood Alternative The preferred Glenwood alternative includes two pump stations in series, including construction of a 1,300 GPM pump station at an elevation contour of 210 feet (including jockey pumps and a bladder tank), construction of a 1,300 GPM pump station at an elevation contour of 315 feet, and installation of 11,700 LF of 12-inch ductile iron water main, approximately 10,000 LF of which is anticipated to be installed by a developer. The cost for all water mains is included in the estimate. The cost associated with this alternative, including construction and engineering fees, is estimated to be $6.4M. See Appendix A for details of the estimate. 6 Funding Opportunities Funding opportunities for both alternatives are the same. Funding opportunities that were evaluated are included in Table 6-1. The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan (DWSRF) appears to be a potential option for this project. There is up to $5M available per jurisdiction, and the loan interest rate is 1.75% plus origination costs for a 20-year term. The funding cycle begins in October. The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) funding applies to projects with greater than $25M. The City may consider combining multiple projects to meet this Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation 24 | March 31, 2021 minimum requirement. This loan comes with a 5-year debt service deferral after construction is complete. Interest rates vary and are currently between 1.2% to 2.0%. WIFIA will fund 49% of total project cost. Typical term is 30 years. Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) is a grant with a cost share element. This funding source may be an option and includes the requirement to be a sub-applicant through the State of Washington. Pre-applications for this grant are typically due to the State by October. $50M maximum per application with a 25% cost share. The Public Works Board (PWB) - Construction Loan may be an option. This loan is a competitive process and funding occurs in six-month cycles. There is a maximum $10 million dollar award per jurisdiction per biennium limit. Final Project Report Feasibility Study: Port Orchard & McCormick Woods Water System Consolidation March 31, 2021 | 25 Table 6-1. Funding Opportunities Likely Rank of Applicability (1 = applicable, 2= likely applicable, 3=may be applicable) Funding Source Agency Applicability Eligibility Amount Available Terms Funding Cycle Website 1 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) WA DOH DWSRF funds all types of drinking water projects. SRF typically provides low interest loans but offers some grants and principal forgiveness for low-income communities and green infrastructure projects. Local Agencies. Must have an approved or pending Water System Plan. Must have construction component. Cannot address growth or fire flow. $5M/jurisdiction. Potential subsidy for low-income areas based on affordability index. 1.75% interest rate, plus origination costs. 20-year term. 1 % loan fees. Oct 1- Nov 30 https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingWater/WaterSystemAssistance/DrinkingWaterStateRevolvingFundDWSRF 3 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) EPA Eligible Projects: Projects eligible under CWSRF and DWSRF. Enhanced energy efficiency projects at drinking water facilities and wastewater facilities. Brackish or seawater desalination, aquifer recharge, alternative water supply, and water recycling projects. Drought prevention, reduction, or mitigation projects. Acquisition of property if it is integral to the project or will mitigate the environmental impact. A combination of projects secured by a common security pledge or submitted under one application by an SRF program. Funds can go towards pre-construction activities and construction activities. Local agencies Project must be greater than $25M. No maximum project size. 5-year debt service deferral after construction complete, interest rates vary, currently 1.2-2%, based on average weighted life of the loan. WIFIA will fund 49% of total project cost. Typical term is 30 years. Prospective borrowers must submit a WIFIA Letter of Interest (LOI) to EPA that describes the project’s eligibility, financial creditworthiness, engineering feasibility, and alignment with EPA’s policy priorities. If selected by EPA the prospective borrower is invited to submit a WIFIA application. LOIs are typically due in early Fall (Oct 15, 2020) https://www.epa.gov/wifia 2 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) FEMA (through State) Replaces former "Pre-Hazard Mitigation Grant Program", specifically geared towards resilient infrastructure funding Local agencies are eligible, but as a "sub applicant" through the State. $450M total, $50M per application 25% Cost Share Required Check WA deadlines. FEMA accepts applications through January, but WA State applications are typically due by October https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/fy2020-nofo 1 Public Works Board (PWB) - Construction Loan WA State Public Works Board There is approximately $68 million set aside for construction applications. Award is based on a competitive process. Applications every six months starting in June 2019, until the appropriated funds are exhausted. There is a maximum $10 million dollar award per jurisdiction per biennium limit, with a loan term of 20 years, including 5 years for