Loading...
Wastewater & Stormwater Transition Committee - 11/20/2002 , Transition CommitteeReport 1 i I EOM llii �- ,, ,INs - m 4 City of Valley: . :;oma -7- ,_ . Wastewater and _....----------, Stormwater Options - , ., _ _,_ t - , . ._ 1 _ _ _ . __ . _ 1 ‘iiiiiki. 1 sem`""---- •- Submitted to The City Council lot " - City of po .ane Valley November 2002 H 1 HILL +fp, This document was reproduced for the exclusive use of the Transition Committee, and the City Council,City of Spokane Vie,_ is November 20, 2002 City Council Members City of Spokane Valley 11707 E.Sprague City of Spokane Valley, WA 99216 • =Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: J ! Attached is the final report of the Wastewater/Stormwater Transition Committee. We have attempted to outline niariy of the issues and service options facing our new City. We have enjoyed assembling and sutn.niariing this information;and we stand ready to answer any questions you might have, Sincerely, • Dick Denenny Chairman, Wastewater/Stormwater Transition Committee Encl. Li U f CONTENTS Section I Sewer System—Issues and Alternatives 2 Section If Wastewater Collection System—Issues and Alternatives Section Ill Wastewater Treatment System—Issues and Alternatives 13 Section IV Financing of Valley Sewer System 19 Section V Statutes and Regulations Applicable to Operation of Sewer System 23 Section VI Stormwater and Flood Plains Issues 28 I Section VII Contacts for Further Information 36 EXHIBITS l_ A Spokane County Wastewater Treatment System, Estimated Costs 13 Stormwater and Flood Plains Issues, Documentation C Summary and Chronology of Interlocal Agreements Between the City of Spokane and . Spokane County D Spokane County Sewer System Funding Sources ii I j Section I Sewer System — Issues and Alternatives A. Introduction The sewer and storm water subcommittee of the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Transition Team established the goal of reviewing the relevant facts related to completing the construction of a sanitary sewer system for the new City, the construction of a wastewater treatment facility to provide the future treatment capacity necessary to serve the new City, and the stormwater service charges necessary to address stonnwater problems. The transition subcommittee did not look at options that would significantly extend the schedule being pursued by the County to finish connecting the remaining on-site septic tanks to the County sewer system, due to the potential negative impacts of possible state or federal regulatory action that might limit growth or adversely affect grant opportunities for the new City. B. Definitions & Abbreviations — County Sewer Program County------------------- Spokane County. �I New City City of Spokane Valley. CFR - Capital Facilities Rate. The charge for design and construction of the sewage system, apportioned to each property within the sewer project. The GFC is included in the CFR. S�I ERU ------- Equivalent Residential Unit. One ERU is equal to 900 cubic feet of metered water usage per month. Each single-family residence, mobile home (where two or less occupy the same parcel) and duplex dwelling unit is deemed to represent one ERU. Each multi-family dwelling unit is deemed to represent 0.7 of an ERU. Each commercial unit and manufactured home park is assigned one ERU for each 900 cubic feet of metered water usage per month. GFC General Facilities Charge. Pays for major facilities within the County's Regional Sewer System, such as interceptors, pump stations and treatment plant capacity. The GFC is included as part of a property owner's CFR. Informational Meeting General informational meeting relative to the upcoming year's sewer projects. Usually held by the County in November or December of each year. (/WW arid SW Rcpon.doc] -2- 11/20102 I 1 li Main Line The main wastewater collection line in the street. Usually 5 or 6 feet either side of the center of the street. Pipe diameter is 8-inches or greater and is usually 8 to 16 feet deep. Main Line Contractor- The contractor that is awarded a Public Works Contract to install the 1 main sewer line in the street and the stubs. This contractor works for the Spokane County Division of Utilities. Open House Meeting- Project specific meeting where residents of an area to be sewered can discuss specific issues with design staff. Held near the end of the sewer project design process, usually in early Spring. 0 & M Operation & Maintenance. Usually refers to a property owner's sewer service bill. Prepayment Period A 30-day period, immediately prior to commencement of the CFR billing, wherein the property owner can prepay the entire CFR and avoid interest charges. �` Stub --------- The sewer line that runs from the Main line to the property line. This is the line that will actually connect a property owner's house or building to the County system. For residential properties it is usually a 4-inch line. For apartment buildings and commercial properties it is generally a 6-inch line. Side Sewer Contractor The contractor that a property owner hires, at his or her expense, to actually connect his or her house or building to the stub. This contractor works for the property owner. TV Inspection (Tying) A portion of the final inspection of the newly installed main sewer lines. A remote controlled TV camera is run down each main sewer line to check for and record any faults, such as reverse grades, debris, cracked pipes or tees, etc. TV inspections generally are done after all the work has been completed. Interceptor-------------- A large sewer line that intercepts smaller sewer lines to convey ff wastewater to a treatment plant site. SCADA ------ Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. A remote control and monitoring system that allows operators to look at the operational status of a pump station or similar facility, and make adjustments, i.e. pumps can be turned on and off, thermostats can be reset, etc. [/WW and SW Rcpart.docl -3- 11/20/02 1 _ C. Scope It is useful to separate the discussion of wastewater management alternatives into two main areas; wastewater collection and wastewater treatment. We have looked at short range options here and have defined them as those that are immediately available to the new City and which would extend at a minimum, through 2003. The discussion of wastewater collection needs to be thought of in three parts. The first part is the on-going ownership and financing of the existing sewer system. The second part is the operation and maintenance (0 & M), and administration of the existing collection system, both short range and long range. The third part is related to the decisions regarding the future design, construction, financing, ownership, and operation of the total sewer system within the new City. • LI • • L [/WW and SW Repon.doc] -4- 11/20/02 f I 1 � Section II Wastewater Collection System — Issues and Alternatives A. Issues 1. Factual Background County Sewer System The County established a Sewer Utility, as an enterprise fund, and in 1983 commenced construction of the County sewer program to connect homes and business 1 located in the aquifer sensitive area ("ASA") onto a wastewater collection system ("County System") utilizing disposal capacity acquired from the city of Spokane at its Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant ("SAWTP"). The County's initial efforts in developing the County System focused on the priority sewer service area ("PSSA") which includes almost all of the new City. Since 1983, The County has been involved in a massive public works project, i.e. installation of a sewage collection system, as well as, maintenance and operation of a sewer utility as an ongoing enterprise. Over the last 20 years, within the corporate limits of the new City, over 14,000 homes and businesses have been connected to the 260 miles of sewer lines installed as a part of the County System. Since 1983, the investment by the County in sewer projects over the ASA totals more than $146 million dollars. 2. Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan In 2002, the County adopted the 2001 Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan("CWMP"). The general objectives of the 2001 CWMP were as follows: (1) Review and revise the County sewer activities to meet the needs of existing and future County customers in a manner that enhances water quality protection and the environment; (2) Establish a comprehensive wastewater management approach that is j clear and consistent with Growth Management Act("GMA") requirements and which will guide the sewer program in to the future; (3) Update County wastewater management policies to support the above objectives; and (4) Ensure compliance with • the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as well as all other applicable state and federal regulations and all adopted plans prepared under these criteria. Lj 3. Current Status of County Sewer System Program CIn the 2001 CWMP sewer projects were prioritized and placed into a schedule ending in 2010. The 2001 CWMP was prepared to conform with the requirements of the n State Growth Management Act ("GMA"). The Six-Year Sewer Construction Capital Improvement Program areas, including large portions of the new City, have the highest priority for sewering. Each year the County Utilities Division updates it's Six-Year Sewer Construction Capital Improvement Program ("C1P") as well as the corresponding sewer priority area maps. The County sewer system continues to grow rapidly with the addition of approximately 2,000 new customers per year, most of these being within the I `I (/WW and SW Report.docl -5- I ir20102 boundaries of the new City. The County now estimates that the sewer construction work necessary to complete the sewering of the area within the new City will cost approximately$98,000,000 and could be completed by 2010. B. Alternatives — Short Term (2003) 1. City of Spokane Valley Contracts with Spokane County For Continued Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Collection System— Advantages and Disadvantages There is probably no realistic short range option for the new City other than to reach an agreement with the County to continue with its current 0 & M proram. it does not appear to be feasible to work out the many issues that would need to be resolved between November, 2002 and March, 2003 concerning ownership, transfer, utility billing, debt service, staffing, etc. that would be required for the new City to take over this system immediately upon incorporation. This may or may not require the execution of an I agreement between the County and the new City that provides for continuing operations 2_J while the new council deliberates over longer range options. Depending on the County's willingness, a "no action" approach may be sufficient for the short term. The new City may choose to issue franchises to the County for 0 & M access to the new City's roadway system; these franchises may provide an opportunity to impose conditions on roadway access and related issues thought to be desirable by the new City. In reaching an understanding with the County on interim 0 & M of the existing wastewater collection system the new City should also negotiate the issue of the 2003 sewering projects planned by the County. This may not be difficult since the County has already indicated a willingness to complete the design of these projects while the new City is getting organized. More substantive discussions will be needed for the new City to reach a longer term agreement with the County for medium or long range planning horizons as described below. A key goal would be to reach agreement with the County or to have an alternate program in place so that design of the 2004 sewering projects can proceed in a timely manner. That would require a decision by fall 2003 so that sufficient time is available to design and award projects. There are a number of alternatives available to the new City for continued management of the collection system within its boundaries. One end of that spectrum is to contract with the County for all services they currently provide. This would include planning, maintenance, pretreatment programs, billing, design and execution of small ( 1 extensions, the completion of all planned projects in the unsewered areas, and all other services consistent with an owner operated system. This is a status quo alternative and would involve the County continuing to operate the system while at the same time finishing the construction of the sewer system in the new City. It would leave the County as the owner of all system improvements. The new City should negotiate carefully with the County to ensure that issues important to the new City's residents are incorporated in the contract. Such a contract could be for the period between now and 2010 or for a longer period of time up to 20 years. U [/WW and SW Repart.doci -6- 11/20/02 a. Advantages of the Status Quo Option Include: (1) It is the easiest option to implement. It merely extends the current County program. (2) It requires no significant addition of technical or administrative staff for the new City. • (3) There is no need for the new City to develop duplicate billing systems, pretreatment programs, or other processes that are already in r-- place. b. Disadvantages of the Status Quo Option Include: (1) The new City would have only as much control over the process as they are successful in negotiating up front in a contract with the County. (2) The new City would not have the option of applying a utility tax on the sewer system operations within its boundaries if the system is owned r by the County. 2. City of Spokane Valley Acquires Ownership of County Wastewater Collection System—Advantages and Disadvantages At the other extreme of the alternative spectrum for wastewater collection services would be a system owned and operated by the new City with all of the services now provided by the County being transferred to the new City over time. a. Advantages of City Acquisition of Wastewater Collection System Include: (1) The new City would have complete control of the system and make all related decisions including monthly rates to be charged, design standards, project sequencing, etc. (2) The new City would be able, at its option, to place a utility tax on j the revenues of such a municipally owned wastewater collection system. S b. Disadvantages of New City Acquiring Wastewater Collection System Include: (1) The new City would need to provide for the administrative staff necessary to provide billing, 0 & M, design, and other services. (2) The new City would need to prepare and seek approval for a facilities plan for its new sewer system program, which would ensure long Li (/WW and SW xeport.docl -7- 11/20/02 term treatment capacity. This would likely include use of the new treatment plant the County is currently planning independent of whether it is eventually owned and operated by the County, the new City, or through contracts with private sector companies. (3) The new City would need to negotiate an agreement with the County that would result in transfer of ownership of existing wastewater • collection system assets. This agreement would need to include, at a minimum, an accounting of previous investments made by the County, apportionment and application of the existing reserve funds collected by — the County prior to transfer, agreement on existing debt attributable to infrastructure within the new City, future use of the County's treatment contract with the City of Spokane, and the impact of the new city's acquisition of the Spokane Valley portion of the existing County System on the remainder of the County wastewater collection system. (4) A decision by the new City Council to attempt to acquire the existing County sewer system would involve use of a large portion of the new City's available councilmanic LTGO debt capacity to fund any costs associated with the transfer of the system to the new City. 3. Other Available Wastewater System Choices for City of Spokane Valley in between the option of maintaining status quo and that of the new City taking on all wastewater collection services now provided by the County lies a continuum of intermediate choices. These include: a. Negotiating an agreement to take over ownership of the collection system but contracting with the County, the City of Spokane, or a private company to fully operate and maintain the system. This would preserve the option of allowing the new City to impose a utility tax should the new City council find that to be necessary to fund essential new City services. • b. Ownership and basic operation of the collection system by the new City and contracting with the County, the City of Spokane, or a private company for specialized services such as plan development, design, billing services, legal services, construction inspection, pretreatment, etc. There are many additional variations for parsing out portions of the wastewater collection system management to other entities. Each alternative provides a unique balance between the level of fiscal and operational control retained by the new City and the risks and liabilities it assumes to get that control. The new City council acting with the assistance of professional administrative staff would need to decide where the appropriate balance should be struck for the new City. t/WW and SW Rcport.doc] -8- 1180/02 0 LC. County Sewer Projects Planned for 2003 SPOKANE COUNTY 2003 SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (Cost Estimate&Financing in Thousands of Dollars) I Project Financing Summary Total City 1 — Project APA Funds State Prepay- Total Li Project Cost Funds Subsidy Grants GFCs ments Bonds Fundin g Waikiki $3,999 S 181 $294 $968 S 1,132 $356 S1,068 $3,999 Mansfield 253 16 26 86 0 31 94 253 Pinecroft 120 8 12 41 0 l5 45 120 Li Upriver 2,006 124 201 663 44 244 731 2,006 Drive Harrington 3,159 199 324 1,067 0 392 1,177 3,159 Hillview Acres 2,542 160 261 859 0 316 947 2,542 L Misc. Projects 2 200 13 21 68 0 25 75 200 Total S12,279 $700 $1,138 S3,750 $1,176 S1,379 I $4,136 $12,279 Total Valley City Projects $6,074 $383 S623 S2,053 1 SO $754 S2,263 $6,074 DD. Long Term County Sewer Projects (beyond 2003) 0 SPOKANE COUNTY SANITARY SEWER PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION OF REMAINING SEWER PROJECTS 0 Costs are based on the 2001 C1VMP (2002 estimated cost plus an annual inflation rate of 2.5%) North Spokane Area County's Area of Valley New Valley City Year Est. Total Cost % Est. Total Cost % Est.Total Cost % 2003 $1,008,600 11.2 $1,924,040 21.4 56,074,615 67.4 2004 1,011,675 8.0 0 0.0 11,622,308 92.0 0 2005 0 0.0 0 0.0 11,710,329 100.0 2006 0 0.0 2,424,649 19.8 9,807,256 80.2 2007 1,059,303 9.2 0 0.0 10,507,693 90.8 2008 1,783 251 10.1 2,171,571 12.3 13,703,883 77.6 2009 0 0.0 0 0.0 18,780,690 100.0 2010 1,774,504 9.0 2,139;229 10.8 15,811,789 80.2 CWMP Sewer Project Totals $6,637,334 5.9 S8,659,488 7.6 l $98,018,562 86.5 U [/WW and SW Rcport.dal -9- 11/20/02 L SPOKANE COUNTY 2004 SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM -- (Cost Estimate&Financing in Thousands of Dollars) Project Financing Summary Total City 1 Project APA Funds State Prepay- Total Project Cost Funds Subsidy Grants GFC ments Bonds Funding 1 s I Li Carnahan $2,459 $187 $252 $702 $0 $329 S988 $2,459 Wcatherwood 3,265 249 335 932 0 437 1,312 3,265 Sipple 2,773 211 284 792 0 372 1,115 2,773 Owens 424 32 43 121 0 57 170 424 Veradale 2,701 206 277 771 0 362 1,086 2,701 Gleneden R Piper Glen 1,012 77 104 289 0 136 407 1,012 Misc Projects 2 500 38 51 143 0 67 201 500 Total S13,134 $1000 $1,346 $3,750 SO $1,759 I S5,278 S13,134 Total Valley City Projects _ S11,622 $885 $1,191 $3,318 SO I $1,557 $4,671 $11,622 TIIT SPOKANE COUNTY 2005 SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (Cost Estimate &Financing in Thousands of Dollars) . _ I ,Project Financin, Summary Total City 1 Project APA Funds State Prepay- Total Project Cost Funds Subsidy Grants CFCs ments Bonds Funding --I Orchard Ave. S2,997 $250 $265 $938 $0 $386 1 S1,158 $2,997 Inland 706 33 35 125 308 51 154 706 Johnston 1,176 98 104 368 0 152 455 1,176 I Mica Park 798 67 70 250 0 103 308 798 Sherwood Forest 1,008 84 89 316 0 130 390 1,008 Parks Road 1,496 125 132 468 0 193 578 1,496 Edgerton 3,607 301 318 1,129 0 465 1,394 3,607 • Misc Projects 500 42 44 157 0 64 193 500 Total S12,289 S1000 $1,058 $3,750 I $308 S1,543 $4,629 $12,289 Total Valley City Projects S11,789 $958 I $1,014 $3,593 S308 $1,479 S4,436 S 11,789 I hvw and sw Rcpon.docl -10- 11t20/02 1 . SPOKANE COUNTY 2006 SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM • (Cost Estimate&Financing in Thousands of Dollars) Project Financing Summary Total City t Project APA3 Funds State Prepay- Total Project Cost Funds Subsidy Grants GFCs ments Bonds Fundin g Veradale Heights $4,414 $172 $609 $1,290 $0 $586 $1,757 $4,414 Vera Terrace 2.325 91 321 679 0 309 926 2,325 _ Upriver Terrace 2,510 84 299 633 344 287 862 2,510 Electric RR 3,431 134 473 1,002 0 455 1,366 3,431 I Misc. Projects 2 500 19 69 146 0 66 199 500 Total S13,179 $500 $1,771 I $3,750 S344 $1,703 $5,110 $13,179 Total Valley City Projects _ $9,249 $347 $1,229 $2,602 S344 $1,182 $3,545 $9,249 SPOKANE COUNTY 2007 SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (Cost Estimate&Financing in Thousands of Dollars) Project Financing Summary Total City 1 Project APA3 Funds State Prepay- Total Project Cost Funds Subsidy Grants GFCs ments Bonds Fundin g Spaldings $194 $10 $19 S78 SO I. $22 $65 $194 City Garden 530 21 37 156 142 43 130 530 Grandview Acres 4,454 158 282 1,182 1,515 330 989 4,454 Rockwell 2,954 129 230 966 550 269 808 2,954 Trentwood 2,906 127 228 954 532 266 798 2,906 Wandermere 530 28 51 213 0 59 178 530 Misc. Projects 2 500 27 48 201 0 56 168 500 Total $12,067 $500 S894 $3,750 I $2,740 I $1,046 $3,137 $12,067 Total Valley City Projects $10,508 S424 S759 $3,180 $2,597 ( S946 $2,660 _ $10,508 [/WW and SW Repon.doc] -1 1- 11t20/02 I Ji SPOKANE COUNTY 2008 SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (Cost Estimate &Financing in Thousands of Dollars) Project Financing Summary Total City t Project APA3 Funds State Prepay- Total Project Cost Funds Subsidy Grants GFCs ments Bonds Fundin K Sutters $3,107 $95 5503 $713 $0 $449 S1,346 S3,107 I Summerfield 2,469 61 321 454 491 286 857 2,469 Westwood - 2,432 74 394 558 0 351 ! 1,054 2,432 West Farms 2,895 89 469 665 0 418 1,255 2,985 Belle Terre, incl DM VI 2,172 31 163 231 1,164 146 437 2,172 Pinery 1,783 45 239 338 309 213 639 1,783 White Birch 2,943 90 477 676 0 425 1,275 2,943 Misc. Projects 2 500 15 81 115 0 72 217 500 1 Total $18,301 $500 S2,647 $3,750 S1,964 $2,360 $7,080 $18,301 Total Valley City Projects $13,846 $409 $2,164 $3,066 $491 $1,929 $5,787 $13,846 jS t City Funds Subsidy-The amounts indicated reflect subsidy required from City of Spokane Valley-i.e.sales tax, real estate excise tax, etc. to meet the County's schedule for completion of the proposed sewer program in each year. 2 Miscellaneous sewer projects are excluded from computations of project cost summary for City of Spokane Valley. 3 After 2005 Aquifer Protection Area Funding Must be Reathorized-The split of APA funds between Spokane, Spokane County,and Spokane Valley would have to be negotiated in a new Interlocal Agreement. • [/\VW and SW Repon.doc) -12- 11/20/02 Section III: Wastewater Treatment System — Issues and Alternatives A. Issues 1. Background on County Wastewater Treatment System—Capacity of Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant for Spokane County Wastewater Flows. The Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (SAWTP) was completed in 1977. Its design capacity is 44 million gallons per day(MGD) average wastewater flow, with capability to accept up to 77 MGD of wastewater flow for treatment on peak days, and with the capability to accept up to 130 MGD of wastewater flow during peak runoff and infiltration events. Secondary treatment is provided for all flows up to 77 MGD. Flows in excess of 77 MGD bypass the secondary treatment facilities to "Excess Flow Clarifiers" for"primary" treatment followed by chlorine disinfection and discharge. Excess flows reach the river a few times each year. Design criteria for the SAWTP were derived from an analysis of projected wastewater treatment needs for the Spokane region, including many areas in Spokane County such as the Spokane Valley and the West Plains area. Spokane County performed a comprehensive study of the Spokane Rathdrum Aquifer during the period from 1977 through 1979, and prepared the"Spokane Aquifer Water Quality Management Plan" or '208' Plan as it has often been referred to. The '208' Plan, after considering data indicating that threshold pollutant concentrations were well above background levels as a result of the activities of man, recommended a policy of"No Further Degradation" of the groundwater. A wastewater management strategy provided in the '208' Plan consisted of the following: a. Collection of all sewage and treatment for discharge in such a manner that the pollutants cannot enter the aquifer. b. Development of central sewer planning within the Aquifer Sensitive Area. c. Coordination of sewer policies between implementing agencies. d. Policies and procedures that lead to sewering all areas that are urbanized within the Aquifer Sensitive Area. The Spokane County Commissioners, the City of Spokane, the Department of Ecology, and other government agencies adopted the '208' Plan. Spokane County prepared a Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) completed in 1981 with a central objective of providing sewer service to fulfill the requirements set forth in the '208' Plan, to collect all wastewater generated in the Aquifer Sensitive Area for transport and/or treatment to prevent percolation to the aquifer. Phase 1 of the Plan was for projected flows to be treated at the SAWTP without [/WW and SW Repon.docJ -13- 11/20/02 A upgrade or expansion. The Phase 1 average dry weather flow (ADWF) projections were as follows: North Spokane 3.6 MGD Spokane Valley& Moran Prairie 9.0 MGD City of Spokane & Indian Trails 34.0 MGD Moran Prairie was indicated to have about 6.5 percent of the some 90,000 population projected for the combined planning areas (approximately 0.25 MGD of the flow based on this population percentage). The Moran Prairie area is now served through the City of Spokane sewer system. Liberty Lake, Newman Lake, and West Plains area were not included in the Phase 1 flow projections, and were included in the projections for Phase 2. The City of Spokane and Spokane County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding(City and County Wastewater Management Agreement) in December 1980 whereby the City would "reserve a maximum of 10 MOD to provide for the first phase of the County's wastewatcr treatment capacity needs in accordance with the CWMP." (Note: based on the projected needs in the CWMP and the SAWTP capacity of 44 MGD, only 10 MGD of capacity was available at that time.) According to the CWMP, additional needs of the County and City for the unmet Phase 1 needs and needs beyond Phase 1, the SAWTP would be upgraded and expanded in a Phase 2. In 1982, an interlocal agreement was executed between the County and the City of Spokane whereby the County acquired 10 million gallons per day("10 MGD") of the total 44 MGD capacity in the Spokane Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant ("SAWTP") for a payment of approximately S5,000,000. [See Exhibit C] Currently the County is utilizing approximately 6.5 MGD, including approximately 5.4 MOD to serve the PSSA in the Spokane Valley area. The County projected in the 1996 CWMP that its wastewater disposal requirements would reach 10 MGD by 2007 and approximately 14.5 MGD by 2015. From the background information outlined above it may be observed that the Spokane Valley area (including the area now inside of the City of Spokane Valley) had approximately 71 percent of the projected wastewater flow for the Phase l sewer plans of Spokane County(8.75 MGD of 12.35 MGD). That estimate of wastewater treatment requirements for the Spokane Valley area, was made at the time that the City of Spokane and Spokane County agreed upon a 10 MGD purchase of capacity in the SAWTP by Spokane County. It may be hypothesized that the wastewater treatment requirements of the residents now within the City of Spokane Valley and other residents of the Spokane Valley have been responsible for acquisition of about 7 MOD of the total 10 MGD of capacity in the SAWTP currently owned by Spokane County. 