completion. Applications may be submitted for emergencies at any time. Local agencies $68M total, up to $10M per jurisdiction Determined prior to funding cycle June-July, Dec-Jan https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/pwb-financing/ Appendix A – Cost Estimates 31-Mar-21 Item #Description Unit Unit Cost Qty Total General 1 MOBILIZATION LS 6% 1 88,500$ 2 PUMPS - 650 GPM EA 54,000$ 3 162,000$ 3 PUMP STATION BUILDING (INCLUDES ELECTRICAL, I&C) SF 300$ 700 210,000$ 4 PUMP STATION VALVES - 12-INCH GATE EA 12,000$ 6 72,000$ 5 PUMP STATION VALVES - PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE EA 5,000$ 3 15,000$ 6 PUMP STATION VALVES - 12-INCH CHECK EA 8,600$ 2 17,200$ 7 12-INCH GATE - BURIED EA 8,200$ 4 32,800$ 8 12-INCH DUCTILE IRON MAIN - INSTALLED LF 98$ 5800 565,500$ 9 PAVEMENT REMOVAL, HAUL AND RESTORATION SY 78$ 3867 299,700$ 10 GENERATOR - 200 kW LS 100,000$ 1 100,000$ 11 -$ 12 -$ SUBTOTAL (INCLUDING MOB)$1,562,700 CONTRACTOR OH&P 15%$234,400 SALES TAX 9%$161,700 CONTINGENCY - CONSTRUCTION 50%$979,400 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,938,200 ENGINEERING DESIGN 10%$293,820 CONTINGENCY - DESIGN 50%$146,910 ENGINEERING - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 10%$293,820 SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING $734,550 GRAND TOTAL $3,673,000 City of Port Orchard McCormick Woods Consolidation Study Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Old Clifton Alternative 31-Mar-21 Item #Description Unit Unit Cost Qty Total General 1 MOBILIZATION LS 6% 1 152,300$ 2 PUMPS PS1 - 650 GPM, 100 HP EA 54,000$ 3 162,000$ 3 PUMPS PS2 - 650 GPM, 100 HP EA 6,000$ 2 12,000$ 4 BLADDER TANK EA 25,000$ 1 25,000$ 5 PUMP STATION BUILDING 1 (INCLUDES ELECTRICAL, I&C) SF 300$ 700 210,000$ 6 PUMPS PS2 - 650 GPM, 100 HP EA 54,000$ 3 162,000$ 7 PUMP STATION BUILDING 2 (INCLUDES ELECTRICAL, I&C) SF 300$ 700 210,000$ 8 PUMP STATION VALVES - 12-INCH GATE EA 12,000$ 12 144,000$ 9 PUMP STATION VALVES - PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE EA 5,000$ 6 30,000$ 10 PUMP STATION VALVES - 12-INCH CHECK EA 8,600$ 4 34,400$ 11 12-INCH GATE - BURIED EA 8,200$ 8 65,600$ 12 12-INCH DUCTILE IRON MAIN - INSTALLED (ASSUMES ALL PIPE TO CONNECT EXISTING SYSTEMS)LF 98$ 11,654 1,136,300$ 13 PAVEMENT REMOVAL, HAUL AND RESTORATION (SW SEDGEWICK ROAD ONLY)SY 78$ 1900 147,300$ 14 GENERATOR - 200 kW LS 100,000$ 2 200,000$ SUBTOTAL (INCLUDING MOB)$2,690,900 CONTRACTOR OH&P 15%$403,600 SALES TAX 9%$278,500 CONTINGENCY - CONSTRUCTION 50%$1,686,500 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $5,059,500 ENGINEERING DESIGN 10%$505,950 CONTINGENCY - DESIGN 50%$252,975 ENGINEERING - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 10%$505,950 SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING $1,264,875 GRAND TOTAL $6,324,000 City of Port Orchard McCormick Woods Consolidation Study Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Glenwood Alternative Water CIP CIP No.Project Name Cost Estimate Percent CFC CFC Portion $ 1 580 Zone Storage $2,850,000 100%$2,850,000 2 CIP No. 2 Combined $8,766,852 75%$6,575,139 2A Well 13 Development & Treatment n/a 2B Maple Ave Improvements and Water Main Replacement n/a 2C 390 to 260 Rezone PRVs (4 each)n/a 3 Well 11 Development, Treatment, and Booster Pump Station $8,000,000 25%$2,000,000 4 580 Zone Transmission & Distribution Main $1,235,000 100%$1,235,000 5 390 Zone Storage $3,000,000 100%$3,000,000 6 Telemetry Upgrades $100,000 25%$25,000 7 390 to 580 Zone Booster Station (Old Clifton)$750,000 75%$562,500 8 580 to 390 Zone Transmission Main (580/390 PRV to Old CliftonTank)$1,325,000 75%$993,750 9 Well 12 Development, Treatment, and Booster Pump Station $7,000,000 100%$7,000,000 10 Melcher Pump Station Upgrade $500,000 25%$125,000 11 PRV Improvements per Hydraulic Model $350,000 50%$175,000 12 390 to 580 Zone Booster Station, 1st Lift (Glenwood)$900,000 0%$0 13 391 to 580 Zone Booster Station, 2nd Lift (Glenwood)$725,000 100%$725,000 14 390 to 580 Zone Transmission Main (to Glenwood PS)$2,750,000 75%$2,062,500 15 580 to 660 Zone Booster Station $750,000 100%$750,000 16 660 Zone Storage $2,850,000 100%$2,850,000 17 Well 7 Treatment/Pump Station Upgrades $750,000 0%$0 18 Main Replacements per Hydraulic Model $2,000,000 25%$500,000 19 Annual Main Replacement Program (Upsize 1"-4" main to 6"-8") See Table 1 $2,500,000 0%$0 20 Annual Valve Replacement Program $720,000 0%$0 21 Annual Hydrant Replacement Program $450,000 0%$0 22 Foster Pilot Mitigation Projects $1,000,000 100%$1,000,000 23 390 Zone Low Pressure Booster Pumps for Existing Water Services $600,000 100%$600,000 24 Black Jack Creek (Kendall) Water Main Crossing $750,000 0%$0 Total Water Capital Improvement Plan Improvements $50,621,852 $33,028,889 65% City of Port Orchard EXHIBIT A 2020-2030 Water System Capital Improvement Plan Water CIP for CFC Update 4-30, 5/7/2021, Page 1 City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029 Agenda Staff Report Agenda Item No. Public Hearing Meeting Date: May 11, 2021 Subject Adoption of Ordinance No. 022-21, Prepared by: Mark Dorsey, P.E. Adopting the 2021 Water System Public Works Director Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Atty Routing No: 366922.0013 – Water Atty Review Date: 05.06.2021 Summary: As a function of the Water System Plan (WSP) Update, currently anticipated to be approved by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) this Fall, the City’s Public Works Department has updated the Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Due to unforeseen COVID19-related delays in the DOH approval of the WSP Update, coupled with the City’s need to timely update its CIP so as to update its Capital Facilities Charges (CFCs) to reflect current needs and costs, the Public Works Department is seeking early adoption of the Water System CIP as a standalone action item. This is a necessary precursor to the proposed amendment of the Water System Capital Facility Charge (CFC) to proceed. Please recall that at the April 27, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting, Staff presented the Water System Capital Improvement Program 2020-2030, which included 1) the updated Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and 2) methodology alternatives for an update to the City’s Water System Capital Facility Charge (CFC). The purpose of the presentation was to 1) determine whether the current Water System CFC’s are equitable and adequate to fund both the needed Water CIP’s and to maintain the current water system and 2) to explore alternative CFC methodologies. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 7 – Utilities (Sewer) Recommendation: Staff recommends opening and holding the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 022- 21. Alternatives: Do not hold Public Hearing Attachments: Ordinance No. 022-21 w/ Exhibit A (Water System Capital Improvement Plan) City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029 Agenda Staff Report Agenda Item No. Business Item Meeting Date: May 11, 2021 Subject Adoption of Ordinance No. 022-21, Prepared by: Mark Dorsey, P.E. Adopting the 2021 Water System Public Works Director Capital Improvement Plan Atty Routing No: 366922.0013 – Water Atty Review Date: 05.06.2021 Summary: Earlier this evening, a duly-noticed Public Hearing was held before the City Council on the proposed adoption of the 2021 Water System Capital Improvement Plan. As a function of the Water System Plan (WSP) Update, currently anticipated to be approved by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) this Fall, the City’s Public Works Department has updated the Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Due to unforeseen COVID19-related delays in the DOH approval of the WSP Update, coupled with the City’s need to timely update its CIP so as to update its Capital Facilities Charges (CFCs) to reflect current needs and costs, the Public Works Department is seeking early adoption of the Water System CIP for the amendment of the Water System Capital Facility Charge (CFC) to proceed. Please recall that at the April 27, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting, Staff presented the Water System Capital Improvement Program 2020-2030, which included 1) the updated Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and 2) methodology alternatives for an update to the City’s Water System Capital Facility Charge (CFC). The purpose of the presentation was to 1) determine whether the current Water System CFC’s are equitable and adequate to fund both the needed Water CIP’s and to maintain the current water system and 2) to explore alternative CFC methodologies. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 7 – Utilities (Sewer) Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 022-21, thereby adopting the 2021 Water System Capital Improvement Plan. Motion for Consideration: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 022-21, thereby adopting the 2021 Water System Capital Improvement Plan. Alternatives: Do not adopt Fiscal Impact: Adoption of the 2021 Water System Capital Improvement Plan will have fiscal impact and a Budget Amendment may be required. Attachments: Ordinance No. 022-21 w/ Exhibit A (2021 Water System Capital Improvement Plan) ORDINANCE NO. 022-21 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, the City Council updated its Water System Plan in 2009; and WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Council, the City conducted a comprehensive review of the Water System Plan, including new system modeling, and has identified necessary updates its existing Water System Plan due to increased development that likely necessitates the construction of new infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt a new Water System Plan to reflect these updates, and has submitted that plan for approval to the Washington State Department of Health for approval; and WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, DOH has estimated a lengthy delay for review and approval of proposed Water System Plans, while the City has an emergent need to adopt an updated Capital Improvement Plan – a component of the Water System Plan—so as to timely update the City’s Water Capital Facilities Charges to accurate reflect need and costs; and WHEREAS, upon approval from DOH, the City commits to the adoption of the Water System Plan, inclusive of the CIP, in a final action on the Water System Plan; and WHEREAS, a State Environmental Policy Act Checklist for the proposed CIP herein was prepared by City staff and on October 26, 2020, the City’s SEPA Official issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS); and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing before the City Council on the proposed amendments was held on May 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Capital Improvement Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference serves the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Port Orchard; and WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that the Capital Improvement 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, Ordinance No.022-21 Page 2 of 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. . The City’s 2021 Water Capital Improvement Plan is hereby adopted as set forth in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 3. 