2. Current Status of County Wastewater Treatment Plant Proposal The County is actively working towards the development of a separate wastewater treatment plant, to provide the necessary supplement to existing wastewater treatment capacity. County officials estimate that the cost for construction of the first 8 MGD phase [/WW and SW Reporn.doc] -14- 11/20102 r-� of the new wastewater treatment plant together with the associated pump stations and conveyance facilities could exceed 5100,000,000. [See Exhibit A] Several years ago the County began to accumulate reserves in the County utility fund for completing the — County System and increasing the treatment capacity necessary for the future needs of the County System. The County Sewer Utility presently has approximately S40,000,000. in reserves that can only be expended for Sewer Utility purposes. However, the intent of the reserves was to reduce the financial impact of treatment costs. The new plant would primarily serve the new City of Spokane Valley and the surrounding area. In addition, the City of Spokane might contract for some treatment capacity to divert sanitary sewage flow from a portion of their service area to reduce the possibility of stormwater over flows occurring along the main interceptor line to the SAWTP. The Liberty Lake Sewer District may also desire to contract for treatment capacity in the new County facility to alleviate possible future shortages in capacity. The County is nearing completion of the planning process for construction of the new wastewater treatment facility(WWTP) that would provide service to the new City as well as the unincorporated areas adjacent to the new City. It is anticipated that approximately 75%of the flow to this plant would come from the new City and 25% would come from other sources. The County has completed a Wastewater Facilities Plan for this treatment plant project and is addressing review comments from the State Department of Ecology before finalizing the Plan and seeking a wastewater discharge permit. The County has also initiated an environmental review process (SEPA) that will be completed later this year(2002). Upon completion of the EIS a final preferred site for the new plant will be selected. The current preferred location is the old Spokane Stockyards property located just inside the corporate boundary of the City of Spokane. The new County plant is expected to be completed by 2007. That date coincides with the {_ time the County projects the additional wastewater treatment capacity will be needed. This new facility will provide service to the new City for at least 20 years with periodic phased additions to its treatment capacity. It is the County's desire to construct this facility using a Design Build Operate ("DBO") procurement process where the facility remains publicly owned but is developed and operated through a contact with a single private entity. The County will soon begin the process of selecting the most qualified company to provide these services. It is their hope to complete this selection and negotiate a contract by the end of the first quarter 2003. The County would then need to secure interlocal agreements with the new City and hf possibly the City of Spokane and Liberty Lake Sewer District before the DBO contract would be executed by the County. B. Wastewater Treatment Options for City of Spokane Valley 1. Additional Factors Affecting Wastewater Treatment Options. l.^ , Since acquisition of the rights to capacity in the SAWTP by Spokane county there have been additional changes imposed on the City and County system(s) that will affect • considerations for wastewater treatment service to the new City of Spokane Valley and (1WW and SW Report.docl -15- i 1120102 other entities involved in providing wastewater service in the Spokane area. Some of these factors are as follows: a. Additional restrictions have been placed on discharges from the SAWTP to the Spokane River that require the City of Spokane to upgrade SAWTP. Without the upgrades the SAWTP capacity would be effectively reduced significantly from the 44 MGD capacity intended at the time of its construction. These modifications are currently underway and are intended to maintain the capacity of the SAWTP at 44 MGD; more modifications to the facility are planned that will increase the capacity of the SAWTP even further. Spokane County, as owner of 10 MGD of treatment capacity, is financially participating in the current SAWTP upgrade projects, which are being undertaken by the City of Spokane and are currently estimated to cost in excess of$100,000,000 over the next 10 years. b. Other areas have been added into the SAWTP service area. i.1 (1) The projections in the original CWMP did not include the West Plains including Fairchild Air Force Base (approx. 1 MGD) in the Phase 1 projections. (2) Areas of North Spokane beyond the area within the original Aquifer Sensitive Area appear to have been added to the Spokane County collection system. (3) The Spokane Industrial Park and Millwood each had their own wastewater treatment plants in 1980, but each have now been connected to the County sewage collection system. c. More restrictions on effluent being discharged to the Spokane River from SAWTP, and potentially the proposed Spokane Valley treatment plant may be forthcoming from the DOE. A "Total Maximum Daily Load" (TMDL) study addressing dissolved oxygen in the Spokane River and Long Lake is currently underway. Some state regulators believe that additional restrictions on wastewater effluents may be required for Long Lake to comply with State Water Quality Standards. The study is not yet complete, and it appears that it may be mid to late 2003 before final study results and new proposed Waste Load Applications (WLAs) are available. It is impossible to assess the impact of this factor now, but this issue is a common concern for the City of Spokane, Spokane County, the new City of Spokane Valley, and the Liberty Lake Sewer District. 2. Options for Treatment of Wastewater From the New City Include: a. Status Quo. (fWW and SW Report.doc] -16- 11/20/02 r— The new City would execute an agreement with the County that continues the on-going program built around the County's current facilities plan. The f County would own this facility and be responsible for its operation. The new City would enter into a service agreement with the County that guarantees availability of treatment capacity for all wastewater coming from the new City. The County would set rates and bill customers directly or negotiate a "wholesale" rate with the 1 new City, depending upon the other alternatives selected for system ownership and operation. In addition, the County would be responsible for debt service, acquire needed permits and approvals, and administer all contracts with the private sector for service. - In the short term (November, 2002 to April, 2003) the primary task the new City may need to undertake would be to work out an arrangement with the County for participation by the new City in the selection process for the DBO vendor and input to the draft DBO contract so that the new City Council can make a decision quickly regarding their future participation. This decision needs to be made shortly after incorporation to keep this project on track and ensure that treatment capacity will be there when the new City needs it in 2007. b. Contract with City of Spokane for Interim Wastewater Treatment Service. Acquisition by Spokane County of capacity in the SAWTP was based on the Phase 1 needs identified in the Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) published in 1981. That Plan identified Phase 1 wastewater treatment needs for the County areas within the Aquifer Sensitive area of the Spokane Rathdrum Aquifer that were the County's responsibility to sewer. The needs were projected as 11.35 MGD of wastewater flow. Approximately 71 percent of that projected need was for wastewater from the Spokane Valley area, including the area that is now within the City of Spokane Valley. Due to capacity limitations (SAWTP permitted capacity was 44 MGD), and City of Spokane projected needs in the same time frame (City needs were projected as 34 MGD), only 10 MGD of capacity was deemed available to Spokane County as identified in 1980. The County purchased this 10 MGD of capacity for its wastewater treatment needs. It could be alleged that about 7 MGD of this capacity was purchased for projected services within the Aquifer Sensitive Area within the Spokane Valley, including the area now within the City of Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane Valley may have legitimate claim to a large portion of the capacity in SAWTP now owned by Spokane County. The current upgrades at the SAWTP are designed to serve the wastewater treatment requirements of the City of Spokane through 2015 including the 10 MOD capacity obligated to Spokane County. The SAWTP may have an increase in permitted capacity of as much as 4 MGD as a result of the upgrades; therefore, additional flow from the new City could be accepted by SAWTP on an interim basis after the upgrades to the SAWTP are complete and until growth within the City of Spokane service area would require the additional capacity for its own use. Discussions with the City of Spokane could be initiated to determine the [/WWI'and SW Reporidoc] -17- 11/20/02 1 • feasibility for receipt of additional interim discharge of wastewater flow, in excess of 10 MGD at the SAWTP. If feasible, it may be possible to delay construction of the proposed Spokane Valley wastewater treatment plant for several years. This could allow the City of Spokane Valley time to objectively review its alternatives for ownership and operation of the facility, review the cost effectiveness of site and process alternatives, be aware of any"final" changes in effluent requirements from the DOE that from may result from the dissolved TMDL oxygen, allow the availability of the Alki-Fancher site to be settled, and to accumulate more funds for capitalization of needed treatment facilities. c. City Ownership. The new City could negotiate with the County to transfer ownership of the - new treatment facility to the new City. This could be done during development, construction, upon completion and acceptance by the County, or at any other time after that just as for acquisition of the collection system, the negotiated agreement between the County and the new City would need to account for the County's previous investments in the system at the time of transfer, future debt service obligations, apportionment and application of the existing reserve funds collected i by the County prior to transfer, future use of the County's treatment contract with the City of Spokane, and the impact of the transfer on the remainder of the County _ sewer system. In addition, the new City would need to provide a service agreement for any unincorporated areas that would be serviced by the new facility and for any use by the City of Spokane, Liberty Lake Sewer District, or the Town of Millwood. The new City could choose to hire its own operating staff or contract with the City of Spokane or a private company for these services. If the facility was " acquired after it becomes operational the new City could also negotiate an assumption of the operating contract between the County and the private operator. This option results in the greatest amount of control over, and responsibility for, the treatment process.; and would also give the new City control over allocation of treatment plant capacity to serve future growth within the new City. [IW\V and SW Report.docj -18- 1 i/20/02 Section IV: Financing of Valley Sewer System A. County Financing Plan for Sewer System A financing strategy has been developed by the County to support the construction of capital improvement projects for the County System during the first six priority years and beyond. The County Sewer Utility expects to spend approximately$12 million each year for the next eight years to complete the County sewer system within the new City. The revenues to fund the County Sewer Program come from four major sources: 1. Centennial Clean Water Extended Grant. A twenty-year extended grant was awarded to the City of Spokane and the County in 1996, with annual payments of. $5,000,000 from the State of Washington scheduled to end in 2015. The grant is presently allocated 25 percent to the City of Spokane ($1,250,000) and 75 percent to the County($3,750,000); this allocation may have to be renegotiated in the future. 2. Capital Facilities Rate. Spokane County imposes a Capital Facilities Rate ("CFR") on a property owner when the property is included in the County's annual sewer construction program. This CFR is currently set at$4,950 per household or Equivalent Residential Unit ("ERU"). The CFR includes an amount known as the General Facilities Charge ("GFC"). The sewer utility currently charges all properties a GFC of$2,510 per ERU at the time of hook-up. Currently 25 percent of the GFC is subsidized from sales tax and APA revenues, so the amount actually paid by each single-family household at the time of collection is $1,885. The GFC is an allocation to all sewer customers for the County's cost of wastewater treatment capacity, and for the construction of major interceptors and pumping stations necessary to operate the County Sewer Collection System. 3. Aquifer Protection Area ("APA")Fund. The County APA fees were adopted by a public vote in 1985 and are collected in the aquifer sensitive area of the County. These APA fees were for a twenty-year period that ends in 2005. The new City, the County, the City of Spokane, and the other small cities over the PSSA will need to enter into a new interlocal agreement to provide for a continuation of the aquifer protection area fees, after 2005. If the APA fees are to be reauthorized, a public vote will be required within the new City, as well as the City of Spokane, the Town of Millwood, the City of Liberty Lake, and portions of the remaining unincorporated area of the County. The amount of APA funds used for the STEP program is the net amount available to the County after the payment of Sewer Utility [/WW and SW Repon.docl -19- I1/20/02 ; administrative costs, an annual allocation to the County Health District, and an allocation of capital funds to the City of Spokane for septic tank elimination within it's boundaries. 4. Sales Tax Allocation. The County currently allocates 1/8th of one percent of it's sales tax revenue to the County Sewer Utility enterprise fund to provide a subsidy to property owners when hoking up to the County sewer system. The existing sales tax sewer subsidy within the ne l City(approximately S2.1 million annually) is now provided by the County and will need to be replaced with tax allocations by the new City council if the County sewer program is to remain on the schedule set in the CWMP. [See Exhibit DJ B. Financing for Sewer Maintenance and Operation 1. Introduction The approach to financing maintenance and operation (M&0) activities for a wastewater collection system is frequently based upon a "cost of service"analysis. All they various costs of M&O are projected for a period of time, for example three to five years, and equitably distributed to the customers within each customer class. Costs may include direct and indirect labor costs, materials and supplies, power, replacement parts, malchinery, rents, leases, purchases of building, and debt payments. In addition, the setting of rates should include consideration of future system replacement costs at the end of the design life for each of the facilities. Spokane County's current sewer service rates have been established using a cost of service analysis. Customer classes include single-family residences, duplexes, multi- faint ily/apartment, ulti-family/apartment, manufactured home parks, and commercial/industrial. The rates are designed to build a reserve fund for the eventual replacement of facilities. 2. Equipment Purchases Equipment required to carry out the M&O activities for a wastewater collection system include vactor trucks, a tanker truck, a video inspection van, a mechanical service tru6 k with a crane, a backhoe, a flatbed trailer, a dump truck, service pickups, portable generators, a sectional or continuous rodder on a trailer, and miscellaneous shop equipment. Generally speaking, the sewer cleaning and inspection equipment is relatively expensive due to the specialized nature of these items. The M&O activities can be undertaken wholly by a properly equipped public works department, or contracted to a private organization specializing in the needed services. [1WW and SW eport.doc) -20- 11120/02 I ' 3. County Sewer System The County's sewer system is expected to grow in 2003 to exceed the 400-mile mark in total length. Currently, there are about 260 miles of County sewer lines within theiI boundaries of the new City. IThe County's Wastewater Operations Section is made up of 17 employees, including the Section Manager and administrative assistants. A study completed in 2001 by Ian outside consultant concluded that the Section functions at a high level of efficiency corn' pared to other similar agencies. The Billing and Customer Service Section includes 8 employees, and provides ani! manages all of the services related to account setup, monthly billings, collections, and responselto customer account inquiries. Receptionist services for the Division of Utilities are also provided by the Section. Effective January 1, 2003, the monthly sewer service charge for a single-family residence connected to the County's system will be $24.50. This compares favorably wish sewer rates for other municipalities throughout the northwest. The rate covers the proportional share of operational costs at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, as well as collection system maintenance and operation, billing, and system replacement funding. 4. Sewer System Budget—Maintenance The 2003 budget for the Wastewater Operations Section of the County's system is approximately$5,170,000. This indicates labor costs, materials, small equipment and material purchases, treatment costs to be paid to the City of Spokane (estimated at $31233,000), power, fuel, replacement parts, and contracts for miscellaneous outside services. The 2003 budget for the Billing and Customer Service Section is approximately $595,000. This includes the costs for establishment of new accounts, processing of monthly billings, responding to existing and future customer inquiries, posting of payments, postage, preparation and mailing of special notices, and other related services. The Sewer Planning and Design Section provides a variety of engineering se f Ices. Many of these engineering services support (and are financed by) the Sewer Construction Program. However, there are a number of services that are related to the ongoing management of the existing system. These include the review of development pr posals, the preparation of sewer extension agreements, plan reviews and approvals, ' inspection of all sewer connections, industrial pretreatment, data management and G.I.S. systems, consultant fees, and engineering support for maintenance projects. The total budget for the "non-program" engineering services in 2003 is approximately$1,535,000. Note that approximately$240,000 these costs are expected to come from permit fees and reJiew fees. It is projected that the rate structure will generate approximately$428,000 in 2003 that will be earmarked for the reserve fund. There are expenditures planned for 2003 from the reserve fund that total approximately$316,000. (These expenditures make up _ _ abut 56 percent of the Capital Projects discussed below.) The components of the sewer t/W%V and SW tepon.doc] -21- 11/20/02 I � system have life expectancies that vary from 25 years to 100 years. Mechanical components tend to have shorter design lives, while gravity sewers can be expected to last 75 to 100 years. Providing for the growth of an adequate reserve fund over time enables a utility to replace aged portions of the system without dramatic rate increases for the customers. 5. Sewer System Budget—Capital Projects The proposed budget for capital projects and expenditures in 2003 is approximately$567,000. Major maintenance projects include safety railings at 22 sites, dratinfield replacement work, SCADA system additions at two locations, restoration work !_ on di amaged manholes, and the addition of an enclosure at the Wastewater Operations Center. Major equipment purchases include a new backhoe, a single-axle dump truck, and a new high-pressure nozzle/skid for pipe cleaning. lI • 1 I I ti [!ww and SW Reportdoc] -22- 11120!02 Section V: Statutes and Regulations Applicable to Operation of Sewer System I ' �. A. Statutes and Regulations Revised Code of Washington (Pertinent Parts) a. R.C.W. 35A.80.010 General laws applicable. A code city may provide utility service within and without its limits and exercise all powers to the extent authorized by general law for any class of city or town. The cost of such improvements may be financed by procedures provided for financing local improvement districts in chapters 34.43 through 35.54 RCW and by revenue and refunding bonds as authorized by chapters 35.41, 35.67 and 35.89 RCW and Title 85 RCW. A code city may protect and operate utility services as authorized by chapters 35.88, 35.91, 35.92, and 35.94 RCW and may acquire and damage property in connection therewith as provided by chapter 8.12 RCW and shall be governed by the regulations of the Department of Ecology as provided in RCW 90.48.110. _ b. R.C.W. 35.67.020 Authority to construct system and fix rates and charges —Classification of services and facilities—Assistance for low-income persons. Every city and town may construct, condemn and purchase, acquire, add to, maintain, conduct, and operate systems of sewerage and systems and plants for - refuse collection and disposal together with additions, extensions, and betterments thereto, within and without its limits, with full jurisdiction and authority to { t manage, regulate, and control them and to fix, alter, regulate, and control the rates ( and charges for their use. The rates charged must be uniform for the same class of customers or service and facilities furnished. In classifying customers served or service and facilities furnished by such system of sewerage, the city or town legislative body may in its discretion consider any or all of the following factors: (1) The difference in cost of service and facilities to the various customers; (2) the location of the various customers within and without the city or town; (3) the difference in cost of maintenance, operation, repair, and replacement of the various parts of the system; (4) the different character of the service and facilities furnished various customers; (5) the quantity and quality of the sewage delivered and the time of its delivery; (6) the achievement of water conservation goals and the discouragement of wasteful water use practices; (7) capital contributions made to the system, including but not limited to, assessments; (8) the nonprofit public benefit status, as defined in RCW 24.03.490, of the land user; and for on-site inspection and maintenance services _ may not be imposed under this chapter on the development, construction, or reconstruction of property. . . [/WW and SW eport.doc] -23- 11/20/02 I i c. R.C.W. 36.94.180 Transfer of system upon annexation or incorporation of area. In the event of the annexation to a city or town of an area, or incorporation of an area, in which a county is operating a sewerage and/or water system, the property, facilities, and equipment of such sewerage and/or water system lying within the annexed or incorporated area-may be transferred to the city or town if such transfer will not materially affect the operation of any of the remaining county system, subject to the assumption by the city or town of the county's obligations relating to such property, facilities, and equipment, under the procedures specified in, and pursuant to the authority contained in, chapter 35.13A RCW. d. R.C.W.35.13A.020 Assumption authorized—Disposition of properties and rights—Outstanding indebtedness—Management and control. (1) Whenever all of the territory of a district is included within the corporate boundaries of a city, the city legislative body may adopt a resolution or ordinance to assume jurisdiction over all of the district. (2) Upon the assumption, all real and personal property, franchises, rights, assets, taxes levied but not collected for the district for other than indebtedness, water, sewer, and drainage facilities, and al other facilities and equipment of the district shall become the property of the city subject to all financial, statutory, or contractual obligations of the district for the security or performance of which the property may have been pledged. The city, in addition to its other powers, shall have the power to manage, control, maintain, and operate the property, facilities and equipment and to fix and collect service and other charges from owners and occupants of properties so served by the city, subject, however, to any outstanding indebtedness,bonded or otherwise, of the district payable from taxes, assessments, or revenues of any kind or nature and to any other contractual obligations of the district. (3) The city may by resolution or ordinance of its legislative body, assume the obligation of paying such district indebtedness and of levying and of collecting or causing to be collected the district taxes, assessments, and utility rates and charges of any kind or nature to pay and secure the payment of the indebtedness, according to all of the terms, conditions and �._ covenants incident to the indebtedness, and shall assume and perform all other outstanding contractual obligation of the district in accordance with all of their terms, conditions, and covenants. An assumption shall not be deemed to impair the obligations of any indebtedness or other contractual obligation. During the period until the outstanding indebtedness of the lnvw and SW Reportdoc1 -24- 11/20/02 1 � district has been discharged, the territory of the district and the owners and occupants of property therein, shall continue to be liable for its and