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 11th day of May 2021. _________________________ Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: ____________ Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sponsored by: ____________ _______________ Charlene A. Archer, City Attorney Cindy Lucarelli, Councilmember City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029 Agenda Staff Report Agenda Item No. Public Hearing 6B Meeting Date: May 11, 2021 Subject First Public Hearing on the Adoption of Prepared by: Mark Dorsey, P.E. Ordinance No. 023-21Amending Public Works Director POMC 13.04 and Increasing the Water Atty Routing No: 366922.0013 – Water System Capital Facility Charge Atty Review Date: 05/05/2021 Summary: At the April 27, 2021, Regular City Council Meeting, Staff presented the draft Water System Capital Improvement Program 2020-2030, which included 1) the updated Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and 2) methodology alternatives for an update to the City’s Water System Capital Facility Charge (CFC). The purpose of the presentation was to 1) determine whether the current Water System CFC’s are equitable and adequate to fund both the needed Water CIP’s and to maintain the current water system; and 2) to explore alternative CFC methodologies. Based on feedback from Council during that presentation, staff prepared Ordinance No. 023-21, which will amend POMC 13.04 to effectuate the proposed increase to the Water CFC and will be on the May 25, 2021 Regular Council Meeting for consideration, following a second Public Hearing on that same date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 7 – Utilities Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 032-21. Alternatives: Do not hold the Public Hearing. Attachments: Water System Capital Facility Charge Methodology - Presentation Water System Capital Facility Charge 05.11.2021 Water System Capital Facility Charges Capital Facilities Charges (CFCs) are one- time fees, paid at the time of development, intended to recover a share of the cost of system capacity needed to serve growth. They serve two primary purposes: •To provide equity between existing and new customers; and •To provide a source of funding for system capital costs, as growth occurs. General CFC Calculation Methodology Cost Basis Applicable Customer BaseCapital Facility Charge (CFC) = CIP No.Project Name Cost Estimate Percent CFC CFC Portion $ 1 580 Zone Storage $2,850,000 100%$2,850,000 2 CIP No. 2 Combined $8,766,852 75%$6,575,139 2A Well 13 Development & Treatment n/a 2B Maple Ave Improvements and Water Main Replacement n/a 2C 390 to 260 Rezone PRVs (4 each)n/a 3 Well 11 Development, Treatment, and Booster Pump Station $8,000,000 25%$2,000,000 4 580 Zone Transmission & Distribution Main $1,235,000 100%$1,235,000 5 390 Zone Storage $3,000,000 100%$3,000,000 6 Telemetry Upgrades $100,000 25%$25,000 7 390 to 580 Zone Booster Station (Old Clifton)$750,000 75%$562,500 8 580 to 390 Zone Transmission Main (580/390 PRV to Old CliftonTank)$1,325,000 75%$993,750 9 Well 12 Development, Treatment, and Booster Pump Station $7,000,000 100%$7,000,000 10 Melcher Pump Station Upgrade $500,000 25%$125,000 11 PRV Improvements per Hydraulic Model $350,000 50%$175,000 12 390 to 580 Zone Booster Station, 1st Lift (Glenwood)$900,000 0%$0 13 391 to 580 Zone Booster Station, 2nd Lift (Glenwood)$725,000 100%$725,000 14 390 to 580 Zone Transmission Main (to Glenwood PS)$2,750,000 75%$2,062,500 15 580 to 660 Zone Booster Station $750,000 100%$750,000 16 660 Zone Storage $2,850,000 100%$2,850,000 17 Well 7 Treatment/Pump Station Upgrades $750,000 0%$0 18 Main Replacements per Hydraulic Model $2,000,000 25%$500,000 19 Annual Main Replacement Program (Upsize 1"-4" main to 6"-8") See Table 1 $2,500,000 0%$0 20 Annual Valve Replacement Program $720,000 0%$0 21 Annual Hydrant Replacement Program $450,000 0%$0 22 Foster Pilot Mitigation Projects $1,000,000 100%$1,000,000 23 390 Zone Low Pressure Booster Pumps for Existing Water Services $600,000 100%$600,000 24 Black Jack Creek Crossing at Kendall Street $750,000 0%$0 Total Water Capital Improvement Plan Improvements $50,621,852 $33,028,889 City of Port Orchard Water System Capital Improvement Plan Water System CFC Cost Basis •Current Facilities represents the original cost value of our water infrastructure adjusted with a 100% interest/inflation factor •New CFC Project Cost represents the estimated project cost attributable to growth only and to be included in the calculation of the CFC Current Facilities Cost $32,427,297 New CFC Project Cost $33,028,889 Total Water CIP CFC Cost $65,456,186 Water System CFC Applicable Customer Base Alternatives Methodology Alternative A Average cost per ERU Alternative B Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Based on Water System Plan Alternative C Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Permitting