their proportionate share of the indebtedness, including any outstanding assessments levied within any local improvement district or utility local improvement district thereof. The city shall assume the obligation of causing the payment of the district's indebtedness, collecting the district's - taxes, assessments, and charges, and observing and performing the other -- district contractual obligations. The legislative body of the city shall act as the officers of the district for the purpose of certifying the amount of any property tax to be levied and collected therein, and causing service and other charges and assessments to be collected from the property or owners or occupants thereof, enforcing the collection and performing all other acts necessary to ensure performance of the district's contractual obligations in the same manner and by the same means as if the territory of the district had not been included within the boundaries of a city. When a city assumes the obligation of paying the outstanding indebtedness, and if property taxes or assessments have been levied and service and other charges have accrued for this purpose but have not been collected by the district prior to the assumption, the same when collected 1 shall belong and be paid to the city and be used by the city so far as necessary for payment of the indebtedness of the district existing and unpaid on the date the city assumes the indebtedness. Any funds received by the city which have been collected for the purpose of paying any bonded or other indebtedness of the district, shall be used for the purpose for which they were collected and for no other purpose. Any outstanding indebtedness shall be paid as provided in the terms, conditions, and covenants of the indebtedness. all funds of the district on deposit with the county treasurer at the time of title transfer shall be used by the city solely for the benefit of the assumed utility and shall not be transferred to or used for the benefit of the city's general fund. i • e. R.C.W. 36.36.020 Creation of aquifer protection area—Public hearing- - Ballot proposition. The county legislative authority of a county may create one or more aquifer protection areas for the purpose of funding the protection, preservation, and rehabilitation of subterranean water. An aquifer protection area shall be created by ordinances of the county if the voters residing in the proposed aquifer protection area approve the ballot proposition by a simple majority vote. An aquifer protection area may not include territory located within a city or town without the approval of the city or town governing body, nor may it 1 � (AVW and SW Report.doc] -25- 11/20102 • II include territory located in the unincorporated area of another county without the approval of the county legislative authority of that county. f. R.C.W. 90.48.110 Plans and proposed methods of operation and maintenance of sewerage or disposal systems to be submitted to department— Exceptions—Time limitations. (1) Except under subsection (2)of this section, all engineering reports, plans, and specifications for the construction of new sewerage systems, sewage treatment or disposal plants or systems, or for improvements or extensions to existing sewerage systems or sewage treatment or disposal plants, and the proposed method of future operation and maintenance of said facility or facilities, shall be submitted to and be approved by the department [DOE), before construction thereof may begin. No approval ! shall be given until the department is satisfied that said plans and specifications and the methods of operation and maintenance submitted are adequate to protect the quality of the state's waters as provide for in this chapter. (2) To promote efficiency in service delivery and intergovernmental cooperation in protecting the quality of the state's waters, the department may delegate the authority for review and approval of engineering reports, plans, and specifications for the construction of new sewerage systems, sewage treatment or disposal plants or systems, or for improvements or extensions to existing sewerage system or sewage treatment or disposal plants, and the proposed method of future operations and maintenance of said facility or facilities and industrial pretreatment systems, to local units of government requesting such delegation and meeting criteria established by the department. (3) For any new or revised general sewer plan submitted for review under this section, the department shall review and either approve, conditionally approve, reject, or request amendments within ninety days of the receipt of the submission of the plan. The department may extend this ninety-day time limitation for new submittals by up to an additional ninety days if insufficient time exists to adequately review the general sewer plan. For rejections of plans or extensions of the timeline, the department shall provide in writing the local government entity the reason for such action. In addition, the governing body of the local government entity and the ry department may mutually agree to an extension of the deadlines contained in this section. g. R.C.W. 70.1 16.140 Review of water or sewer system plan—Time limitations—Notice of rejection of plan or extension of timeline. , i OM and SW Report.doci -26- 11120/02 For any new or revised water or sewer system plan submitted for review under this chapter, the department of health shall review and either approve, conditionally approve, reject, or request amendments within ninety days of the _ receipt of the submission of the plan. The department of health may extend this ninety-day time limitation for new submittals by up to an additional ninety days if ( insufficient time exists to adequately review the general comprehensive plan. for rejections of plans or extensions of the timeline, the department shall provide in writing, to the person or entity submitting the plan, the reason for such action. In addition, the person or entity submitting the plan and the department of health may mutually agree to an extension of the deadlines contained in this section. B. Regulatory Agencies applicable to operation of Sewer System 1. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2. Washington State Department of Health. 3. Spokane County Health District. • 4. Aquifer Protection District. . 5. City of Spokane. 6. Spokane County. 7. City of Spokane Valley. L.! • Sys t/WW and SW Rcport.docl -27- 11/20102 Section VI: Stormwater and Flood Plains Issues A. Stormwater Issues There are four Stormwater basins within the new City SpokaneValley, Chester Creek, Central Park (Edgecliff), South Shelley Lake, and a small part of Glenrose Basin. However, that small part of Glenrose includes the gravel pit at 8th and Carnahan into which the County intends to discharke all the stormwater from the south hill (Glenrose). With the loss of stormwater fees from the Spokane Valley, Spokane County Stormwater Utility may not be able to continue with this plan until they identify new funding sources. Stormwater plans have or are being prepared for all of these Stormwater Basins; these plans will have to be revised and reviewed by the City of Spokane Valley to reflect the best interests of the new City. C(rrent funding of the County Stormwater Utility is through a Stormwater Fee. The stormwater fee revenue, which will be collected with property taxes for the area of the new City for 2002 i5 estimated to be $881,104, or about 60 percent of the entire total of$1,497,538 collected y the County. Historically, most of these stormwater funds have been spent in areas other than the Valley or for administration of the Utility. Engineering and road crews maintain stormwater facilities inside County road rights-of-way and bill the Stormwater Utility for those 4 costs. in turn, the Stormwater Utility bills the Division of Engineering and Roads for the impervious surface on County roads the same as for private property. There is no line item for i 1 these charges or revenues in the Stormwater budget. The 2002 budget shows reserves and fund L' balances of$2,912,690, income including interest of$1,607,090 for the total balance of $4,519,780. This does not include additional funds that may be available from grants and other sources. It is unclear what other income might be available to the City of Spokane Valley other than Storrs water fees. The City of Spokane Valley could consider including the maintenance and constructing of stormwater facilities in the City roads Right-of-Way part of any Roads Maintenance Contract. It appears that maintenance of these facilities has not been a high priority in the past. (Ref: Borrow pit at 28 &Dishman Mica) The Council could decide not to charge the City stormwater fees l and simply include those costs in the road maintenance contract with the County. L _ The City of Spokane Valley does not have many severe stormwater problems other than Chester Creek. (Ref: Flood Plain Report) Proper maintenance and installation of stormwater facilities and attention to Building and Planning requirements to keep stormwater on site, should keep any major stormwater management problems from developing within the new City in the future. The Flood Basin Plans could be reviewed and revised to reflect the best interests of the Spokane Valley. The city council could also consider establishing a designated storm water fund from the stormwater fees and contracting for those options they consider most necessary. The { Spokane County Storm Water Utility alternatives for stormwater management follow in Section B. tl\VN'and SW Repon.docJ -28- 11/20/02 1 t� I r' B. Stormwater Management Alternatives for the New City to Consider ,1. Spokane County Stormwater Services. The Spokane County Stormwater Utility focuses on drainage basin-wide } ;stormwater management and the regional facilities needed to serve existing and future development over the long term. The utility's mission is to ensure that stonnwater ;systems are planned, developed and maintained to prevent flooding, protect water quality I ( land preserve natural stormwater systems. A brief overview of current stormwater utility services follows. Stormwater Management Plans: In areas where topography, soils and geology make infiltration of runoff on individual development sites difficult, regional infrastructure is essential to reduce existing stormwater problems and to serve future igrowth according to the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Stormwater [Utility prepares stormwater management plans identifying needed ditches, pipes, holding ponds and infiltration areas and the appropriate locations for these stormwater ,management facilities. IUsing engineering consultants, the County has drafted plans for three basins partly within the new City(Chester Creek, Central Park, and Glenrose). Utility engineers are staking stormwater planning work for a fourth area, South Shelley Lake. The lower, more heavily developed portions of three of the stormwater planning areas (Chester ;Creek, Central Park, and South Shelley Lake) are inside the City of Spokane Valley while thelupper, less developed areas will remain in unincorporated Spokane County. Only a L small part of the Glenrose Basin is within the new City. ` Because no decision has been made about the appropriate means of financing the ca iital improvements and programs recommended in the stormwater management plans, P '?' g A , County staff have not presented the stonnwater plans for public hearing and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. Stormwater runoff follows topographic features, not jurisdictional boundaries. 1 City and County coordination will be important in the implementation of stonnwater management plans for any of the basins that are partly within the new City and partly ;within the County.Working with County Stormwater Utility staff and a citizens committee, a consultant completed the Draft Chester Creek Watershed Plan in 1997. The following year a contractor, working under County direction, cleaned the Chester Creek Channel, a project that cost about $500,000. In another project, a contractor removed debris from the pri''ate drainage channel serving a sub-basin in the area along Highway 27 between 40`h Mi and 46th Avenues. Before public hearing and adoption of the Chester Creek Plan, certain elements of the proposed plan may require updating. Consideration should be given to adding a grog ndwater element. Since completion of the draft plan, rising groundwater has affected several homes in the basin and may be the cause of several drywell failures. If the issue is significant enough and appears to be a long-term concern, then plans need to be made for [/WW and W Repon.docl -29- 11/20102 i � 'reducing the amount of water discharged into the ground and possibly for constructing facilities to accommodate groundwater discharges from sump pumps. IThe cost estimates in the Chester Creek Watershed Plan need to be reviewed and updated. The plan estimated the main channel cleanout project cost at S 130,000 while the actual cost was close to $500,000. This may indicate that other cost estimates are low. Some of the plan's proposed methods of financing recommended programs and capital Improvements need to be re-evaluated based on current funding resources and the priorities of the new City. A consultant has completed the Draft Glenrose/Central Park Stormwater Management Plan. The capital improvement recommendations for the Central Park Basin are estimated to cost $3.4 million. Before public hearing and plan adoption, the draft would need updating to reflect the new City's stormwater programs and priorities and to determine how the recommendations will be financed. In 2002 the County Stormwater Utility began a stormwater assessment for the South Shelley Lake area. High groundwater results in flooded basements in several neighborhoods including a few developed within the last ten years. Recently the County Stoimwater Utility staff obtained updated electronic soils information and contracted for ageology update for the area. If the updated soils and geology data indicate areas potentially suitable for stormwater infiltration, then a seismic refraction survey could help rpinpoint the most appropriate infiltration areas. Periodically the Stormwater Utility contracts with Avista for obtaining electronic aerial photographs and detailed topographic data for the basin planning effort. Stormwater Facility Inventory: The Stonnwater Utility inventories all public stormwater facilities in the public road rights-of-way within the Utility's Stormwater Service Area (SWSA). Summer crews equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology keep the inventory up to date. Crews download the GPS data into the County's Geographic Information System (GIS) to map the facilities and to document facilities' conditions. Support staff use the GIS data liked to databases to run reports tracking the number of facilities from year to year. GIS technicians provide the �{{ electronically mapped inventory to the State Department of Ecology annually to meet requirements under the State's Underground Injection Control Program. In mid 2002, the inventory database showed these facilities within the new City boundaries: 5141 dry wells with pretreatment 5099 drywells without pretreatment 1921 catch basins with culverts 1310 curb inlets 9291 grassy swales 208 culverts 88 ditches 78 pipe sumps 20 bridge drains 17 pipes 1 1 9 catch basins 9 maintenance junctions 6 detention ponds 2 rock sumps 1 retention pond [/WW and SW Repon.doe) -30- 11/20/02 IS L __( ! An engineering technician surveys the condition of all grassy swales in the SWSA and oversees the flooding of new grassy swales to ensure they function as designed and as required by Spokane County Code. Storm water Facilities Maintenance inside County road Rights-of-Way: County Engineering and Roads crews maintain stormwater facilities inside the County road rights-of-ways. At the end of each year, the Engineering and Roads Division bills the Stcrmwater Utility for the maintenance services provided. The billing includes the costs sof maintaining swales or detention ponds associated with County road projects. Each `year the Stonnwater Utility bills the Division of Engineering and Roads for the ( timpervious surface inside County road rights-of-way(see discussion below about stormwater fees). The annual stormwater charge for the roadways needs to be updated using recent data about road surfaces. ( I Drainage Complaints Mapping and Response: The Engineering and Roads Division generally handle Landowner complaints about routine stormwater facility maintenance. The maintenance work and any facility improvement costs are charged to the Stormwater Utility. If landowner complaints relate to basement flooding or other groundwater issues or if there is a cluster of complaints that do not seem related to routine • maintenance, then Stormwater Utility personnel evaluate the best way to respond. In a few cases, the Utility has worked with a group of homeowners to come up with a small project that will fix a drainage problem or at least lessen its impact. In other cases, staff document the problems after talking with the property owners and includes that information in any basin plan being prepared for the area. All drainage related con plaints are mapped using the GiS. The mapping indicates the types of problems occurring in a specific area and pinpoints areas where the stormwater facilities are not working properly. Support staff use electronic database to run reports of the complaints by area, year, type of complaint, etc. Development Proposals Review and Storm water Control Ordinances 1-1 Administration: Stormwater Utility staff comment on proposals for new development from the basin-wide perspective, noting stormwater related problems in the vicinity of proposed developments. If a development proposal is within a High Risk Drainage Area, then Stormwater Utility staff make the developer aware of the pertinent regulations. ? I The Central Park Basin is designated in County Code as a High Risk Drainage Area. This means mapped draina lewd s must be left open, new development must not g Y P develop Ment more water into the ground or to downstream properties than was discharged prior to development, and basements must be designed to prevent flooding from surface and[ground water. Stonnwater Utility staff work with developers and builders to implement the regulations. Storm water Billing: Each year Stormwater Utility technicians update the stormwater billing system electronically, using new aerial photographs and/or building permit data to calculate the appropriate stormwater fees for the coming year. The • (/WW and SW Repan.doc) -31- 11/20/02 I t !Stormwater Utility manager certifies the billing roll to the County Treasurer for collection. Technical Assistance to Landowners, Builders and Homeowners Associations: A Stormwater Utility technician inspects grassy swales and works with builders and r !homeowners on swales repair/restoration when necessary. Another staff person meets .with homeowner association members to explain how private subdivision stormwater r----) ;facilities were designed to work and the type of maintenance required. f 2. ' Funding of County Stormwater Management Services. The County Stormwater Utility is funded through fees specified in County Code. �' Sinele-family homes, duplexes, and triplexes pay$10 per unit per year. Other land uses (chu irches, schools, apartments, businesses, industries, etc.) pay a fee based on the amount �of impervious coverage (rooftop, driveways, parking lot, etc.) on the specific parcel receiving the charge. An average single-family lot developed in Spokane County ;contains 3,160 square feet of impervious surface, which is one Equivalent Residential i. ti Umt (ERU). The annual charge is $10 per ERU. The County Treasurer bills the stormwater charge as a line item on the tax statement each year. Stormwater Utility staff [--1i answer questions from ratepayers about how the fees are calculated and prepare any .; appeals of the stormwater charges for review by the Hearing Examiner. The Treasurer's Office tracks payments and processes liens as County Code requires. Current revenue funds stormwater planning and basic stormwater services only. Funding is insufficient for major capital improvements or for basin plan implementation _ in the utility's service area. The County is hiring a financial consultant to evaluate the ! optrions for raising the money necessary to implement stormwater management plans and to build the stormwater infrastructure needed by the growing community. The current stormwater billing for properties within the new City is approximately$890,000. 3. i Issues on the Horizon. n, By March 2003 communities with discharges to municipal separate storm sewer `( -systems or discharges to surface water must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge '-'1 Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Phase 2 permit. The permit, required under theifederal Clean Water Act, is obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology. Whether or not the City of Spokane Valley will need an NPDES permit is unknown. c Spokane County has made the case with Ecology that since the unincorporated County does not have direct stormwater discharges to surface waters, the County should not be required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. �� Under Washington Administrative Code section 173-218, the Department of _1 Ecology administers an Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. Drywell owners are required to register drywells with the state. Each year the Stormwater Utility submits an 'inventory of drywells (and other stormwater facilities in public road rights-of-way) to Ecology to fulfill the UIC requirements. Currently the State is working to update the UIC `eguStorrnwater and Utility staff will be involved in that process. The City of I/Ww and SW Report.docl -32- 11/20/02 i 1 Spokane Valley, like all other jurisdictions, will be required to meet the program requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency and Ecology are concerned about drywells injecting untreated stormwater runoff into the ground and the resulting potential for groundwater contamination. Most of the drywells with no pretreatment facilities, such as grassy swales, were constructed prior to 1980. As noted above, the new City of Spokane Valley has about 5100 drywells without associated pretreatments. 14. Options for City of Spokane Valley Stormwater Services. The City of Spokane Valley has many options for providing stormwater management. Some of the options are: a. City Stormwater Program: Under Revised Code of Washington(RCW) 35.67, the City can pass legislation to create its own stormwater utility and set rates and charges to support the program. The City can pass legislation setting the policies and guidelines regulating how new developments will control and treat stormwater runoff. ' b. Contract with the City of Spokane: The City of Spokane provides stormwater management services within its borders. The new City of Spokane Valley could contract the City of Spokane for information about the services provided and whether it would be useful for the new City to consider an interlocal j ! agreement with the City of Spokane for such services. c. Contract with Spokane County: the City may want to contract with the County Stormwater Utility for some or all stormwater services for the short or long term. The City could contract with the County for any or all of these services: LJ r (1) Stormwater billing services, updating the stormwater billing [-- annually using aerial photographs and building permits. This would include keeping track of the changes to stormwater fees as parcels are divided or aggregated. The new City would need to pass a rate ordinance specifying the rates to be charged. The rates could be the same as the current County rates or whatever the city council thinks appropriate to finance the stormwater services being provided. (2) Stormwater management planning and/or update and implementation of the Chester Creek, Central Park, and South Shelley Lake Stormwater Management Plans. (3) Annual updates to the stormwater facility inventory and reporting to Ecology. . [NAV and`'SW Rcpon.docl -33- 11/20/02 c J ti I (4) Maintenance of stormwater facilities inside the City street rights- of-way. The City could contract with the Stormwater Utility for this service or directly with the County Division of Engineering and Roads. (5) Response to flooding complaints. (6) Technical assistance to builders and homeowners regarding grassy swale inspection and restoration. (7) Technical assistance to Homeowner Associations responsible for maintaining private stormwater facilities. (8) Working with Ecology on NPDES and UIC compliance issues. if the City of Spokane Valley wishes to contract for stormwater services with ;Spokane County, then interlocal agreements would be the appropriate mechanism for formalizing arrangements. C. flood Plains Issues •Li The areas of the new City which are a Flood Plain concern are along the Spokane River, South Shelley Lake, Central Park/Glenrose (a small part inside the new City—Edgecliff area) and Chester Creek. All of the above areas can be managed by a Storm Water Utility under Public Works by the new City. This will be addressed in the report on Storm Water. This report will focus on the Chester Creek Flood Plain, as this area has the greatest impact on many of the citizens of Spokane Valley. I.n October 2000 an appeal was made to FEMA to restudy the 100 year Flood Plain of IJ Chester Creek by the citizens affected by that designation. FEMA has agreed and that study is now underway. FEMA is covering the cost of the study and the County is providing them with the data. The new City does not have any financial responsibility for this study, but will be responsible for hosting the public hearings. The new City should monitor the progress of this study to beI'sure the citizens are well represented. The area of most concern is north of 28th along Dishman Mica Highway to Sprague Avenue and east of Dishman Mica Highway at 28`h to Bowdish, which is Kokomo and part of Chester Hills. This area was declared a 100-year flood plain after development occurred, which was the cause of the problem. Depreciation of property values and the high cost of flood insurance has been an unnecessary burden on the property owners in this area. Hopefully the new study by FEMA will remove the 100-year flood designation from this area. Half of the Chester Creek Flood Plain is in the new City and half is in the County. All the 1 floodwater that occurs south of the new City will flow north into the new City. Therefore, it is imperative(that the new City and the County work together to maintain these flood channels. The borrow pit at 28th and Dishman Mica Highway and the floodway south to Bowdish Road has not been maintained since it was reconstructed and needs some work done before the next flood event. 1 lnvw and SW R por.doc1 -34- 11,70102 ; 1 Documentation on the history of the Chester Creek Flood Plain is included in Exhibit B attached to this report. D. Flood Plain Alternatives for the New City to Consider 1. Status Quo. Do nothing. 2. The new City could execute an agreement with Spokane County Storm Water Utility for management of the areas prone to flooding. The new City could then contract with Spokane County Engineers and/or others to maintain and construct flood control facilities. 