Potential DCD Alternative D Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Average & Growth Cost per ERU* -Permitting Potential DCD Current Facilities ERU’s (5672) (Current Facility ERU’s + Permitting Potential DCD) (5672 + 4089)= 9,761 (Current Facility ERU’s + Water System Plan (WSP) Growth ERU’s) (5672+3498)= 9170 Permitting Potential DCD (4089) Permitting Potential DCD (4089) WSP Growth ERU’s (3498) Current Facilities ERU’s (5672) & & & Water System CFC Alternatives & Methodology Alternatives Methodology Alternative A Average cost per ERU Alternative B Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Based on Water System Plan(WSP) Alternative C Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Permitting Potential DCD Alternative D Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Average & Growth Cost per ERU* -Permitting Potential DCD Total Current Facilities Cost Current Facilities ERU’s Total Current Facilities Cost (Current Facility ERU’s + Permitting Potential DCD) (Total Current Facilities Cost + New Project Total Cost) (Current Facility ERU’s + Water System Plan (WSP) Growth ERU’s) New Project Total Cost Permitting Potential DCD New Project Total Cost Permitting Potential DCD New Project Total Cost WSP ERU’s Total Current Facilities Cost Current Facilities ERU’s + + + Water System Capital Facility Charges Alternatives Cost Per ERU Increase Current CFC $5,945 - Alternative A Average cost per ERU $7,245 $1,300 Alternative B Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Based on Water System Plan (WSP) $15,387 $9,442 Alternative C Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Permitting Potential DCD $14,002 $8,057 Alternative D Allocated Growth Cost per ERU -Average & Growth Cost per ERU* -Permitting Potential DCD $11,571 $5,626 Recommendation •Best fit for the city to meet the goals of capital facility charges •Balances the equity between existing and new customers; and •Provides a source of funding for system capital costs, as growth occurs Alternative CFC Cost Per ERU Increase Alternative D $11,571 $5,626 Discussion City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029 Agenda Staff Report Agenda Item No. Public Hearing 6B Meeting Date: May 25, 2021 Subject Second Public Hearing on the Adoption Prepared by: Mark Dorsey, P.E. Of Ordinance No. 023-21, Amending Public Works Director POMC 13.04 and Increasing the Water Atty Routing No: System Capital Facility Charge Atty Review Date: Summary: On May 11, 2021, the First Public Hearing was held on Ordinance No. 023-21, thereby amending POMC 13.04 and increasing the Water System Capital Facility Charge. And as a reminder, at the April 27, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting, Staff presented the Water System Capital Improvement Program 2020-2030, which included 1) the updated Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and 2) methodology alternatives for an update to the City’s Water System Capital Facility Charge (CFC.) The purpose of the presentation was to 1) determine whether the current Water System CFC’s are equitable and adequate to fund both the needed Water CIP’s and to maintain the current water system and 2) to explore alternative CFC methodologies. Ordinance No. 023-21 will amend POMC 13.04 to effectuate the proposed increase to the Water CFC. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 7 – Utilities Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the Public Hearing. Alternatives: Do not hold the Public Hearing. Attachments: Ordinance No. 023-21 Redline Ordinance No. 023-21 Clean ORDINANCE NO. 023-21 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO WATER CAPITAL FACILITY CHARGES (CFC’s); AMENDING PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE (POMC) SECTIONS 13.04.025 “FEE SCHEDULE”; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard charges Capital Facility Charges (CFC’s), charges levied upon new connections to the City’s water and sewer utilities; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2020, the Port Orchard City Council updated the Sewer Capital Facility Charge (CFC) as a function of the Amended General Sewer Plan, which included the updated Sewer Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and WHEREAS, as a function of the current Water System Plan Update, which includes the updated Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which is anticipated to be approved by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) in the Fall of 2021, the Port Orchard City initiated the Water Capital Facility Charge (CFC) Update at the October 20, 2020 Utility Committee Meeting; and WHEREAS, subsequent to a presentation by Katy Isaksen & Associates, Inc. at the April 20, 2021 Work Study Session and a follow-up presentation at the April 27 Regular City Council Meeting by city staff, the Port Orchard City Council desires to amend the codified language to allow for a Water Capital Facility Charge (CFC) Update where development has resulted in an upsizing capacity outside that needed for the development; and WHEREAS, at POMC 13.04.025, staff suggests an amendment to clarify the components of the Water Capital Facility Charge for consistency with POMC 13.04.030; and WHEREAS, two (2) duly noticed Public Hearings were held on May 11, 2021 and May 25, 2021 before the City Council on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein to POMC 13.04.025 are consistent with goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and related regulations, and serve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Port Orchard; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Port Orchard Municipal Code 13.04.025 is hereby amended to read as attached at Exhibit A hereto. SECTION 2. Port Orchard Municipal Code 13.04.030 is hereby amended to read as attached at Exhibit A hereto. Commented [MD1]: I am not changing this section…….so this is not needed? Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 2 of 11 SECTION 3. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2021, 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 25th day of May 2021. _________________________ Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sponsored by: Charlotte A. Archer, City Attorney Cindy Lucarelli, Councilmember PUBLISHED: May 28, 2021 EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2021 Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 3 of 11 Exhibit A 13.04.025 Fee schedule. (1) The fees set forth below are referenced in POMC 13.04.030, 13.04.033, 13.04.035 and 13.04.040. Water Sewer Connection Fees Water Capital Facility Charge POMC 13.04.030(1)(a) Residential – Per ERU $5,945 Water Capital Facility Charge Nonresidential – Based on Meter Size POMC 13.04.030(1)(b) 3/4" $5,945 1" $9,928 1-1/2" $19,797 2" $31,687 3" $59,450 4" $99,103 Irrigation No connection fee Water Inspection Fee POMC 13.04.030(7) and 13.04.033(3) Per Meter $111.37 Connection Fees/Labor Installation Fees POMC 13.04.033(1) 3/4" $1,113.73 1" $1,336.49 Commented [MD2]: Will redline this Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 4 of 11 Water Sewer Connection Fees 1-1/2" $1,670.61 2" $2,227.48 Larger Estimated case by case Water in Lieu of Assessment POMC 13.04.035 Per Front Foot $111.37 Sewer Capital Facility Charge, consisting of both: POMC 13.04.040(2) Sewer Wastewater Treatment Facility Fee POMC 13.04.040(2) Per ERU $3,597.37 McCormick Land Co. Div. 1-10 Per ERU $881.25 General Facility Fee POMC 13.04.040(2) Per ERU $8,525 Sewer Inspection Fee POMC 13.04.040(8) Per Lateral Connection $111.37 (2) The fees set forth below are referenced in POMC 13.04.050, 13.04.055, and 13.04.120. Billing and Miscellaneous Charges Billing Charges POMC 13.04.050 Water/Sewer Delinquency Notice at Location $10.00 Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 5 of 11 Water Shutoff Fee $40.00 Meter Turn-Off Violations (as Determined by City) $250.00 Damaging the Utility System POMC 13.04.120 Violation Fine (as Determined by the City) $250.00 Miscellaneous Charges POMC 13.04.055 After Hours Turn- On/Shutoff $75.00 Notification to Tenant of Water Shutoff Per Hold Harmless Agreement $10.00 Service Fee for Estimated or Final Billing Closing Requests $20.00 (3) The fees set forth below are referenced in POMC 13.04.031 and 13.04.045. Water Plan Review Fees Review POMC 13.04.031 Main Extension Review Per lineal foot of main $0.30 Pump Station Review $300.00 Significant Facility Review* Consultant fee** plus 10% Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 6 of 11 Sewer Plan Review Fees Review POMC 13.04.045 Main Extension Review Per lineal foot of main $0.30 Pump Station Review $300.00 Significant Facility Review* Consultant fee** plus 10% Water Inspection Fees Inspection POMC 13.04.031 Main Extension Inspection Per lineal foot of main $1.25 Pump Station Inspection $600.00 Significant Facility Inspection* Consultant fee** plus 10% Sewer Inspection Fees Inspection POMC 13.04.045 Main Extension Inspection Per lineal foot of main $1.50 Pump Station Inspection $600.00 Significant Facility Inspection* Consultant fee** plus 10% Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 7 of 11 * Significant facilities include improvements such as sewer lift station construction or enlargement, force main construction, water system storage tanks, well construction, and water treatment facilities. ** This review and inspection shall be performed by the city’s water or sewer consultant under contract with the city for services of this type. (Ord. 009-21 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 027-20 § 1; Ord. 018-17 § 2; Ord. 005-17 § 2; Ord. 020-15 § 3). 13.04.030 Water capital facility charge – Extension of water. (1) The water capital facility charge is designed to mitigate the impact of new demands on the existing water system and to require new users to pay their fair share of the value of the water system including, but not limited to, water supply, treatment, transmission, storage and distribution facilities. The water capital facility charge applies to new construction, changes in use, and building modifications which increase the total number of equivalent residential units (ERUs). An ERU is 180 gallons per day for nonresidential connections. Prior to connecting to the city’s water system the property owner shall pay, in addition to other applicable charges, the applicable water capital facility charge. (a) The water capital facility charge for a residential connection is based on a set fee per ERU which is set forth in POMC 13.04.025. An ERU for this purpose shall be computed based on the water meter size and shall be calculated according to the average flow factor of a displacement type meter where a three-quarter-inch meter shall have a flow factor equal to one ERU. An ERU for residential connections is one single-family dwelling unit, whether