3. 1 The new City could create a Wet Lands Park in the area between Schaefer and Bowdish Roads along Chester Creek. This could include nature trails, bike paths, etc. Some County-owned land is already in this area and additional land could be acquired. Sixty percent of the storm water fees collected in the County come from the area within new City, but have not been spent here. These funds cold be put in a designated fund to be used for storm water and flood problems. These funds could be used for this purpose as it would relieve the threat of flooding down stream. _- 4. Short Term: Establish a Storm Water Fund from the storm water fees collected and,address flood plains problems as they occur. This would be a reactive policy. a • • I; (IW\V and SW Report.doc] -35- 11f20f02 f • 1 Section VII: Contacts for Further Information A. Citizen Participants r Dick 13ehm Dick Denenny John Dalton Michael King Tony Lazanis Lloyd Peterson Larry Rudy Chuck Simpson Vern Slichter Steve Worley B. Special Acknowledgements & Resource Kevin Cooke—Spokane County Laity Esvelt—Esvelt Environmental Engineering Bruce Rawls—Spokane County • Dennis Scott Brenda Sims—Spokane County Jim Sloane—Perkins Coie Phil Williams—CH2M Hill Ij { _ y •[IR\V and SW Repoitdoci -36- 11/20/02 1 1 ♦ r EXHIBIT A 1 Spokane County Wastewater Treatment System Estimated Costs 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I l , r , EXHIBIT A Spokane County Wastewater Treatment System Estimated Costs Capital Costs ($1,000s)' Program Elements Phase 1 (2002-2007) Phase 2 (2008-2020) Demand Management Water Conservation—Public Education S - $ - Water Conservation—Physical Devices $ - $ 500 Disconnect Sumps $ - S - . Pretreatment Focus on Metals $ - S - High Strength Surcharges $ - $ - Wather Recycling and Waste Minimization $ - $ - ' Subtotal! $- $ 500 Conveyance - North Spokane Conveyance Improvements $ - $ 1,200 Spokane Valley Pump Station $ 5,500 $ - Spokane Valley Force Main $ 1,400 $ - North Valley Pump Station S 6,900 • $ - North Valley Force Main S 2,300 $ - Subtotal' $ 16,100 $ 1,200 Treatment (Liquid & Solids) SAWTP—Restore Capacity& Upgrade $ 14,900 S - SAWTP—Improve Level of Treatement $ - $ 7,800 Spokane Valley Plant—Phase 1 (8 mgd) $ 65,600 $ - Spokane;Valley Plant—Phase 2 (4 mgd) $ - $ 22,000 _ Suhtotall $ 80,500 $ 29,800 Effluent Management `_j Demonstration Projects S - $ 1,000 Refuse Conveyance (allowance) S - $ 2,000 Subtotal! $- $ 3,000 Land Acquisition Spokane Valley Pump Station $ 150 $ - North Valley Pump Station $ 150 $ - Spokane Valley Plant $ 2,500 S - -, Subtotal' $2,800 $ - Total Program $ 99,400 $ 34,500 I ' ' Costs are uninflated values presented in January 2001 dollars. it [!Exhibit A.d i 1 . I I ' EXHIBIT B ' Storniwater and Flood Plains Issues Documentation 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Stormwater Services, Spokane County Public Works Division of Utilities Spokane County Stormwater Utility Mission: To ensure that stormwater systems are planned, developed and maintained to preserve natural storm- water systems, prevent flooding and protect water quality. Services: • Work with area residents to prepare stormwa ter management plans for basins experiencing stormwater problems and areas needing regional stormwater facilities to accommodate growth. Two valley areas with stormwater management plans are Central Park (area along 8th Avenue/Park Road/Dickey Road) and Chester Creek (area along Dishman-Mica High- way.) • inventory stormwater facilities inside road rights-of-way (r-o-w) using Global Positioning System • Provide electronically mapped and updated stormwater facility inventory to Department of Ecology annually to meet state requirements • Maintain stormwater facilities inside public r-o-w through contract with County Engineering & Roads • Respond to drainage complaints; map complaints using Geographic Information System • Design/construct small projects to reduce localized flooding and/or improve water quality treatment • Review development proposals from overall stormwater basin perspective • Update billing database annually to include new structures/impervious surfaces; process stormwater billing aspects of land segregations • • Provide technical assistance to builders and homeowners with regard to grassy swale inspec- tion/enforcement and restoration • Assist homeowners associations with information about drainage facility maintenance Funding: • From stormwater service charges: ' Owner of single family home/duplex/triplex pays $10 per unit per year ' Others pay based on sq footage of impervious (hard) surfaces on the property $10 per 3,160 sq ft impervious per year • Stormwater charges billed through County Treasurer • Funding for planning/basic stormwater services only l • No funding for major capital improvements id1I .. . Continued on back • Items on the horizon: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storrnwater Phase 2 Permits. Many communities with stormwater discharges to a municipal separate storm sewer system or discharges to surface water are required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit by March 2003. • Underground Injection Control (UIC), Washington Administrative Code 1.73-218: owner is - -, required to register drywells; state and federal concern about drywells that have no pretreat- ment (e.g. grassy swales) in certain areas Possibilities for City stormwater services: Legal authority for cities to provide stormwater ro • p grams: Revised Code of Washington 35.67; City can pass legislation to create stormwater utility and set rates/charges to support the program. • City may also pass legislation about drainage policy and control/treatment of stormwater run- off(regulations and conditions for development with regard to stormwater management). • City may want to contract*with County for some or all stormwater services for a year or two until City decides its own long-term approach. • The City may want to establish its own stormwater program but rely on the County for gener- ating billing updates each year. • Other stormwater services the City may want to contract with the County: • Annual stormwater facility inventory update to Ecology under the UIC program _ v Inventory and maintenance of stormwater facilities inside public r-o-w • Technical assistance to builders/homeowners regarding grassy swale inspection/ enforcement and private drainage facilities v Response to flooding complaints NPDES stormwater permit compliance Brenda Sims .,. Stormwater Utility Manager Division of Utilities 477-3604 J bsinu•@spokanecounry org Sot`!•u COUNTY COU1 !' V ,J 11 Stomrwater Utility Revenues from Fees-Year 2002 1 II I I I li • Outside Valley City Inside Vali City TOTAL __ Parcels Revenues Parcels Revenues Parcels Revenues Residential 23,537 $243,130 23,589 $254,070 47,126 $497,200 1 Commercial 1271 $373,304' 3,235 $627,034 4,5061$1,000,338 I 1 I I Total 24,808 $616,434 26,824 $881,104 51,632 $1,497,538 : I Sewer Utility Revenues from Fees-Year 2002 ] 1 1 I -- Unincorporated Valley Inside Valley City North Spokane Hangman Hills TOTAL Accts( •Revenues Accts1 Revenues Accts Revenues Accts Revenues Accts Revenues -I Residential 1,1991 $281,502 12223 $2,914,234 5,164 51,226,160 181' $42,354 18,76754,464,250 . Apartments 10 $7,128 188 $735,799 43 $76,171 1 $650 2421 $819,748 l ! Commercial 5 $116,364 795 $867,989 117 $148,133 0 $0 917 $1,132,486 Mobile Home Park - - 7 $35,613 - - - - 7 $35,613 Total-Operations 1,214 $404,994 13,213 $4,553,635 5,324 $1,450,464 182 543,004 19,933 $6,452,097 1 Wastewater Treatment 1 $60,567 $1,001,235 $304,534 $8,822 $1,375,158 Plant Fund I [ I I I • • • II 2i - ' I � • • Sewer-Stomiwater Fees to Valley City 08:47 CA P.02 02 • Linda M. Wolverton, CPA I _ : � '•,-z • .,, -`; • COUNTY TREASURER ZT 1:�+•�:: 1 Y I htB • _-SSS w.7 ,..-.p✓,.. ._. .. 'S`.•. c... &MC CQI:Wtv COV7 •OVGC August 14, 2002 Mr. Dick Behm Behm's Valley Creamery y I t - 9405 E Sprague Ave Spokane, WA 99206 Dear Mr. Behm: You recently requested information regarding the amounts charged in 2002 for Aquifer. - Weed, Stormwater, and Conservation on property within the new City of Spokane Valley. The Assessor's Office has not finalized the parcel lists at this time. However, based on a preliminary list they developed, the County's Information Systems Department was able to compile some rough numbers. The estimated charges for 2002. ( based on this preliminary list, are as follows: Aquifer 5775,000 - Weed S 85,000 !__ Stormwater $850,000 Conservation $145,000 _ Once again, at this time these are preliminary estimates and will change as the Assessor's Office finalizes parcel information for the City. Sincerely, • Bob Wrigley, C A Chief Deputy Trees P.O. Box 2168 ------- ����- -���� Phone; (509) X17-4786 Report I' Report D. 112/2001 Spokane t ity Summit Fund Perrormance Fund: 409-Stormwater Utility Mission Statement or Purpose To ensure that stormwater systems are planned,developed and maintained to prevent flooding,protect water quality and preserve natural stormwater systems. Line 4 2001 Objectives or Goals(Objectives from last budget year) 2001 Accomplishments 2002 Objectives or Goals(Based on Target Budget) 1, Construct siomtwater channel In easements In the Due to land acquisition •Glen Construct stownws er narea, problems with one remaining property Acquire remaining easement in proposed stormwater channel owner and questions about the timing of City sanitary sewer area;coordinate with City to acquiring stormwater easements as work In the easement area,channel construction has been City acquires sanitary sewer easements In downstream area; delayed.•-••• . • • acquire Glennaire sewage lagoons from City;design plan for grading lagoons and constructing overflow structure. 2 Construct 112 of the pipe system for Glennatre Dr. • With budget amendment,constructed al of the pipe system for Begin-maintainin stormwater Glennaire Drive. ,., 9 pipe In Glettrtaire Drive, 3 Complete West Plains Stormwater Management Plan, Completed 90%of West Plains Stormwater Management Plan, Acquire property,design sediment and infgratiore basins for including selsrnic•refractlonetudy. West Plains paleochannel area. . 4 Use on-call contractor to construct small Improvements related to Prepared scope of work for on-call contractor. grassy swales and other stormwater facilities. Use on-call contractor to stortuct amall.tmprovementa related to grassy swatted and otherr stormwater faciities. • 5 Construct the North Spokane Early Action Project. The North Spokane Early Action Project was changed to focus Design long-term infiltration facility for North Spokane; on cleaning out the existing channel;staff is waiting for construct small Infiltration facility to handle flows from channel homeowners'response as to willingness to alow County to cleaning project. proceed. • 6 Continue Implementation of stormwaler ordinances. Continued knpl emerttation of stormwater control ordinances. Continue Implementation of stormwater control ordinances. • 7 Continue participation in statewide and eastslde committees. _ Continued participation In statewide and eastslde stormwater Continue participation in statewide/eastside stormwater committees;statewide stomrwater management plan policies committees. completed;eastslde stormwater manual committee appointed and beginning to meet: 8 Map all major drainage ways and sink areas In the Stormwater Due to problems acqufrfng accurate topgraphic Information and Map 50%of major drainageways and sink areas in Stormwater Service Area and evaluate means of protecting such areas for complete aerial photographs through Avista,the mapping of the Service Area;evaluate ways to protect such areas for stormwater flows. • - drainage'ways was delayed, siomrwater flows. 9 Map 20%of existing drainage easements and develop a program Evaluated ways to map existing drainage easements,decided to for making them functional for drainage purposes. delay,project until additional staff available. 10 Complete 30%of the outline stormwater management plan for the Work on the stonrmater management plan for the South Begin work on Cie South Shelley lake area outline stormwater south Shelley lake area, Shelley Lake area was delayed due to staff chanes. g management plan. 11 Provide technical assistance to Homeowner Associations Technical assistance to Homeowners Associations was Begin providing technical assistance to Homeowners' responsible for maintaining stormwater facilities and evaluate ways delayed by staff changes;a plan for approaching this is being Associations. to provide better inspection/enforcementrmatntenance of on-site developed now. stormwater facilities. 12 Worked through Development Task Force to develop and get stormwater code changes re:grassy swaies to public hearing 13 Worked with stakeholders to revise stormwater ordinances for GienroseiCentral Park and North Spokane. 14 Inspected 6047 storit,water facilities,adding 1701 to the Report ID:BD16 Spokane County Summit Report Date: 1112.12001 Fund Performance • Fund: 409-Stormwater Utility inventory;and also added 700 grassy swales to the swates database. 15 Completed over 280 design reviews. 16 Monitored groundwater wells In the Glenrose,North Spokane and West Plains areas. - 17 . . Maintained and monitored groundwater pump station In Englewood... . . . .. . 18 Completed 4th year of Chester Creek wetlands monitoring. Repair wetland enhancement area along Chester Creek Channel. . 19 Worked with other divisions In Public Worse on Underground Injection Control Issues with EPA and Ecology. 20 _ Reviewed over 3850 Requests for Investlgatlons(RFIs),worked on over 190,resolved over 175. • 21 Signed off on 708 basement•a.pprovats In stomiwater ordinance - control areas. 22 Photos scanned and data logged In: over 2725 Finish scanning photos,researching background data and entering same. Explore possibility of scanning slides for use In ' presentations and for long-term preservation of records. 23 • Old facilities maintenance reports scanned Into database: over Continue logging In new reports and scanning historical 2570;new reports logged In: over 760. records. Work on linking scanned files to records In database for ease In reviewing documentation. 24 When North Spokane end West Plains stormater plans completed,put together funding options for the 5 watersheds • for which plans have been essentially,completed. • Performance Indicators: 2000(Actual) 2001(Budget) 2002(Target) . Serve customers 0 r 49,000 48,000 • Evaluate grassy swales 0 1,000 700 Conduct design reviews 0 300 200 Secure dmg easmnts In Glnrs Wtrshd 0 1 1 _ --- -, _ : _ -- - __ - --- _ - - Report Date: 11 ,, Spokane C .ty Summit 3 Year Fund Summary 409-Stormwater Utility Budget Summary: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 YTD 2001 Suppl. 2002 Prel.Bud Revenues Actual Actual Actual Adopted Modified Actual Estimated Charges for Goods/Services Request Prel.Budget Adopted 1.369,190 1,353,466 1,447,841 1,337,000 1.337,000 1,334,306 1,445,316 0 Intergovernmental Revenue 0 114,731 1,483,135 100.0% 110.9% 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscelleaneous Revenue 242.298 180,053 191,369 135,000 135,000 138,891 170,015 0 Other Financing Sources 0 -1,946 123;955 91.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0%• Subtotal Fund Revenue 1,611,488 1,646,304 1,639,230 1,472,000 1,472,000 1,473,197 1,615,331 0 1,607,090 109.2% Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 3,661,204 3,671,093 Total Fund Revenue:--1761-1,-4-8- 757 1,6 1,63 ,230 5,133,204 5,143,093 1,473,197 1.615.331 0 2,912,690 79.6% 0 4,519,780 88.0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 . 2001 2001 YTD 2001 • Suppi. 2002 Prel:Bud Expenses Actual Actual Actual Adopted Modified Actual Estimated Request Prel.Budget Adopted Unclassified • 0 16,416 38,110 00 0 • � o 0 0 100.0%8 Wages 293,488 338,373 347,884 387,666 387,668 298,991 334,310 0 400,029 103.2% Employee Benefits 81,524 86,239 83,038 104,849 104,849 76,314 Supplies 8 Services 90,039 0 105,299 100.4% 414,250 879,919 742,086 1,345,832 . 1,406,287 292,154 1,378,310 2,203 1,060,772 78.8% Govern TransfersiServices 84,890 76,465 62,305 75,764 75,784. 52,842 _ 76,118, o64,848 85.6% _ Subtotal Fund Expense 874,151 1,397,411 • 1,273,423 , 1 914,131 1,974,586 720,300 , ;1,878;777 2,203 1,630,948 ..85.2% Fund Balance , : , 0 0 0 Capital : . ._.545,166 , ,t - 4,122' •' ... ' '0 =1:330 - •:.2,673,907 --2;653,7!? 1 •-.. 0 ':. 0 0 , �812,832 ;;1.f19.1% B.. 646;635 2,175,800 2,600 2,076,000.. ...:77,696 Total Fund Expense 878,273 1,397,411 • • 1.274,753 5,133204 5,143,093 1,366,835 4,054,577 4,803 4,519,780 88.0% Program Budgets: . 1998 1999 :2000 _ :2001 -_ •• : 2001 _2001 YID . •.2001 Suppi. .2002 PreL'Bud Revenues . . . Actual Actual . .Actual. Adopted Modified Actual Estimated Request Prel.Budget ...Adopted Stormwater Utililities . :..1.61.1,488 _ . 1,646,304 . 4,639,230 . . 1,472,000. . :.1,472,000 1..1.473,197 _ .,1,615,331 Subtotal Fund Revenue 1,611,488 .:1,646_,304 . L639,230 1,472,000 . 1,472,000 1,473,197. ' 1,615,331 0 1,607,090.• w1o9,2% • Beginning Fund Balance. . 0 .. 0 --+ 0 ' 3,661.,204 . -. .3,671,093 0 • 0 Total Fund Revenue: 1,611,488 1,646,304 1,639;230 5,133,204 . 5,143,0133 1,473,197 1,615,331 0 4,51•'690 „!79.6% • •• - 0 4,519,78b 88.0% . • 1898 1999 2000 • :- 2001 .2001' • 2001 YTD 2001 Suppl. Expenses - 'Actual Actual •- ;Actual' • 'Adopted' .. ,'Modified 'Actual - ;,Estimated • pP 2002 Prel.Bud Stormwater Utilililies _ ".Request ' ';•,prel:Budget.,• Rdopted 878,273 1,397,411 1,274,753 4,588,036 4,628,382 1,366,835 4.054,577 .4,603 • 3,706,948 • -80.8% Subtotal Fund Expense 878,E 1,397,411 1,274,753 4,588,038 4,628,382 1,366,835 4,054,577 4,803 3,70c,948 80.8% Ending Fund Balance . 0 0 - . 0 -545,166• , 514,71,1 • 0 0 Total Fund Expense 878.273 1,397,411 1,274,753 5,133,204 . 5,143,093 1,366,835 4,054,577 4,803 4,519,780 1898'3 i 9rv11 Art al ne IO 1117rar1rlt 7.91.1 I AM 1 i I __ __ . __'— _ - ---- _- Report ID: BD51 Report Date: 1112)2001 Spokane County Summit 3 Yr Department Revenues Fund: 409-Stormwater Utility •Dept Group: 419-Storrnwater Utililities 1998 . 1998 • Actual • Actual 2 01 2001 01. Supp1. z<.x� ><;;;>yl rYr, ;x t; a , ,;N �;..»,.":�:,, . ::s:�.;a . ,; o Estimated...: Request - 2000 - . 0 •21)01 • •Actual ' Adopted M dified 2002 Prel 8ud1 'Aetual '� '�<;T# � r: ^9•C.'*g .'•?;,z;'•b:,?i?";�..;p� h r r...}�„:;o:rn•• ,,- - .. q eSt' Prel:Budget..Adopted 3t0{Ttiy/ater litJjjfy�4t9fl000 {.°•s� 3 S? ,zi }in A ri,;:4}5".:r�;sry3>', d,¢i.+o f:.•2Y”�. ' ft}e•F :JF`X"a'1?!Y: :p•4'o .'}`<a;+;�:.• Af• ..y-;, &2Ci3�:J:a•:...:`.}Fri{� p ft >.rY'.":1.v�..S 5.j�p •,S k,3.::�'. �., Ky•::% : S.:h�'.$Y'_ .'.':f pis.,(.v,j' ,.$vY..'y.'+'r:' -:i t�' t•�' :§�•'.}� 'X '.1G:o^•� :.. ..Cric.x.,�......�kw.{x:,rk:Si......:.,..{}.'.•�}.2,r�.•X<i 2:�..�'a2<d.:`.; ss. :.a, o-"•-••}}:. n .o>.t.a?;' -k%¢,�`,`RM� ',�.,•.}::` :'D�v M:':'s,..^',s•"^#'Y� �:, :.,Y. 3060 ;r.: ?�t::z ;�tr.,,...J.�` 11,1 '�x x^owl 3� �f� Ys. IE11.,'i 3# 7},.s�3+lit 3 `'st. 's,"�'x 'vo• 4 i "7 x T `m}�•l 3 0 Beginning Fund Balance . _ 0 . a,..,,m3.6 1.204 ,k.. .,8. 1?,9€3F . " . .... .€,:" 0 2,'8'964 ,' 2% 0' 1,2 4; • 3,67.1,093 30619-Beginning Reserves(Istu) -- ''p '• -"' � � '"' ••.-••• - � ••• •• - • - - ' 3,66 ,w,h .ar_. y 0 0 0 .c.�.«cri,�r.k,-A......c+u 3088 0 0 ---•_. -0• 0 . .:,-.6...,.... 2,526,764" 05,096. 0 , 3-Fema Thru State Military:, • 0 114,73) ;•�'- "� 0 ', 0 526,726:, . 100.0%• 34313-Flood Control Fees 8 Chgs •`• -' -"- - '-. � "'0, +i • 15 0••t. •0 p,; 100,0%_ 9 1,369,190. • 1,352,726.,:,: 1,445657 1,337000 •1,337,000. •1,332404• 1,4.43,316.. • :' 34932-Englneering Svcs(Interfund) 0'" - - 741.. •' 2,183; -- ..,.....:8',. t2 0 1,4B3,135-• 110.9% 36111-Investment Interest 187,175-,;• 172,782 174,549 125,000.: , 125,000, ••:, '• ' , . 193.2%; 36190-Other Interest Earn, 130 249,: 160,000; . 0- 116,444, • 93.2%- 9,294 7,061 7,973 10,000 10,000 7,463 36990-Other Mise.Revenue 45,829 8,443 0 ,372 00.0% 210 8,867 0 0 1,179 1,572 0 1 1,179 100.096 39540-Gain On Fixed Assets 0 -1,946 0 0 0 4l90000Stormwater Utili 1,611;488 1,646,304 '! • 1,639,230 • 5;133;204 5,143;093 • 1,473;197' 1,615,331•'=•-•••.- • 0 0 100.0% . _. • •0 4,519,760' •• 8t3.096:', 419-Stormwater Utililities Total 1,611,488 • 1,646,304 • 1,639,230 5,133,204,,. 5,143,093.. 1;473,197 1,615,331 • Report Total: 1,611,488 1,646,304. 1,639,230 • • 5,133,204. 5,143,093" . 1,473,197 1,615,331 0 4,519,780,- 88.0% 0 4,519,780. 88.0% • • t }' fes.. ;. :.._.. Report ID: BD Spokane ( ity Summit Report Date: 1',. .J1 • 3 Year Department Expenditures Fund: 409-Stormwater Utility - Dept Group: 419-Stormwater Utililities 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 YTD 2001 Suppl. 2002 Prel.Bud! Actual Actua l Actual Adopted Modified Actua l fo Estimated , Request Prel.OgBwdg et Adopted OadAQj"roved:0 a1s6443t?�% "x so ; � a « <.q.• t �aMg,mS.#Ca �< A6: H> ,! ` r.X 9 .`#t!t. . ,aaa.::": v:. " >tr '..fi'�? ;SSC§ krY'F'x *3�i:)4<tt t.; .,q %:'...k,1 ... :..no. ww •.:3:cRa..en. :> . w.aaG. d: a0f6l aa'22w .;.,a Stktavr+:w, f.::: { N•..e y: URi�lG"w�•.4., � ! SS3 a ..�xi ��veXH �A,.�iz4qw "a '�• t# ttS>CapitaI 6460-Hardwarelsoftware 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 ' 0 100.0% 6462-Telephone Equipment • 0 0 0 ' 0 ' • 0 ' 0 - 0 '0 _'0 -1000% 'Capital Total: 0 0 0 0, •' 0 0 - . 0 0 0 100.0% 69438-Cap Expend-other Utilitle 0 0 0 . 0 • . . 0 0 0 • 0 . o : 10b 0% • • ;.;_-0•: 90419-Board Approved Capital Total 0 0 . 0 0 0 - .0 - 0 160,0% S' .`.,,!„ :'�#Rrsa°'tS'•'e�v<?�. �;g�,;y,Fr';y, S! "l+"'•S.<' ..:� iR:,.S..:• t•^<...,- ,s,t. _ <.. 0 r � _ . �•.i,. ate#<lJt1 400001:4.. ,#,:#`d":!. ,a. 't0. 54.:.fP. t}N.�+�il�'! 4,RF ,{- "' �•;�:• :,Q .W { 7`^. {{.A< ",`l. e;.. ..;r. .). V�,t" 2 :< ..f.�' '£•: :�3�:/f.s.a.,#r:�sY."�'f;Y..s.P �v u.::.,� ..,Sf .9" 'fSY�•. }..,o.�• �o y ..�FY'fR:.3�. °��'S:3i,;;:r 0}+x'; .v� : �} ..t rtt w:..}:.:,";., ) .:,/.?�` ��y r� '.,r> ,.,#. ft,�.4. 'S .<::b'G:: St�.' 6.5.�' t.' :.'$�r':':J'-"' .>.,;$'_+ :C!- .X:, ;r. :r::.j 9 s'�r`k:ti'. }c:' ) '•>}. } .<.:. '- 8 ��3.,. ,..aoY,zw.':L.,:n•' �. .S',r: ,.k tY,,t4...ie.,,-,oV. r ;. ' '�:} .a. :., :u: 2? "`:%3: �• • :� ,�..w.,.. .::N':,.),.t- '+.}. ..S;^. .}, .^$!. `��Q,� v� 6"'""^;"t�: :.:<".,�v.,...,,....vk,.h,L.La,` " r` R«4�.W�,.�,.:<}i��w.'�. x.: t,�,v{, t��r�,fi� ��,,'� .. �' �.'S ��.�'}$c''_ >.) t<F. ��, Ki?#' .?.t}�' • � .,,< .,,a:k,2»:,a. t;14a..c,•>•.. f. ... .:.c: f <w' fu,dr,:t:• wtiei;•�3*"�..a°.;otw.«#YFf..,. ,.• f#::..?:.•'E:ii�4,e.«h:si:''.',`?.:. .i.u�2.:vft i•'w`.„S.•kW2vf .:t , t .x.:;k•' Y.:a�;:%:i'0> xfa�' "�e-. °',.r:Y.3 a.voi Ending Fund Balance • `�". # <a«w a«f� Hma. <«:<�5 ;3x iera, *-n 0800-Est Ending Fund Balance . 0 • 0 : 0 r 34,389 •• 3,934 0 .. 0 0 • 256M68 744.6% 0819-Est Ending Reserved Fund Bal •0 0 ' 0 510;777 610,-777 ' 0 - •• ' =0 0 '556,764 -109.0% ' ••• Ending Fund Balance Total 0 0 -0 545,166 514,711 •0 0 ' '0 812,632 143,19 '50800-Est.End Unreserved Fund Ba ---•0 - 0 - 0 545,166 514,711 • '0 - '0 0 612,832 149.1% 'Y.' �v,�'M••;O::JtM<'.� ':Y" :yw.vSi� ir•i>•�,•.S!iA•'�S+jK rn sfY{'''-$Y�Y:'> Y l ,ci-, to[mvvatii-el}tl a312i'O. .-tl: .;•, :N::�t>frr•f.::a: •Nri .: i:. _.� .:to M-9 � r�� X,:>L� >�.r: PE+-ffii �o:} .A: ,..)r..f u s'�'A� q. '4-i .ash', .A'." ryr k t�.:. .,.::.,•:.."-. .:.,"�l<.> : r:a.}.. ..:P.,.... , r.f'�"f° .,,::fi•ioa�' ::' '. .. ,•, ..,. �3�` ...:,,. �.:.. .2�,..:.» •.f^�^-'".•%• .:::rl:'-:'•��L?4' � ..'E::.L'. ;ffAt . [ - ;R. .9 r is:>:,.:...:. � .:.i:..f ? .# ,t.arc,. r-b p:q .r.o�JF. q',S^:Y rt:, gC!>Z4�e�r. S.�>:: �f�C.A>.r .":9�„ .� ''P 3, ?!'•,,3•.$.;,.•'3 a�•L_. :e,,,an.a,3c.•a«..:-.: a.,,.. .o,..t:,.4.k,;4:O4.o, o i,•;.; 3•:v, .>.. nEa:r:4,•••. 'fS Gt; a .4%„;i&'.'.t•:.' :3: "•'1 ,,'�. a,'.,4+r;..:• .?2.. f::t + ar,<c t..'"' .rr : 1. ��gg :,�," g rs� y .,........c...w..,. cbla.,,.2..'A2.,..to:,uW!:wuc. 0:sa3wl1':A.w:t:w:ai:xd''t'bSiifix 'asai-}o.•FL >? ., 5 .}.�.'i?i:S:'.� y.. .,f�.,( PS..t f<' j'• ''' ;'{'�'&$,I !;.<};}` :.;}`S.a;< ,�,(�f u• ��� Yr!k:A .��r?¢� ..�.,,. � r.., n�. r•4 .. �c�'�'``c•;..�W.:Jci.K.�...h �•t°i.:5r.:,.•�r)'R.;s,'.;E.f)fi.'#3A:iJs:.. �.< rv. ':vt�'�:Gr;A°:�co'}'#:�4 Z'�'cL.w<�' b%.::�2 Salaries'8.'Benefits 1101-Salary 0 00 0 0 2,217 2.217 0 0 100.9% • 1103-Oul Of Class 0 0 0 0 _ :.. p :. 0 0 • 0 100.0% 1109-Longevity • 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 1000% 1202-Overtime 0 0 0 0• 0 • 0 0 0 0 100 0% 2301-Life 0 0 0 '.0 0 ;?0 0 • 0 : 0 100.0% • 2302-FICA 0 0 0 . :.•0 0 1.146 • 1,1'46 0 • 0 100,0% 2303-Medical ' 0 0 • 0 ` 0 0 • 0 0 0 ."•0 ^100.0% 2304-PERS . 0 0 - 0 ' 0 ', 0 . 240 • 240 0 ,. 0 1000% ! 2305 Industrial -0 0 0 ; 0 0 , '212 • • 212 " >' r-- , 23013 Dental 0 0 0 ,0 U •,U 0 .., • 0 ,`1 . 0 0 100.64 - 2309-Unemployment 0 0 ' 0 '0 0 •'58 56 0 0 .100.0% 2315-LTD 0 ' 0 0 0 i 0 •128 128 0 0 100,0% Salaries&Benefits Total 0 0 0 ..0 - •- 0 3,999 3,999 0 100.0% 63160-Drainage 0 0 • 0 •0 . , 0 •. :. . ....,..... ... K.�otGI # .t3,999 3,999 0 0 100.0% • . . .•+ �.s.8. Ra ,.itVJV�0� yJ rNde ,!<5. J : 3axt a �i ' � r .; s�3 .S "� • NC �:� Y� •'iriMr?<�?" pG.^ � !%� det� a c" 2�.x� as :�x .�� �• .:.,".,,..x....r...,.:..,."4..::,.:.: !. ...X... ...,va.•.6 .:o#,aL. P�3.sLa.x.,..,a ...... ..:.H .2a•,::.. . .w. ✓ . .,:.- .._. r ,�a.eF } >a sLtrspt» �af..3; e: . m. i � ? as $ ° Y3i. aUnclassified _ • 0100-Depreciation 0 .16,416 38,110 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 100.0% Unclassified Total 0 16,416 _38,110 • ' - 0 • .0 .0 0 0 0 100.0%. 53530-Reg.Send.&Enforce 0 16,416 38,110 • • 0 •-0 0 0 0 0 100.0% S.:I..t.O.:-ITn,,iatiafi,,l,,ppn:::.,•7S$ft.w..'�.;. wt•:t:._...f ? oSQX !,# v ^ � h:x3T. a,.Y VF M.I : ax�}.r6ri ' H . u« aa ::X. ^ KbmMtl.;,.9.%' x � � • "xR !�m W . ,. , .i...:,a.: ( K ...� b- Y.t•t ,.:,.: :3 .......5..> qc •XfR �..<�:: �,3 : ; ..c .%.axbg{ uuos oRo 134w! S ': fi c iL• x:wa:s'a:: ?o?. E r y9?w.w .rl; $.� ..�s: ra;:aaG : , ..:? insK" ,«SZSalaries& Benefits - l _. , , ''-- - [ __ _ --- l i ( '_71__: 1.11 '_ -- - - -'' Dept Group: 419-Stormwater Utililities 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 YTD 2001 Suppl. 2002 Prel.Bud/ Actual Actual Actual Adopted • Modified Actual Estimated Request Prel.Budget _Adopted 1101-Salary 288,517 318,989 329,073 326,677 326,677 267,769 300,646 0 351,850 107.7% 1103-Out Of Class 0 189 0 500 500 0 515 0 500 100.0% 1106-Pay Off 0 0 0 0 0 413 413 0 • 0 - 100.0% - 1103-Extra Help 0 15,690 14,659 17,950 17,950 17,144 17,144 0 17,950 100.0% 1109-Longevity 466 494 676 468 468 • 498 559 0 ' 635 ' 135.7% 1202-Overtime 005 3,011 3,477 2,500 2,500 3,051 3,548 0 7,500 300,0% ' 2301-Life 261 292 294 324 324 273 305 0 334 103.1% 2302-FICA 20,457 26,546 26,875 26,814 26,814 21.359 24,803 0 • 28,949 108.0% ,• 2303-Medical 23,428 23,692 25,381 35,713 35,713 28,996 35,364 0 44,250 123.9% 2304-PERS 18,703 19,769 14,720 15.531 15,531 9,480 11,489 0 6,701• 43.,1% , 2305-Industrial 4,233 5,627 5,114 4.580 4,580 3,997 4,483 0 . 6,251 136,5% ' 2308-Dental 5,859 7,579 7,703 8,364 . 8,364 7,005 7,829 0 9,576 . 114.5% 2309-Unemployment 450 1,148 1,332 1,585 1,585 1,040 1.195 0 1,681 . 106.1% 2315-LTD 1,194 1,585 1,619 1,606 1,606 1,183 1,455 0 1,864 116.1% 2500-Industrial(eng) 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 2501-Fringe Benefits(eng) 6,672 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% ' Salaries&Benefits Total 375,012 424.612 430,922 442,612 442,612 362,207 409,749 0 478,041 106.09G M&O 3111-Office Supply 12,164 17,190 10,254 16,500 16,500• 4,943 16,500 0• 16,500 100.0% • 3140-Publications 58 332 458 500 500 29 500 0 300. 60.0% 3170-Duplication Supplies 2,770 9,885 2,810 7,000 4,000 2,245 - 5,000 . 0-••• 4,000 ••100.696 4140-My Education/tralning 1.726 0 . 0 .0 0 0 0 -0: - ••`'0 • 100.0%. 4170-Legal 0 3,937 642 50,000• 50,000 2,091 30,000 . 0 60,000 ' 120.0% 4160-Consulting 137,299 301,360 368,021 385,000 432,455 157,293 385,000 0 321;500 ' 83.5%•' 4190-Other Professional Services 92,256 209,415 47,257 490,000 503,000 6,696 503.000 . 0 _ 235,500.• ..-48.1%-• 4210-Telephone 1,178 1,738 2,145 2,500 2,500 1,265 2,500 0 2,500 •: ' 100.0% 4220-Postage 363 8.363 775 5,000 5,000 139 - 3,000 ' 0 - ' • i3,5oo • 270,096 4315-My Tvl Reimb-airlare 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 100.0% 4316-My Tvl Reimb-lodging 791 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 ..'-•0` •"100.0%' 4317-My Tvl Reimb-meals • 315 • 0• 0 • 0 • • 0' -' 0 0 0 . '•0•:`. '..100.0% - 4318-My Tvl Reimb-ground Trans 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 4335-My TA/vendor-airfare 1,148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 100.0% 4340-Do not Budget this 0 2,570 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 100.0% 4350-Discretionary TravelfTralning 0 4,845 7,474 11,900 .11,900 4,942 11;900 2,203 11;858 " --99.6% 4410-Advertising 1,315 3,377 2,189 2.500 2,500 4,544 5,545 0 6,000 240.0% 4720-Electricity 1,158 2,185 1,551 4,000 4,000 1,921 4,000 0 4,000 100.0% 5410-Interfund Tx/operating Assess 0 0 0 0 0 334 334 0 0 100.0% 9110-Interfund Professional Svcs 143,989 290.325 277,927 282,065 282,065 18,247 282,065 0 285,519 101.2% 9130-Interfund Data Processing -50 200 515 • 45,352 45,352 26,036 45,352 0 43,577 96.1% 9170-Interfund Legal Seflrices 571 . 240 916 4,000 4,000 228 2,000 0 5,000 125.0% 9210-Interfund Postage 486 641 546 1,000 - 1,000 1,095 1,200 0 2,000 200.0% 9502-Interfund' Pool 3,131 6.007 4.116 "400 3,000 2,503 3,000 0 4,000 133.3% • • • ; 1 1 r _ .. _ _ .i - Dept Group: 419-' -meter Utililities 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 YTD 2001 Suppl. Ii° 1002 Prel.Bud/ Actual Actual Actual Adopted Modified Actual Estimated Request Prel.Budget Adopted 9530-Interiund Liability Insur 12,409 16,159 11,397 12,015 -12,015 9,011 12,015 0 8,518 70.9% 9940-Interfund Printing 772 1,148 2,891 1,500 1,500 708 1,500 0 1,500 100.0% M&O Total: -747E0 879,919 742,086 1,323,832 1,384,287 244,271 1,314,411 2.203 1,028,772 77.7% Capital 3550-Attractive Capital 4,122 0 1,330 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,0% Capital Total: 4,122 0 1733Q, 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 63838-Operations-genera 793,383 1,304,531 1,174,3371,766,4i44 1,826,899 606 479 1,724.160 2 203 1,506731-5-133M �S /iwy.:;ri.,..fa ft b•. 4t8gu4p..S+y�);>r«�aC•t....:oroXa`? ; ;3a rM. r• E � ? n» o in4.awr � . My7o V: ia�k ? 0xvx � Ayi 2 ° ,��,'3.s - £r:b..x::: .: rr .: t„4 RdaY : . 0QfSRR:. us.^"yka. +: «. tG'aA. :lr ,A3a��j: a» Kao »zxtii:;v +�Idn Mdxaa:n . 3 �.kv� afi� a;, 6. :aSalaries&Benefits 1101-Salary 0 0 0 37,071 37,071 7,834 9,185 0 21,563 58.2% 1106-Pay Off 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 100.0% 1108-Extra Help 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000% 1109-Longevity 0 0 0 0 0 22 28 0 31 100;0% 1202-Overtime 0 0 0 2,500 2500 42 53 0 0 0.0% 2301-Life 0 0 0 31 31 5 5 0 18 58.1% 2302-FICA 0 0 0 2,842 2,842 368 420 0 1,652 58.1% 2303-Medical 0 0 0 3,887 3,887 470 501 0 2,537 65.3% 2304-PERS • 0 0 0 1,735 1,735 138 165 0 382 22.0% 2305-Industrial 0 0 0 744 744 62 70 0 X405 • 54.4% 2308-Dental 0 0 0 756 756 120 128 0 504 66.7% 2309-Unemployment 0 0 0 118 118 17 20 0 67 56.8% 2315-LTD 0 0 0 219 219 19 24 0 128 58.4% Salaries&Benefits Total ----M---15,----e) 49,903 49,903 9,099 10,601 0 27,287 54.7% M&O 9110-Interiund Professional Svcs 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 43,652 58,148 0 30,000 150.0% 9502-Interiund Motor Pool 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 4,564 '6,085 0 2,000 100.0% MO Total: 0 0 22,000 22,000 48,217 64,233 0 32,000 145.5% Capital 6120-Land 0 0 0 1,300,000 1.030,000 • 0 600,000 0 1,500,000 115,4% 6130-Land Acquisition Costs 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 0 40.000 0 150,000 150.0% 6140-Right Of Way 0 0 0 0 0 800 800 0 0 100.0% 6460-Hardware/software 0 0 0 11,405 11.405 1,373 10,000 2,600 0 0.0% 6490-Other Machinery 0 0 0 17,502 27,391 9,888 10,000 0 0 0.0% 6501-Architect/engin Fees(util) 0 0 0 165,000 135,000 122,087 165,000 0 176,000 106.7% 6520-Construction Costs 0 0 0 1,080,000 1,350,000 512,387 1,350,000 0 250,000 23.1% Capital Total: 0 0 0 2,673,909 2,653,796 646,535 2,175,800 2,600 2,076,000 77.6% 59438-Cap Expend-other Utilitie 0 0 0 2,745,810 2,725,699 703,850 2.250,634 2,600 2,135,287 77.8% f ''P"''3�:�`.>"�Y':'sYi:: ^.,b:""Yfib'�:� :8">r.X.?�::",�,.e• sa+:?33:°•Y'•7i. ?�'�"" 'raw :k;•-+y1�e4y ?•av` �Stoimvrate%Eltit���9:10.0, '� .�'�'�.,a ��'��'>r� �'� ' :;zo,. ,� �'•� •>"� :.,R•.., ,.,,,,. Y :4,: Y-k.x:: :-:,k i; .:r, .!t .,,.M. .7.y; :• ? rif :°.. i?(kG. .,,rXY4:b :axr > ., .- .,. .:.7. ., > ., ..... .3 ,..:..,...,:k.. ....n,v .. .i.a•-.d. ..�•�. .i v �<. ;; ,�r`i^1`9'f Si<>:� 3.. <�.k: 3 v.. ??k3C,,..9Y+ ,.?,-;.•..,,,yr.q,,;?.,.,,. •ka. ..�:.� .., ..:.. •.. .o. ,,,.,v , .. ... . . : .. ...,y: :: >.. krw:.ra ..a • ;..�� :: :s a.- � � .d'• :3: "•.6�::. k" T- z ..m..., tr. K:gi.. C:"-:.,,y. .:x .b.$>.v ...•'&z.• 3.., .3.r�': ;y ila i 4:4 :t .2w:;::ax :.G:., �h<� ise •x.:.2,132 ,,.�,<9<"3-. ,a: ...� .-.:or.:w.�.r:::..t�. :.or.•,o-aYfAY."$?•.na...,..�F.-,D.7K::.r Sf.,`�.5?: :.,..xS..:a:H.. . ., ^�v. ....YR:k'or�.:,...,.,..��i:..,,a. �������.:•�r-.. ��..¢¢ ?:�4 ::d-..- .,j..�'> .{•: :.a:; �`r"b.•::•:�,.. k •E„�vd , .zr.. ..c9..uR:•�i,.,'•y2...- .a.,•�.:,aowa,7.a -..i;..a.»Sr...fz.5a.t:.a.c,.,.�L..,...S�.a,"d'„' i,$,',q;a�a?6ia:2: 5£:.k?xck" .. :tA 8AR•;s: rf �.•;� '✓ d: ym vw: 3.3'r,:r..,,.,1�;>5� r. a. ; :?•:.?,.,..w.,�?,4,5 h1b0 w:cfSi%::J:'rk R:i�.4.' .R3.a Ro.i: .SiR':S.iG.3�'Sk..6C;:�A.;G£:S:c:S.�.:a2' ..ii.:v:< r.ic2�'„{or$z�:3�.°..�Z.:,k,.e5:$:.•ia.J:r?! 5501-If Subs To Fd 0010-cost Alloc 40,695 39,899 32,195 39,433 39,433 29,575 39,433 0 33,281 84.4% 5506-Interiund Subsidy To Fd 0512 22,867 15,076 18,361 24,329 24,329 20,274 24,329 0 18,779 77.2% 5532-If Subsidy To Fd 010 Permit Ct 21,328 21,490 11,749 12,022 12,022 2,659 12,022 0 12,788 106,4% Dept Group: 419-Stormwater Utililities • 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 YTD 2001 Suppl. T 2002 Prel.Bud! Actual Actual Actual Adopted Modified Actual Estimated Request Prel.Budget Adopted M&O Total: 84,890 76,465 62,305 75,784 75,764 52,508 75,784 0 64,848 85.6% 59700-Operating Transfers Ou -114,890 76,465 62,305 75,784 75,784 52,508 75,784 0 64,848 85.6% 4190000-Stormwater Utility Total 878,273 1,397,411 1,274,753 5,133,204 5,143,093 1,366,835 4,054,577 4,803 4,519,780 8810% 419-Stormwater Utililities Total 878,273 1,397,411 1,274,753 5,133,204 5,143,093 1,368,835 4,054,577 4,803 4,519,780 88.0% Report Total: 878,273 1,397,411 1,274,753 5,133,204 5,143,093 1,366,835 4,054,577 4,803 4,519,780 88.0% Dept Group: 419-Stormwater Utililities 4350-Discretionary TravelfTrainin nem Type • item Description QTY • Unit Price Total Price Justification ' Sub. Target TrvOl ESRI Conference 1.00 51,600.00 1,600 To learn new techniques for using updates. • Spring 2001 San Diego,CA registration$425,airfare$500,gmd transp$200,meals$175,lodging$400 Trv02 ArcView Class 1.00 $1,123.00 1,123 To learn most recent version of ArcView,the mapping program most stormwater planning work. Pp 9 p ogm usedby consultants for • Spring 2002 Olympia,WA Registration$800,airfare$240,gmd transp$70,lodging$200. Trv03 Financing Class 1.00 $1,795.00 1,795 To learn more about means of financing stonnwater capital Improvement projects and NPDES Implementation costs. Spring 2002 Chicago,ILL Registration$695,airfare,$600,ground$50,meals$136,lodging$200 Trv04 State SW Plan Committee Mtgs 4.00 $222.00 888 To participate in statewide stormater management plan meeting with Ecology. quarterly OlympialLacey,WA airfare$120(ea trip),gmd transp$70(ea trip),meals$32 Trv05 Meetings w/State Officials 12.00 $222.00 2,664 To meet with state officials and representatives from other stormwater programs on new requirements and Ideas for managing stormwater. Monthly Olympia,WA airfare$120(ea trip),gmd transp$70(ea trip),meals$32(ea trip) TrvO6 AutoCAD-Land Dev/Civil Design 2.00 $1,350.00 2,700 To be able to do design drawings for stormwater related construction projects. Spokane,WA Registration only Q$1350 each Trv07 Eastside SW Committee Mtgs 20.00 $10.00 200 Participation in eastslde stormwater manual development_ As scheduled in Eastern WA meals$10(ea trip) Trv08 State NPDES Ph 2 Permit Mtgs 4.00 $222.00 888 To meet with Ecology and others regarding NPOES permit requirements as permit is being developed. Quarterly Olympia,WA Airfare$120(ea trip),car rental$70(ea trip),meals$32(ea trip) Sub.Target Total: 11,858 Supp!.Request TrvOl ArcView Class 1.00 $1,123.00 1,123 To learn most recent version of ArcView,the mapping program used by consultants for • most stormwater planning work Spring 2002 Olympia,WA Registration$800,airfare$240,grnd transp$70,lodging$200 Trv02 Contract Management Class 1.00 $1,080.00 1,080 To Improve abiliky to manage contracts with private consultants. Fall 2002 Salt Lake City,UT Registration$200,airfare$450,gmd transp$60,meals$90,lodging$280 Suppl.Request Total: 2,203 53838-Operations-general Sub.Target: 11,858 Suppl.Request: 2 203 rt?�'tivetA�a�tM�a;eN;.„u c:at:��a;:::;:far<mtw•o�tu»tonE:E.ay'Et.�. � >`� 't;tK V[tx<Kixtt2aYfYCN:f:••YFt< Cttxi' tx, xtdK Y �:..i>Ci` .,,,�,.. :bp ;x>`;;t.:..».».•.�.»,,"w?..».?:�..Y;2`.,•`�„?'£2 �:�: «, ::,".f?:".'i.@2££,k.:7:axtartttvywt :�if' a' t t•x:ea„ <a•: t �ta!�a•eo:a • nae,.. l8tV-M,„, ZiT3L 8 �]( nit a - 1 •, Uflli "ftRr3zz : s . ;.iiti2 Lf t"'iii; 'a'�? t irti , ?t;£�inr,,::ta -> S:;.> ,it..,. f.... .',p4« xt.< ;'. ;u: w:a:n:aa:ocxk:sa..wn:3a,.•.:r..,:tf''- :x • it?, i.,iz izz.i. ,C .Y?;i,.,Si1.. !.a t� »: »; .W. :.t,.,.,.5. »,�f '?'G•J <...,av »,bh`.i :.:�' e� .::Simi.;?IZ?f. :7c: .,:4'R`s: ..u�,.. »..ci:'^Q” ::. :$x..»:r.tt�1.41,`: ,;•:5.., ,:,`.�,.�•...., :`."' .•:,ae:s:t»,.ax•.x..ur..ui.x.Nc�oc>�:x;zw:x;:b?d.'•?3.'xa? i��v>:n�:r:»:ar::>tt• �`S:.warx: .jai »1a`xi:c:xs�2?�.ic� .i:3?i3?:>, u:^�.;t`- SiF;u:.: i� ,�Tz` ..x.s?y?'•�':*'�2:`?�k?'`.3�?�... .,:t'4..'0t>.Rr•. ! .,£,'s. s�"ry. .�.r? „ti+. < • ���r...ax�x�uo»o�wxear iytzina>»a:r>r;.5:i5.'��?:'zF•:>ra:::.+:F3�C`�':??:�" ::3?fkir�hi3.�5�3�t:- �::>°��?kMT3 :�A' ro��:i — __ Dept Group: 419 mwater Utililities 6120-Land Item Type item Description QTY Unit Price Total Price Justification Sub. Target Land1 Glenrose Land2 West Plains 1.00 $950,000.00 950,000 Acquire land for Glennaire runoff channel and storrnwater disposal. 1.00 $450,000.00 450.000 Acquire land for sediment basin/infiltration fadfity. Land3 Chester 1 .00 51110,000.00 100,000 Acquire land for implementation of Chester Creek Flan. Sub.Target Total: 1,600,000 6130-hand Acquisition Costs Item Type Item Description QTY Unit Price • Sub. Target LandI Appalsals/EnvlmmtlAssessmta Total Price Justification • 1.00 5150,000.00 150,000 Appraisals,surveys,tveys,env(ronmental site assessments,negotiation for land; research alternatives to Glenrose pit;Includes remainderr roLandsco text, Sub.Target Total: 150,000 6460-Hardware/software item Type item Description QTY Unit Price Suppl.Request Egt01 PC ReplacementTotal Price Justification 1.00 $2.000.00 2,000 To handle Autocad,Softdesk,ArcView map ob(ects based applications to design Egt02 Digital Camera 1.00 $600.00stormwater facilities. 600 Camera needed for use in field by enforcement technician. Suppl.Request Total: 2,600 6501-Architectlengin Fees(util) item Type Stern Description QTY Unit Price Total Price Justification Sub. Target Proft Glennaire Lagoons Design Prof2 North Spokane 1.00 530,000.00 30,000 Prepare design for using lagoons for stormwater detention. 1.00 $86,000.00 86,000 prepare master plan for infiltration fealty-,complete Country Homes Blvd greenway Prof) West Plains design. 1.00 $50,000.00 50.000 Design stormwater facility Utyt)1 Glennaire Pipe Final 1.00 $10,000.00 per consultant recommendation. 10,000 Final design work for any problems encountered in finishing up project. Sub.Target Total: 176,000 6520-Construction Costs item Type nem Description QTY Unit Price Sub. Target Utyt)1 Glennaire Pipe Total Price Justification 1 00 50,000 Finish work. • Uty02 Glennaire Lagoons 1.00 $150,000.00 Uty0North Spokane 150,000 Grade/reshape lagoons;construct overflow structure, 1.00 $50,000.00 50,000 Construct small infiltration facility to handle current flows. Sub.Target Total: 250,000 69438-Cap Expend-other Utilities Sub.Target: 2,076,000 Suppl.Request: ' 4190000Ston;t , ter Utility Sub.Target: 2,087,868 Suppl.Request: 2.803 � 4,803 419Slormwater Utililitles Sub.Target: 2,087,858 Suppl.Request: 4,803 Fund Total: Sub.Target: 2,087,868 Suppl.Request: 4,803 I �_I � -1 --- - i J L l Report Dale: 1. /1 Spokane C ty Summit 2002 Payroll Detail Fund: 409 Stormwater Utility Dept Group: 419 Stormwater Utililities Dept ID: 4190000 Stormwater Utility Account: 63150 Drainage Avg Other Fica! Retire Retire Name Dist•ti FTE% Salary Pay Educ. Longev, life Ins. Medlars Medical PERS LEOFF Indust. Unempl LTD 419Extra Help N 8.33 0.69 17,950 0 0 Ins. Dental Ins. Ins. Total 419Summary N 8.33 0.69 0 8,000 � 6 f,�73 0 STA 0 1,502 0 404 106 0 0 0 612 0 142 21.653 Galle,lNitiam F Y 100.00 100.00 50,684 p 0 0 0 0 p 47 8,801 0 44 3,893 7,992 901 0 276 1,260 168 300 Peterschmidt,l.ucy JH Y 100.00 100.00 45,679 p p 65,718 0 44 3,494 5,436 809 0 276 1,260 168 270 42,95 5 Siegel,MelissaA Y 100.00 100.00 32,463 0 0 0 44 2,483 5,496 575 7 Sims,Brenda L Y 100.00 100.00 62,134 0 p 0 276 1,260 168 192 42,957 Strong,Jack D Y 100.00 100.00 35,084 0 510 44 4,792 5,496 1,109 0 276 1,260 168 0 75,789 0 0 44 2,684 Vacant Engineer 1/2 Y 100.00 100.00 44,548 2,688 621 0 276 1,260 169 207 43,032 0 0 0 44 3,408 5,183 788 Worley.Steve M Y 100.00 100.00 62,134 0 0 276 1,260 168 263 55,937 53150 Drainage 0 156 44 4,765 7,248 1,103 0 .1,749 1,260 168 7.00 350,876 8,000 0 666 311 27,505 39.539 6,364 368 50,317 Morton,Doug J Y 100.00 100.00 40,487 p 0 0 4,905 8,820 1,580 1,752 454,317 53838 Operations-general 1.00 40,487 0 44 3.097 7,248 717 0 1,749 1,260 0 0 0 44 3,097 7,248 717168 239 55,009 4190000 Stormwater Utilit 0 1,749 1,260 168 239 55,009 8.00 391,363 8,000 0 666 355 30,602 46,787 7,081 419 Stormwater Utililities 0 6,655 10,080 1,748 1,991 505,327 8.00 391,363 8,000 0 666 355 30.602 46,787 7,081 0 409 Stormwater Utility 8.006,655 10,080 1,748 1,991 505,327 391.363 8,000 0 666 355 30,602 46,787 7 081 Total 0 6,655 10,080 1,748 1,991 505,327 • 8.00 391,363 8,000 0 666 355 30,602 46.787 7,081 0 6,655 10,080 1,748 1,991 505,327 • • i • S P Q K A N. E . rt 10"i l :1:1 • C DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • September 30, 2002 Dick Behm 9105 E Sprague Spokane, WA 99206 RE: Floodplain Concerns— Incorporated Valley Dear Mr. Behm, You had questions regarding the restudy of the Chester Creek Floodplain. I talked with Joe Weber of FEMA last Thursday on the topic. He assured us that they are proceeding with the restudy as planned. FEMA is covering the cost of the study. The County is providing them with assistance in the form of existing data (survey data, aerial photos, watershed plan information, hydraulic analysis information, etc.). The County will continue to provide this assistance, if needed, until the restudy is complete. The schedule for the restudy is 12 months for the draft flood maps to be produced, 6 additional • months until the preliminary flood maps are produced, then the public comment period and public gf ) priormaps.s to the final flood ma s. Mr. Weber estimated that this might take up to 6 months. That means about 2 years to final flood maps for Chester Creek (I believe they started a few months ago), so they probably will finish up during the summer of 2004. I am also enclosing the current flood maps for the incorporated Valley area, There are 8 Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and one Floodway Map for the area that the Valley City covers. Also enclosed is a copy of the Flood Insurance Study for unincorporated Spokane County. The study provides you with additional information on floodplains within Spokane County, flood profiles, engineering methods used, etc. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information. Joe Weber from FEMA can be reached at 425-487-4657, Sincerely, _ Tammie Williams Environmental Programs Administrator cc: file • 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260-0170 • (509)477-3600 FAX: (509)477-7655 (2nd Floor)477-7478 (3rd Floor) • TDD: (509) 477-7133 -- i•- i• all . Y t I t,_ ,„ ,r , �:''d+' :tire -- .-. ---. -.'��'�:T?.^'-._.-rj-v�.5�•.�[.'c::•�aC'u. y,a3re.".r' ,,. :P"^L7'�T't--.c, :rt�...'.3:."'� ,•,.:n�:n rv::Y.;m',:5�.•"'-'„'.^'7^-•--- -. 1 u �.q�„� -. h}r1*• 7fA.' 4. _� rl, ,•• f ..:j.,,,,,...,,,...,,,,.r ... • • S 4�Y S,ek .. % ? Y }c fl r ti P' rYt1Sf + > >•: ism • i s >: f'r�•7i i {- 44. { f 1.1 �t7yv.Lt r `r1.1 y --:.. f• i_. _ • ,:.,•'.- yiOA'• t<I, t�".c+",..44.)r.'.- {:1 7: a *.:,r- nr L 0A, y'4-; {•.,♦.. 'J`'t •.`Z-,, y r 1 ',''le...: I. - ~••.t li" ;- u �1rL rd}y 'w.,31 <<I }t ~ .ite, re}4a ► hitt .i.4-‘,,-,' ':tr t +y 3_ �1•'. + .--r-, I^.,;{"!r "1 '-•-'4,r3-..,-11,-,•!-.--.:- -•-'4, l 1, ! r ' 71» ,,i. !V.13 f'p. �x S't i . q.„-i - K•.ye.' •,,-.....;• . ;• r .. ., ' • •t,r rf+1- N_ i Wit,. i:,;•. S '7,.,-2.!;t; • ,� ,�-n 4 'nt,, .� ! +{ „1_ , 'N ./'h. i t n- .«r' rld"!:v1 3' y� 1. ",.4410 �`���'• T if; N.yt-y .+y `� £ if'AY' 4_t �. 11 •••C r. r•r 1. ',{• 1 liYy '4 7. it....- n :vwr { .A�+•v'>L,•ke„_ J `,t♦t' .�•• '{( 4�r'w• r' ?- ♦ I} �. t �. Y • - `.►r '. • h •�r"i•14•.2 �5.. „14`• • '':�,ys,4. /„V•Y•ti1 ,1 :, s a'( • 4.• .Jr "r.4 `�.r? . I ,;'!..1-' ,a •I:t.Rtl};.�.- • r,. v:;•G% ,...v r'.. Jr^ti- `.'" mi-'c.arrc.Y +t'�`. F`ttp01-,:•h'';''' }, . E�F �+r11�?• Ylt. ...r• r w t •.•.c4. s'' •c J�L-'�_._ �,�•r •`. w?ti.< . ••+ °• ' • '•L. •;.�•., '(w.'1.6• , 1 Y t*Y yt4co�lY ti f' • b'i-'rN a1'{„•'� r��(��j. ;.:• y,.. ,,1 -,i4..•,; eV t ° ♦ i" y?.a•, .* •.. •'.. .-,'•-; 1'i it {'4• ya -gl-TJ f ti.' r. '' 1�y. .1-" -.''•.dir • a.•Y "isr .. • '', ♦•at. P.• •0 fir; ♦ J42:k4 y.' - •f •st ifw ,.r•: ]v^.,f7-`[,r5 4.j> y I fp"YsY.G•,••"%,:n.-_,..,. t i iYJ • 6ti~+4 �'' i r y .,d.•a_ --iT'►��• w r�. `S ly ti til a1� Y' 4j6m&.4'...•J.-i• 1 s :*,,...7..:,:',1LL .1 i ar . !-n 1gi s• c• r 'L ti.G 7 ;4 .N a • r +Q�{La. or x`'�» �".`-._.. J '. fl. r - �� F t?,;:. 'ti-'%. Si 'S•••,••••••-• ii x 1`•!s�•.,. Fed ^ .71-'-'....•41.-...1--t ;'' i.y.A} yjSrs ; -4. !' �, i r y►�* •• ; '--C •• ,.r'^ t• ^ r; ` r.I „Itir- i . '4si•' f 7ti s ti- t� • st i •;� -..,...f.,•044.4 + -...r.,14.—.4„..`:+ t►fi S;y� ,f,••••••;,,1,..,r; M J ,Z.:. 'J'i;{` P.weftti'_ • F :�t ;fr•r .rslp3�wtu ?;nom`-�c - -. • ` x"11` 13 ,••�`'S -.:s-���.yr• •'•L•r f-.1i•: • • • c,¢rrV'r9LL"}y7. �kr';�I J ' • r � } �•i •...tr'4.sJy a v via`` �' �,�,,, �♦ t t 4S: ;:vrkek t k •I • ! • • i• - •'..t' .F •�. J' •.C•-- t �a ;f* i % i , �w..�yf• ►VY .,y • �.. •v1, 2., atit Ifi 'ti. •,rqrS .� • . +t • ^ 41igb4 ;L'ty-' �• ♦ � � � y ' - r: •r"'•-,4,"-3.7-..: .'7rw , : "n ,bjr '' a` f �1 � e / - ;4.- �R{ , •: • p . �r'" ✓ r.•..t..�.:a'S' "{ •:.. ` irt.ir�:� `•-�, 1 -agfl I:i/:.e---..�•v , -},ZC,... ..N •,, .. • I`.. - '�.r'-,. . „• /'4) I- « �/�Cry 4 may(( • _ ••••--• 1• :r''- •�P•-•••-•.�- _ mss. s'' . ".*.r. -ti . ��!,.��e•. -• • Y; .,. y ' ' ,,,, �•. ./• a •••••%,tri' `r _. -••- R-w• '�07"r'r-- -••�'A^'Y't r'„-'lam -e �:-Z. -��:=i j' -_•:7_�-• _ • a4s f niers -.� +•:. -y - y 4.;-f •-.0,0;,--_,...,_ rw rice-.- , SW.hr»yITO 5oo:ev.fn MY.. The federal gmernment Is examining Chester Creek•where a bifid seeks Insects 6,i a small pool. 1 —w INSIDE • Of Pt1 ? t- Notes on.' ',F, k.! .e .. ' incorporation PAC( 2 ll) •1 . -•,s .ty - a44 • e 1 - , IJzrkcr enter �. ,• L. . 1 . tt. i;CCWIIC folly accrcditett ' 1%Cit!'I10t711U'lde1.1KW cudi'i/Ce,11111)'SJJ17111 U)e+7cI'C1eekk:1100a11l(Ali iliA'11 a:11001 I--' .1:1my IM late 11utvW:/I C 1 4 PAC( k 1 •a .,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I ., .. „, ' ' COVER STORY = •' •.:-•>....--A•, .•a• � : •'- :;_ •r-,� ',•,,••ya. .:cd3.+"r :C -'-...i`"Yi''l ^ ,'.i. ,r. ..- • . � , ,---;•,. ..:,..- q.y�', - r S• .t.i` 11,1: r. !:}r a,�._ �17��i,:�_. ` e ••!�^� ,~'��r 'Rta�a • L•��rC'�L - - �`�• �� oJ� �r�t ►1 - `� ...� Ti 'e r •Sur 2'i ^ sf4� t sq.-•••1"'••t• `•1" • =J ,,&.•-i --s7'.--- .� 1,4 a. • • yr- „� w^" -- ..'a 7^ •'i• Lti '4,5 t • .,•-.-..^';'-'7".-^:4,.cree ` t �c• + F4:ti v z•-•1•``r.. S. r• rr ' 1 rr.-?,,•••••7,•,.i, t7: Y Fsr(...ti�f'•'• 'I. - ••r•••�f?.•..�C .rn 1 -- ����- i ��'.a, "a. • 1 rn x•t�'. �^ .' - xr _•,0.17:•,;;V::,•,•:::;;•..~ .� 9 l i .LZiti;ori j♦,•ti l� --•.r? ,� 'Ts-__ .t�• 'tI ,2a ';;..•_1.'•:11..t,',/,7::14/1:07' .`. £a1 ,,-7�id � .`� � • • "'r It .•_ , :t..11'•1 ,� 'F.a: _ ;- n•• • ,A._.�i�. �i�' a. - ::',,s-..5,..4.:t.:.•,-,ti .1t Y° ,t'. ` �'•' •{ -t '''''.i"... • `' 4,•-C:\''-'' l_ -tr'• • r , 41� .,-if; {se w. 1 A blackbird,right. - ` - - ((�� w- • t ,;..• y .at -.Iv's • • * t f _ ''''•' ; 3y 7r a •�.•�`.� dhcsfora _. ''....r-'.......f. r.►�_-- (r °-s� ''r,' -.,-fl......di: ..;,..•••,,,I .;":.'1'141' ,rr. •. ;r'^'�C: . er_^" • lace •.,,.. r•'r 3siv'':1`1% • :"-..a," hatching insect atoms s, ' s._.. _ - „ ';;^" h t e_:.'...147..4-,'.,� �' �a:i� Chester Creek. • ......e• 1 ` .,• ,.••,i-�. T ��• 'a^tg `•+ t r. �1 3,./r r _ ¢:�:• �.Y..'Y e..a 'vt��..4.' •-.r•ti nh/ch Fs beiMe •C'�•Lr •z ,i:t !1< .,..7,;,:‘,. r4:+.,SPS .).. • .�, r t ti. ,,Y�t. r ♦ %�. . •. K.. •aF h.-a,�• 1:' . r '• - N.•.4,e` ti- '\r '"Nett e erambrd by FEMA `r t. •-N."::`,..‘,....... `• .; W �,��::!' ► kdY`�r •}; - L-�' °. a 1i;.`: 1 , as part of the 100• t -g- �...t1• - ,! + {•. _ _ ..1 year lloedalaln .� i ?�• _ • l' ':•.••,..- .,�7 ty� .,.n ` ..i:',....:.,.;rr y ,,,f a ,,y, y� 'E... Mad),Al hit 4l,t, o�o4r.�� •-r `P-. •�+•�-. „s.. ,r`. . y1-.';',..-.-..,,,..4.-•.-..,:. frp.,75.• .ea u. a pt •i.••.:,„..1.-_,,,?! l'-i,';•:-•••:, ,';tar, elle Aokoano .40--.1., +t�,� {��� i� + ? ^Nvterr r _` - i , •"..•..-..4•:,••`. r i?t.�'� �s --i-4 �:.11,.Y •:•�. ,yr1. • I_ I neighborhood near 1., ^'t "f' '� - - • -'•_.?:-.. .4.4 irk P M J +- 3.. r ... .2 Dithanan-Mica and a., .";'s .1 ,,. t:_ ea'•c ��4,;.!'"", ,r.~ •� -r.•.• cTST .1 • T •1 1 2Srh was Included �, 'i` i; �' 'd 1 •) •r. •„r,•:a .. i 4 i2'4 . ••,, . i, :T♦ - In the Chester . :- a ' '1 • ,r+ •• .2;; • _e . Creek Ilaodplacn m:,••71-.Z.,;”` •.L ..rd•�-._.- + j . •-•.-:::"' • "--"V i.:?,--,-...4.•:•.:.'.. .r :,. '•.:•'i ,.• .• years ago. -`- ^• .. ". r: .";-••.•. rL` , "' •r y 44.• 1r / r...r � ..._ ^ ,,.........•-s- 10 _ ».- Itg^.',..:az '.!z". .y .--:::-'''..:•'.'.'•2•''' - _ _ -"S',f�-.: '•• ••:4-,.. . • ba',.,,:it :.'•-•..,.24 - •• r • .. s. ..1'.:.....i.:', .re ,C • .1..H.:' i. -'- Pi. : �c 441�•' ^-+ - l I1.,c•l can•-r y;o , .Y • �•• 1t.,-•:•:‘,..1,:-• ir. �.�l/ - r]+� t•.• .. r i'- r‘..111.4 l-ir:4•'`,"-' •�� J, is Y. `••4 .-•' ?7.• r.-:. r..�"• '•rY •yam-•ween '-- Pl_ .....,,,,.. ..__, ....,.::::.,..,,,,;:.:_ .. �.. 5 �„'�. .�r�.• •. , otic �+ , 4.-s.; 2r��•2. `sir. :,t •• 4:«i.::ss •:,..-••••1:•••••••%;:.4.--7.-.::.y'1; \"0.'4.1).';:.... •ti I .,. .jr 9ui•J.MZ wN.•ti'�^.3.'YLI:• .1`....:' facts ..-......,;;;:::::::,..:::::,•.-..4._....„..4„.-fiat (..y.+ •-__ ''.•� 2.•.:;,,.41..... .• ,t C- a �•a"" i4...n11.... .....; • .'� 1r-Jri: t•,,112t ' � : • a"li {ti:11.1 c'Si.J� 3 • _I r,-.4'-';:%.....1-�' ` �'�` .,,..r. 7 + _{,f�'}b ,_ • N� ry,'ti �,i• 'fZ,3tt S � tiG 're• :..a r 1 r `. 1!.,. 1 •• ,i!,a a••+`•+4 L.r• A', . .sae, '• r A •-f"�, rY.i.II Y �+'Yr�� s 'I. }� _. -*.r,-..... x'1,3 �" / � ,�:) '^acre, I�.,7.,"1 X7,%1 2 'i�}rA 0//C'-711(IId i.?7I.SlIfl1C 711(1 tic E'11.1't',,1fJU(t '%" ., ` +{, �t e ,', �S+stF rr v.42;, � r. yi '� . i;/ Iii11111 C. /cgiiii c illE I1 t3 fin 711(x71}r 'a , r••'• 1 •3!y �`aa�c '?, .S;c�� -'�:v i ds,, F"! rel..ani -:ri,�'r fir >„•�._I � - .. }^.K• �'f`' r.?•rrrt w,,•a '�i ' S. By toric Buten/.1r 1/j;:'nrYr y�•'�.. .,. r1' G7 t'tk r..4-...;414..,.-4 �,.0 K;7;�, '"°§y. .... .4 �r...-4,,,• wi�yY�yv,�ta�=wester I�:• - _�, ' Zc. ..s..."-::...„1.•41•7. -11-4i-It'...)"c..•+, •,:- •,••••...r .w b: cera decade 151.. Dirk Iiehltl IiLSbeen ` t.t4t✓-r, • ;��L _• _ -- •spina. arc .rase+ ,.,,.wsrnrirR/•A• !"��r'arp - [Allo rear.as high water and stews melt •'" .4s0z'Ge�u2Vy•Y, r♦t't` ,. -.:44....';'1.:r.• y1� +,r. alr� : . 32 • ` :l+ F.•-i.:C4:d,*tt::'i. •.r.... �.x•s.-.cart .-i'. swells rivers and;lreams,helot Ilasw;rCllcd ^-r._ :unl wailed for any Ili t nhsalcrs lir in mit clOsc snm,n.om r+om•M Sttrearan or.... ill Itis hi sinesa.41 I)ishnturt Renew(, I'IIM,\tceelnlv'tiikataMew s1isIs'cod die area,which hantllydoil other luisinesx•sal.mcI)islunanRoi'..Cung strctrhes frnni Chester Creek rear the fainted I Iills ,+ilh alrsnr 1011 htairec along Uichmais-Mi.'s Road and 'Allem sp.inX I hundeisttantc s,.ccp aan.ts Mica Peak. Ciolf Coarse north along 1)i'linsan•Mita Road In some hiuccs in die Ki,kr.,tio nciglla,rh,aid neat dtn,w•ing s din mu.I he(l,esic r(lock iii Amine atm we his Uni'ri siry ltuaal and 2:411.1 Avenue,west:od,b•tl. ,..1114,10.,11,4:.he Iakts p•icnnes br stem.:fakrai and county r\pplcway is ii gIs rnl_ ok ire,ls w Not 6r',con cin cl:I Its business is not annIe to -1ltcre a glad chance that the I1.e+J plain is cnii� Thal ueant et n he hail t.add flood i,I.urmxr in hl-4II4rlkr,said Jt,e wow,.a f l:fib\I tan1 cu mer,• in(heir n,ccrosti•alien theyu II Ii.lcC :I fcdcralk• he flooded. inured I.,an or if they Lou hl a luno in die arca.It Alicr yl-ir.of hl.hcinl;Icci•lators.digging through T1rc federal agency turd twu esi inhales for the anti g id runoff a IIBb,rar storm u»,thy hrin u'Itcn it last also res u:miii dacnpennre in int((call plain. th.ctimtenrti an,I:muissiuF el'nnalc and water Ihnr B lirhm hevain( wasn't 101 Cell hr line Ib,uJ insurance slu.lies.I sisal is ch la I,..pt.re, iv,hew She map in I Set/One Linty.howled the woes1 because his pnIv(Ynq.IktiJI n;Imp lie was arcrierrevel "I line:yl.k•brats full..f 1'.apentcl‘11k l, IIsi,,"IIt• Ihi.Outliers could reach 2 cubic tel!lersecnnil.'Ilse 811;11 the n:51ictuais Iiratrad pivot,.v lac•. ,ail, other estimated i1 might he:,thousand times nolle Ji'ceph I lilt(said the riu inilal..iY flood rn4lrannt• I___. Al I kV urging;r1 Itchen-i.in.enlisted Sp..kaut wader. arils almul 371:I month U.the m.nrcal:c pa1'mrut ha ('aunts t'nu nnisiu.w•r I'hil 1 lagic dad Ga,gies'ntan \`ieh-1 olid the dile1 Pl:iirl used pi.h;Ihl.i his home in Ilse 111,111111..c'k nl 2 till As VIII. i'cs•lge Nelheiei l is hell.-I he pirk•ra1 I>u1eI chef n eIcstiinalcd(Ire p..ssihle 11.aading in Olesier Creel:. -Thai is a chunk of clang'.