detached or attached and configured as an apartment unit, condominium unit, townhouse unit, or any other configuration. (b) The water capital facility charge for a nonresidential connection shall be calculated based on meter size as set forth in POMC 13.04.025. (c) Per Resolution No. 1666, the city treasurer is authorized to waive the connection fee of the water systems which do not impact the fire flow storage requirements of the city. All other fees, charges and expenses shall be paid as in accordance with this chapter. Examples of these connections are irrigation systems, fire protection systems, and relocating service lines which cross private property. (2) If, after connection of a nonresidential service, the actual water usage has increased or the property use expanded so that there are a greater number of ERUs being used on the property than for which the water capital facility charge was paid, the property owner shall pay to the city an additional water capital facility charge based upon the new or expanded use. The additional water capital facility charge shall be based upon the charge rate in effect at the time the increase in use is requested and/or detected, whichever first occurs. Commented [MD3]: These subsequent are not changing…..not needed? Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 8 of 11 (3) Water Capital Facility Charge – Exception. The following exception applies to the assessment of the water capital facility charge. All four elements of the below-listed requirements must be present to qualify for the exception: (a) A nonresidential account paid the water capital facility charge at the time the property connected to the city’s water system; (b) Sometime after the original connection, the property owner decides to construct a new building, change the original use, or modify the original building; (c) After the building improvements are completed, the total water usage for the nonresidential account will be equal to or less than the usage at the time of the original connection; and (d) The new construction, change in use, or building modification has not resulted in an additional direct connection to the city’s water system or the establishment of an additional water account. (4) A credit against the water capital facility charge may be applied for those property owners that paid their assessments in full through a local improvement district formed by the city where such local improvement district is formed to finance the construction of any of the improvements that are a basis for calculating the value of the water capital facility charge. The credit shall be equal to that portion of the property owner’s principal assessment, not including interest and penalties, which is directly applicable to the construction of the improvements that are a basis for calculating the value of the capital facility charge. The credit shall be applied at the time of payment of the water capital facility charge and shall not be used to reduce any assessments in the local improvement district. (5) A credit against the water capital facility charge may be applied for those property owners that construct at their own expense any of the improvements that are a basis for calculating the value of the water capital facility charge or for those property owners that pay a latecomer’s fee toward those same improvements. The credit shall be the smaller of the following: (a) That portion of the design and construction costs of the latecomer’s agreement that are directly applicable to the construction of the improvements that are a basis for the value of the water capital facility charge; or (b) That proportionate amount of the water capital facility charge that is attributable to the water facilities either constructed by the property owner or paid through a latecomer’s fee. (6) The above provisions notwithstanding, the amount of any credit shall not exceed the amount of the water capital facility charge for the property to which the credit is being applied. (7) At the time the water capital facility charge is paid, a water inspection fee shall be paid. The water inspection fee is set forth in POMC 13.04.025. Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 9 of 11 (8) All materials shall comply with the requirements of the city. If the city supplies any materials, the cost of these plus overhead and sales tax will be paid by the customer or property owner. (9) If a property owner requests a credit or exemption as described above, the director of public works shall make an administrative determination regarding the applicability and amount of the credit or exemption. The director’s decision may be appealed to the hearing examiner. (10) The exceptions and credits described above shall not apply to any costs of construction incurred or payments made to the city for improvements that are a basis for the value of the capital facility charge and that were made 15 years or more prior to the date the property owner requests the exception or credit. (Ord. 020-15 § 4; Ord. 008-13 § 1; Ord. 027-11 § 2; Ord. 021-09 § 4; Ord. 013-08 § 3; Ord. 023-06 § 1; Ord. 010-05 § 4; Ord. 1897 § 4, 2003; Ord. 1799 § 4, 2000). 