-lit slid'''I hal INC.,s Ira llanacrnlcol Accrres'IP1:MMA I agreed this sr Pine lu When Phh1r1last Iwca'scJ die mall II))rears ago.rl nl.tilicine Clo ;,tel i,t'il pu,wro;' . I:dt:ua.lhrr Ii.nksi IIt',•0.au1plain map fel Custer incluilcdslimeIeveareas.Ilehni.huVlttss-aplaslie 1 seer. containers warehouse called DIVA salts-:Intl a Cr:nu. .i.Chester Creek,Page S . II Chester Creek Ilat,the tiFln tic+alir.n intlrrnr;tlilrn. ktullan p�,ea•�. "I think llrecguntpcda l:nErau:I • I intbc�llul,5,1171 spring ailltuutxrnrdcusunJ.I+Yatinnt�lt:l:' Orem° I Paieu CAntinued cram A sun vide ` rata Gar looded low land_r A A1ar1(:arc}.the FI:Ai:1 ilWur anCc 'J Chester Creek lltdsladslCd:'1Vch;n'cafull L / audmifigaliundi,isulndinchalnr SAra Ie nerd'th rut course a/! — I+as nt ntande+lolling andwc'tr this arca.mid the;or difiv,l'('hrtct �,AAPlewa—ai tN __ flood plain never h:idpr,?)tlems: abnl�rl)7sbn,n,-iIlici: C'Ieekwill cod about 75.1r'.h A`5 Ilokte dhett�uhln-t he happier SII5l,lV;tI. Sumorosit) 11hDamluu�tt that FEMA has agreed in take Itrlilil,InitINis71.11"cathrll I lv. .ittil10133':11,,nulal . _1 �� 6N the flood Plain designation ,- another took 31111C flood plain. years helote all the d:ua can he t Ix homes in Kokomo a nham,n Oleo is medion gier)sbee "Itis lung ucerdoe,"he said, ruflaved,alwltyvcd.nt:tpptrl, /We c.: 12111 ate early te90a.1he redeem Most people recognize Chester the llns111CU1T I11•1Y111tI,/1 tiviedI'd.ntl Iiwalivrsl. _ Kalural — Enter€?ncy Management - Cr eek as the small stream I lot lltnts - hi about a rear.a nea clad map of ia C7 C A igot Agency has aveed to into through the fainted I tills Golf recent memory. the chests.,l_'tevk Ilea should Iv nnnittrs lank at the - Ctulrse.The creek later disa t tars I - ";.4‘Mittman- aowdxt I p' atail:lht.'lllattrill he cm to i. Mica AYUGtMt designation. unije,tnsuttaj 31)11 flows liii.,the ssra. R;rlringkar,l7,C„and tater u. Chcsrer C / l aquifer that ccwtries under the Slt4.a.we('onlile lin ial.lot ICY iet,. Creek hood(S t. unb1 ,.. z I Spokane Valley. �;. r�.`- Kokomo I r:ntvuaulnaualcuotdai;uur6lr floco'illl:•:Iput dirrn:•Clutl;Iwl plain a list., it barhdddl Inlhcpnsl.springrulNtlfhas -...: i t>b • SpokmteCon nly,saidlhccnunn•als,r Ihenew nlapingather any kotruntsit. • hooded lm.lands dear the golfthou'die ghat•t-t bele.e it is 1 ►:- t..1,-..4 v� Bawd is 1 Pines .i Ivo cat Lr flow, in with arenc new data l• f 8 10-:. (. tavrseandahta [)ihm.n.,Virt ;tnmalandl:If esehzl. thtrsny F for water flsm;.in the arca. •I I It , °.. !toad,btu hasn't reaelred the homes "We,11e sul?plcing them with all Ot7batl•' 3?fid KV Although the arca it still ltto,c:u. Urea'p�I` 1 - •- --- in Kokomo or the Iwsinkses beyond otic hrou""Y,11"11,20,184”r. ' in recent memrrnt the infer minim we Lave:u'ailaldr,' �.c• \. undCt.t:uulallylhtilkd. ••►x!\ For the last fewyraIF,cventhe she sail. 50 IIcsenlseal L•Incshsdie!•ohms• Pinked xi& prcdiC13111c sit it g;Rnlxling hang 11hc swill nu am I h'wl aho.upl><+rlttl hi.clh.tta+dha - ( t. Gest Ctdrsd sulrialed because of work Sin&ine horneuwners Imre test t•d lc Het Ilial Intl.'\kc Nnrl!!.. 4 C- r'ET Comity has.Iune is the.art,e County exemptions ft rtnl the I I IdA ` es �y`•;:� ri?'.'1 ' i•! "-•'°a, engineers built a barrow pit at 28th regulatisuusheealise they were able In it 5lticct1r117Y1'4. ltll-IH gh'"II It +• 2...-,'"d";a-1'f,, ""11 v Inlet:'ne snit 1'caisle%c pt. Ns-1:1 Cleat Avenue and Dislun:ul-r Ilea Road ih µ'the elevation,I If 11t licit I1r11R1� off.' i I -- -- 44th 's •, c_ Veer;flood which-with aftwadjutu,tentt- wertahiseiltc'ilst..t.l71.11e_Shetaid I I, plata has easily contained any I urn 11 from that is an unuutally high utmdtio r f - '-? Mudiseo limy storms. exemptions,Whic-Ii nukes lite lflink ■utile Musson Gln be teaachell 51927.2165 •r,� Tamink Williams-the FEMA'soriginal map aItodid not Orli;e-mail at larrohtsnnlesnoneem. .< l r-• • N. ' - : R - � �.- ,3(tdhCC SMane Cum) ; retOInters.. • I •.Sule ma re,Gtd iIV � •+1�...-. ..a_, ' tal}i 4, .". `iUR: SposSmoireoll.r9.3231wl9pmip: `9i' _q;l ���F .No Pain e• S •'l'-_ -- irthmra1mca,Yeeliea•rr al 8-12.86G0 cc Vii '-_ rirll��"_: • .i n p:lo5lnn..a:377-P9;41. '?. .94'• "9,2';'..-'' • a t••• •+ 5poteneGomm"t Gardens-a ronin J - ..A;., .'; l 'a2• . °reial Recreatiudal n'y s " byPatrick O'Dea,D.V.M. �� r:i i :- .--!--4 u: _ �1t e•r�cree.ea1(ks Carom•byCrtilmsinsM• IS �OU1� Gain - ri_ ' rletyurnpreservationeralE-xouragemerrl G!t1:v1;Y.itA1.eun rsanhae•incox, and Michael O'Dea,D.V.M. :-• .-!+-sPi '. . E. fn Hark/Shop Quartet SinpletinAmaica imaoes.C432e.85G4,9a.m-I purr.tar :4,10nnnrl4 ,,,.,1zs'ltu74ra5l,,ao,.l.w. •r• Iur•95itrvla,e.st pe:rer,I' u,M IfitanaMi FIREWORKS ..la *' -;,}+cies. 11- �:LnnO ts,,ArerC,Irl7rllr Caere e, Spoiane falls Chorus,Sweet Adelinet " •.. •t9:1151. The Fourth of July is approach- s,cr i iclnrs...l+tnlavx sl.,lti.?rt•,n,t.•iu IK�.kt •' r Irdrvnaliorwl-t•lcmeo.110•r•tw111,eactry. ::-1•. I'"'NV'4,VI', t Sgdaere Area of lni Edn(atat Atlptietlen in and is ellen celebrated with I,IRtrrr...•WO..tl allH,11.1,.1n•I,.atn i.p -.,.. I Irsdrs,i nem.,Salem LtrxamnChmth, g . . ::7. t \-n,-mwet�.11uedryoteachlenreh 1-Z1W.0..wde:a0450.7784. fireworks. These loud noises 1.lt.,.,,y .m hrh,l,.,r...,ri.nsel.,,.I-t .0 ;. :i.41d'. .tyy;', `'npl.Matt.$^tarolearkeisbMdlawn SpolarerencenlG•rttcited-rn•ets noun..at.• Iuq,I, • „t-. ik 4r 4••'9•r. tti• G+atm„ can startle and cause fear and •, s+ til u y r` C ht55Y,[trU Cat 457-0351, t'ir3-rra,t,lARm.,an]Suorla/t,r0 < / �: �` :otro Camera Club-,:rut tiltfrst and am:nxn.•.'tt<t Canal Ctmretnth Center: anxiety In many pets. They may suis."n.-mitw•.n•Sra,y.4't Ilral.ut+U9lover. • i •• ; ,-•.t• •,nod 4:mlrtrr,da'cnl raWrrnln,7A o., rs2.1.4317- show(ear by hiding trembling, nil ooh,...on,n)iviAt•me 5,0,4, 4 .•1..' k.117;tr Or pacing and salivating. To most " re'Z..<ls'r; F 41+ l I • petowners if is obvious when your pal is ankious.A simple Karr Friendly,y, Noi hhorhara strategy is to seclude your pet t i in a quiet dark room where they illedicine Shame()Pharmacy p ayin9 FREE won't be able to hear the lire- ' 0� works.Occasionally,pets will ire Y Cr7 ESTIMATES severe anxiety can he prescribed a light sedative by t., r .!(IIIttAttlichlt. l'11. 11°° Mu tlyijAlt-------__---- •� � your vdleriaarian, r S.5?0 fines Road --- •' .,..i. + :If Curr�rtrrorLIh -2Pinr< HEART ARROW (_.n(>)yea-i.Za )- SEAMLESS RAIN GUTTERS VETERINARY SERVICE ' : 1 � 92A-4558 iii)ourµelicit(al,wµLnkdlt'1nt'1fltultl(,,Yell Its Mn Just a R in Ginter!k's Quality and Service •1,-..... t Slmk;nx'c Mort irffntil ilrkScamless Rain(hinter Installalibnl BBB 2A8$.Steen Road,Verallaie • , .:. • L s _� • 7:30am�8 m A9on.�Frl •• ir . >na 1•Vliere.Quallt i just'castg_LESS! p �= 8am•5pmSat. -:-'; Pain Relieving 5 2 _ FREE! I Fast. Friendly Service, CALL WADE TODAY - Gel 4e : Il`' -'-••ws�•'--^-•^^'r' i Cell 509-216-7633 • Office 509-891-0569 P.S.Never earn a;arena lheeork '1"" ~'r • projectile at a pet.Scubas rajury ^ _ ',tuned,Ounodeo A lnsiued poi Year Protection..IEA 6(O AQtiAT"98160 . - may res It • I • 05/38/2082 13: 30 5093532412 NETHERCU PAGE 82/e2 Taylor, Stephen - From: Carey, Mark[Mark.Carey©a fema.gov] Sent: - Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:18 PM To: Taylor, Stephen; McCoy, Lettice;Axton, Charles Subject: Chester Creek Flood Study-Spokane County Stephen: • FEMA Region 10 has committed to begin a restudy of the Chester Creek • floodplain this year. The project will start this federal fiscal year and end next year. We are coordinating closely with Spokane County and they are providing our study contractor with specific hydraulic infermation.I The FEMA study contractor is West Consultants, Inc. , and the Engineer in Charge - of the study is Mr. Ray Walton. Ray's phone number is 425-646-8806. While we are awaiting final cost estimates from West Consultants, we anticipate - the cost to be in the range of $75-100,000. It will be a relatively small study. It is anticipated that due tc stormwatcr drainage improvements made by • Spokane County that the floodplain will he reduced than what is shown on the present maps. However, this is not a guarantee. For-properties which currently have flood insurance under the mandatory purchase requirement, they will be relieved of this requirement if their property is no longer in • a Special Flood Hazard Area (100 year) under the new study. FEMA encourages property owners to retain their flood insurance in any event. With the • production of draft maps, preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps, community meeting(s) and consultation with the county, the entire process could take two years for the new maps to become affective. The FEMA Region 10 Flcod Engineer who is the project monitor is Mr. Joe t__J Weber. Joe can be reached at 425-437-4657. Thanks, Mark Carey, Acting Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division Director • • • • ,�•='; • • • I October 09. 2000 To : William A. Johns P. E. Spokane County Engineer Division of Engineering and Roads Spokane County 1026 W. Broardway Ave. Spokane, WA. 99260-0170 From: Richard C. Behm Jr . 9405 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA. 99206 • ` i Re: Chester Creek F .E. M.A . Flood Map On behalf of the residents and property owners in the Chester Creek area North to Sprague Ave, this request is made to revisit the issue of the boundaries of the Chester Creek Flood Zone. Currently it is designated as being a 100-year floodplain and 1 this request is to designate it a 500-year floodplain. This has been requested in 1997 by the citizens "Chester Creek Watershed Committee" , in 1998 by the "Spokane County Water Quali- ty Advisory Board" and by residents and property Owners. Here are the facts, as we understand them. ( 1 ) Spokane County has constructed a "barrow pit" at 28th and Dishman Mica Highway which appears to have easily absorbed all flood events of Chester Creek since it was constructed. (2) Chester Creek floodway has been cleaned North of Thorp Rd . The Channel has been restored , culverts installed . etc . These major improvements have proven to handle recent severe events . No flooding occurred . the oarrow 1` s pit took all the water . New regulations and requirements for development nave reduced runoff. handled on site. (3 ) The records of the U.S. Weather Service show a record 100 year snow melt event occurred in January 1997 with all time record flooding, in the Spokane area. Chester Creek had severe flooding yet no water went north or East of 28th Ave. Due to this event . Chester Creek restoration began . • (4 ) Weather Records for the Spokane Valley show that in April 2000 an all time record rain event occurred . ( 100 year ) The new channel of Chester Creek contained all the water and no flooding occurred . The barrow pit easily took all the water . (5 ) It is our opinon that The F. E.M. A. map is wrong. It shows Chester Creek as a floodway going North to Sprague and draining into the old pit behind Appleway Motors . Only maps 80 to 100 years old show Chester Creek as intermitant going North of 28th as a stream. The following events impacting the Behm family building known as I ; the Diva Building and located at South 321 Dishman Road also represent other business and property owners on Dishman Road . A building permit was issued in 1984 by Spokane County to build our building. At that time Spokane County Engineers were working on including this area in a flood plain , but no notification was �= given to property owners of this intent . Subsequently numerous commercial buildings and businesses have built and located on Dishman Road. Spokane County has allowed this area to build and develop as a commercial and industrial area without notification or making allowances or provisions to comply with flood plain requirements. In 1978 County Commissioner Kieth Sheppard sent a letter to Spokane County Engineer Bob Turner expressing concern about the County ' s liability over continuing to issue building permits in this flood zone while planning to change the flood zone designation . Engineers also allowed the Utilities Dept . to route the South Valley Sewer Interceptor line through the flood area in a flood hazard zone. This primary sewer interceptor is not flood proofed and according to the F. E.M.A. Map runs through/along Chester Creek , a major Flood Way. A 100 year event example could fill the sewer interceptor and overload the Regional Treatment Plant . In Sept . 1992 F. E.M.A. , at the request of the Spokane County Engineers, declared this area as part of the Chester Creek 100 year Flood Plain . Property then had the stigma of being in a Flood Hazard Zone with the resulting depreciation of resale value and the burden of required flood insurance. For a building built before the Flood Hazard Zone designation . The cost to flood proof. remodel or add-on . and meet the Spokane County Flood Zone Ordinance requirements , could exceed the value of the building. Potential buyers would certainly demand a substantial discount due to the Flood Hazard Zone designation and requirements for flood insurance. The Spokane County Flood Ordinance 3. 20.080 defines the Chester Creek floodplain as the area North of "Mohawk Road to Sprague Ave. " . The F. E.M.A. flood map shows the 100 year floodplain as extending North to 1st Ave. 2 I 1 i in June of 1985 Spokane County hired CH2M Hill as a consultant to review SCS data. CH2M Hill ' s computer modeling did not agree with the SCS model and in fact raised the flood plain elevation . It would appear that Spokane County Engineers were trying to get F. E.M. A . to raise the flood elevation . for what purpose is not clear . In December 1985 in a letter from James Correll , P. E. CH2M Hill to Brenda Sims he sent what appears to be the preliminary Chester Creek Snowmelt event analysis and asked for additional funds up to $25,000.00 to complete the analysis . The Chronology of events show that CH2M Hill was involved in this Flood Insur- ance appeal through 1987 . In July 1987 Spokane County Engineers asked F.E.M.A. to consider their proposal to use a higher rain- fall event . (which would raise the flood elevation ) In a meeting i ; record from February 8, 1988 the County again asked Michael Baker & Associates (The F.E.M.A. consultant ) for a response to their proposal to use the higher event . I1 The result of all of this is a flood plain map that includes large areas of developed residential and commercial property and caused severe financial problems for the property owners . Brenda Sims , The Utilities Dept. and CH2M Hill have continually denied their involvement in the study that changed the flood map and ti blamed F. E.M. A. and an unknown Engineering Firm hired by F. E .M. A . ( Baker Engineers , Alexandria, Virginia) The record and documentation shows otherwise. Why there has been such a wide variance in statements is unclear . An engineer gave an opinion on the CH2M HILL and the Michael Baker, Jr study done for F.E.M.A was that the "Water flowing north to Sprague Ave. is grossly exaggerated , is a "pie in. the sky" proposal and does not correspond to any studies they have done. In their opinion the CH2M HILL STUDY AND FEMA MAP IS A EXCESSIVE DETERMINATION. They figured on a flow of 2,000 ft . fps to Sprague Ave. This translates into water 10 ft . deep by 200 ft . across each second, that ' s quite a flooding event ! " ( has to be a major error ) ! 1 If you should still accept the flood plain elevations as being accurate, then there are a couple of things that the County should be aware of. Spokane County has built the Valley Couplet , a 4-lane Highway. across the North end of the Chester Creek Flood Plain at 2nd Ave. without making any provisions to pass the volume of water noted above. 3 This road project has completely dammed the North end of the Chester Creek Flood Plain . There is no way for the "Flood Wa- ters" to flow north out of the Chester creek floodway. At the reported flow rate of 2000 ft . fps this would require quite a large bridge to allow flood water to reach Sprague Ave. There is not even a culvert to take care of normal rain events . In effect this DAM would create a lake in even a normal snowmelt event that flooding could occur as far south as 8th Ave and maybe 16th . causing millions of dollars in damages if indeed the data for the Chester Creek Floodplain is correct . According to The Spokane County STORMWATER MNGMT GUIDELINES I Water-Dependent Works , the applicant must show that the proposal ,_.;I is consistent with other relevant local , state and federal regu- lations. The following portions of the Spokane County Flood 1I Ordinance 3.20. 010 are pertinent sections . General conditions for encroachments into floodplains: Floodwaters must enter and exit the property in the same manner as it did under preproject conditions . SPOKANE COUNTY FLOOD ORDINANCE 3.20. 010 3. 20.450 CHESTER CREEK FLOOD ZONE is the area between Mohawk Road and Sprague Ave. 3. 20. 140 Duties and responsibilities of the county engineer . ( 1 ) (d ) ref: 3. 20. 41 & 3. 20.42 "encroachments and floodways" F. E.M.A. map shows Chester Creek flows through the South Valley Arterial and at 2,000 ft . fps it is certainly a floodway. 3. 20.430 Water Dependent Works : (2) In ALL INSTANCES of locating utilities and other installa- ' tions in floodway locations , project design MUST incorporate floodproofing certified by a licensed civil professional engineer to be capable of withstanding one-hundred-year flood flows and velocities . (3)FOR ANY WORKS THAT IMPOUND WATER, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF EASEMENTS, FLOWAGE RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP OF THE IMPOUNDMENT AREA AND CERTIFICATION BY A LICENSED CIVIL PROFES- • SIONAL ENGINEER THAT THE WORKS WILL CAUSE NO INCREASE IN THE 100-HUNDRED-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION OUTSIDE THE IMPOUNDMENT AREAS AND THAT THE WORKS AND ASSOCIATED IMPOUNDMENT AREA WILL NOT IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS TO DRAIN FLOODWATERS ADEQUATELY DURING A FLOODING EVENT. 3. 20. 480 Stop Orders Whenever any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this chapter, the county engineer may order the work stopped-etc. 4 • The F.E .M.A. Elevation Certificate for our property at S. 321 Dishman Road shows that the determined base flood elevation is 1984.5 feet and that the ground floor elevation of our building is 1981 . 7 feet . This is 2. 8 feet below flood level . County Road Project No 2764 Valley Couplet at the intersection with old Dishman Road the profile grade appears to have been raised 1 . 76 ft. . With finished grade. curbs and shoulder this would raise the flood elevation about 2. 5 ft . Relating this to our flood elevation this would make a new flood elevation of 5 ft plus? Spokane County is in violation of the flood ordinance quoted above and has significant liability. Property owners south to 16th will look at what legal recourse is available to them unless the county moves to resolve these problems immediate- ly. If all of the data accepted by Spokane County Engineers is accu- rate, then it would seem that the engineers should have completed a study that would indicate the impacts to all upstream proper- ties by their action of damming the channel and to identify a new flood elevation . It is our contention that any such study would show that the impact of the new road would in fact raise the flood elevation significantly further damaging properties up- stream and that the County is liable for this damage. I ; We are requesting that Spokane County re-visit the entire issue of the Chester Creek Watershed Flood Zone by hiring an outside engineering firm to recalculate the flood elevation and consider raising the elevation to the 500-year event level . This action I should eleviate the County ' s liability for the construction of the new highway and at the same time relieves many homeowners and businesses of the flood insurance premiums and depreciated property values amounting to thousands of dollars per year . However the valley couplet still is a dam and may cause local flooding and this problem must be resolved. On September 25, 2000 I met with Lawrence Basich , P. E. Hydraulics Engineer , Mitigation Division F. E.M. A. . He suggested I add this paragraph saying that I had met with him and "That circumstances have changed and F. E.M.A. believes a re- look is Justified . " ( given the improvements to Chester Creek, the Barrow Pit , new regulations on development and runoff on site, plus the fact that -1 Chester Creek does not exist north of 28th ) . He also suggested Spokane County hire a local independent engineering firm to study this area. Funding for a re-study could be available from F. E.M.A. if Spokane County Commissioners request a re-study . rl S In any event , this issue must be addressed as there is clearly a conflict and the County is at risk for damages. This problem must be resolved and we respectfully request an early response . Th 341111111° Richard I t DIVA SALES CO. / ,' 321 S. DISHMAN RD. . SPOKANE, WA. 99206 VALLEY STUDIO • 321 S. DISHMAN RD. SPOKANE, WA. 99206 HOTSY OF SPOKANE 407 S. DISHMAN RD. Q SPOKANE, WA. 99206 (U ' / ( J.i II SUN RENTAL CENTER 315 S. DISHMAN RD. j� r SPOKANE, WA. 99206 ' ,f WESTBERG ADVANCED ENGINES ‹.4 �,305 S. DISHMAN RD. '► ''; . I SPOKANE, WA. 99206 LEIGHTON FOREIGN AUTO SERVICE 221 S. DISHMAN RD. �/ SPOKANE, WA. 99206 .;4---%7P4 f>v' ViC' S AUTO SALES /- 312 S. DISHMAN RD. 1� SPOKANE, WA. 99206 .'( (,i1.LC � (_t �t l.L/J '.. r', %7 I TIM'S LANDSCAPE MATERIALS J 812 S. DISHMAN RD. SPOKANE WA. 99206 1:::;) . ( i SAVAGE HOUSE PIZZA PARLOR 700 S. DISHMAN RD. // SPOKANE WA. 99206 /(•¢ 3':, C- e:7 y0-7,fL, I CC: Spokane County Commissioners Kate McCaslin John Roskelley Phillip Harris F. E.M . A. Lawrence Basich , P. E. 6 1•'L;!j U 2 7.000 ti{ t ' FriMA REGION X OFFICE OF Co i rrY COmMissfoNER$ JOHN ROSKELLEY,1ST DISTRICr • KATE MCCASLIN,21:D DISTRICT • PHII,LIP D.HARRIS,3RD DISTRICT October 30, 2000 Mr. Lawrence Basich, P.E. Hydraulics Engineer, Mitigation Division Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region Ten Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W. • Bothell, WA 98021-9796 • RE: Chester Creek Flood Map Community Panel No. 530174 0294C Revised Sept. 30, 1992 Dear Mr. Basich: An appeal of the Chester Creek Flood Study has been made to Spokane County by property owners of that area. I understand you have received a copy. I believe this appeal has substantial merit to request that a re-study be done. I believe there is a need to look at the entire area again to see if errors in the original study and improvements done by Spokane County have impacted the whole of the Chester Creek flood analysis. Now that the work on the drainage has been completed, I suggest that the parameters of the original study have now changed and the data is no longer valid. Not only has the channel been cleaned out, improving percolation along its length, but also a storage basin has been created at 28`h Street that has a percolation rate that is still undetermined. Since the channel work was completed, there have been several record rain/snow events with nu measurable impacts to the surrounding area. The barruw pit easily contained all of:he run-off I believe FEMA would agree that the database needs to be upgraded to reflect current conditions. Sincerely, Ase 'rill:. D. Harris Spokane County Commissioner Cc: Richard Behm 1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHNIc1ON 99260-0100 • (509) 477.2265 � i ' • . GAS C' M�NSC Jv �' Federal Emergency Management Agency •d r 3.11IIII Region X yyv • *' 130 228th Street, Southwest Bothell, WA 98021.9796 November 14, 2000 MEMORANDUM FOR: Max Yuan, PE, Hydraulic Engineer Hazards Ide i do Branch. MT-HZ-ID FROM: L wrence Basich, PE Hydraulic Engineer Community Mitigation Programs—R10 SUBJECT: Spokane County request for revision Request from Spokane County Chester Creek Enclosed is a request from a Spokane County commissioner for us to take a relook at the FIS for Chester Creek in the County. In addition to the letter from the commissioner, we have enclosed a set of documents that would constitute an appeal to the FIS for Chester Creek from Mr. Richard Behm. Within the documents from Mr. Behm is a letter from Tammie Williams with the County asking that FEMA revisit the Chester Creek study. This was sent to Marie Britt with Baker on December 8, 1997 and was sent in response to our request for map updates in MNUSS. This area seems to have been in dispute from the original study. As you can see in the enclosed, there was an original study developed by the SCS back in 1985. The County appealed that study and asked CH2M Hill to recalculate flows and resulting BFEs on Chester Creek. They used a _ different combination of snowmelt and rain on snow events than SCS and produced higher flows. We accepted these figures, possibly because they were plausible and they produced a more co:ser:ative. higher, BFE. It now appears that the County, in their 1997 letter and in the attached letter from commissioner Harris would like a relook at the earlier decision to use the Ch2M Hill flows. Based on the information that was submitted by Mr. Behm, it does appear that the area should be relooked at. I ask that Baker examine this information and determine if it has merit. If it does, I need to know if a change can be made to put the original SCS data back on the FIS or if, as the County suggests, that a restudy be performed by an independent contractor. If Baker cannot revise the FIS with existing data in house, and, in Baker's opinion, a restudy is required, please send this information back to me and we would like to work with the County in the CTC program to see if a project can be developed, or use future LMMP funding (if any is going to be available) to fund a project on our own. Since this situation is a little different than our normal appeals, I ask that there be no charge to the local government for this appeal. Thanks, Enclosure • • • • • If- THURSDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2000 • A TWICE-WEEKLY LOOK AT COMMUNITY NEWS • THE SPOKESMAN-REVIEW . OD ... ; : iiv-.ifi :*e" J if-'4'. 0 t I K 1 I �{ t i: FN C 41 eatC Zy . 1 i1 r .n:4', i_..._ Z]5'_"L".•^ ':f-_".;,.k ....i..1,„-0.,-F ' C -1^id- ,_i ..�� i'RSF :..Ra f•,F ,wr -k s$`r ..Ll r1 t� t`fbl �. :�3[�5l. :;. ,4, -•ak^•�i -ri:,-"."a: ;�.� "!•Rr 'Ki27��'.?ki`..:,:�".sT±% y 4 • I• lF:t_yi1.,73, Y1476c yam ...• • }. 1 • y•�t; • December 28,2000 COVER STORY 1r - •iiS'ry . kr� } 4� ►� ' • ! 4 ' }i? .} •'-';c0..''-'- Y' � ny . i,.. -. 7 f- s k>z sL 1. ! •. �cYts'r . c�tfQ ...6;'A.---. ' ..hr:*' i.-'... :;,,'^1.:}.r • �F!tr ,t , -.7i:, 45gb._,..,:ii., ! bi4r tcs. •/15�'t ,-_:f:_,_ • ::f j t • "_7..1, f 4... . '3' ' • r. . . - .� lMI+-C u•. P.: �`r ro _r �'- LC"' �... 'i gib,y. �b �. "i%yCEwi,eA ,aih^.F�•J = - v :.. 7 J t • -J • �r . . xM . Sieve rhompson/ihe Spokesman-Review Dick Bohm has been lighting FEMA flood plain designation since 1993 in a commercial zone along Chester Creek. 1 Li Not i Dlshman businessman, others urge FElVIA _tifiiiUIIaIi Broadway PI ries take another look at fod plain inclusion Farr ) ,__ — Sprague Chester Cree {y,d_,,rk d nLrn.*r/Styr f j writer int i - Apnt 'ray - 41h flood plain • ocked under a blanket of ice and snow, the spring thaw is far from ,1 Some residents have fol most people's thoughts right now,but not hick 13ehin's. ?' the flood plain designate 81h For seven years of winter freeze.and spring thaw, Behm has been trying ;,,,: 4 ry g E" ' r tlrrr d (area outlined in blue)si t make a point:His business on Dishman Road is never going to be deluged •&lshnrarT'�. - u floodwaters, He's amassed doHRIs�.:, \ N'''?`: 121h - the Countyearhas asked90s. the Fee }' dog-eared stacks of studies,weather data and Natural.; - the Fec nhotos of runoff trying to prove it. a'l'Area:A 16th Emergency Management Now,county and federal officials are starting to listen. E•' g•''7:."- •'?."