13.04.031 Water system extensions and improvements. All water system extensions and/or improvements shall be reviewed, approved, and inspected by city staff or selected representatives in conjunction with the submittal of an excavation permit (Chapter 12.04 POMC), land disturbing activity permit (LDAP) and/or stormwater drainage permit (SDP) application(s) as may be required under other sections of this code prior to the starting of construction on the proposed water system improvement. Review fees for water system extensions or improvements shall be paid in addition to required application fees for the above mentioned permits. Water system extension and improvement inspection fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance. Fees associated with the construction of significant facilities shall be determined at project completion and paid prior to project acceptance. All review and inspection fees shall be charged as set forth in POMC 13.04.025. (Ord. 018-17 § 3). 13.04.033 Connection fees. (1) Connection fees are designed to reimburse the utility for the cost required to connect the new service to the water main. The labor installation fee is a flat fee set forth in POMC 13.04.025 plus associated materials plus sales tax based on the size of the water meter for service lines less than 25 feet. This fee is charged when installed by city employees. (2) If the water service line exceeds 25 feet, or if the proposed construction is unusually difficult, the connection fee will be based on an estimate completed by the city for the required labor and material. (3) If the service is connected by other than city employees, the water inspection fee per meter will be charged as set forth in POMC 13.04.025. All materials shall comply with the requirements of the city. If the city supplies any materials, the cost of these, plus overhead and sales tax, will be paid by the customer. If the installation is satisfactory, the city shall set the meter if it is one inch or less in size. Larger meters shall be installed by the contractor. Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 10 of 11 (4) All new construction, residential and commercial, on property which is located within 200 feet of a water main of the city shall be required to extend the water to and across the entire frontage of their property and connect to the city water system prior to the occupancy of the building. No new wells except municipal wells shall be constructed and no expansions of existing wells, except municipal wells, shall be permitted on properties that can be served, within 200 feet of a water main of the city, or are now served by the city water system. (Ord. 020-15 § 5; Ord. 008-13 § 2; Ord. 027-11 § 3; Ord. 013-08 § 4). 13.04.035 Water main fees in lieu of assessment. (1) Where all or a portion of the premises to be served has not been previously assessed or contributed its share towards the cost of installing a permanent main to serve such premises, or the property does not abut a water main, water service shall be provided upon payment of a water main fee as provided for in this section, in addition to the water capital facility charge set forth in POMC 13.04.030 and the connection fee set forth in POMC 13.04.033. (2) The water main fee shall be based on the frontage of the property served, as determined by the public works director. Properties situated on corner lots abutting utility mains on two sides shall have the front footage charge computed by averaging the two sides. The fee shall be charged per front foot as set forth in POMC 13.04.025. (3) Water main fees in lieu of assessment shall be charged on new accounts unless exempted as explained below: (a) The property has previously paid its share of a local water main as part of a water local improvement district and there are records to verify this; (b) The property has extended the local water main as required by the city and paid all costs associated with the extension; (c) The property has paid its equitable share of the cost of a previously installed local water main pursuant to a latecomer’s agreement; or (d) The agreement for purchase and sale of assets of McCormick Water Company, Inc., waives the city fee in lieu of assessment for water services. These are the services within McCormick Woods, Campus Station, Kenmore Court, and McCormick 620. (4) If a property owner requests an exemption as described above, the director of public works shall make an administrative determination regarding the applicability and amount of the exemption. The director’s decision may be appealed to the hearing examiner. (5) The exemptions described in subsections (3)(a) through (c) of this section shall not apply to any costs of construction incurred or payments made to the city for improvements that are a basis for the value of the water main fee in lieu of assessment and that were made 15 years or more prior to the date the property owner requests the exemption. (Ord. 020-15 § 6; Ord. 008- 13 § 3; Ord. 027-11 § 4; Ord. 013-08 § 5). Ordinance No. 023-21 Page 11 of 11 13.04.037 Extension of water to property contiguous to the city. Property lying within the urban growth boundary and contiguous to the Port Orchard city limits shall annex to the city as a condition of water connection. In the alternative, the city may elect to defer the annexation and require the owner to execute a utility extension agreement as described in POMC 13.04.040(11). (Ord. 013-08 § 6). 13.04.039 Payment. All charges and fees set forth in this chapter shall be paid in full prior to any issuance of permits and the physical connection of the private service line to the water system. (Ord. 013-08 § 7).