- (.4 •' Willman- &ohrtish Agency to lake another Ir ` ' Mica Mar High at the designation. The Federal Emergency for PIMA,said he recommended . ',fanagemcnt Agency(FEMA) this month that the agency take ` Chester plainreek Univ•rsity,. ......tt. Minks 1kbin and the neighboring g flood plain ,Kokomo o b g another look at the data and the 1neighborh001 L ?isinesses should worry about rising flood plain map. waters during the worst He said photos and other r''undeisturms and fastest spring evidence from Behm and a letter N@W B r WdiSh Pines ell. When it redrew the flood plain from Spokane County spokai;7 ' 32nd �nprbatriity.'-i' 1 for Chester Creek in 1992, • Commissioner Phil Harris batroW;pit • some new areas were included.That convinced him they should review • • forced those businesses and the designation.The restrictions are ' Painted Hills BM homeowners to buy Nod insurance meant to protect homes and GO!!Course —about,57(10 a year for some— businesses from flooding. • and put new limits on how they "We have to make sure it reflects Sh.fer .. could develop their property. what is happening in reality,"13asich M� FEMA had two sets of data on said. Chester the amount of runoff there could be The flood plain stretches from the - - 44th Creek flood •: ."- plain during a IOU-year storm when it Chester Creek drainage near the - , tweaked the map.One study showed Painted 1-Hills Golf Course and • Madison floodwaters might reach two cubic extends north along Dishrnan-Mica feet per second.The other Road all the way to the new Valley estimated it would reach 2,01)0 cubic Couplet.1t covers areas that feet per second,and that's the one longtime residents agree have never FEMA used. been prone to high waters. Mohawk r', Regional FE s'tA officials now in addition to Behm's business— U natio 1 2 • wonder if they used the wrong a plastic containers warehouse • numbers. SOURCE:Spokane County Larry 13asich,a regional engineer Continued:Flood plain/Page 5 rr Stall map:Vint — ' ! �irsdai__tuber,_ --) I_ , • _' ,� Floodplain looney In restudy it. enough to answer his concerns;Mont Thai's where Spokane County may the flood plain and earlier this year Continued from page 4 be able to help. argued with officials over the 'Donnie Williams,the construction of the new Valley • called DIVA Soles—and others environmental programs Couplet.The road,which crossed the ;dont!I)ishnrut Road,about I11t1 administrator,said she sent a letter to northern tip of the Chester Creek • homesn in the Kokomo neighb+n'hc►c►d I'I RlA last week with;new flood plain,did not meet the county's near University Road and 28th were iufonnal ion that could make the own flood control standards,Delrio included.-I'he new desigualinn meant difference.Williams said there have pointed out.And he thought that that if any of those houses were soldbeen changes in the flood plain over filially proved his point about the or refinanced,huntcuwnrrs had to the'last few years,including a large errors on the Chester Creek flood add Il u►d insurance lis their harrow pit the county built at 28th plain map. coverage, Avenue;and Ilishnran-Mica that has Williams said it was an oversight Joscfih I Inlst said he Grand out helped contain runoff. that Appleway Ruulevard was not ;;haul the flood insurance County engineers built the pita given a flood plain permit before it _. requirement after he bought his couple of years ago to dig barrow was built and engineering reports home in the 11000 block of 24th material when it widened•Incl show it will not cause any problems. Avenue. re;iligued I)ishnan-Mica (toad.Last She said that's no why the county "II increases our house payment year during a record rainstorm,the. agreed to ask I I R9A to lake another Atom Sill;r month,"he said. pit easily handled all of the look at the Chester Creek area. I lutist said knowing about the floutslormwater,Williams said.The water FEMA officials are expected to act pooled in the pit at 28th Avenue and on the requests to review the Chester plain regulations wouldn't have changed his mind about buying,but recharged into the aquifer below over Creek flood map in the next two he said it's Ins!rat ingtopay for n :i few days. months. benefit he'll never need.In the four Also,the enmity's stirrmwater years sinceI foist and his family utility recently studied the Chester roved in,floodwater has never Creek area and carne up with threatened;his full basement has scientific data for floodwater that was never been anything hut dry. much lower Mau numbers FEMA it's those.kinds of stories that used to draw its flood plain map. c,mvinced Commissioner Harris U) Williams has offered that write letters oii heli;ilf,if 13Lhnr and others lis FEMA. others who own land in the flood She said the other thing Spokane plain. Comity has noticed is the number of "I I's an issue I'in concerned about homes in the Kokomo area that have }'out received exemptions from the flood because people are paying marc fur insurance they will probably never plain regulations hecause they were use.''I Farris said."'Thal area,l feel able to slow their house elevation very safe to say it will never flood.If was above the num('za enc.About 411 it dues,probably alae whish:count}' hunter have been exempted, will he underwater." Williams said, Itasich said it will be about twit "That is such a high percentage mouths before f'I RiA decides that it tells nm.the(original)survey whether it can adjust the flood plain may be inaccurate,"she said. neap l'asecl on the rl;it;i it already has, Alter years of frustration with the. or if Ihc area most be.restudied,If county engineer's office,Hebra is ITiNIA chooses a new study,Rasich reluctant to believe they're finally said he can't make any promises asking 1:1.-W A fur the sante thing. about when it ntiglrt be completed. "That's all I've ever wanted," I le said the agency has limited Relnn said. limiting,and he can't commit any I Ie never felt the engineers did 01 /05/01 TO: Representative George Nethercutt 920 W Riverside Ave. Ste 594 Spokane , WA. 99201 FROM: Dick Behm - Dishman Road Property and Business Owners • L_; 9405 E . Sprague Ave . Spokane , WA. 99206 1Dear Mr . Nethercutt : We would ask , if you would be so kind , to follow up on the re- q uest to FEMA to restudy and adjust the Chester Creek Flood Plain Map. This request is outlined in my letter to William Johns , Spokane County Engineer , on Oct 9th 2000 and letters from William Johns and Phil Harris Spokane County Commissioner . I_ I No one ever seriously believed that 3 feet of water would flow down Dishman Road to Sprague Ave. Such an event would surely put the "City of Spokane" under water? Yet that is what the present Flood Map shows . 1 , For a number of years many residential and commercial property 1 owners have had the burden of the flood plain designation . We have finally gotten the attention of those who can maybe do something about changing the Flood Map. We are well aware how these requests can get mired down in gov- ernment . I would be most appreciative if you could keep track or "walk through" this appeal to the FIS for Chester Creek and keep me informed . c I really appreciate your assistance . Sincerely. Richard C. Behm ; • 1 L � i GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR. 157 LONGWORTh BUILDING WASHINGTON.DC 2'0S15 D STH LTAICT,�:•fi�aN07 aw 42021 V5-2006 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DISTRICT OFFICES suDCOMMITr s: Qjongre5L(� oLTt ttje andel) tate5 SPOKANE E AGRICULTURE b'fST92DR1L�RSlDE.SL'ITE594 SPOKANE,WA 95201 INTERIOR9.1353-237A NATIONAL SECURITY �ou5e of �epresentatlbe5 150 WALLA WALLA COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE l( a5tjiflg'tDfl, IDC 20515-4705 79 SOUTH PALO'USE WALLA WALLA,WA 993&2 SUBCoMAnTTEE1 150915:5-9398 SPACE AND AERONAUTICS COLVILLE February 14 , 2001 5SS SOUTH MAIN SWEET COLVILLE,WA 99114 15091664-3491 INTERNET aeorpe.Helnereun-pubEtnaIthouse.Qo.•le-mail) Mr. Richard Behm, Jr. hrp:,/www,HOuso.Gownelho:eutt I..COI 9405 E. Sprague Ave Spokane, Washington 99206 Dear Dick: Enclosed please find a copy of correspondence my office received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Bothell, Washington. The agency is still considering the study requested for the Chester Creek Area and will be in communication with the County of Spokane to coordinate a joint plan for the revision of the flood plain boundaries . I have requested that all future correspondence with Spokane County concerning this project be copied to my Spokane district office as well . My staff will continue to keep you apprised of further developments . Please call on me if I can be of assistance to you in any way. I � Cordially, GEORG R. NETHERCUTT, JR. Representative in Congress 1 GRPi:.sat encl . . • • • THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS THIS MAILING WAS PREPARED,PUBLISHED,AND MAILED AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE FEB 21 '01 33:25PM REP NETHERCUTT P.2 _` a4 i�� •?. Federal Emergency Management Agency Hut Region X yy,' 130 228th Street, Southwest Bothell,WA 98021-9796 RECEIVED FEB 1 4 7 01 February 8, 2001 The Honorable George R. Nethercutt, Jr, • Congress of the United States House of Representatives 920 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 594 Spokane, Washington 99201 Dear Representative Nethercutt: . This is in response to a letter dated January 10, 2001 from your Field Representative, Steve Taylor, regarding the Flood Insurance Study for the Chester Creek area in Spokane County. On November 2, .2000, we received a request from County Commissioner Phil Harris asking that.we take a-look at the existing Chester Creek Study. On November 14, 2000, we sent a request to our Washington D.C. office to examine the files on the study and to determine if,. am,earlier- Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now Natural Resource Conservation Service, study adequately addressed the stated.concems. • On January 8, 2001, we received a response from our Headquarters office stating that the earlier SCS study could not be used to accurately depict the floodplain. On December 26, 2000, we received a letter from Spokane County Engineer Bill Johns stating that the 1 Chester Creek Area needed to be revisited. At this point, we are still examining our options regarding a restudy for Chester Creek, and are considering various study areas and study mechanisms for our FY 2001 study procurement plan. • As a bit of history, back in 1986, we were in the process of finalizing the Chester Creek Flood Insurance Study in Spokane County when the County appealed the study data. - Between 1986 and 1992, we reworked our study and received concurrence from the County on the final product, which became effective on September 30, 1992, At the time, the County felt that we understated the flows and the resulting water surface elevations;in our orininal.1986 draft. Our rework of the study increased those flows and elevations to concurred-upon results: . Now, based on recent improvements and a recent hydrologic analysis, the County,is requesting a reanalysis of the study. Normally, when improvements occur that reduce • 1- 1 , r FEB 21 '01 e,3:25PM REP NETHERGUTT P.3 flood flows, and analyses are done to reflect those changes, the local government is responsible for making the necessary revisions to our study. However, we have a new program that is set up to co-study areas of local concern. It is called the Cooperating Technical Partner program. Within this program, we can partner with the local government throughout the course of the study and better assure an agreed upon product. We will be writing to the County shortly and advise them of this program. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 487-4604 or the progam contact, Lawrence Basich, at (425) 487-4703, or email him at Lawrence.Basich@FEMA.gov. Sincerely, • v arab. Doherty, Acting Regional Director 1,2 2 1I)IIVA SALES CC. SOUTH 321 DISHMAN ROAD SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99206 TELEPHONE(509)924.7800 RECEIVED DEC 0 6 2002 BY: . December 5, 2002 Mayor Mike DeVleming Spokane Valley City Council Dear Mayor DeVleming: 1 am inclosinr copies of a letter I received from Congress- man George R . Nethercutt . Jr . and a letter we received from John E . Pennington . Regional Director of FEMA. This information was received too late to include in the Wastewater/Stormwater Transi - tion Committee Report . Without the help of Congressman George Nethercutt and Steve Taylor it would not have been possible to get FEMA to proceed with the study of Chester Creek . The letter from FEMA details the procedure to be followed on the restudy . Of foremost importance is the offer by the FEMA Director to have his Staff assist the City of Spokane VAlley in developing a floodplain/Stormwater ordinance . I am concerned that since the Chester Creek Flood Plain is located in both Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley , that to adopt the County Flood Plain ordinance would serve County interests more than address the needs of the City of Spokane Valley . I will be happy to assist in anyway that I can . Si ncere.ty , Lr� -� r Dick Behr -Jr ._ _� ---7 1- 9405 E . Sprague Ave . Spokane VAlley, WA . 99206 926 1424 Plastic Packaging and Distributors Bottles •Containers•Cops• Lids• Pails•Drums• Equipment GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR. 223 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 5TH CLSTRICT,WASHINGTON _ WASHINGTON,1)C 20515 (202)225-2006 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS / r yyy //���y ! 920 WEST RIVERSIDE,SUITE 594 SUBCOMMITTEES: �AfgVttt"!•t� o the Iyyrten 'tat ti SPOKANE,WA 99201 AGRICULTURE LL�il1 L4JJ��77jj��11p L �JQJL y id" LV(�8a 4 (509)353-2374 INTERIOR tOUf5e 0f ikepres'entatibeo . 9209 EAST MISSION AVENUE,SUITE B DEFENSE k' SPOKANE,WA 99206 VICE C'IWAMAlJ tlia0ington, Me 20515-4705 (5091924-7775 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE 29 SOUTH PALOUSE sU BCOMMITTCE s: WALLA WALLA,WA 99362 1509}529-9358 ENERGY 555 SOUTH MAIN STREET SPACE AND AERONAUTICS COLVILLE,WA 99114 November 18, 2002 (50916194-3481 wvw.house.govinethercull(web} www.housa.govinelhorcu[Ucontact(e-mail) Mr. R. Behm, Jr. 9405 E . Sprague Ave Spokane, WA 99206 Dear Mr. Behm: _ ._ . It was a pleasure helping you obtain information about the Chester Creek Floodplain re-study authorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Enclosed please find, a copy of correspondence my office received from FEMA Region X Director John Pennington in response to your inquiry. I appreciate all of your efforts in ensuring the success of the new City of Spokane Valley. I trust this information will be helpful in completing your report to the Stormwater/Wastewater Transition Committee . If you have any more questions or if I can be of further assistance in another way, please call on me . Best regards . Cordially, •• 1-C44-45a- GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR. Representative in Congress GRN: sat • THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS OkcY m4, ''' g Federal Emergency Milit _ � y Management Agency �y;._ �= �, Region X 130 228th Street, Southwest Bothell, WA 98021-9796 November 15, 2002 REc �vt 17 NOV 1 8 2002 The Honorable George Nethercutt United States House of Representatives West 920 Riverside, Suite 594 Spokane, WA 99201 Attention: Steve Taylor Dear Congressman Nethercutt: This letter is in response to your recent telephone inquiry regarding the Flood Insurance Restudy for Chester Creek in Spokane County, WA currently underway by FEMA. This study was requested by Spokane County due to changing hydrologic conditions, development, and'improyements-on the Chester Creek watershed and floodplain. In response to I! the County's request;FEMA'contracted with WEST Consultants to do.a.Flood Insurance Restudy on Chester Creek.from Sprague Avenue-(the downstream extent) approximatelyseven miles upstream to the:intersection of Dishman=Mica and Sands Roads.:The studyalso includes approximately two miles of the unnamed tributary entering near Thorpe and extending upstream of Route 27 to Morrow Park. We expect WEST's draft study will be completed by September 30, 2003. The study will involve the following activities: • New two foot (2') contour topographic mapping of the study area will be acquired. • A new hydrologic analysis will be done b modifying Eying the HSPF model previously developed for Chester Creek by CH2M-Hill for Spokane County, to include a large borrow pit. The HSPF model will be used with continuous rainfall data.from rain gages in the area to generate a continuous record of flow data. • An LP III analysis of the annual peak flow data from the HSPF model will be used to establish the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood flows. • Approximately 70 new channel cross-sections will be surveyed at a spacing interval of approximately 500 feet. Additional channel cross sections will also be surveyed at all bridges and culverts along the study reach. • Overbank portions of cross sections will be extracted from the topographic map. • A new hydraulic analysis:will be done using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC- RAS computer program to compute,flood profiles for the various 10-, 2-, 1-,and 0.2- percent-annual-chance floods and the floodway. _ - • (2) • A work map will be created depicting the boundaries of the 1- and 0.2-perent-annual- chance floods and the floodway on the new topographic map. This work map will be used by FEMA to generate a revised FIRM reflecting current hydrologic and developed conditions. A Preliminary copy of the revised FIRM incorporating the data from the work maps will be issued by FEMA approximately six months after the study contractor completes the draft, which should be approximately March 30, 2004. At that point, we will conduct a public meeting with Spokane County and the newly formed City of Spokane Valley, ideally within one month after the Preliminary FIRM is issued, which would be about April 30, 2004. Following the public meeting, results of the new study will be published twice in local newspapers. This generally takes about one month. A statutory 90-day appeal period will begin following the second publication in the local newspapers,which would be a_pproximatelyMay_1O,_2Q94—During_he 90-day appeal period, anyone may submit technical appeals to the study. At the end of the 90- day appeal period, approximately August 30, 2004, FEMA will resolve any appeals and incorporate changes in the FIRM if necessary. Approximately one month after all appeals are resolved, FEMA will issue a Letter of Final Determination (LFD) to Spokane County and the new City of Spokane Valley. If there are no appeals, the LFD could be issued by September 30, 2004. The LFD gives the communities six (6)months, approximately March 30, 2005, to amend their floodplain ordinances to adopt the new FIRM. Since there are Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) within the newly formed City of Spokane Valley shown on the existing Spokane County FIRM, the City needs to adopt a floodplain ordinance as soon as possible. Language in the ordinance can be worded so that future revisions to the FIRM are automatically adopted, avoiding the need to amend the ordinance described above. My staff will assist the City in developing this ordinance. If you have any questions, please call Mark Carey of my staff at (425) 487-4682. Sincerely, 244.4' )4-1-1PJ frJohn E. Pennington Regional Director Copy: Tim D'Acci Washington State Department of Ecology -_, GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR. 1537LONGWORTH BUILDING ' 1V48Nin Gt'Ot: WASHINGTON.DC 20515 Sin Pis:mc:, (P721225-2006 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS - DISTRICT OFFICES SPOKANE SUBCOMMITTEES: eongre55 of Orc nttea tate5 '•VEST 920 RIVERSIDE,SUITE 594 AGRICULTURE SPOKANE,WA 99701 INTERIOR 3.�ousc of ikeprescntattbe5 1549)953-23`4. DEFENSE 2D N.PINES,SURE 24 COMtMITrEE ON SCIENCE Washington, DC 20515-4i05 S.'OKANE. 9E706 15091924-7775 SUBCOmmirrEE: SPACE AND AERONAUTICS WALLA WALLA 29 SOUTH PALOUSE April 20 , 2001 .A0ALLA WALLA,WA 68362 15{191579-5355 COLVILLE 555 SOUTH MAIN STREET 51114 Mr. R. Behm, Jr. COLVILLE,504-3481 9405 E. Sprague Ave INTERNET Spokane, Washington 99206 9^or4e.nethercutt•Oub@maiLhouse.ga.•1e-mei1) http-Jl.+r..-+...housagw•l+retheront Iwcgl ii Dear Dick : Enclosed please find a copy of correspondence I received from Larry Basich at the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Bothell, WA. l ' This information should be helpful to your efforts . Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely, JIA-Uj92 Steve Taylo Field Representative encl . LJ • 1 TRIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MACE OF RECYCLED f18:ER5 February 14,2001 Mr. William A. Johns,P.E. Spokane County Engineer Spokane County Division of Engineering And Roads 1026 W.Broadway Ave. Spokane, Washington 99260-0170 Dear Mr.Johns: This follows your December 20,2000 letter regarding the Chester Creek FIS study area issue. I apologize for not responding earlier. However,we had received an inquiry from Representative Nethercutt and we wanted to address his letter and yours in a similar time frame. Also,the finalization of our study procurement plan, due on February 15,2001,played an important part in our response to you. I've enclosed a copy of our letter to Representative Nethercutt. Our FY 2001 study plans were based on issues that had been discussed in this office over the past 12 months. We did not have the Chester Creek restudy in those plans and,after examining our study needs,we still cannot adjust our study plans to include a Chester Creek restudy. We do believe that Chester Creek warrants a reexamination of flows and resulting base flood elevations and 100- year flood plain delineations. However,we are not able to initiate that study this year. We did want to alert you to a new program that we have. And, if resources become available,maybe we can work with the County to resolve this issue. This new program is called the Cooperating Technical Partner(CTP—formally CTC)program, and it is an initiative to help local and State governments become involved with the flood study mapping program on a first hand basis. We have enclosed a series of documents that help describe the program in detail,but we would like to point out some of the highlights. I In essence,the CTP program is a program where we provide assistance to local or State governments to perform every aspect of the flood study process from selection of the study areas to holding the public meetings when the study is finished. That assistance could involve funding,training and technical assistance. We hope that at the end of this program,each community will have a greater understanding of the mapping program and will retain greater ownership of the products. We do not think that there is any dispute of the fact that the best governors of the flood plain are the ones closest to it. Should you decide to participate,we would go into an arrangement with Spokane County through a general Memorandum of Agreement whereby we agree to basic concepts of the program. Once that agreement is signed,we will work with you to determine tasks that need to be performed and the mechanism to perform those tasks. A task agreement,called a Mapping Activities Statement, is signed once those issues are settled. After the Memorandum of Agreement and Mapping Activities Statement are signed we will assist you in putting together the application for a Cooperative Agreement,the funding mechanism behind the CTP, if funding is necessary and available. Our State partner in the NFIP,the Washington State Department of Ecology, operates with a Cooperative Agreement,so Tim D'Acci, or his staff, may be able to assist you also in the preparation of this application. Once the Cooperative Agreement is signed,then funding, if necessary and available, becomes authorized and the project can begin. This concept represents a significant transition in the flood study process. We have realized that and we have put together documents that will assist you through this process. Attached please find: the Memorandum of Agreement for CTP communities;a checklist of CTP tasks, which outlines the entire CTP process;a Program Guidance document which goes into brief detail on several of the important tasks of the CTP program;a Mapping Activities • l 1_ 1 I Statement document which specifies the work that needs to be accomplished for a flood study;and a Question and Answer document on the CTP program. I can forward these to you in electronic format for your convenience. Although these documents are comprehensive,there are several items that need to be emphasized: For instance, the areas for study can be determined by the County using whatever criteria you feel appropriate. This determination may be done at any time. The only limiting factor is the amount of money available for study; The Mapping Activity Statement lays out the Scope of Work for the flood study. It would behoove the County to read this carefully since this lays out the way that the study needs to be performed. This document,along with I i FEMA 37, is the road map that is currently being used by FEMA contractors. If you see improvements to this process,we would welcome these; Once the Cooperative Agreement is signed,the community will either decide to perform the work themselves or select a contractor to perform their flood study. If you decide to select a contractor,we recommend using our selection criteria for your solicitation,but that decision is also yours. Training for the contractor is also available. The attached Program Guidance lists the procurement standards that have to be used in the selection process; We are suggesting interim technical reviews,but that is at your option also. We will be available to provide assistance to the County if needed. We do want to point out that it is our intent to review the technical aspects of the fmal product. We will also review the consistency and graphic portions of the study to make sure we can publish the study according to the same cartographic standards. Since this is the case,you may want to put extra care in the selection of the contractor. FEMA's Map Coordination Contractor,in our case Baker Engineers,will produce a Preliminary FIS from the draft submittal and submit the Preliminary to the County for review and release to the public; Once the study is completed, it is up to the County on how the presentation of the final results will be made. We _ typically hold public meetings after the Preliminaries are published. A public meeting is not necessary, but we have found that it is usually a very good idea. Once a public meeting is held or if a public meeting is decided against, FEMA will initiate a 90-day appeal period as with our normal studies. FEMA will resolve all appeals but will rely heavily on the County and their contractor for technical assistance during the appeal resolution; Once the appeal period is over and the study becomes final, FEMA will retain all of the backup materials and will be responsible for distribution of the same. We would certainly recommend that the County keep a copy for future reference; We would suggest that the CEO for the County sign the Memorandum of Agreement and the Cooperative Agreement along with FEMA's Regional Director,while program staff can sign the Mapping Activities Statement. We are very excited about the CTP program. We feel that it complements the Project Impact program very well and 'see this program as the beginning of closer partnerships with the County in future flood study activities. It is unfortunate that we are not able to fund the Chester Creek study this year,but this program offers an option to the standard FEMA study process. We think that we have summed up the key points in this initiative. if you have any questions regarding this project, please give me a call at(425)487-4703. _ : Sincerely, • Lawrence Basich, P.E. CTP Program Manager Mitigation Division cc: Tim D'Acci, WaDOE Enclosures • S P O Kik E • ' � • �`i� C O U N DIVISION OF ENGINEERINC AND ROADS A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT I , i 1 � I July 10, 2001 Larry Basich, PE Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Regional Center, Region 10 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 RE: Restudy Request for Chester Creek Floodplain, Community #530174, Panels 294, 315, 382, 400, 401 and 425, Dear Mr. Basich, This letter is to formally request a restudy of the Chester Creek Floodplain in Spokane County, Washington. I am attaching a letter that was-sent to support the restudy request for the previous year. The letter outlines the reasons we believe the restudy is warranted. In a letter that FEMA sent to the previous County Engineer, William Johns, dated 2/14/01, you let us know that the timing of the request played a part in your decision to postpone the restudy. We are hoping that this request is timely and will be reviewed favorably to fit within your restudy schedule for the upcoming year. Please let us know if you need further information in regard to the restudy request, or ways that we may assist you in the restudy effort. Since', / 7 Ross E. ' ell , P.E. Spokane County Engineer cc: T. Williams, Spokane County Floodplain Coordinator Steve Taylor, Field Representative, George Nethercutt Dick Behm • 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA S3?b0-0170 • (509)477-3600 FAX: (509)477-7655(2nd Floor)477-7478(3rd Floor) • MD: (509) 477-7133 S P O K A N w.r% i�_= aI C O U N T Y DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIvistoN OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT William A.Johns, P.E., County Engineer December 21, 2000 Richard Behm, Jr. 9405 E Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 I Dear Mr. Behm, Enclosed is a copy of a letter that was sent to FEMA formally requesting a restudy of the Chester Creek Floodplain, I will keep you let you know when we hear back from them. Sincerely, I Tammie Williams Environmental Programs Administrator cc: file h . , I • • I" 1 I I f I 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260-0170 • (509)477-3600 FAX: (509) 477.7655(2nd Floor) 477-7478 (3rd Floor) • TDD: (509)477-7133 • I �t- i[ S P O K A N E " I ! C O U N T Y DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT William A.Johns, P.E.,County Engineer December 20, 2000 Larry Basich, PE Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Regional Center, Region 10 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 RE: Restudy Request for Chester Creek Floodplain, Community #530174, Panels 294, 315, 382, 400, 401 and 425, < < Dear Mr. Basich, This letter is to formally request a restudy of the Chester Creek Floodplain in Spokane County, Washington. There are a number of factors that lead us to believe that a restudy is merited. A few of these include the number of LOMAs that have been issued in the Kokomo area (east of Dishman-Mica Road, in the vicinity of 24`i, to 28th Avenue), changes made to the physical floodplain in conjunction with a county road project, and additional flow information from a detailed study done by the Spokane County Stormwater Utility. The Kokomo LOMA situation suggests that survey data used in this area to create the FIRM is not accurate. There have been approximately 40 LOMAs issued in this area. This is seems a fairly high number for the 6 to 7 block area that the floodplain occupies. Physical changes were also made to the watershed to include the creation of a large pond/borrow pit in the floodplain. This was excavated as a borrow site for a county road realignment project. The pond collects floodwater from the Chester Creek floodplain, which then infiltrates over time into the Spokane Rathdrum Aquifer. The pond recently held a 50 year 48 hour rainfall event with an estimated 6 to 8 feet of freeboard to spare. The pond/borrow pit created approximately 16,000 cubic yards of storage within the floodplain. This pond is located just west of Dishman-Mica Road from approximately 500 feet south of 32od Avenue to 28th Avenue (just over 4 blocks long). The flow developed for the flood study(as outlined in the FIS) is 405 cfs at Mohawk Road and 722 cfs at 24th Avenue. The Spokane County Stormwater Utility, under a contract with CH2M Hill, had a watershed plan developed for Chester Creek. As a part of the plan 100-year flows were developed using the HSPF model. These flows were derived in conjunction with a detailed look at the characteristics of the watershed, including precipitation data gathered in the watershed and correlated using 48 years of record from our local airport weather station. The 100-year flow 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260-0170 • (509)477-3600 FAX (509)47-7655(2nd Floor)477-7478(3rd Floor) • TDD:(509)477-7133 I Pg 2 - 12/20/00, Chester Ck Restudy Request from this study showed 278 cfs at Mohawk Road (a 31% decrease in flow from FIS figures), 478 cfs at Schaefer Road (11 blocks upstream of24t Ave) and 566 cfs at 7th Avenue (17 blocks _ downstream of 24t Avenue). These flows were developed prior to the excavation of the pond/borrow pit, thus did not consider its impact. ' We believe that the information outlined above would make a difference in the delineation of the floodplain. Please let us know how we might assist in the restudy effort. Sincerely, ' V William A. Johns, P.E. Spokane County Engineer cc: file • I Al A, ` Y Federal Emergent Management Agency C '"I1111 t? Region X _ vt.? �� . . . 130 228th Street, Southwest o • Bothell, WA 98021-9796 r ..r AUG p ': 2001 o I-coutire ENGINEER July 23, 2001 w'o�"�'' I Mr. Ross E. Kelley, P.E. Spokane County Engineer Spokane County Division of Engineering And Roads 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, Washington 99260-0170 Dear Mr. Johns: This follows your July 10, 2001 letter requesting a restudy of Chester Creek. We will put the Chester Creek study on our FY 2002 study list. As we mentioned in our February 14, 2001 letter, if a community is willing to become a Cooperating Technical Partner, the chances are better for a study to begin. However, we will have this study on our list in any event. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (425) 487- 4703, or email me at Lawrence.Basich@FENLN.gov. Sincerely, im wrence Basich, P.E. CTP Program Manager Mitigation Division cc: Tim D'Acci, WaDOE Enclosures 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT Summary and Chronology of Interlocal Agreements 1 Between the City of Spokane and Spokane County Sewage Treatment and Disposal i M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EX.I3YBIT C Summary and Chronology of Interlocal Agreements Between the City of Spokane and Spokane County Sewage Treatment and Disposal l � A. Chronology December 22, 1980 City and County Wastewater Management • Set initial Wastewater Management Provisions August 17, 1982 Amendment No. 1—City and County Wastewater Management Agreement • Defines acquisition costs and schedule for payments September 6, 1983 Amendment No. 2—City and County Wastewater Management Agreement • Provides for modifications to City sewers to make capacity available for County flows October 14, 1986 Amendment No. 3—City and County Wastewater Management Agreement • Establishes Industrial Pretreatment Program August 6, 1996 Amendment No. 4 City and County Wastewater Management _ Agreement • Adds provisions to Industrial Pretreatment Program June 7, 1996 Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Spokane and - Spokane County • Addresses multitude of issues, including split of grant funds, sharing of APA Fees, Franchise for Moran Prairie, and Waivers of Annexation B. Summary Agreement—December 22, 1980 II. Purpose • Provide for collection and treatment of wastewater throughout the County. • Establish criteria and guidelines for extending sewer service. • Recognize use of City system as regional facility. • Extend City wastewater service area beyond existing City boundaries. • Define geographical responsibilities for expansion beyond current system. • Not alter independent operation of existing facilities. [/Exhibit C.doc) I Representations • City can provide up to 10 mgd of dry weather sewage conveyance and treatment capacity for first phase of County's needs. • Existing system and site can be expanded to 66 mgd. • County will not send stormwater to City plant. IV. Definitions • County Comp Plan is that prepared by EES. • County Wastewater Management Area is urbanizing area of County including the City and coincides with the external boundary of County coordinated water system plan. • Wastewater Utility Service Area definition does not preclude City from forming local improvement districts based on the drainage area of the sewage system. V. General Responsibilities • County responsible for conveying and processing facilities to delivering wastewater to City system. • City and County jointly approve design of equalization basins and other related facilities to - integrate flows into City system. • Future alternative collection point will be based on system capacity. • City responsible for conveying wastewater from connection points to RWWTP. • Each responsible for pretreatment. If County fails to do so, City may implement program and - ) bill for services. City's ordinance to be used if County fails to obtain EPA approval. • O&M costs of City utility to be based on EPA approved sewer used ordinance and equitable sewer user charge distribution system. • Routine reports on expenses and revenues of City facilities to be provided to County. • County to obtain wastewater discharge permit for all connections to City system. VI. City Wastewater Facility Capacity • County to provide updated schedule and five-year projected flows for connections to City system on annual basis. • County wastewater flow will be intercepted and integrated into City flow during low flow periods. County responsible for control of its flow. • Available dry weather flow of existing RWWTP is 44 mgd. County interceptor and equalization basins to provide for retention of flows for release during dry periods of available conveyance and treatment capacity. • City will reserve 10 mgd maximum for first phase of County's needs. County will purchase this reserve capacity right. • City system to be expanded with required to meet City and County projections of future flows. VII. User Charge System • County shall pay reasonable and fair share of interception and treatment based on EPA approved sewer use ordinance and equitable sewer use charge distribution system. i [/Exhibit C_docl -2- 11/20/02 • Treatment plant and city interceptor cost to County to be paid proportionate to flow at RWWTP headworks. • Capital facility debt service to County based on 10 mgd reserve capacity acquisition. Future capacity debt service to be determined later. • Proportionate flows to be determined by actual measurement at points of connection allocated to flow at RWWTP headworks adjusted by volume of stormwater not subject to biological treatment. Average annual flows to be used. • Costs for strong waste to be allocated in accordance with City's sewer ordinance. W' U. Wastewater Utility Advisory Committee • One individual from City, one from County and one private citizen selected by the other two as advisory board on rate schedules and other coordination. IX. Liability • • County's liability shared in proportion to flow. X. Insurance City procures insurance with costs paid through EPA approved user charge system. Xl. General • All records available for review. XII. Period of Agreement Indefinite duration. No amendment without concurrence of both parties. May not terminate without concurrence of both parties. Amendment No. 1—August 17, 1982 1. General • Defines acquisition cost and schedule for payment by County and method for allocating costs for modification or expansion. 2. Acquisition Procedures for Existing Facilities • • Plant–$5,177,138 for 10 mgd to be paid over 15 years. • Interceptors–$602,571 to be paid over 15 years. • Added interceptor capacity acquisition cost to be developed when City's plant requires expansion from 44 mgd using same general principles used to calculate initial acquisition costs. I' • Wastewater utility Advisory Committee to review payment schedule every three years. 3. Modification of Existing City Wastewater Treatment Plant • Existing plant has 44 mgd capacity. 10 mgd reserved for County use. Modifications to plant to be shared on proportionate basis based on ratio of 10 mgd to 34 mgd. [/Exhibit C.doc] -3- 11/20/02 l.. • Expansion to 62 mgd anticipated. Expansion costs to be based on respective share of total expansion volume. • Seasonal land treatment costs, if any, for flows in excess of 44 mgd shall be based on same proportionate financing responsibility. • O&M cost allocated based on actual flow. If O&M cost is assignable to a specific unit • process, like land treatment, costs to be allocated same as capital cost. • Costs of water quality monitoring studies and/or in-lake treatment of algae based on benefits I received. Reduction in capital costs equating to benefits will be allocated. Amendment No. 2—September 6, 1983 1. General • Provides for modification of City's existing system to make available to the County 10 mgd of wet weather interceptor capacity for service to Spokane Valley. Establishes modifications required, scheduled and financing responsibilities. 2. Modification Required • City modifies Hanson overflow structure. • County can discharge Valley interceptor flows to Hartson system until flows reach 1.8 mgd average or 4 cfs peak or the end of the DOE grant period scheduled to end in April 1988. County to construct 36-inch line to bypass Hartson system. • County can use 5 cfs of peak wet weather flow River Interceptor capacity until Valley Interceptor flow approaches 2 mgd average or 5 cfs peak. County to pay for separating storm sewers in Trent and Mallon basins to provide 24 cfs of addition PWWF capacity in River Interceptor. • Upon completion of separation of Trent and Mallon basins, City will use 5 cfs PWWF capacity to reduce CSO. Amendment No. 3—October 14, 1986 2. Purpose • - • Relationship to develop and implement pretreatment program to meet state and .federal requirements. • County to develop its own program equivalent to City's. • City may inspect and monitor County discharge sources and review records if County does not perform required tasks. • Any City requirements more restrictive than EPA or DOE's apply to County only if County agrees. 3. Pretreatment Programs: Ordinances • County agrees to adopt and put in force pretreatment ordinance similar to City's. _ 4. Other Jurisdictions: Industrial Users • ((Exhibit C.doc] -4- 11/20/02 •• • Fir industries in other jurisdictions using County system, County will negotiate a City pretreatment compliance contract or impose requirements in compliance with state and federal law. li 5. Records and Files: Inspections • Ali County files related to this agreement are open to inspection and copying by the City. • City may inspect any part of the County sewer system or industrial users property for compliance with pretreatment requirements. • County provides copies of County ordinances, regulations, interlurisdictional agreements, each industrial waste discharge permit acceptance form and any contract for waste control. 6. City Remedies • if County does not comply, City issues notice and specifies compliance schedule. • if County does not comply, City can achieve compliance at County's expense. County can - appeal costs to an arbitrator. • If County does not comply, City may issue a remedial plan that County must implement. County can appeal plan to arbitrator. 7. Indemnity • County indemnifies City for any harmful discharges from the County system. 8. Danger • If County discharges, in the opinion of the City, are creating an immediate danger, City may immediately initiate steps to halt the discharges. Fi 9. Additional • County provides funds, personnel and resources for its pretreatment program_ • 1 • County will develop and implement industrial user survey similar to City's and will notify City of any significant changes in industrial discharges within 30 days. 0. Term • As long as the service agreement remains in effect, Amendment No. 4—August 6, 1996 Section 1. County agrees to retain the City to implement, administer and manage the County's pretreatment program. Section . County may also retain City to assist the County with enforcement actions. Section 3. County has final decision authority Section 4, County will reimburse City for costs_ [li:xhibit C.docl -5- 11120.02 Section 5. City will submit monthly billings. City's cost of overhead for pretreatment program will continue to be paid on a proportionate share of flow basis. Section 10. In all other respects, the 1980 agreement and related amendments remains in full force and effect. If there is a conflict, this amendment controls. Interlocal Cooperative Agreement—June 7, 1996 1. Purpose. • Establish basis for City and County to pursue the Grant for region's sewering, treatment plant and related needs. 2. Grant share. • Grant share: 75 percent County; 25 percent City. 3. Aquifer Protection Funds. • County will remit $500,000 of these funds annually to City in December of each year. 4. Capacity charge for additional connections. • City and County agree to negotiate by December 31, 1997, a connection charge or O&M fee for additional connections made by the County to City system not included in existing Interlocal agreement, e.g. North Valley Interceptor and North Spokane Interceptor. 5. Franchise. • This agreement creates franchise agreement for installation of water and/or sewer facilities in the County rights-of-way in the Moran Prairie area to be sewered by the City. 6. Annexation Covenants. • City and County agree to limit annexation covenant requirements to new developments within the City's utility service area which receive City water and/or sewer service. 7. Future Flow Requirements. • City and County agree to negotiate projected treatment plant capacity requirements of i County. Until these needs are identified, service capacity remains at 10 mgd for County although by mutual agreement the two agencies may agree to service outside their respective service area boundaries. 8. Program Coordination. • City and County agree to cooperate and coordinate anything affecting the treatment plant capacity or capability and will annually review and coordinate their capital sewer plans and programs. Documents to be submitted by May 1 of each year and will contain at least the following six years of projects. Earlier staff coordination and consultation is anticipated. 9. Funding for Future Treatment Plant Modification/Expansion. • 1IExhibii C.doc] -6- 11/20/02 J , i I • City and County agree to develop funding plan and mechanism in 1996-1997 to avoid sharp rate increases from future capacity and regulatory requirements. 10. Stormwater Planning and Projects. • Will jointly study, plan, and fund stormwater projects in City and County areas. 11. Period of Agreement. --• • Perpetual unless terminated by mutual consent. Potential Points for Clarification. 1 • Definition of County"ownership" of 10 mgd of treatment and conveyance capacity. • • Conflict between 1980 Agreement Section TIL, which defines 10 mgd as dry weather interceptor and plant capacity and Amendment No. 2 Section 1, which defines 10 mgd as wet weather interceptor capacity. • Process to be used to increase permitted plant capacity. • Allocation of expanded plant capacity. • Change in rated capacity of existing plant, which is defined as 44 mgd in the 1980 Agreement Section VI. • Responsibility for CSO-related costs. • 1980 Agreement Section III estimates expanded plant capacity as 66 mgd while Amendment No. 1 Section 3 estimates it as approximately 62 mgd. • Further definitions of "equitable sewer user charge distribution system" defined in 1980 Agreement Section V for O&M costs. What costs are being included? Is true cost of serve being used? • County access to audit City cost records. . • Buyout provisions if County elects to cease use of RWWTP. • Allocation of costs between water quality improvements, CSO improvements, capacity expansion for plant and interceptor. • • Stormwater planning and funding. t/Exhibit C.docj -7- 11120/02 1 EXHIBIT D Spokane County Sewer System Funding Sources 1 I 1 1 1 r I I I CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Sewer Planning, Design Wastewater Operations Billing & Wastewater Options & Construction Services & Maintenance Services Customer Service Treatment Contract with Spokane County X X X X Develop In-house Capabilities X X X X Contract with Private Firm(s) X X X Contract with other Municipal Agency X X X No Action; Building Moratorium X X City of Spokane Valley Wastewater Management Options-August 28, 2002 MONTHLY SEWER SERVICE ACCOUNTS Unincorporated Valley Areas 1,285 si :Other County Areas \ .:::::::;::::,i1::,:**:::::' ! \ a [) ; pwnRlm5841 ; \ m �i 6/ m /' $ . A �''$i| ,A :� �.� \� nli ,-0,,,,,,,,,,,:::,.........:,:.:011,p. % i s m/ ( - > \ ! 'i i ! 111411111:111.1111 il /' [ \1A'�)' 111111;1,�. , A( 1 ! | I% ! i ,./; §k; \, \§:� , p ]�: ' m$ , : � i I: \7.qw ;q Ami� .va me \Gnaimu•'` \.i%'-. « « , 14,274 City of Spokane Valley MONTHLY SEWER SERVICE ACCOUNTS • • � Unicorporated Valley Inside Va112y City Other County Areas Total Service Area Accts Accts Accts Residential _ 1,256 =12,808 5,592 19,656 Apartments 22 410 95 527 Commercial _ 7 1.048 154 1209, Mobile Home Park — a 0 8 Total _ 1,285 , 14.274 5,841 ` 21,400 Sewer Length, Miles 450.0 1397.8-- 400.0 _ .. f al 350.0 --- 300.0 -266.3 ---____ 250.0 — 200.0 ,,,,,,.1:.:' ■ Sewer Length, Miles 150.0 — 94.1 100.0 — 30.1 50.0 -— .3---�-- a; 1 0.0 \\off 0r5 �r0 `oma �Q\. Z PsoP� \ P ,\O it moa COC ��o (NO oar NJ NG z.\N ANNUAL REVENUE FROM WASTEWATER SERVICE CHARGES Unincorporated ■S$357,538 Other County Service j\{\ xa 2 ` O$1,740,166 m§mkf }_ • • K . ■$5.338,299^ / City of Spokane "', //® � MONTHLY SEWER SERVICE ACCOUNTS REVENUE IUnicorporated Valley Inside Valle/City _Other County Areas Total Service Area Revenues Revenues Revenues' Revenues Residential $298,866 $3,047,671 $1,330,819 $4,677,156 Apartments $49,838 $928,808 $215,211 ' $1,193,856 Commercial $8,833 $1,322,488 $194,335 $1,525,656. Mobile Home Park _ $0 $37,334 $0 $37,334 Total $357,538 $5,336,299 _$1,740,166 $7,434.002 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FUND ANNUAL REVENUES $373,923 ■ City of Spokane Valley ■ Other County Service Areas e _ $1 ,001 ,235 YEAR2001 SALES TAX REVENUES El $669,306 Itil'oft ,3:, Ft,.N tr j ' �� ■ City of Spokane Valley .yti��L1 sj-',� 11 • Unicorporated Areas °,r.l. .,r- -l' �. • ill $862,223 ,, y ;a, , r $2, 110,961 0 Other Cities �11j p it ^►.ff PROJECTED YEAR 2003 SALES TAX REVENUES a $0 ■ $862,223 1-.1.i.--kir .,.,%, of Spokane Valley ::".-:j-% � '�� ��:. �'',` ■ Unicorporated Areas _.„,r,-.^!..,_: • f moi, M 7 ,•y,� V i '� r ❑ Other Cities E] $2, 110,961 4 iin AQUIFER QUl ER PROTECTION AREA REVENUES 111 $762,030 ■ City of Spokane Valley El $1 ,319,685 IN Unincorporated Areas El City of Spokane ■ $590,345 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA EXPENDITURES El $260,000 a ,rAdministration ■ $120,000 ■ Spokane Regional ❑ $500,000 Health District El City of Spokane 0 $ 1 ,792,060 ❑ Spokane County Sewer Program PROJECTED RESERVES END OF YEAR 2002 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 — - - $35,000,000 . - $30,000,000 - — �._..._--$25,000,000 $20,000,000 C3 Series 1 $ 15,000,000 _ �_____ ._ f $ 10,000,000 a - _ - $5,000,000 $_ Sewer APA WWTP GFC TOTAL Design — — — _ . a ----. - i Alf , 34 ' ... - :. i 9 . 4.' 17 I pQ I 1--1'''' i § m R 8 8\ ve— it, . J . Lta. 8 1 8 in L.1 .0.1 1 11) .6 0 *a I el IN Pm. III:t - 4 T ---> ? 4 , „ , / Ig' .J-1i, ti2 I ), g ,1,--, ....! 5,... 1 .., .., - , - , , .-cto N an A =,......, Spokane Vane, Sewer Project Priorities ies F ANC rS r.li fi• ''' i_.-.., ROWAN lei ir` - 414 ' -,.r..e Ili ; MIMI i ''- -.I-- i — 1 ,......e ''•\', , Oft,N-4.,,,,N ,.. _ .62 _ , WELLESLEY ' - I am ? -1... —..-- i\N , „ . . . T 1146111111"111111Li N) 00G . 0 --- — ''-';:z OD -- --- G ARLA\ ,, , , dimomarwmememm, 4 ' \ 10 li .1: 111, WI '11 III, 'NMI --"Wil 441i,40140464VIL- \ „oktftil 111411,1hil , IIM LW .111( Illiklik\Nbi 1 h. Trilt44. \ 1 - ' .\ 11,.\\ "'" EUCIAD 3221 hmiblaiNISValts,,N`w '0 i i' 11 I N 1 ' lk Ati'in' :'' ZNIZZOIL w,w116111011, , \ , N •ONMOM 2400 14r4.11.11;4:619.111m.: ItiNliVo, , vi: \\1111r.:.. ,,&&1111bhi, ..,&-4,ktm6.-ihts itab.si..,446‘ ' ..N. ,m-" -,1 ittets. .. ir ., VIZ -Cwil.., '-' - \ - '11101i'Vlibmplii. \N...,\ NIL - - --- ,..i...- N - \ ,,,_ . •-• \ M14SION tiloNfil No, -...„,,,„ ,-, _ ' ',"--N • 11111A mot. - ,.._,__ _ _--: \Nit,„,.-\,„ _\,,,Nk„,..:._,__,-..c.,..elk- ---,'_ut611, '.4.. \si \-N0, 411 ..„.,,,J0L--.1.7.10 1000 ''. •,,, \ irl- ; -le cale,. , ,. ..0\•:&igsk , 0,,, lii; , . ,,, _`. . \ 1°11-tidAltitilk:\ -1-6 7\‘'N Iti• 11111*-T-- -.. 'n' - .11'h IlliV --- , \\\ Nil 7617;t111:14 ,:-._:- , , .,. ,\:::'.:--.., : ._ ..ezmA , • . •I us s. „Ili vi \--.\'` Nithr‘vtik41 viii'l- Nbilllik li:"" 41%,.. \`` 1 116"611:1‘111%11111%&Nil&I'll'J.L,& :. ' „ill.jk, - --0,7 wrizatIs$ . , , - , . ..... - Aq . . .. . k 62‘1191‘ lik1 NO& 1101117 ,I11111LatAnikiPk,..,aLL_Ihi.lifaL ItlkirNIV-Vsfig, ims, 1 al ,okm, . r4L i I _ alrziky.„.-•-11, , • . -1004.1 NI441 4k4: IlIc 1 '411-.1, la, NhliSkik _INIelitlikkV ""-*ANAL 41424.s. iimiNitli '''' °N'' %`` 4CA141" N4 'INN NNi, ' • Nii l''' H 1 47111 .p Ilikilli,, .;,-141-1==7 ' ; '- -- . a • Niltr.N-iltotkAll , , it—„,,t1Liti Iii, 01.,..e - vie ` '' . awleliiiii.,-\ -*_, li -. -N44 , ._. . • ., ,..,,.._ ilk -1111114-_ \I 1++7 I-I.1*a_I b.* i k 1 I 4 A4kii.11 I I I 1 k e 1?11 IIP i I h M IS h i. lit wiat ate I it.. k 10TH i 1190".V41. NIL ,. , 11411116 1 4 4 i Y qi ' 'k* 444.4*4‘' Ai %%4Nhi k I 4°‘ 'I" ' ' - !I i 24TH gic...._ 21 /2 0 A---I - 444$ -1 ' • ' " -- II'- SlioNIA1' - \15E-AOWN16,414,I• ,kt. ,. ,,i,_......1-- , a2ND Legend *:*1; latekilllirikNivt614.111111.1klika&L' Ire'r la'llknillii* I- I 1 Ni, Inter 40 Extensions 290 13200 ‘e S* tawito Lac F - - • LINO ".44 ,4., .4 i It ..,.., '.... , 40TH - - Purposed Emulsions 1 , .1116 We Ilk ''''F . -i ''''' Li 1 . •-* 44;;) ±a • 2700/r0 46/1-1,-740 k Nug I I I kIl ale/I kl04 J.. I — City Saws/SONIC*Baldry -i 04611 te4 Seneitivs Ares 4400 1_10 \ . " 1 Beam'Fats . I- . \ --1k . I 44TH — Paojart Boundaries iit UG A 1 * .. - liT 0 ""..., :I 5 700 A Ilillb• , ...r- i I I Sawed Area's .ieg hartat ;rt. .--ir ma.",-r-:- e Yt Prowan-i (2002.20071 1 9 Ildl i Liut 1-. ...... z 10 I 200S-2010 Prolects x 4 u.; -01r- ........a..- .....---. 4 m Ile'''''4, z a Er ---i_ cc 6500 1 cc 2 DI ..-> . 1 = ifi CE .•'';'-a-----., < Z U ''''''t 51.1...... *1'; )ild wa 0 ti 1 0 ui 0 -1 ? I, " Z 0 r-1 Municipal Arena 2 u 0 0 gii , > %, z 0 Z 4( I' E u_ u 1 I ... 5., . n '1)1 ;;, \ tofir-- LI) u MEM . t. -. 1 City of Sppluina WWII, -..... -...„ I .A . 11----,_ ._.. - - Ma.: S. .kane Count Utilities Q.I.S. Hort Project Baundwito Ari Apianimmario Arkd Mirr Chmigo gilim ni Fj-rnEr En pin*s ring Version 18.5V Jul 2002